Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Barbie vs Oppenheimer

Barbie or Oppenheimer?

  • Total voters
    94
I haven't seem Oppenheimer yet, but knowing Nolan, I predict

the opening scene of the movie will be the Oppenheimer security hearing of 1954. And the film will flick between this, his struggle with cancer in his final years, his years working at the Manhattan Project, and the years building up to that in a complex non-linear way.

(please include a spoiler in any response to this for people who've seen the movie, I will not read it until after I've watched it)
 
belboid said:
I am highly dubious about Oppenheimer now, after a friend posted a section of dialogue meant to show What a Clever Man He Is:


"I'm not a communist"
"That's because you don't know enough about it"
"I've read all three volumes of Capital: 'ownership is theft'"
"It's 'property is theft', not 'ownership'"
"I read it in the original German."
[looks wisely to the middle distance]
Click to expand...
hang on thats Proudhon right
 
People in NE Scotland might get the joke:

362932953_655298473293321_1167968935719141550_n.jpg


:D
 
belboid said:
Thank you.

He said it in French too. Whilst the German words for 'property' and 'ownership' are the same, the French original makes it clear which is meant, as Karl well knew when he responded to it in the Poverty of Philosophy.

Obviously.
Click to expand...
This could slot into Barbie nicely next to the bits about Slanted & Enchanted and The Godfather!

;)
 
So Openheimer, didn't seem like three hours (I avoided having to go for a piss, yay me!)

Good well made bio pic ticking all the Nolan boxes.

On the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

So there was a very clunky c 15 minutes section where some of the main characters literally sat round a table discussing the key arguments for and against. This felt a bit bolted on to me, but my viewing companions didn't agree with me. There are also flashbacks and similar allusions to the issues, and the bombings themselves throughout the latter part of the film. I personally though the allusions were more powerful than images might have been, but then I did have the privilege of visiting Hiroshima just a few months back. Probably down to time but Nolan let us (UK) and Canada of the hook for out role in target selection and authorisation.

I also thought there was an interesting, if brief, challenge to what I believe is the revisionist view that had the weapons been ready in time there would have been less willingness, for racist reasons, to use it against Germany.

Jeff Robinson said:
I haven't seem Oppenheimer yet, but knowing Nolan, I predict


(please include a spoiler in any response to this for people who've seen the movie, I will not read it until after I've watched it)
Click to expand...

2/3rds right, typical Nolan format but you missed the other hearing.

So, to answer the thread title.

In my opinion, Oppenheimer is a very very well made bio pic about a very important issue and and a fascinating historical and scientific programme. But I don't think it advances the art of film making that much.

Barbie is more flawed but also far more ambiguous and, I think, has done something new in its combination of summer blockbuster that is also a philosophical art house movie.

Plus I couldn't get my picture taken in the cinema foyer next to a cardboard gas centrifuge; so Barbie just pips it for me.
 
So, to answer the thread title.

In my opinion, Oppenheimer is a very very well made bio pic about a very important issue and and a fascinating historical and scientific programme. But I don't think it advances the art of film making that much.

Barbie is more flawed but also far more ambiguous and, I think, has done something new in its combination of summer blockbuster that is also a philosophical art house movie. (Last Action Hero tried a similar thing and was also great but flawed).

Plus I couldn't get my picture taken in the cinema foyer next to a cardboard gas centrifuge; so Barbie just pips it for me.
 
I absolutely loved Oppenheimer - Science History biopics are 100% my thing.
It's a great film and I am glad I went to see it.

Don't believe anyone who says "this has to be seen on the big screen" though (or rather just realise the people who say that might be people who want to and can afford to see everything on the big screen, rather than people who can manage to get to the cinema once every couple of years!) - out of the 3 hours, 2 hours 55m of it is people talking. Which is great! But doesn't need to be seen whoa large OMG mindblowing (in terms of big screen necessity, my money might have been better used for the latest Spiderverse film, or the next big action thing).

Right up my street though, thoroughly enjoyed it.
 

A380 said:
So, to answer the thread title.

In my opinion, Oppenheimer is a very very well made bio pic about a very important issue and and a fascinating historical and scientific programme.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree with you there. Historical it just about does the job but scientific? Is there any science in there? There was a fair bit of mumbling but I think there was a sentence on implosion and a very basic explanation of a gun type device. There was no discussion of which bombs used which fissile material. Do they even elude to the fact that two different types of bomb were produced? There was very little about what all those involved in the Manhatten project were actually doing. They show Chicago Pile 1 for a few seconds but do not explain its scientific or historical significance or why it was a step they needed to take on the way to trinity. It was just a reason for Openheiner to be in Chicago so he could get down to the real work of meeting a girl or making an ambiguous security decision. For all the talk early on of how important this new science was there was little discussion of it. Bohr and Einstein's contributions were not explained. I can imagine as they mentioned 1905 a lot of people will think Einstein's major contribution to this science was something to do with relativity. As a history of scientists it was ok but at showing science developing through theory and experiment despite making a catchphrase out of it tge film does close to nothing. It only touched on any of this as far as it contributed to the quite narrow story about the rise and fall of a flawed hero that Nolan wanted to tell.

It may not have pushed film making in new and exciting directions but it held the attention of a largish group of teenage lads for three hours some of whom were under 15 by our reckoning and their reaction to the age certificate coming up. Not bad for a film of people talking in rooms, few explosions and in the grand scheme of things not much tit at all.
 
ska invita said:
Can anyone answer this please? I've read a couple of reviews and no one seems to mention this aspect. Overall political tone....?
Click to expand...
Oppenheimer (the character) makes a case for both but given the way the war was going he seems more convincing on the case against. Japan is defeated why bother? "Our boys" says the nearest General. Soon after with the bomb completed even technical details of targetting are taken from Oppenheimer's hands. It becomes someone else's decision. Oppenheimer is conflicted and a scene with Truman for me at least reopens the issue and shows you the type of arsehole who would happily use such a device.
 
ska invita said:
Can anyone answer this please? I've read a couple of reviews and no one seems to mention this aspect. Overall political tone....?
Click to expand...

I have answered but it’s in my spoiler. So as not to spoil the film for this who want to go and see it. I would suggest anyone else who answers this question also puts it behind a spoiler so as not to spoil the film for those who want to see it. CNT36 has also answered, they have a different view to me but also an interesting point.

This is a film, which as Epona very eloquently reminds us, costs money to see and enjoy. It’s not a 20 page single spaced photocopied tract, arguing why the author is better than other people who agree with him (almost always him) on 99.9% of his doctrine. Instead it’s primarily a thing of entertainment which people have the right to see without key elements being disclosed in advance to them.

See the film and make your own mind up, or read the spoilers in this thread for two opinions so far, or wait till loads of people you agree with have cast judgement and then parrot that. Or don’t, it’s up to you.
 
Last edited:
MrCurry said:
Just home from watching Barbie and I have to agree with Ben Shapiro (about the wokeness at least), which not something I’m comfortable saying! Woke it may be, but visually it’s pretty amazing.

Was thought provoking at times, but I wonder what kids who see this movie will make of the message which seems to veer a little bit too far towards “men are idiots“ for my liking, but there was at least one male character, Alan, who wasn’t portrayed as toxic and brainless, so I guess that’s balance.

Overall, worth a watch I think, but didn’t wow me in the way all the hype led me to expect. But that’s the movies for you, I guess.
Click to expand...
I went to see Barbie with a 13 year old boy who had heard beforehand that it was 'woke and anti-men' but came out thinking it wasn't that at all. He just thought it was anti-Ken.
(MILD SPOILERS AHEAD)


The point was that the Kens try to assert their patriarchal alpha-maleness by being shitty towards the Barbies. If you don't identify with those kind of 'alpha' behaviours then it doesn't seem like an attack on you.
If you're a man who actually does kind of think you should be important because you're male, girls owe you sex/attention, and they should be grateful for you explaining things to them, then it was definitely a personal attack :D
I don't think kids recognise themselves in Ken the way Ben Shapiro/middle aged straight men do.
 
Thora said:
I went to see Barbie with a 13 year old boy who had heard beforehand that it was 'woke and anti-men' but came out thinking it wasn't that at all. He just thought it was anti-Ken.
(MILD SPOILERS AHEAD)


The point was that the Kens try to assert their patriarchal alpha-maleness by being shitty towards the Barbies. If you don't identify with those kind of 'alpha' behaviours then it doesn't seem like an attack on you.
If you're a man who actually does kind of think you should be important because you're male, girls owe you sex/attention, and they should be grateful for you explaining things to them, then it was definitely a personal attack :D
I don't think kids recognise themselves in Ken the way Ben Shapiro/middle aged straight men do.
Click to expand...

This x 100^
 
ska invita said:
:D good one

i dont see why its such a hard question to answer
Click to expand...

I have answered it. In my spoiler. You may not agree with my answer, but I have given one. And I didn’t find it that hard to answer.

I have looked at this thread and can’t see anyone has said that hats a hard question to answer.
In fact I have used the search function and not one poster has said it was hard or difficult to answer your question. Where is the evidence base you have used to say people have found it hard or difficult to answer this question?


If I didn’t know your posting style better, I might think you have worked really hard on developing an argument, on a film you haven’t seen, and are desperately trying to shoehorn it into this thread. To show how your political analysis makes you better…
 
Last edited:
I saw the barbie film on Monday. It didn’t seem woke or feminist, or anything at all really, to me. It wasn’t awful, just not very captivating. I did have a delicious pink cocktail at the cinema though called a Malibu Barbie, which I can highly recommend.
 
Barbie was a fun film.
Yays
Moves along at a cracking pace, fantastic production design, witty script, good physical comedy, even the songs are entertaining.
The closing line is indeed hilarious.
Mehs
The message is rather lukewarm; the daughter character starts off full of anticapitalist vigour but is cheering Barbie on by the end.
The core conceit of Barbie being created as a weapon of feminism then discovering the real world is a patriarchy is clever and intriguing but it doesn't really resolve (and how could it, with Mattel in control).
The bit near the end where you're supposed to have Feelings had me rolling my eyes. The people in the row in front of me were audibly weeping :confused:.
Nays
Will Ferrell is intolerable.

My daughters (7 and 9) enjoyed it although most of the themes and some of the jokes went straight over their heads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T & P
Oppenheimer (Christopher Nolan film)
2
Replies
58
Views
3K
Elpenor
E
K
Karl Masks vs The Walking Dead franchise
Replies
15
Views
396
Hassan I Sabha
Hassan I Sabha
T & P
They've gone and made a Barbie film. And it has everyone in it
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
Shippou-Sensei
Godzilla vs Kong 2021
Replies
13
Views
463
Petcha
P
T & P
God in supernatural good vs evil stories: rubbish
2
Replies
57
Views
2K
Reno
Reno
Back
Top Bottom