Oppenheimer, The Movie - An Honest Review

Here are some updates from last week. I wasn’t feeling well and am a bit behind in sharing feedback. I will start by saying; I finally watched the much-anticipated Oppenheimer, and right off the bat, I can assume that it’s not for everyone. The most magnificent moment of the entire Oppenheimer experience was when all of us at the theatre sat in complete silence, engulfed by the scenes on the screen. You’ll know what I’m talking about once you watch it! The silence was deafening. We saw it at @eyemuseum on a 70mm screen.

One of the film's notable strengths is its ability to present Oppenheimer as a flawed and conflicted individual. It showcases his brilliance as a scientist and delves into his struggles, including his relationships, political affiliations, and the burden of his role in developing the atomic bomb. This multidimensional portrayal adds depth and relatability to the character, reminding us that even great minds are not immune to the complexities of the human experience.

Furthermore, Oppenheimer successfully addresses the ethical implications of scientific progress in a balanced and thought-provoking manner. It presents Oppenheimer's internal struggle as he grapples with the consequences of his work, raising profound questions about the responsibility of scientists and the potential dangers of unchecked technological advancements. The film encourages viewers to critically reflect and consider the ethical ramifications of scientific discoveries in our own time.

The direction and cinematography of Oppenheimer are skilfully executed, capturing both the intimate moments of introspection and the grandeur of scientific breakthroughs. Using lighting, framing, and camera angles effectively conveys the emotional intensity of pivotal scenes, allowing the audience to connect with the characters on a deeper level. The visual aesthetics and superb performances create a captivating atmosphere that holds the viewer's attention throughout the film.

The supporting cast in Oppenheimer deserves praise for their exceptional performances. Each actor brings depth and authenticity to their respective roles, adding complexity to the narrative. From Oppenheimer's colleagues and fellow scientists to government officials and military personnel, the ensemble cast seamlessly blends to create a cohesive and believable portrayal of the historical figures involved in the Manhattan Project.

The attention to detail in recreating the 1940s is evident in every aspect, from the elaborate laboratory settings to the period-specific attire. The visual authenticity adds to the immersive experience, transporting viewers back in time and creating a believable world that complements the narrative.

If there is one area where Oppenheimer falls slightly short, it is in its pacing. Some viewers may find certain portions of the film to be slower and more contemplative, focusing on introspection and dialogue rather than action. While this deliberate pacing serves the film's thematic intentions, it may test the patience of those seeking a more dynamic and fast-paced narrative.

However, it is worth noting that Oppenheimer may not be suitable for all audiences. Given the weighty subject matter and the film's emphasis on philosophical and moral deliberations, it may not appeal to those seeking entertaining or lighthearted content. Nevertheless, for viewers who appreciate intellectually stimulating cinema that explores complex historical figures and their impact on society, Oppenheimer offers a compelling and thought-provoking experience.

In conclusion, Oppenheimer is a remarkable biographical drama that succeeds in capturing the essence of J. Robert Oppenheimer's life and the ethical dilemmas surrounding his scientific achievements. With its meticulous attention to historical detail, engaging storytelling, and strong performances, the film provides a profound exploration of the human condition within the context of scientific progress. While it may not cater to all tastes, Oppenheimer is a cinematic achievement that offers a captivating journey into the life and legacy of one of the most significant figures of the 20th century.

Rating: ★★★★☆

Lights, Camera, Barbie! A Comprehensive Personal Review of the Barbie Movie

Barbie's movie was a lot of fun, and one has to appreciate the set design and costumes. At one point, the nine-year-old in me who had to fight tooth and nail with her parents to get just one Barbie came out and wished she lived in that set - not the Dreamhouse, but the set!

Barbieland was spectacular!

But, there is a very big BUT.

The movie was fun. The jokes hit every time. And the meta-commentary was awesome.

Barbie is the OG of- YOU CAN BE AND DO ANYTHING. She has ALWAYS adapted to life and diversity!!! ALWAYS. Mattel modelled Barbie after activists, athletes, and celebrities; she has a line of inspiring women. She has over 250 careers. She has multiple body types. She has disabilities. She isn't one race. She loves everyone. She is for everyone. She is my childhood and my memories.

Ruth Handler envisioned MORE for her daughter. She wanted her to dream big. She wanted her to have another role model to look up to. She created a representation of what women COULD be if that's what they chose. Opportunity. Hope. Where women weren't only allowed to be nurses but doctors. They weren't only allowed to be secretaries but teachers and lawyers. They weren't only allowed to be flight attendants but pilots. They could wear what they wanted. Not JUST skirts, but pants too.

She pioneered this idea with her husband, giving girls inspiration and permission to be more in a world that told them they should be kept in this box created and controlled by men because men were superior and the "fairer sex" inferior. The world of Barbie allowed girls to role-play as successful, multi-faceted women, not "just be" the "mommy" to their baby doll.

But, in a movie that's supposed to be about equality, I’ve seen the opposite.

In the real world, women were *portrayed* as childish and naive. But in reality, they are intelligent and capable. But in Barbieland, the men actually *are* silly and immature. The movie paints it as reality rather than showing the contrast. And this is actually a common modern trope of showing men as being dumb. How are men supposed to sympathise with women over this issue when the movie takes the opportunity to put men down?

Second, in Barbie's land, the Kens hold no power and are routinely disrespected, just like women in the real world. But when the Kens get tired of the mistreatment and seize the power for themselves, they're demonised. Did the writers forget that the point of Ken was to show the women's perspective and experiences to men? 

The movie focuses too much on the negative connotation of absolute world patriarchy and never acknowledges that it's entirely different for Ken. The Ken's aren't from a place of power like the men who established patriarchy in the real world. In Barbieland, the Ken are the victims. But the real-world biases against the patriarchy don't allow that to be directly recognised (in case it needs to be stated, because Ken's patriarchy doesn't come from a pre-existing place of power, it's inherently different from real-world patriarchy).

The Barbies, in particular, end the movie effectively the same. With only a vague idea that things should change for Ken. But since the Ken's are supposed to represent the women of the real-world, would it not be more critical for the Barbies to realise their mistakes, as you would hope real-world men discover theirs?

This isn't even to mention that Barbieland is run by an unequal matriarchy, which also isn't acknowledged. How can the movie call for equality when it fails to recognise the problems in the system it created solely for the sake of comparison? 

The movie makes a big deal of the Barbies stopping Ken's takeover by keeping things the same. And even at the end, when they almost acknowledge it, they still refuse to give a cabinet position to a Ken. Ken ends the movie with no more rights or representation than before. This wouldn't be okay in the world. People have spent hundreds of years fighting that. So why is it alright here?

The movie is hypocritical. It treats men how it explains that women shouldn't be treated and never acknowledges it, so you can only assume that they meant it intentionally.

This isn't to say that the movie doesn't have good points, because I liked many things. Barbie's arc was great, and I liked the mother and daughter arc, although I wish it had been expanded on more. Ken's realisation of being enough on his own, of course, was essential. But the movie's treatment of men was in inferior taste. The inequalities of the past don't justify revenge.

I think you should watch it and see what you think personally. How can we give opinions if we don't take the time to look at both sides, see the movie and form our thoughts?

Barbie was an idea in a time when women were not much more than a house decorations, popping out kids, serving their men, cleaning their homes and doing all domestic duties, reliant on the provisions of their husbands, without careers and money of their own, without identities outside of their responsibilities as a "good little housewife and mother" without purpose outside of what was expected of women during that time. Their men worked and came home to a dinner at the ready, had their feet rubbed and were catered to. Women were dressed up as accessories to their men.

There is such duality in the Ken (s) character and the reason that so many men resonate with the frustration of Barbie's rejection or indifference to him, the irritation they feel when the Barbies execute their systematic undoing of patriarchy by calling out all the toxic masculine traits that are characterised by fragile male egos and come undone when women succeed in reclaiming what they've built- is because they know, that WE know, how they operate. We know what makes them tick. But..how dare they establish a matriarchal world!! And not just hand it over because we have been conditioned to believe we are superior. It's a man's world. It always has been, and the mere thought of women holding positions that men hold in the real world is a threat to the status quo, a challenge to fragile masculinity and elicits incredibly uncomfortable feelings of insecurity.

It's the result of a society full of men who don't know who they are outside of their inflated ego, who interpret advice or suggestions or help from women as "being told what to do and being controlled, who wince at unrequited love and take rejection as an insult to their inherent worth, who seek out independent women, but feel threatened by her success and attempt to seduce and reduce her so that they can feel comfortable, in control and not exist in her shadow. But acting in those ways protects that ego and prevents them from doing the necessary work to become a true, masculine, leading and confident man.

The lesson(s)? Either extreme is going to result in oppression. Men and women were meant to offset the weaknesses and strengths of each other. To work together, not rule over one or the other. There is no inferior or superior. The "Kens" needed to find purpose outside of what they were "created for". They required their OWN identities. Their own passions, their own careers other than "beach". They didn't even know what that meant. They depended on the Barbies to tell them who they were, much like women who needed to do the same. To not NEED a man to say to them who they are. To have the freedom to make choices about what they want in life. If men and women focused more on personal growth and figuring out who they are, shed their egos..we wouldn't be codependent or insecure. We wouldn't be defined by society or trapped by the expectations of others. We would each know we are worthy and wouldn't feel compelled to compete with anyone who triggers that insecurity of not being good enough. Not pretty enough or handsome enough. They were not being smart enough or capable.

We are not stepping out of our comfort zones because we fear failure. We are not having enough. Not BEING enough. We wouldn't be focused on "lack". We would be focused on abundance. None of us belongs in a box. We are ALL Kenough. 

Rating: ★★☆☆☆