I Didn't Like 'Barbie,' but I Love Its Success

Plus: Scorsese assigned!

Before we get started, I want to apologize for the truncated nature of this newsletter; we’ve had some home renovation emergencies (fun fact: if you buy a house in Texas where the water heater is on top of the HVAC unit, you’re gonna have a bad time), so I’m … in the midst of some stuff. Pray for Mojo.

But I do want to just briefly celebrate the best news the industry has had in some time: the enormous success of both Oppenheimer and Barbie at the box office. The numbers these movies are putting up are simply staggering—last weekend was one of the five best weekends at the box office ever; it’s the first time two movies have ever opened to more than $80 million each; AMC theaters had their most app downloads ever, as people rushed to buy tickets ahead of time—and that’s good news for an industry that’s trying to get people to remember how much fun the movies can be post-Covid.

Look, I didn’t love Barbie, as my review hopefully made clear.¹ I didn’t hate it, either, it just wasn’t funny to me. I hope the sequel is about Ken. Now there’s a character whose interior life is pretty interesting …

Anyway, point is: I didn’t love it and I kind of dread what this level of success means for the burgeoning Mattel Cinematic Universe. But I do love that it’s a hit. And I love that it’s a hit because without hits of this nature the theatrical experience cannot survive. I am not going to make broad proclamations about the death of franchises: yes, the Mission: Impossible, Indiana Jones, Transformers, and Fast and Furious franchises have all faltered, but the second-biggest movie of the year is a Spider-Man picture and the third is a Marvel Cinematic Universe movie. And I don’t think the lesson from this year is really that audiences are tired of intellectual property fracking: yes, Oppenheimer is a big win for original ideas at the multiplex, but the two biggest movies of the year are likely to be Super Mario Bros. (based on a beloved decades-old video game series) and Barbie (based on an even older and more beloved toy).

But it does feel like audiences are desperate for something that gives off original vibes even if it isn’t strictly speaking, “original.” They’re tired of bland CGI mushiness; they want hot pinks and auteurs delving into the minds of narcissists while blowing stuff up real good and dressing everyone in fantastic 1940s clothing.

And that’s something to cheer for.

---

On this Friday’s Across the Movie Aisle, we had a little fun with a Christopher Nolan Draft. One rule: everyone had to take a Bat-movie. Good times!

---

Links!

I just want to link again to that New Yorker piece about Mattel’s effort to get into movies. It’s amazing throughout. The bit where J.J. Abrams is trying to explain what makes Hot Wheels great is simply astounding.

Speaking of the New Yorker, Richard Brody’s review of Oppenheimer is hilariously wrong² but entertaining to read nevertheless. He and Armond White remain two of my favorite critics for the simple reason that a.) they’ve forgotten more about movies than 90% of critics will ever know but also b.) they’re like mirror universe images of each other, each jamming the movie of the week into their preferred schema and seeing what comes out on the other side.

For what it’s worth, I think my chat with Mona Charen about the fact and fiction and drama of Oppenheimer was pretty good. I hope you give it a listen.

Semi-regular reminder that if you pull out a phone during a movie and take a picture of the screen that you should be put in prison for crimes against humanity.

The Righteous Gemstones is getting a fourth season! Great news.

---

Assigned Viewing: After Hours (50% off at Barnes and Noble)

I hate assigning things that aren’t streaming for free (you can rent this from most reputable video-on-demand services!), but I’m making the rare exception for After Hours, in large part because the just-released version from Criterion looks amazing in 4K. (It’s 50 percent off at Barnes and Noble through the end of the month!) But also because I hadn’t seen this since college, and let me tell you: it’s a very different movie to see after having lived in a city (granted, not New York, but still) for a while. It’s Kafkaesque, but in a way that highlights the manner in which too much freedom can be just as crippling as too much stifling bureaucracy. “I just. Want. To. Live,” the lead says at one point, and it has two meanings: yes, he wants to survive, but also he wants to experience city living in all its insane fullness, but that sort of unregimented living is both difficult and dangerous. (In her essay for the Criterion release, Sheila O’Malley also notes the Kafkaesque nature of the film.)

1. Will this be yet another piece of evidence in Sarah Longwell’s long-running effort to paint me as indifferent to the interior lives of women? Yes. It probably will.

2. Just one of the ways in which it is wrong: at one point in the review, Brody criticizes Nolan for trying to visualize Oppenheimer’s internal conflict at the post-Hiroshima pep rally rather than having a character didactically explain to us Oppie’s internal conflict, which is a weird thing for a critic to be annoyed by. We should like it when they show and don’t tell!