trappedslider
Legend
while barbie is based on a toy, here's the book for Oppenheimer
I agree that that scene probably doesn't resonate with people who didn't go through the experience of patriarchy. But (and I don't think you're saying this, it's just a relevant point that's been going around in my mind) I don't think the movie about the hardships of being a woman needs to keep in mind whether it'll resonate with people who are part of the group causing all of the issues it's exploring. It's a situation without a clear solution IMO: Asking a liberatory movement to police its tone or keep the feelings of its oppressors in mind is a veiled way of endorsing the existing oppressive structure, but psychologically this kind of messaging does cause people to dig in and get defensive (and I know this as someone who did dig in and become defensive towards feminists in my early teens, but saved myself from full-on misogyny kinda by luck) when they could be convinced. There's using optics to better convince people of your cause, and there's using optics as an excuse to refuse to give people equal rights. It's just hard to resolve, I dunno man.There is also one scene in the movie that didn't work for me but did for my girlfriend. A scene where one character does a monologue talking about all the contradictions women have to go through. I personally found it a rough scene, it came across as very preachy and expository. Ultimately I thought other aspects of the movie did it better by "showing not telling". However, my girlfriend found that scene powerful and she really "felt what she was talking about". So ultimately its a reminder to me that I'm not really the target audience here.
"Dying is easy. Comedy is hard."Oppenheimer was tracking for ~$40 million until the whole Barbenheimer thing really took off.
This is a truly strange case wherein, for whatever strange synergistic reason, a mass culture phenomenon took off. Arguably, it had little to do with Oppenheimer, and a lot to do with the juxtaposition with Barbie.
Finally, the true irony of all of this is that the corporate backstory is that Nolan left Warner Bros., and apparently Zaslav "counterprogrammed" this by choosing a release date for Barbie that was the same as the one Nolan did ... purely to be a little petty. However, this strange pettiness apparently worked out well for everyone!
(To substantively respond, though ... I truly think it's much harder to put serious themes in an IP movie than it is to make a serious movie about the guy who headed the creation of the nuclear bomb. I mean ... you'd stumble on serious themes on that one just by accident.)
Ideally, media will resonate as much with the oppressor, as the oppressed. I think that's where Science Fiction excels.I agree that that scene probably doesn't resonate with people who didn't go through the experience of patriarchy. But (and I don't think you're saying this, it's just a relevant point that's been going around in my mind) I don't think the movie about the hardships of being a woman needs to keep in mind whether it'll resonate with people who are part of the group causing all of the issues it's exploring. It's a situation without a clear solution IMO: Asking a liberatory movement to police its tone or keep the feelings of its oppressors in mind is a veiled way of endorsing the existing oppressive structure, but psychologically this kind of messaging does cause people to dig in and get defensive (and I know this as someone who did dig in and become defensive towards feminists in my early teens, but saved myself from full-on misogyny kinda by luck) when they could be convinced. There's using optics to better convince people of your cause, and there's using optics as an excuse to refuse to give people equal rights. It's just hard to resolve, I dunno man.
Sorry if my message is out of line for the forum rules. It's just something I think a lot, and the movie obviously gave me a lot of food for thought.
Although there's still the capacity for the oppressor to completely miss the political message, or misconstrue themselves as the oppressed.Ideally, media will resonate as much with the oppressor, as the oppressed. I think that's where Science Fiction excels.
Oppenheimer was tracking for ~$40 million until the whole Barbenheimer thing really took off.
This is a truly strange case wherein, for whatever strange synergistic reason, a mass culture phenomenon took off. Arguably, it had little to do with Oppenheimer, and a lot to do with the juxtaposition with Barbie.
(To substantively respond, though ... I truly think it's much harder to put serious themes in an IP movie than it is to make a serious movie about the guy who headed the creation of the nuclear bomb.
I am SHOCKED, SHOCKED I say that Christopher Nolan has once again failed to properly land an arc featuring actual human emotion.Oppenheimer to me was a deft work of filmmaking that did a great job conveying an important historical event, but it did not land the emotional arc for me.
I am SHOCKED, SHOCKED I say that Christopher Nolan has once again failed to properly land an arc featuring actual human emotion.
I think it is not enough for there to be unnamable "synergy". Oppenheimer is, by report, really a good movie on its own merits. If it were an average historical thriller, the social synergy probably wouldn't have happened.