Barbenheimer Review

Being the lovers of film that we are, we decided to review both Barbie and Oppenheimer as part of the “Barbenheimer” cultural event, which brought people back to the movies for this powerhouse of an opening weekend for two movies from two of this generation's most highly acclaimed directors.  Holden is the co-president of the Film Club here at Galloway and adores international film (one of his favorite movies is Fallen Angels). Christopher is a member of the film club and an avid appreciator of cinema, from timepieces to comedies. We enjoyed both movies to different degrees, and a quality that one of us loved about the movie might have been a deal breaker for the other. What follows is a rough transcript of an hour-and-a-half conversation we had comparing the two movies to each other and assessing their strengths and weaknesses.

Holden: To start off, let's talk about Barbie.

Christopher: Yeah.

Holden: So what did you think? 

Christopher: I liked it.

Holden: I think we both generally liked it. But you rated it higher than Oppenheimer, right? 

Christopher: Yeah. 

Holden: That's where we differ. So why do you think it's an overall better movie? 

Christopher: Well, for one, I think it's consistent. 

Holden: Consistent in what? 

Christopher: Tone, mostly. It never feels like it's trying to be anything but a comedy. Even the dramatic scenes still have some comedy inserted into the dialogue, so the tone never shifts completely to drama. I appreciate that consistency and also the acting. Ryan Gosling was great as Ken, and really delivered a pretty memorable comedic performance. 

Holden: See, I agree with you there, but I would argue that the drama acting seen in Oppenheimer is both different and, in this case, better than what you see in Barbie.

Christopher: Well what do you mean by that? 

Holden: I think comedy acting and drama acting ask very different things from actors. Comedy acting relies more on timing and consistent delivery and tone, while drama acting asks for a range of deliveries and tones that add impact to the performance. Both have their successes and failures, but overall drama acting asks more of an actor or actress. That's why I would argue that Oppenheimer had overall better acting when it came to the supporting casts of the movie. But I don't think this diminishes the iconic performance that Ryan Gosling gave as Ken. It was funny, well timed, and delivered dialogue of depth whilst maintaining the inherent goofy-ness of Ken as a character. A good example of that is at the end of the movie where Ken tells Barbie that he feels that he is nothing without her, yet delivers it in a way that Ken as a character would, still coming off as comedic and somewhat dimwitted but not to the point of diminishing the complexity of the character. That takes skill.

Christopher: So we both agree Ken was great? 

Holden: Yes. 

Christopher: But you don’t think it's on par with that of Oppenheimer?

Holden: Yes.  

Christopher: Well then what do you think about the performance by Margot Robbie? 

Holden: I think it was a very well-done performance that is definitely more of a dramatic role than any of the other major characters of the movie, with most acting as comedic caricatures of different archetypal characters like the out-of-touch CEO or the edgy teenager. There are some other characters that offer a more dramatic performance than others, but Margot Robbie stands above the rest as the best in the cast. 

Christopher: I agree.  Well, we talked a bit about comedy acting but what about just the comedy in general? 

Holden: I think it worked well for the most part. I say this for the most part because it played a bit into the trope of modern comedy writing in which every joke has to be explained to death. One of the most egregious examples of that would be the scene where Sarah berates Barbie, Margot Robbie, calling her a bunch of big words and making a commentary on the negative effect Barbie has had on women’s perception of themselves. My problem with this is not the commentary itself, it's good commentary, just that it was so explicitly stated to the audience. It made me feel like I was being preached to, or that I wouldn’t understand the commentary unless explicitly staring it at me, making me essentially feel as if the movie was saying I was stupid. In this case, I think this could have been put to better use by weaving it into the story with a bit more nuance. Sure, these are all valid points but once you explicitly state them to the audience it's kind of a cop-out. Like the filmmaker/writer wanted to tell you this but didn’t feel like weaving it into their story so they just explicitly stated it. I find it lazy. 

Christopher: I completely agree. It also doesn’t help that the cinematography wasn’t doing much heavy lifting during the dialogue scenes. Actually, the cinematography, or the framing of scenes in a movie, was a weak point for the entirety of Barbie. There were only a few times in the film where I actually took notice of the cinematography, like during the scene where Barbie is chased through the Mattel Headquarters. The tone of that scene was made a lot stronger by the cinematography, but the rest of the movie's shots were comparatively lackluster. A lack of interesting cinematography is a problem that most comedies face, which is unfortunate because clever cinematography can really add to the humor of a scene. I’m thinking of the running joke where the Barbie car gets flung into the air because of how small it is. Those scenes worked well because of the way the camera was bounced up alongside the car. More stuff like that, even though it’s small details, would have added up to a much more visually interesting experience. 

Holden: It definitely felt like it wasn’t a priority for the movie. The cinematography almost never served to bolster the emotions of a scene in the same way that Oppenheimer did.

Christopher: Oppenheimer did it better, I agree, but I wasn’t totally blown away by the cinematography or anything. It delivers on the spectacle, though. Whenever people talk about this movie they talk about the bomb scene, and it’s for a good reason. 

Holden: The settings are what make the cinematography really work. The constant jumping between new settings and locales keeps the movie engaging for the three hours it lasts. When Oppenheimer is being indicted, the cramped room perfectly communicates his situation to the audience, and the scenes in that room are made much more tense because of it.

Christopher: Agreed. Places like the bomb room or the town of Los Alamos are the things that stick in my mind the most after having seen the movie. There's a stretch of time before the Trinity test scene where the physicists are representing the amount of uranium needed for the project with a glass bowl of marbles. As the project gets closer to completion, more and more marbles are added to the bowl. It felt like a horror movie with how tense I was, I really appreciated that sequence in particular.

Holden: They capture the clinical and sterile feel of the physics labs really well. Those indictment scenes were impressive too. There's a very similar scene that happens there and in the auditorium where the cinematography really nails Oppenheimer’s emotional state. 

Christopher: That auditorium scene was one of my favorites. One of the most surprising scenes in recent memory. It also serves as a good example of how the movie uses practical effects, i.e. effects that use non-computer-generated techniques to create a visual spectacle. I’d say a lot of the value of Oppenheimer’s cinematography comes from the use of practical effects rather than the strict use of the camera. I’m not gonna act like I’m a stickler for practical effects over CGI, but Oppenheimer's dedication to doing everything practically made the movie a lot more grounded than Nolan’s other work.

Christopher: So what did you think about the music in Barbie? 

Holden: I thought it was fun. really, really fun. I loved the musical numbers, especially the Ken sequence near the end of the movie. There were also a few more “soundtracky” sections, especially the ending sequence with Margot Robbie which was executed beautifully.

Christopher: I really liked that Ken sequence as well. Especially the beach battle, which was surprisingly well-choreographed.  

Holden: What were your thoughts on Oppenheimer’s soundtrack? I loved it personally and would put it as one of the best movie soundtracks in recent memory.

Christopher: The quality of Oppenheimer’s soundtrack is difficult to quantify because while it often takes scenes to new heights and is composed very well, It’s also overused and detracts from the less climactic scenes. The music, on its own merits, is great, but its usage left me confused and disoriented more often than not.

Holden: I thought the choice to use the soundtrack in such an unconventional manner actually added a lot to the tension that the atmosphere of the movie was creating. The extensive build-up to the Trinity Test scene wouldn’t have been nearly as incredible without the constant use of music to build up to it. Most movies reserve their music for only the most pivotal scenes. That approach works fine for most movies, but Oppenheimer was clearly trying to do something inventive with its soundtrack, and the movie benefits from it.

Christopher: I saw the intent behind what they were doing with the soundtrack, but I think the execution could have been a lot better. For one, the movie starts off with tense music in the background, and the music stays for almost all of the first half of the movie. If they really wanted to accentuate the build-up to Trinity, it would have served them better to have the music slowly build as the test got closer and closer, rather than keep the music at the same intensity throughout. This flaw resulted in the movie being exhausting at points; I’d find it hard to focus during the low-stakes scenes because the soundtrack didn’t seem to match the intensity of what was happening on screen. On what you said about how most movies use their music sparingly, I don’t think the sheer amount of music is the problem with Oppenheimer's score, rather the tonal divide between what's happening on screen and what the music is communicating left me confused. Oppenheimer will show a mundane scene, a few physicists discussing quantum mechanics in a lab or something like that, but the music will be bombastic and loud. For me, this was less of a benefit for the tension and more of a constant distraction. Even when the narrative stakes were relatively low, the music would insist that the movie was reaching its climax.

Holden: The thing is, I never felt like the narrative stakes were ever low. The characters in the film are deciding the lives of hundreds of thousands of people with their decisions, so it only makes sense that the movie would emphasize that in some way; Oppenheimer just chose to emphasize that theme with the music. 

Christopher: I think it’s an issue of subtlety. The dialogue of the movie is already doing most of the work in conveying the gravity of Oppenheimer’s situation to the audience. Because of the work that was already being done to convey tension, the intense music was too much. 

Christopher: One problem I had with Oppenheimer was the pacing. Being partially about the race to build the first nuclear weapon, the movie felt like it was constantly building tension around this dash to finish a bomb, which became exhausting to watch. At a certain point, the movie plateaued in tension for me. 

Holden: Really? I felt like Oppenheimer did a good job of balancing tension. After all, that race to build the bomb was critical to the outcome of WWII and is the achievement Oppenheimer is best remembered for. 

Christopher: While yes that is true, I feel that the tension leading up to the detonation of the bomb was overused. Some moments that contributed little to the plot, such as a conversation between scientists or Oppenheimer talking with his wife, tried to add tension, leaving me exhausted and causing the tension to fall flat. 

Holden: I disagree. I think each conversation had a purpose, no matter who was involved in it. Each conversation and scene was integral to the plot in some way, so I think it is appropriate that each scene built tension. The tension also felt progressive, as the plot got closer to the detonation, more tension was built. 

Christopher: Agree to disagree? 

Holden: Sure

Christopher: So what's your final rating of Barbenhiemer? 

Holden: Barbie: 7.75 out of 10, Oppenheimer: 9 out of 10. 

Christopher: I would rate Barbie a 7 out of 10, and Oppenheimer a 6 out of 10. 

Comparing two vastly different movies such as these is not an easy task, nor is it one that is commonly done, but the cultural event of “Barbenheimer”, which effectively lumped the two movies together into one cohesive double feature, has led to many asking the question of which is the better movie. By going into depth for both movies and comparing their qualities to each other, our appreciation of these two films increased even if our enjoyment of them did not. 

By Christopher and Holden