Thursday, August 17, 2023

Barbie, Oppenheimer, plus Short Takes on some other cinematic topics

Exploring the Mighty Barbenheimer—a Bit Late

Reviews and Comments by Ken Burke


I invite you to join me on a regular basis to see how my responses to current cinematic offerings compare to the critical establishment, which I’ll refer to as either the CCAL (Collective Critics at Large) if they’re supportive or the OCCU (Often Cranky Critics Universe) when they go negative.  However, due to COVID concerns I’m mostly addressing streaming options with limited visits to theaters, where I don’t think I’ve missed much anyway, yet better options are now on the horizon.  (Note: Anything in bold blue [some may look near purple] is a link to something more in the review.)


 After taking last week off so that my wife, Nina, and I could indulge in our annual immersion in The Godfather trilogy (and I could take over a modest version of our kitchen duties for a few days), Film Reviews from Two Guys in the Dark is back, but before we get to those reviews I’d just like to add a personal note of sorrow for all the lives lost and property devastation in Lahaina, Maui, HI, a place we’ve visited several times with great pleasure over the last 20 years.  While I don’t know anyone personally there, my heart (and my Red Cross donation) goes out to all who are impacted by the tragedy from horrible recent wildfires.  I know there will eventually be attempts to rebuild; however, I doubt there’s any way to truly recapture the charm of that historic town, but at least I can only hope their dwellings, businesses, & jobs could re-emerge in some decent manner, despite the challenge.



 Now, I’ll return to film criticism with a infrequent twist that I actually ventured out to local theaters last week to see 2 of the biggest current hits because they’re already been out for too long for me to keep ignoring them yet they’ve been out long enough that attending an early-afternoon-matinee (nice price too!) results in sharing the auditorium with only about a dozen of well-spaced-fellow-patrons.  I probably won’t be doing that too often as COVID’s on the rise again in my San Francisco area, but it was a nice alternative to home-streaming, especially with 2 films likely to be among 2023’s very best.


          Barbie (Greta Gerwig)   rated PG-13   114 min.


Here’s the trailer:

       (Use the full screen button in the image’s lower right to enlarge its size; 

       activate the same button or use “esc” keyboard key to return to normal.)


If you can abide plot spoilers read on, but this blog’s intended for those who’ve seen the film or want to save some $ (as well as recognizing those readers like me who just aren’t that tech-savvy).  To help any of you who want to learn more details yet avoid these all-important plot-reveals I’ll identify any give-away sentences/sentence-clusters with colors plus arrows: 

⇒The first and last words will be noted with arrows and red.⇐ OK, now continue on if you prefer.


What Happens: After an hilarious beginning parody of the opening scene of 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968 [where eons ago apes on the African plains undergo rapid evolution after encountering a mysterious alien monolith, learning to use the bones of large animals as weapons to kill other animals and defeat rival primates]) with little girls having only baby dolls to play with until they’re enlightened by a huge adult Barbie, we find ourselves listening to voiceover-narration by Helen Mirren about Barbieland, populated by a large group of divergent females all named Barbie—the protagonist of this story referred to as Stereotypical Barbie (Margot Robbie), at times wearing a zebra-stripped-swimsuit, high heels, her blonde hair flowing (just like the original Barbie doll decades ago)—who run this society as government leaders, artists, scientists, doctors, lawyers, even mermaids, etc. (so they’re named President Barbie [Issa Rae], Judge Barbie [Ana Cruz Kayne], Journalist Barbie [Ritu Arya], etc.) while the males are all named Ken, with the focused one for us is Beach Ken (Ryan Gosling)—who never goes in the waterwhile others are his chief rival Tourist Ken (Simu Liu)—they get into comical word-play in the "beach you off" scene (:40)—and many other background players such as Basketball Ken (Kingsley Ben-Adir), Kenmaid (John Cena)—a merman Ken—and Earring Magic Ken (Tom Stourton).  This environment, which seems to be in another dimension as its inhabitants never actually eat (beverage cups always empty, plastic food never chewed) or age (Stereotypical Barbie’s been around since 1959 but looks like a young adult, as do most of the other Barbies and Kens [there are a few somewhat-outcasts of Barbie dolls now discontinued, such as pregnant Midge {Emerald Fennell}]) who represent as adult, full-sized (Flesh and blood?  Hard to tell; maybe just very malleable plastic even as their homes, surroundings, even the ocean waves are made of hard plastic [as Beach Ken finds out painfully when he attempts to surf]) versions of all the Barbies, Kens, and their friends produced over the years by Mattel for us.*


 Just for simplicity’s sake, I’ll use “Barbie” to refer to Robbie's character (“Ken” for the Gosling one), whose life is a daily celebration with her female friends along with minor acknowledgements to the Kens, until she’s shocked by asking the partying-Barbies if they ever think about death, surprised she can feel the cold water in her shower (even though it’s still not there), horrified she has cellulite on her legs, and her feet are flat whereas they used to be elevated when she took off her high heels.


*If you want an extensive overview of the decades of the Barbie family of dolls, consult this site, paired with this video (10:42) which is a showcase of these toys 1959-2023 (Ken first appeared in 1961).  But, which came first, Barbieland or Mattel?  I’ll discuss that a bit in this review’s next section.


 Our main Barbie seeks advice from outcast Weird Barbie (Kate McKinnon), disfigured by a human child who played with her doll version in a cruel manner (Just takes one child to ruin a Barbie?), who says she must go to the Real World to find the kid who’s messing with her happiness, so off she drives (a useful sign points the way) with Ken stowing away in her convertible so they both arrive in Venice Beach, L.A. where Barbie punches a guy who swatted her butt, leading to both her and Ken being briefly booked by the cops.  While Barbie somehow (I forget) learns her doll-handler is tween Sasha (Ariana Greenblatt), then tracks her down only to be dismissed as an affront to human female liberation, sad Barbie finds Sasha’s Mom, Gloria (America Ferrera), who’s depressed at work (Mattel headquarters) and with her life, is who’s been playing with her daughter’s old dolls, transferring her angst into Barbieland.  Next, Barbie barges into a Mattel board meeting (all men, wearing black suits) where the CEO (Will Farrell) is determined to put her back into a box to prevent disruptions in our existence (apparently Barbie’s younger sister, Skipper [Erica Ford] also left Barbieland for L.A. years ago but has now quietly relocated to Key West, FL [as best I remember; not important]), but Barbie gets away, heads back home with Gloria and Sasha (followed by the Mattel execs, but they get nowhere in Barbieland).  Ken, in the meantime, has already returned after becoming infatuated with the Real World’s patriarchal standards which he somehow quickly imposed on Barbieland so when she returns she finds most Barbies are now willing submissives to the vast bro-crowd of Kens. 


 Barbie’s despondent but becomes energized by Gloria’s marvelous speech about women being constantly held to impossible standards (even by themselves)—which they must actively rejectso she works with Weird Barbie, ignored Allan (Michael Cera), and others to one-by-one reawaken the other Barbies prior to a Constitutional amendment vote intended to enshrine “Kendom” rule, Barbies setting up a plan to distract the Kens to fight among themselves so only the women vote, preserving Barbieland as it was before but with a willingness to make the Kens more-equal-partners.  Barbie encourages Ken to find his own identity (he does), then she's visited by the spirit of Ruth Handler (Rhea Perlman)—the actual creator of the Barbie doll (and co-founder of Mattel; died in 2002), named after Ruth’s daughter—who gives Barbie the courage to (somehow?) became a human in our world with the message Barbie’s story has no set ending, so the last scene is Robbie’s character as Barbara Handler at a gynecologist (previously Barbie and Ken'd admitted they have no genitals).⇐


So What? It’s easy to recognize/appreciate this film’s denouncement of the stifling effects of patriarchy, but we must apply much suspension of disbelief where fantasy elements of this story are concerned.  Even if we’re willing to accept Barbieland in some alternate dimension where everything (except possibly the inhabitants?) is made of plastic, people never seem to age nor partake of any nourishment, and there’s an easily-accessible-route (although it does require travel by car, boat, motorcycle, and I forget what else) to our dimension (with the portal in L.A. of course), there’s still the question (if you care to ask it) about whether those who live in Barbieland spontaneously appear in this other world when Mattel puts a doll version of them on the market in our universe, or whether Barbieland exists independent of the inventors/marketers at Mattel who somehow get a sense of them as the years go by, introducing doll versions of these “people” as the inspiration strikes them.*  


*You could easily argue for the former option about Barbieland citizens only manifesting as their doll versions are created by Mattel, given the encounter in our story about Barbie being visited by the spirit of Ruth Handler late in the film,⇐ but I’m not fully ready to abandon my other possibility of Barbieland existing as an independent entity (the way things transpire in this film, I’d have to say that anything’s possible) prior to Mattel in the same way I remember storytellers at DC Comics (which I used to read on a regular basis years ago, the reason why I lean more toward the characters in the Justice League than the Avengers, though the Marvel movies are generally superior to the DC/WB ones—except Wonder Woman {Patty Jenkins; 2017, 2020} and Aquaman {James Wan; 2018} tales, plus Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy {2005, 2008, 2012}, but I’m always glad to see Superman on screen too) would explain, even before they (and Marvel now with Spiderman) got fully into the Multiverse concept, that there is Earth 2 where the DC superheroes of the 1930s-‘40s reside, Earth 1 where more contemporary versions of these heroes emerge in the 1950s (they continue to exist without aging too much due to various re-establishments of our universe in catastrophic storylines), and we live on Earth Prime where no superheroes exist (well, they also tinkered with that at times), but the storytellers at DC Comics get inspiration for their comic books through dreams that wandered over to them about actual exploits of the protectors of alternate Earths 1 and 2.  I know this is more complicated than what we’re supposed to embrace about Barbieland, but it offers some interesting ruminations for me.  However, if you want more insights on Barbie as it actually exists, I recommend this video (15:17 [ads interrupt at 3:12, 8:44]), with the warning that you’ll encounter Spoilers there.


 Whatever the actual relationship may be, though, among the toysellers at Mattel, Barbieland, and all the Barbies and Kens we encounter in this film, the result is a marvelous exploration of a pop-culture-icon along with unnecessary social determinations we’d all be better off without.  Sasha’s right when she initially dismisses Barbie as the encouragement of a generally-unreachable-ideal (although her body proportions have been made a bit more plausible in recent times) because even though Barbie’s been presented as an independent, versatile, diverse presence in our society over the decades, she’s still often foundationally that same blonde bombshell she was in her original swimsuit so that even if (sales-driven) Mattel execs—just like the females in Barbieland—thought somehow these multi-manifested-Barbies are truly teaching young girls to assume there are no limits on what their futures hold the actual society we all live in is still fundamentally patriarchal, even as we now see women as CEOs, film studio heads and directors, top-level politicians, Supreme Court justices, and in other previously-male-dominated leadership roles, we still seem to mostly (yes, there are successful-alternatives such as LIzzo) encourage traditionally-attractive women as movie stars, broadcasters, entertainers, models, product spokeswomen, etc., so in this story Barbie may be growing into a better understanding of who she is (along with finding better equality with Ken), but as Gerwig—co-screenwriter with off-screen-partner, film director/screenwriter Noah Baumbach—shows us bluntly/subtly, there’s still a lot in this society we all need to keep working on diligently to improve.


 The CCAL, however, sees little to improve here with the Rotten Tomatoes positive reviews at 88%, the Metacritic average score at 80% (one of their highest ratings this year to anything they and I have reviewed).  One final thought at this point: When Barbie and Ken end up in L.A., the Mattel CEO’s frantic reaction reminds me of The Purple Rose of Cairo (Woody Allen, 1985) where a character in a movie, Tom Baxter (Jeff Daniels), takes a liking to Cecilia (Mia Farrow), a frequent patron but also an abused, Depression-era housewife; shockingly, he comes down off the screen to start a secret romance with her which sends the studio executives into a frenzy to get Tom back into the movie so they can shut it down and destroy it.  If for any reason you’re not ready to venture into a theater to see Barbie, I’d encourage you to stream ... Cairo, in my opinion one of the masterpieces of the 20th century.  In the meantime, though, keep an eye on the Oscar talk about Barbie where I wouldn’t be surprised if it gets nominated for Best Picture, Director, Original Screenplay, Actress (an ironic bit of historically-patriarchal terminology on the Academy’s part, as the Screen Actors Guild has already shifted to Best Female Actor); no noms ever guaranteed, but surely worthy possibilities.


Bottom Line Final Comments: Barbie is on its way to becoming the domestic (U.S.-Canada) box-office-champ of 2023, currently having pulled in $526.4 million ($1.2 billion worldwide, #2 for 2023 so far, behind The Super Mario Bros. Movie [Aaron Horvath, Michael Jelenic]), even as it's a still-resonating-presence at movie theaters, also #2 domestically at present for the year, behind … Mario Bros. Movie (an animated version of a video game, which has probably peaked at $574.2 million [globally $1.4 billion] given that it debuted back on April 5 while Barbie’s still playing in 4,178 venues).  Gerwig's now the top money-maker among female directors (topping Jenkins’ Wonder Woman [$413 million domestically, $823 million worldwide] and Anna Boden’s co-direction [with Ryan Fleck] of Captain Marvel [2019] with $427 million domestically, $1.1 billion globally).  I don’t know how much of this current gross will end up enhancing any of the already-paid-salaries of the cast and crew—with a reported budget of $128-145 million (plus probably at least that much for distribution/marketing) this film’s clearly in the hefty realm of profit already, with reports Robbie will be making about $50 million when her box-office-bonuses are added on, so others involved with the project may benefit as well.  Mattel CEO Ynon Kreiz is certainly pleased with all of this financial embrace, but his ongoing-goal is to use this grand success as a stepping-stone to more movies based on his company’s extensive toy products as well as other ventures (which sounds to me like an emulation of Disney’s long-standing-expansion-tactics), so maybe Mattel will continue to work with Warner Bros. on these plans, given that studio’s successful marketing strategy with Barbie. (OK, one more unnecessary aside to further extend the length of this review, keep me up even later doing the posting:  I guess I can relate to Beach Ken a bit because when I was growing up [in size, not necessarily maturity] in Galveston, TX back in the 1950s-’60s I was sort of Beach Ken too, in that Galveston Island had miles of easily-accessible-sand-and-waves which I spent as much time with as possible, but, like this film’s Ken, I was no surfer even though the water wasn’t made of rigid plastic.)


 However, as much as the success of this film and its opening-weekend-partner, Oppenheimer, have warmed the hearts of theater owners, these big profits going to major studios and stars may somewhat hamper public support of the ongoing WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes by Hollywood writers and actors (where some problems have recently emerged between the striking unions regarding allowance of some independent projects), with the perception that with the kinds of returns now being seen for the “Barbenheimer” films there’s little rationale for shutting down the big/small-screen-entertainment-industries for better initial pay, larger after-the-fact-residuals; however, as the strikers have consistently emphasized, their work stoppages aren’t about the income of the relatively-rare-multimillionaires in the business but instead are in support of the thousands of others in supporting roles also necessary to fully staff these complex projects, people who are barely taking home enough to make ends meet (especially those who live in hugely-expensive-locales like L.A. and N.Y.C.).  Given that both Barbie’s success and the strikes are likely to continue for some time, though, I’ll keep up with how the strike situations work out in coming months and just move on to Oppenheimer below, leaving with my usual wrap-up Musical Metaphor, one I think fits this film quite well as our main Barbie (not so stereotypical after all, it seems) stands up to patriarchal attitudes in both Barbieland and the Real World, in Metaphorical line with Leslie Gore’s long-ago 1963 hit “You Don’t Own Me” (written by John Madara and David White, on the 1963 Leslie Gore Sings of Mixed-Up Hearts album) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4omo3xNstE where the singer (and the Barbies) are quite clear that “I’m young and I love to be young / I’m free and I love to be free / To live my life the way I want / To do and say whatever I please, no matter what their attempted-corporate-handlers or the Ken rebels might try to say about their future (although these re-liberated women do come to acknowledge the Kens in their world deserve better treatment also [I wonder why I’m so receptive to that?] if both of these societies are to be truly welcoming for all their inhabitants).

           

Oppenheimer (Christopher Nolan)  rated R 180 min.


Here’s the trailer:


       Before reading further, please refer to the plot spoilers warning detailed far above.


What Happens: One of the marvels of this film is Nolan’s ability to shift constantly from one historical era to another so we jump around in time but with clarity of how different periods comprise a unified narrative.  Two quotes from this story ultimately reveal what it’s about when you boil away all we witness over the 3-hour running time: “Theory will take you only so far” (advice to J. Robert Oppenheimer about how successful practice is the final understanding of our concepts) and from the Hindu holy book, the Bhagavad-Gita (Vishnu speaking) “Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.”  There’s also an important graphic at the beginning from Greek mythology about how Prometheus was punished by the gods for bringing fire from the heavens to humans.  Ideally, what you need to experience about the high quality of this film is to see it in practice, on a big screen, so I’m not going to attempt to recount it as it moves among the various eras it depicts; instead, I’ll just note here what they are with a strong encouragement to see for yourself how this all comes together.


 The eras depicted are: (1) The chronological account of Oppenheimer’s (Cillian Murphy) academic progress in chemistry and physics from 1926 at Cambridge where visiting scholar Niels Bohr (Kenneth Branagh) is impressed enough to encourage Robert's shift to study theoretical physics in Germany, where he also has a brief meeting with famous physicist Werner Heisenberg (Matthias Schweighöfer), leading to teaching at the U. of California, Berkeley, an affair with communist Jean Tatlock (Florence Pugh), and marriage to Kitty Puening (Emily Blunt); due to Nazi Germany’s 1938 success with atom-splitting nuclear fission, Oppenheimer’s recruited in 1942 by General Leslie Groves (Matt Damon) to lead the Manhattan Project at newly-constructed Los Alamos in NM with other top scientists including Edward Teller (Benny Safdie), who advocates for nuclear fusion to produce a hydrogen bomb; Oppenheimer learns of Tatlock’s suicide, the atom bomb development progresses to a tense-but-successful-test, followed by the devastation from bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (August 6 and 9, 1945) as Japan surrenders; Oppenheimer’s hope such horror would end war, just as he continued to oppose the H-bomb even as he’s celebrated as the “father of the atomic bomb,” results in rejection by President Truman (Gary Oldman) as a “crybaby.” 


 (2) In 1947 Admiral Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr.)—later to be the Atomic Energy Commission Chairman—brings Oppenheimer into Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study where he meets briefly with Albert Einstein, leading to Einstein ignoring Strauss, but we don’t know the content of the conversation with Oppenheimer that led to this. (3) At a Congressional hearing Oppenheimer had embarrassed Strauss over his concern about exporting radioisotopes, leading to a fierce 1954 AEC hearing on Oppenheimer about his security clearance, with Teller and others raising questions about Oppenheimer’s affiliations with communists, implying he might have leaked secrets to the Soviets, allowing them to develop atomic bombs, with the result of Oppenheimer’s clearance being revoked. (4) Strauss is nominated by President Eisenhower to be Secretary of Commerce, but at his 1959 Senate hearing he’s attacked by David L. Hill (Rami Malek) because of his hit job on Oppenheimer, so his confirmation falls short by a few votes, including MA Junior Senator John F. Kennedy⇒As this all wraps up, we get the details of the Oppenheimer-Einstein talk, where the elder scholar warned the younger one he’ll someday be deemed too old to continue leading advances in his field even as he’ll get awards ultimately used to boost the reputations of those giving away the medals.⇐


So What? Considering I find Oppenheimer to already be one of the best cinematic releases of 2023 (I seriously considered going into my rarified zone of 4½ stars for it but finally had to admit that for me—and I suppose many of its patrons, who praise it nevertheless—it just gets into too much detail that I don’t feel I really have to know, which contributes to that exhaustive running time; it’s a marvelous experience from a hugely-talented-director/screenwriter, but I just find it to be a bit too much of a good thing), it’s odd I have relatively little to say about it; however, it’s truly an audiovisual experience that needs to be encountered—preferably on a large screen in a public theater (given it’s shot mostly in 70mm IMAX format, Nolan encourages viewing in that presentational mode, which I didn’t, so it's probably even more overwhelming to see in that manner than what I watched)—more so than being read about, so I’ll just say what needs to be shared, leave it at for now, with a strong encouragement to seek out this near-masterpiece (maybe it does deserve 4½ stars after all, but I made a pledge to myself years ago to never alter a rating due to hindsight reconsideration because then I should properly reconsider all of them which I have neither the time nor energy to do), even if you have to wait for it to eventually come to streaming (although most of our home screens are so much smaller than what Nolan ideally wants for this film; mine’s only 47” although it couldn’t be much bigger than that and still fit in my modestly-sized-living room), which I’m sure it will at some point.  Now, as to various objections that have been stated about historical accuracies in this film, all I can say is that it’s based primarily on the biographical book, American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin (2005), which I have not read but apparently it is well-researched, winning the 2008 Pulitzer Prize for Biography or Autobiography.


 Whatever variances this book may take with any aspects of historical record (although the research for it was begun in 1979, included extensive interviews and reference to thousands of pages of documents) or however Nolan’s film may deviate from the book I don’t know, as all I can respond to is what’s on the screen in this powerful biopic, which at the very least gets the primary points across that: (1) Oppenheimer was personally traumatized by his awareness of the horrors rained on Japan in 1945 with the explosions of those 2 atomic bombs; (2) he was just as personally undone by the interrogations that led to the removal of his security clearance in the mid-1950s, showing how political vendettas can destroy a person’s reputation (and life), based not so much on true concerns about the supposed “sins” of the person under scrutiny but more on how someone with power can use political/legal apparatuses for personal retribution, no matter how history would dispute such results, as was the case for so many in American society in the late 1940s through the mid-1950s with all of the U.S. governmental investigations on so-called “un-American communists” within our nation during the early years of our lengthy, destructive Cold War with the Soviet Union of that time.  


 Despite Nolan’s attempt to use Black & White footage to show what he feels are the historically-defendable-portions of his film while color is used in scenes that are more up for discussion or admittedly have been fictionalized for dramatic impact in various manners, he’s still been attacked by various commentators for aspects of what he’s put on screen, from a simple complaint about people waving 50-star flags before Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union to much more extensive challenges as presented in this video (11:43, beware of Spoilers [ad interrupts at 2:50]), which explores various rights and wrongs including the question of whether Jean Tatlock committed suicide or was killed, and this extensive article which notes the Bhagavad-Gita quote from an Oppenheimer TV interview transposed into a sex scene with him and Tatlock, along with the complaint about non-representation of Indigenous Americans near the fabricated Los Alamos site.   In addition, though, here’s another lengthy video (23:40, Spoilers [ads interrupt at 6:15, 13:48]) that also examines the film, generally accepts the validity of what’s shown in the scenes.  Certainly, such a controversial figure as Oppenheimer would be difficult to depict without ruffling some feathers, so this film’s not immune to challenges, which probably matter more to specific sub-groups of various international audiences than to the general public which has generally embraced this film.


Bottom Line Final Comments: While not as stupendously-financially-successful as Barbie, Oppenheimer has also raked in quite a bit of box-office revenue, especially for a lengthy, historically-based film about the development of the atomic bomb, the self-generated-punishment the head of that project felt after its deployment, along with the public hostility he endured given his connections to various declared/assumed communists: not the sort of material that normally draws in big crowds.  So far, Oppenheimer’s made $267 million domestically and $651 million worldwide after playing for a month with more to come as it’s now expanded to 3,751 theaters.  If you look to the CCAL for help in making ticket-purchase-decisions (which you’d need to do as streaming’s likely a long way off for this film) you’ll find plenty of support as the RT positive reviews are a strong 93%, the MC average score is a stunning 88%, the highest I’ve seen from them so far in this year.


 As with Barbie, it’s certainly too early to be making Oscar nominations predictions, yet I certainly won’t be surprised if this one nets noms for Best Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay (Nolan), Actor (Murphy), Supporting Actor (Downey Jr.), maybe even Supporting Actress for either Blunt or Pugh, Cinematography (Hoyte van Hoytema), Editing (Jennifer Lame), and Soundtrack (Ludwig Göransson), with possibly others as well.  Will it end up being what I consider the best of the year? Could be, although, as noted previously, I didn’t feel the need to get all of the details of the personal conflicts between Oppenheimer and Strauss, with the good number of supporting characters needed to give further substance to their clashes.  All I can say for now, however, is that Oppenheimer's a highly-impressive-presentation from a man who’s already established himself as a superb cinema-craftsman, one who examines the deep fears we all should feel about our collective contributions to the potential demise of our only planet (don’t count on off-world-excursions to the moon or Mars to save us, just as we likely won’t see enough stoppage of fossil-fuel-intensity of climate change to reverse what tragedies we’ve already put into motion), with a marvelous combination of top-notch acting, impactful editing and sound use (including nervous-inducing-silence in the scene where the bomb passes its initial test), linked to explorations of the intense variations within the human psyche.


 One of the complaints against this film is that it doesn’t directly show the devastation caused by the bombs dropped on Japan; that may be valid, but for me the “mere” depiction of the successful-test’s-mushroom cloud is all I needed to verify what a life-ending-device this bomb (and the intensely-more-destructive-hydrogen weapon) is, making it terrifying enough.  Just as the film has raised some objections, though, so might my Musical Metaphor choice as it’s a bit abstract in regard to the specifics of Oppenheimer, but I’ll move on anyway with the Talking Heads’ “Once in a Lifetime” (on their 1980 album Remain in Light) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IsSpAOD6K8 where there exist some relevant questions that J. Robert seems to ponder in this film: “And you may ask yourself, ‘Well, how did I get here?’ […] And you may ask yourself, ‘Am I right? Am I wrong' / And you may say to yourself, ‘My God! What have I done?’ […] Letting the days go by, same as it ever was.  Further, I know this song talks a lot about water underground, but that may be relevant to the fears of this film also in that any nuclear holocaust we foolishly bring upon ourselves may end up destroying everything on the surface of our planet (just as some WW II-era scientists were terrified the process of atomic fission might ignite our atmosphere, enveloping Earth in fire), leaving only the oceans to maybe someday bring about life here again, with hopes that whatever it may be will ultimately be more insightful than what many current human beings are imposing upon the rest of us.

        

SHORT TAKES

           

Related Links Which You Might Find Interesting:   


(1) Barbie passes The Dark Knight (Christopher Nolan, 2008) as top WB domestic grosser; (2) Why latest Indiana Jones and Mission Impossible releases are struggling to make a profit.


We encourage you to visit the Summary of Two Guys Reviews for our past posts* (scroll to the bottom of this Summary page to see additional info about your wacky critic, Ken Burke, along with contact info and a great retrospective song list).  Overall notations for this blog—including Internet formatting craziness beyond our control—may be found at our Two Guys in the Dark homepage If you’d like to Like us on Facebook (yes?) please visit our Facebook page.  We appreciate your support whenever and however you can offer it unto us!  Please also note that to Post a Comment below about our reviews you need to have either a Google account (which you can easily get at https://accounts.google.com/NewAccount if you need to sign up) or other sign-in identification from the pull-down menu below before you preview or post.  You can also leave comments at our Facebook page, although you may have to somehow register with us at that site in order to do it (most FB procedures are still a perplexing mystery to us old farts).


*Please ignore previous warnings about a “dead link” to our Summary page because the problem’s been manually fixed so that all postings since July 11, 2013 now have the proper functioning link.


If you’d rather contact Ken directly rather than leaving a comment here at the blog please 

use my email address of kenburke409@gmail.com—type it directly if the link doesn’t work.


OUR POSTINGS PROBABLY LOOK BEST ON THE MOST CURRENT VERSIONS OF MAC OS AND THE SAFARI WEB BROWSER (although Google Chrome usually is decent also); OTHERWISE, BE FOREWARNED THE LAYOUT MAY SEEM MESSY AT TIMES.


Finally, for the data-oriented among you, Google stats say over the past month the total unique hits at this site were 16,069 (as always, we thank all of you for your ongoing support with our hopes you’ll continue to be regular readers); below is a snapshot of where those responses have come from within the previous week (with appreciation for the unspecified “Others” also visiting Two Guys’ site):


No comments:

Post a Comment