ReportWire

Tag: Barbenheimer

  • The Fall Guy Blows Up Tom Cruise’s Braggadocio and Quentin Tarantino’s Tributes to Stuntmen

    The Fall Guy Blows Up Tom Cruise’s Braggadocio and Quentin Tarantino’s Tributes to Stuntmen

    As far as movies that acknowledge the importance of stuntmen (because no one thinks of this as a profession for stuntwomen, clearly), the only one of mainstream note—up until now—has been Death Proof (unfortunately for Drew Barrymore, The Stand In doesn’t qualify). The Quentin Tarantino-directed film that was part of 2007’s Grindhouse double feature (which commenced with Robert Rodriguez’s Planet Terror), wherein Kurt Russell plays the part of Stuntman Mike (and there is actually some play for a stuntwoman in the form of Zoë Bell). Like David Leitch’s The Fall Guy, Death Proof delights in its cleverness and meta-ness, but in a way that isn’t, shall we say, quite as fun. Though Tarantino surely thought that “sweet revenge” ending was all the fun any audience could want. But screenwriter Drew Pearce seems to be aware that they want something more than “Tarantino cleverness”—they want some fucking Ryan Gosling “hey girl”-style romance peppered in. With a dash of Tom Cruise roasting thrown into the mix, too. And that’s exactly what they get. 

    Starting from the beginning, Gosling as Colt Seavers delivers on both ingredients, with one of the first scenes consisting of Colt being told that Tom Ryder (Aaron Taylor-Johnson, making better movies than his wife at the moment), “the biggest action star on the planet,” wants to speak with him. The name alone is already a dead giveaway that this is a major troll on Cruise, who has often boasted about doing his own stunts. This includes declaring one of the bigger stunts in Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning (namely, driving a motorcycle off a roughly four-thousand-foot high structure) to be “far and away the most dangerous thing I’ve ever attempted.”

    Cruise’s long-running insistence that he does all his own stunts was parodied as far back as the 2000 MTV Movie Awards, during which a segment centered on Cruise’s supposedly nonexistent stunt double was featured, with Ben Stiller playing “Tom Crooze,” the stuntman in question. Presented as a behind-the-scenes documentary, even John Woo appears in it to say, “Tom Cruise does most of his own stunts. So he doesn’t really need a stunt double. But we make good use of the other Tom Cruise.” Meanwhile, The Fall Guy makes good use of both Tom Cruise (jokes) and the actor that’s clearly based on him and his ego: Tom Ryder. What’s more, seeing as how Pearce is credited as coming up with the story for Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation (the fifth installment in the film series), the amount of Tom Cruise-related wisecracks feels particularly pointed. Almost like Pearce is putting him in his place for having such arrogance. To that point, we see what happens to Colt as a result of his own so-called hubris (that is, in Tom Ryder’s estimation, who never, never wants to be overshadowed—least of all by his stunt double).

    Although Gosling has previously starred in movies heavy with action (including Drive), this is his first proper “Hollywood action movie” (even if action-comedy). One that, incidentally, pokes fun at the Hollywood action movie (complete with an over-bloated third act). And yes, it’s surprising that it took Gosling this long to become an action hero (in lieu of his usual anti-hero) considering this was the boy compelled to bring steak knives to school and throw them at classmates thanks to inspiration from First Blood. The sense of homage in general to action movies past is a constant presence in The Fall Guy as well, whether including scenes of famous stunts from classic movies, mentioning that stunt work doesn’t qualify for having an Oscar category despite being the backbone of most major films or simply quoting action movies in general. This last form of reverence for the stuntman being an ongoing bit between Colt and his friend/stunt coordinator, Dan Tucker (Winston Duke).

    Indeed, the first thing Dan quotes to Colt is Rambo—specifically, “It’s not about how hard you hit. It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.”  This is meant to serve as motivation for conquering his fear of getting back in the proverbial saddle for “stunting.” For, by this point in the movie, the audience has been flashed with the title card “18 Months Later.” As in: eighteen months after Colt embodied the literal meaning of being a fall guy by plummeting from a twelve-story building and botching the stunt by landing right on his back. Moments after the fall, viewers see him being rushed to the hospital on a gurney as he gives the crew his customary “stuntman’s thumbs up” to indicate he’s fine. 

    But, of course, he’s not fine at all. No longer a stuntman, but an emotionally stunted man who has lost all sense of identity in the wake of realizing, in a very humiliating way, that he’s not invincible at all. The shame of the incident prompts him to cut off all communication with everyone he knew from that part of his life, even Jody Moreno (Emily Blunt, coming for Emma Stone in terms of onscreen chemistry with Gosling). The camera operator with directorial ambitions who became as sweet on Colt as he is on her over the course of working on many film productions together. 

    Having descended into the depths of “normalcy” after hanging up his kneepads, Colt has become a valet at a restaurant called El Cacatúa del Capitán (and yes, later a cockatoo will figure into the plot, along with an attack dog named Jean-Claude who only responds to commands given to him in French). It is Tom Ryder’s go-to producer, Gail Meyer (Hannah Waddingham), that manages to track Colt down and call his new phone number to lure him to the set of a movie Ryder is currently working on called Metalstorm (something that looks a lot like a sendup of Dune, and even Edge of Tomorrow…an action-alien movie that Emily Blunt co-starred in with, you guessed it, Tom Cruise).

    The project is already (down) underway in, where else, Sydney (a place that must be offering a lot of tax breaks lately if we’re to go by the recent rash of films shot there, such as The Invisible Man, Thor: Love and Thunder and Anyone But You). Although Colt is initially quick to rebuff Gail’s request to come and assist her with keeping Tom in line, he can’t help but respond positively to the dangled carrot (or “sexy bacon,” in this case) of her insistence that Jody, who has been hired as the director, expressly asked for him to be the stuntman. 

    Seeing an opportunity to right the wrong he did by ghosting her, Colt hops on the next plane, greeted promptly by facial scans from the set’s resident “effects person,” Venti Kushner (Zara Michales). When Colt asks why there’s suddenly all these bells and whistles, Venti informs him that they’re taking the scans so they can seamlessly computer-generate Tom’s face onto Colt’s face for any stunt scenes. Colt replies, “Like a deepfake situation? If you get a chance, turn me into Tom Cruise.” Oh my, Leitch and Pearce are really overestimating Cruise’s sense of humor about this sort of thing. An actor whose ego has steadily ballooned since he started out in the 80s, the decade when the TV series, The Fall Guy, originally aired. Because, yes, of course, it’s a movie based on a TV show (as LL Cool J once meta-ly complained at the beginning of Charlie’s Angels upon seeing the opening credits for T. J. Hooker: The Movie, “Another movie from an old TV show”).

    This is something that Leitch and Pearce give a nod to via a post-credits scene focused on two cops played by Lee Majors and Heather Thomas (a.k.a. the stars of The Fall Guy). In the series, Lee Majors’ Colt is also a bounty hunter on the side (which is where that element comes into play for the movie) and Thomas’ Jody is a fellow stuntwoman whose last name is the more anglicized Banks instead of Moreno (and no, there is nothing about Blunt that makes her look like a Moreno). 

    As for being “upgraded” to director in the movie version, Jody is also given the chance to shine as a singer, with a lengthy karaoke scene providing her with the occasion to belt out Phil Collins’ “Against All Odds” (granted, Mariah Carey delivers a possibly superior cover on Rainbow). Blunt kept right on singing for her cameo in Gosling’s monologue on SNL, during which the two duetted a parody version of Taylor Swift’s “All Too Well” (a song that features prominently in the movie). In their version of the song, they explore letting go of the characters that made them part of two of the biggest blockbusters of Summer 2023, Barbie and Oppenheimer (so yes, Barbenheimer did manage to reanimate in 2024 by way of Blunt and Gosling working together). 

    In something of a missed opportunity, SNL didn’t opt to include a sketch of Gosling as a stuntman. But that’s fine, one supposes, for Gosling is no stranger to playing a serious stunt performer instead, having also done so in Drive and The Place Beyond the Pines (the set where he and Eva Mendes would translate their onscreen romance into an offscreen one). What’s more, it probably would have been too much for Gosling to play Tom Cruise in one of the sketches (for whatever reason, choosing to play Beavis was more important). Because even in the promo interviews for The Fall Guy, Gosling and Blunt still find time to rib Cruise. Case in point, when Gosling admits to IMDb, “I have a fear of heights,” Blunt replies, “Who doesn’t? Who doesn’t have a fear of heights?” “Tom Cruise,” Gosling says without missing a beat. But, for the most part, the duo keeps the focus of their interviews on having a deep respect and appreciation for what stunt people do. “It’s a love letter to the stunt community,” Gosling reiterates in an interview for MTV. Blunt adds, “They risk their souls, their bodies, their lives for us to make us look cool.” Gosling then concludes, “They risk more than anyone… You can’t separate the history of film [from] the history of stunts.”

    History that continues to be made with The Fall Guy, which just secured an entry in the Guinness Book of World Records for showcasing the most cannon rolls (eight and a half) ever performed in a film (executed by stunt driver Logan Holladay). It also happens to be the kind of laugh-a-minute film not seen since The Lost City (a movie that Argylle attempted to heavily emulate with less success). And that’s hard for someone like Tarantino, the only other person with as much well-documented “love” for stuntmen, to compete with, even when he also paid homage to the stunt community in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood via Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt). A character who, in addition to Stuntman Mike, doesn’t exactly make for the best representation of the “average” stuntman.

    Funnily enough, Leitch would also enlist Pitt for the lead in Bullet Train, a far less intelligent (read: not intelligent at all) action movie than what the director has on offer here. Thus, whatever “bad mojo” he was suffering from in 2022 (*cough cough* a bad script), he seems to have recovered from it as nicely as Colt Seavers after his massive, back-breaking fall…with more than just a little help from Pearce and a leading man as charismatic as Gosling and his “tousled just so” coif.

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • The 2024 Golden Globes Does What It Can to Keep Itself on the Train Track

    The 2024 Golden Globes Does What It Can to Keep Itself on the Train Track

    The Golden Globes is no stranger to being riddled with scandal. Even in the 1950s, when it was still a relatively germinal organization (with the first edition airing in 1944), the awards ceremony was “renowned” for taking what amounted to bribes and payoffs via various “gift-giving” endeavors from studios, production companies and individual stars themselves. By the 60s, the Golden Globes were exposed for determining their winners based on advertiser influence, and that, furthermore, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA) put pressure on nominees to attend the ceremony, lest they lose their win to another nominee who actually did attend. The entire thing was such a shitshow—such a complete and blatant display of nepotism and abuse of power—that the ceremony was actually banned from being aired on television between 1969 and 1974. 

    Scarcely back on the air for a full ten years after returning post-1974, the next major scandal was Pia Zadora’s “miraculous” win for “New Star of the Year” (another made-up award in the vein of Cinematic and Box Office Achievement) thanks to her performance in Butterfly, a movie that was both unanimously panned and had not even been released yet at the time the awards ceremony aired. Not so hushed whisperings about how Zadora’s husband, Turkish-Israeli financier Meshulam Riklis, bought her the award led to a further degradation in the Golden Globes’ credibility. Yet this has never stopped the show from enduring. In fact, from being second only to the Academy Awards in terms of prestige and well-knownness to the layperson outside of Hollywood. Yet, as Scarlett Johansson once called out, the show was merely used as a tool by the likes of Harvey Weinstein to curry Oscar favor. Hence, the flagrancy of bribery. 

    Some cynics would even argue that it surely can’t be a coincidence that the only time Madonna was ever recognized for her acting ability was thanks to the Golden Globes, as she won the award (in 1997) for Best Actress in a Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy for Evita. The HFPA had a less speculative case of being paid off for the 2011 Golden Globes, when both Burlesque and The Tourist managed to secure nominations in the Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy category. This despite Burlesque being a critical laughingstock (though, yes, it is lauded by those who appreciate camp) and the fact that The Tourist was a spy/action-adventure movie. Needless to say, HFPA members were cajoled into nominating these films thanks to getting “flewed out” to Las Vegas to see a Cher concert and a little personal lobbying from Angelina Jolie herself re: The Tourist

    At the end of 2020, amid then-fervent cries about changing Hollywood’s openly discriminatory practices as a result of the overall anti-racist spark ignited by George Floyd’s murder in May of that year, the Golden Globes were once again put on blast for a lack of Black members and generally arcane membership “policies.” So it was that, yet again, the awards ceremony was barred from being aired on television in 2022, with Tom Cruise going so far as to return the Golden Globes he won as a show of “solidarity” the year before. By 2023, the organization had been (theoretically) totally revamped, sold off to Eldridge Industries (also known for buying Dick Clark Productions) and repackaged as a for-profit entity with a larger and more “diverse” membership working behind the scenes to nominate people and the films they’re part of. Not only that, but as Robert Downey Jr. pointed out during his acceptance speech this year, the organization changed its name, doing away with the HFPA altogether. It also transitioned to a new network, swapping NBC out in favor of CBS, billed as the “less fun” of the Big Three broadcast networks (NBC, ABC and CBS). And, indeed, it didn’t seem like much fun for anyone when the last-minute host, Jo Koy (relatively unknown up until this moment), took the stage to deliver a monologue that induced cricket-chirping silence (though Taylor Swift really didn’t need to be so uppity about the harmless “difference between the NFL and Golden Globes” joke that Koy made). 

    Luckily, things picked up slightly as the evening wore on, and viral moments of levity were provided, including Jennifer Lawrence mouthing, “If I don’t win, I’m leaving” and what felt like two minutes of watching Timothée Chalamet (who, mercifully, did not win for Best Actor in Wonka) and Kylie Jenner “canoodling” and saying shit to the effect of, “No, I love you more.” It was pretty nasty (and not nearly as noteworthy as Ali Wong’s show of PDA with Bill Hader), but obviously the stuff of viral and meme gold. Even that “bit” between Kristen Wiig and Will Ferrell presenting the award for Best Actor in a Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy proved to, for whatever reason, endlessly charm audiences. Which proves that the Golden Globes isn’t quite yet the stodgy, irrelevant entity that people would like to make most long-running institutions out to be.

    That said, the presence of Taylor Swift and Billie Eilish (who also won the award for Best Original Song for “What Was I Made For?”) alone served as enough proof that the ceremony has carried on to subsequent generations. Even if only the most blanca and monoculture-oriented. But that didn’t stop the voters from doing their best to promote “inclusivity” in the lone manner they could: by giving the award for Best Actress in a Motion Picture – Drama to Lily Gladstone for her performance as Mollie Burkhart in Killers of the Flower Moon. Even if there were many Native Americans who weren’t quite as moved by the film as some of the white viewers who watched it (a phenomenon that also seemed to occur with 2016’s Moonlight). In truth, Gladstone’s capitulation to the proverbial white male as the teller of an Osage story can be viewed as at Native American version of the Uncle Tom trope. And yet, how else is a girl (or boy) supposed to get representation in mainstream Hollywood without “cozying up” a bit?

    This seemed to be the underlying theme of the night, with audience silence resounding well beyond the Jo Koy monologue in terms of nary a celebrity making any political statement. That’s right: for arguably the first time in history, celebrities at an awards ceremony were not feeling political. Almost as though to do so would be “too much” amid the tinderbox climate (figuratively and literally) of now. Particularly with regard to mentioning anything about Israel and Palestine. Which proves, once again, that Hollywood hypocrisy is alive and well no matter how much its awards ceremonies feign “evolution.” For how can an awards show really evolve if the industry itself hasn’t?

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Cineplex sees profit boost as Barbie, Oppenheimer create ‘unprecedented’ demand – National | Globalnews.ca

    Cineplex sees profit boost as Barbie, Oppenheimer create ‘unprecedented’ demand – National | Globalnews.ca

    Cineplex Inc.’s net income mushroomed to $176.5 million in its second quarter as “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” hit theatres and the cinema chain began preparing for a “Barbie” boost.

    The Toronto-based theatre giant said Thursday that its net income for the period ended June 30 towered over the $1.3 million it earned in the same period a year earlier.

    Ellis Jacob, Cineplex chief executive, attributed the lift to “the return of strong film product,” which came as the company and other theatre chains continued to rebound from the COVID-19 pandemic, which temporarily closed cinemas and slowed the flow of new releases.

    “Our business made tremendous strides during the quarter and that momentum continues,” he said on a Thursday call with analysts.


    Click to play video: '‘Barbenheimer’ provides boost to box office'


    ‘Barbenheimer’ provides boost to box office


    The biggest hit Cineplex had on offer in the second quarter was “The Super Mario Bros. Movie,” which set a record for the biggest opening for an animated film ever. Music screenings from BTS member Suga, Machine Gun Kelly and Coldplay and Punjabi films “Annhi Dea Mazaak Ae,” “Godday Godday Chaa” and “Jodi” also delivered audiences.

    Story continues below advertisement

    The lineup pushed up Cineplex’s second quarter revenues by 21 per cent to $423.1 million compared with $349.9 million the year before.

    However, box office revenues of $164.5 million remained at 79 per cent of 2019 levels, which reached $189.4 million.

    More progress may be made in the third quarter, which covers the July 21 releases of “Barbie,” the film starring Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling about the popular Mattel doll, and “Oppenheimer,” Christopher Nolan’s epic about the creation of the atomic bomb.


    Click to play video: 'Barbenheimer: ‘Barbie’ and ‘Oppenheimer’ raise the profile of each other in Edmonton'


    Barbenheimer: ‘Barbie’ and ‘Oppenheimer’ raise the profile of each other in Edmonton


    The dual releases dubbed “Barbenheimer” were a “cultural phenomenon,” Jacob said, with patrons dressing up and arriving early to take photos in a booth resembling a Barbie box.

    “The buzz around these films created an unprecedented box office and cultural event that transcended any streaming service experience by leaps and bounds,” he said.

    Story continues below advertisement

    Along with Tom Cruise’s “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One,” “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” brought Cineplex its highest July box office and its second-highest month on record, trailing December 2015, when “Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens” was released.


    Click to play video: 'Barbenheimer: ‘Barbie’ and ‘Oppenheimer’ hits movie theatres this weekend'


    Barbenheimer: ‘Barbie’ and ‘Oppenheimer’ hits movie theatres this weekend


    Some 6.8 million moviegoers visited Cineplex just last month compared with 12.8 million in the second quarter, up from almost 11.1 million a year ago.

    They helped the company notch theatre food service revenues of $118.0 million, an increase of $19.9 million or 20.3 per cent compared with the prior year, primarily due to a 15.5 per cent increase in theatre attendance.

    On an adjusted basis, Cineplex said its diluted earnings for the quarter hit $1.99 per share versus two cents per share a year prior, beating analyst expectations of 21 cents per share, according to financial markets firm Refinitiv.

    Story continues below advertisement


    Click to play video: '‘Barbenheimer’ craze puts film industry, fans into frenzy'


    ‘Barbenheimer’ craze puts film industry, fans into frenzy


    The results included expenses related to the failed sale of Cineplex to Cineworld Group PLC transaction. Cineworld walked away from a $2.18-billion deal to buy Cineplex in 2020, sparking a court battle over whether Cineworld had the right to exit the agreement.

    An Ontario court ruled in Cineplex’s favour in December 2021, awarding the company $1.24 billion in damages, but Cineworld said it would appeal the judgment, while Cineplex wanted to push for an even higher payout.

    Cineworld has since filed a proposed Chapter 11 plan of reorganization and Cineplex has said it does not expect to recover any material amount from its erstwhile suitor.

    “We are just as disappointed with the outcome as our shareholders, but I want you to know that we will work tirelessly to explore all options to optimize the value of the litigation judgment,” Jacob said.

    Story continues below advertisement

    “We will now put this chapter behind us.”

    Cineplex has also been grappling with a pair of strikes from the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists and the Writers Guild of America, which have halted film and television productions along with promotional work for completed movies.

    The cast of “Oppenheimer” walked out of their premiere in solidarity with striking workers, while Disney sent Mickey and Minnie Mouse, Maleficent and Cruella de Vil down the “Haunted Mansion” red carpet in lieu of stars Tiffany Haddish, Danny DeVito and Rosario Dawson.

    “Challengers,” the Zendaya-starring tennis film due to open the Venice Film Festival, has since had its release date pushed back because of the strikes.

    Cineplex is monitoring the job action “closely” and working with studio partners to minimize disruptions caused by the strikes, Jacob said.

    “I hope it’s a short-term situation, but I can’t really guarantee anything,” he said.

    Part of his confidence comes from streaming companies seeing “irreplaceable value” in theatrical releases.

    Jacob pointed to Apple’s future releases – Martin’s Scorsese’s “Killers of the Flower Moon” and Ridley Scott’s “Napoleon” – along with Amazon’s past debut of “Creed III” and “Air” as examples of their confidence in the model.

    &copy 2023 The Canadian Press

    Source link

  • ‘Barbenheimer’ Marketing Craze Criticized By Warner Bros. Japan

    ‘Barbenheimer’ Marketing Craze Criticized By Warner Bros. Japan

    Warner Bros. has apologized after its Japanese subsidiary criticized its parent company for engaging with the “Barbenheimer” marketing craze.

    While the quirky contrast between “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” was a recipe for box office magic when both films were released in the U.S. on July 21, people in Japan have called the mashup marketing push for the feminist comedy and atomic bomb origin story disrespectful, given the country’s history with nuclear weapons.

    On Monday, Warner Bros. Japan responded to backlash against “Barbenheimer” in a statement on Twitter, where they accused their U.S. counterpart of making light of J. Robert Oppenheimer’s work on the atomic bombs, which would destroy the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II.

    In its statement, Warner Bros. Japan called on its U.S. counterpart to “take appropriate action” on what they described as “highly regrettable” posts from official “Barbie” social media accounts.

    Barbie and Oppenheimer were both released on July 21.

    Warner Bros./Universal Pictures

    Several now-deleted replies to fan-created art appear to be at the center of Warner Bros. Japan’s complaint, which reminded readers that “Barbenheimer” is not an official Warner Bros. project. (“Oppenheimer,” meanwhile, belongs to Universal Pictures.)

    According to The New York Times, the official “Barbie” movie account joked about a fan-made image of Barbie with her hair coifed into the shape of an mushroom cloud in one since-removed Twitter reply. “This Ken is a stylist,” the account wrote back.

    In another now-deleted reply, the account responded to a fan’s edit of Barbie and Oppenheimer in front of flames saying, “It’s going to be a summer to remember.”

    Flocks of Japanese Twitter users responded with the hashtag #BarbieNoKen, which is a play on words that translates to “The Barbie Incident,” according to the Times. Others shared photos of victims’ bodies and flattened cities, while some vowed to boycott “Barbie” when it comes out on Aug. 11 in Japan.

    Warner Bros. apologized for the posts in a statement on Tuesday, telling the Times it “regrets its recent insensitive social media engagement” and offered “a sincere apology.”

    When asked about Japanese moviegoers’ reaction to “Barbenheimer,” Universal told the Times it was not aware of any controversy.

    While “Barbie” will be in Japanese theaters soon, “Oppenheimer” has yet to set a release date for the region.

    Though there has been some speculation the film will not screen in the country because of its sensitive subject matter, it is not uncommon for films to premiere in Japan long after their domestic debuts.

    Next week, Japan will mark 78 years since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It’s estimated the attacks killed as many as 240,000 people upon impact and in the months after.

    Source link

  • The Highs And Lows For Warner Bros.

    The Highs And Lows For Warner Bros.

    It’s no secret that Warner Bros’ hand in the Barbie movie provides them with the biggest box office success of the year. It’s already breaking records, pulling in over $300 million in its opening weekend, the biggest for a female director (in Greta Gerwig) ever. And it’s already garnering Oscar buzz. It went head-to-head with previous Warner Bros right-hand-director Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer and won decisively .


    People were calling Barbenheimer the biggest day for cinema since Christopher Nolan released
    The Dark Knight and Phyllida Lloyd opened Mamma Mia! on the same day in 2008. However, the magnitude of power both Barbie and Oppenheimer held on cinema-goers this weekend far outpaced that. And yet, you can’t help but notice a few key points Warner Bros is already having as a studio this year.

    With the failing world of DC Comics unable to compete with Disney’s
    Marvel, Warner Bros. faced major controversy by continuing production and promotion of The Flash. After star Ezra Miller was openly accused of grooming, kidnapping, delivering confusing open messages to the Ku Klux Klan, and being charged with disorderly conduct and harassment (to name only a few), Warner Bros. made the curious decision – keep them in the film entirely.

    The film (in simpler terms) flopped. Only bringing in $268 million through the box office,
    The Flash was ill-attended and ill-received. But that wasn’t all the production company faced this year.

    Christopher Nolan was Warner Bros. Golden Boy from 2002-2020 until he left and publicly condemned their hybrid release model. In response to the breakup, Warner Bros. put their top-budgeted film (with insane marketing) up against his 3-hour-long biopic that was only meant to be viewed in IMAX theaters. In other words, Nolan had no chance of winning.

    And while
    Barbie is one of the best films I’ve seen in forever, you can’t help but sense that there’s some deep drama underneath its glossy surface.

    Jai Phillips

    Source link

  • ‘Barbie’ surpasses ‘Mario’ as year’s biggest opening while ‘Oppenheimer’ soars past expectations too

    ‘Barbie’ surpasses ‘Mario’ as year’s biggest opening while ‘Oppenheimer’ soars past expectations too

    Barbenheimer” didn’t just work—it spun box office gold. The social media-fueled fusion of Greta Gerwig’s “ Barbie ” and Christopher Nolan’s “Oppenheimer” brought moviegoers back to the theaters in record numbers this weekend, vastly outperforming projections and giving a glimmer of hope to the lagging exhibition business, amid the sobering backdrop of strikes.

    Warner Bros.’ “Barbie” claimed the top spot with a massive $155 million in ticket sales from North American theaters from 4,243 locations, surpassing “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” (as well as every Marvel movie this year) as the biggest opening of the year and breaking the first weekend record for a film directed by a woman. Universal’s “Oppenheimer” also soared past expectations, taking in $80.5 million from 3,610 theaters in the U.S. and Canada, marking Nolan’s biggest non-Batman debut and one of the best-ever starts for an R-rated biographical drama.

    It’s also the first time that one movie opened to more than $100 million and another movie opened to more than $80 million in the same weekend. When all is settled, it will likely turn out to be the fourth biggest box office weekend of all time with over $300 million industrywide. And all this in a marketplace that increasingly curved towards intellectual property-driven winner takes all.

    The “Barbenheimer” phenomenon may have started out as good-natured competition between two aesthetic opposites, but, as many hoped, both movies benefitted in the end.

    The only real casualty was “Mission: Impossible: Dead Reckoning Part I,” which despite strong reviews and a healthy opening weekend fell 64% in weekend two. Overshadowed by the “Barbenheimer” glow as well as the blow of losing its IMAX screens to “Oppenheimer,” the Tom Cruise vehicle added $19.5 million, bringing its domestic total to $118.8 million.

    “Barbenheimer” is not merely counterprogramming either. But while a certain section of enthusiastic moviegoers overlapped, in aggregate the audiences were distinct.

    Women drove the historic “Barbie” opening, making up 65% of the audience, according to PostTrak, and 40% of ticket buyers were under the age of 25 for the PG-13 rated movie.

    Both “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” scored well with critics with 90% and 94% on Rotten Tomatoes, respectively, and audiences who gave both films an A CinemaScore. And social media has been awash with reactions and “takes” all weekend—good, bad, problematic and everywhere in between—the kind of organic, event cinema, watercooler debate that no marketing budget can buy.

    Subscribe to Well Adjusted, our newsletter full of simple strategies to work smarter and live better, from the Fortune Well team. Sign up today.

    Lindsey Bahr, The Associated Press

    Source link

  • ‘Barbenheimer’ Makes Noise As Movie Fans Flock To Theaters On Opening Weekend

    ‘Barbenheimer’ Makes Noise As Movie Fans Flock To Theaters On Opening Weekend

    NEW YORK (AP) — Waves of pink-clad moviegoers passed under cardboard palm trees on the frenzied first day of “Barbenheimer.”

    After a feverish drumbeat propelled forward by a mushroom cloud of memes, the most anticipated day on the year’s movie calendar finally arrived as “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” — two movie opposites brought together by cross-marketing fate — landed in theaters.

    “I think it’s the contrast,” said Lucy Ruiz, 17, as she and a friend made their way into the first showing of “Barbie” on Thursday at the Alamo Drafthouse in Yonkers, New York. “If you want to do both in the same day, it’s like two sides of the same coin.”

    For Ruiz, the second half of her “Barbenheimer” would have to wait. “Maybe next week,” she said of seeing “Oppenheimer.”

    But many are flocking to see both on opening weekend. The National Association of Theater Owners says some 200,000 moviegoers in North America have booked same-day tickets to each movie. The movie of the summer has turned out to be not “Indiana Jones” or “The Flash,” but a double feature.

    “I don’t think I’ve seen anything like this,” says Michael O’Leary, president of the theater association, who compared the phenomenon to a sold-out Taylor Swift concert tour. “But while that’s an amazing special event that captures the cultural attention, it’s not accessible to everybody the way these two movies are. This is a phenomenon open to everyone, regardless of where they live.”

    From left, Gabrielle Roitman, Kayla Seffing, Maddy Hiller and Casey Myer take a selfie in front of an “Oppenheimer” movie poster before they attended an advance screening of “Barbie” on Thursday in Los Angeles.

    As of Friday, it was already clear “Barbenheimer” had morphed into the movie event of the year. The collision of Greta Gerwig’s bright satire of the Mattel doll and Christopher Nolan’s three-hour opus on J. Robert Oppenheimer, the so-called father of the atomic bomb, wasn’t cannibalizing ticket sales for either but fueling excitement for the most jarring and color-clashing of movie weekends.

    Studios forecasts had hovered around an $80 million opening weekend for “Barbie” and about $40 million for “Oppenheimer.” But it’s likely that both will greatly exceed those totals, and maybe even — especially in the case of “Barbie” — double them.

    Warner Bros. said Friday that “Barbie” took in $22.5 million in Thursday previews, the best such tally of the year and a clear sign that the film will easily sail past $100 million for the weekend. Universal Pictures’ “Oppenheimer” notched $10.5 million in preshow ticket sales, a likewise strong start.

    “Barbenheimer” is poised to be not just a viral trend but a box-office behemoth. For a movie industry that still hasn’t entirely recovered its pre-pandemic footing, it’s a much-needed jolt of moviegoing joy in a summer season where many of the top releases have fallen shy of expectations. Overall sales on the year are running about 20% below the box-office pace of 2019.

    As much as the “Barbenheimer” fanfare has been driven by internet fascination, it’s in many ways an old-school movie weekend. Both movies are roundly acclaimed, original works by two of the best filmmakers working today. “Oppenheimer” has been hailed as a masterpiece; in my review, I called it “a kinetic thing of dark, imposing beauty.” The Associated Press’ Jocelyn Noveck called “Barbie” “brash, clever, idea-packed (if ultimately TOO packed) and most of all eye-poppingly lovely.”

    For some moviegoers, “Barbenheimer” is their first blush with the once common practice of catching a double feature. Jack Robinson, 17, had tickets to see both movies with friends Saturday. He planned to don a suit for “Oppenheimer” before changing into pink for “Barbie.”

    “I used to go to the movies a lot with my family and friends before corona happened. I’m very excited,” said Robinson. “It’ll be interesting to not leave the movie theater. Usually, it’s like bathroom and go home.”

    In recent years, theater owners have often bemoaned not having enough films in the marketplace as streaming made inroads and studios increasingly concentrated their release schedules on fewer but bigger films. But “Barbenheimer” points to the possible reward when a varied group of films collective rise the box-office tide.

    “Barbenheimer” may have momentarily eclipsed last week’s top film, “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One” — which, despite Tom Cruise’s lobbying, is losing IMAX screens to “Oppenheimer” this weekend. But having three big movies in close proximity to one other, O’Leary said, “is a good problem to have.”

    “It’s certainly preferable to the alternative,” said O’Leary.

    Parrot Analytics found that global demand for the casts of each film — all of whom have been publicly enthusiastic about seeing their rival movie — grew at virtually the same rate between late April and mid-July. The audience demographics are almost opposite one another. “Barbie” is appealing to a largely female and younger audience, while “Oppenheimer” is most popular with males and those over the age of 30, Parrot found.

    Yet in a much-divided America, “Barbenheimer” has been the great pop-culture unifier of 2023. There is harmony in contrast.

    “I’m doing ‘Barbie’ first and then ‘Oppenheimer’ because I know ‘Oppenheimer’ is going to be something I have to digest,” says Jill Kupnick of Brooklyn.

    Movie theaters are catering to the “Barbenheimer” phenomenon with double feature tickets and plenty of “Barbie”-themed promotions of candy and cocktails. But most are programming their own “Barbenheimer” days. Freelance writer Kelsey Weekman called it “the closest we’ve come to having school spirit week as adults.”

    “I have a friend who has outfits picked out and knows how she’s styling her hair,” Krupnick says. “There’s a level of play involved that you rarely see in more mainstream cinema. It’s more common with Marvel movies or in the fantasy genre than something like this.”

    “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” have melded together so much that it’s become possible — despite their vast differences — to confuse one for the other. At the Yonkers Alamo Drafthouse, a sharply dressed man wearing a pink shirt beneath a blazer inquired about showtimes for “Oppenheimer.”

    A clerk courteously answered and then, noticing the man’s attire, asked, “Did you want times for ‘Barbie,’ too?”

    Follow AP Film Writer Jake Coyle on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/jakecoyleAP

    Source link

  • Barbie VS Oppenheimer: Best Fan-made posters of Barbenheimer online

    Barbie VS Oppenheimer: Best Fan-made posters of Barbenheimer online





    Barbie and Oppenheimer are two distinct films that are released today. Many people on social media have started new memes regarding which movie to go two. Many have also started the trend of Barbenheimer.

    Barbie movie stars Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling and is the first live-action Barbie film. While Cillian Murphy essays the titular role of American astrophysicist Robert Oppenheimer who invented the atomic bomb in Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer.

    Here are some of the fan-made posters of Barbenheimer making a buzz on social media.

    Barbenheimer Barbenheimer Barbenheimer

    1/14

    Barbenheimer Barbenheimer Barbenheimer

    2/14

    Barbenheimer Barbenheimer Barbenheimer

    3/14

    Barbenheimer Barbenheimer Barbenheimer

    4/14

    Barbenheimer Barbenheimer Barbenheimer

    5/14

    Barbenheimer Barbenheimer Barbenheimer

    6/14

    Barbenheimer Barbenheimer Barbenheimer

    7/14

    Barbenheimer Barbenheimer Barbenheimer

    8/14

    Barbenheimer Barbenheimer Barbenheimer

    9/14

    Barbenheimer Barbenheimer Barbenheimer

    10/14

    Barbenheimer Barbenheimer Barbenheimer

    11/14

    Barbenheimer Barbenheimer Barbenheimer

    12/14

    Barbenheimer Barbenheimer Barbenheimer

    13/14

    Barbenheimer Barbenheimer Barbenheimer

    14/14

    Filmfare

    Source link

  • The Massive Wikipedia War Over Barbenheimer, Explained

    The Massive Wikipedia War Over Barbenheimer, Explained

    Earlier this month, someone created a Wikipedia page for Barbenheimer, the internet phenomenon inspired by the simultaneous release of Greta Gerwig’s Barbie and Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer, two highly anticipated movies with rave reviews that are expected to bring in millions at the box office this summer. The creation of the Wikipedia page was followed by weeks of debate about how the page should be organized, where it should live, what images should be included, if Barbie’s full name needed to be a part of it, and if all of this should just be deleted.

    For those of you who have been living under a rock, Barbenheimer is an online meme referencing the fact that the Barbie movie and Oppenheimer were released in theaters on the same day, July 21. While it has certainly picked up steam in the last few weeks, the actual origins of the meme date back to April 2022, when WB Discovery announced that the then-upcoming Barbie film would be released on July 21, 2023. Internet users quickly noticed that was the same release date for Oppenheimer and soon began making jokes about seeing the two movies on the same day. From there, fan art, custom t-shirts, and poster mash-ups were created and spread all over social media. Even actors involved with the films have acknowledged Barbenheimer.

    So, a pop culture phenomenon of Barbenheimer proportions certainly warrants a Wikipedia page. I mean, it’s not like the creation of this page would lead to an online war, right?

    The Barbenheimer Wikipedia page leads to an online war

    On July 1, Wikipedia user Freoh created a redirect for Barbenheimer. Anyone who searched Wikipedia for the online phenomenon would be “redirected” to the Oppenheimer film article. A few minutes later, Freoh changed their mind and redirected users to the Barbie movie page instead. According to Freoh, the reason for the change was that it seemed like “the Barbie movie people have embraced it more.”

    A few hours later, Wikipedia user Manasbose got involved. This user didn’t think the meme should be a redirect. Instead, they thought it deserved its very own Wikipedia page. So they quickly created one and started to expand on it. As pointed out by the Twitter account, Depths of Wikipedia, the first hours of the Barbenheimer page were wild. In its infancy, the page suggested that “Oppenbarbie” was a common alternative name for the meme. For the next few hours, it was mostly just Manasbose and some other users editing and expanding the page.

    Then more users got involved. On July 10, user Shmoovyshlasagna removed the alt name Oppenbarbie and added a comment that “nobody cool” says that. “That shit scrapes my whole mouth,” said Shmoovyshlasagna. “Barbenheimer rolls smoothly. Think about it.”

    At this point, the page was growing fast, with lots of edits being made, sections being changed, entire parts of it being deleted, and then all of it changed again by dozens of users. Some wanted Pikmin 4 thrown into the mix, as it also was set to launch on July 21. Some wanted better, less ugly images of Barbie. And some wanted it all gone.

    The attempted assassination of Barbenheimer

    On July 11, user InfiniteNexus nominated the Barbenheimer page for deletion. They explained that they weren’t sure why this article was created, suggesting this was just one of the dozens of viral memes that pop up every year. They believed that the page didn’t need to exist and instead, a short section about the phenomenon could be included in the articles about the films Barbie and Oppenheimer

    “It is unlikely that this topic will receive significant, sustained coverage,” said InfiniteNexus. “And even if it does, it is too early to tell at this stage, when neither film has even been released.”

    When an article on Wikipedia is nominated for deletion, other users weigh in on the matter and vote for what they think should happen next. Many times, these conversations aren’t too intense or lengthy. This is some really behind-the-scenes, deep-in-the-bowels of Wikipedia shit that most people who use the site never engage with or think about.

    But that wasn’t the case this time. Instead, the request for deletion page for Barbenheimer exploded.

    Some editors cited the 20-Year Test, an old Wikipedia standard that suggests only things that will be remembered or understood in 20 years should receive articles. They believed this online meme didn’t pass the test and that in a few years, nobody would care about the Barbenheimer phenomenon.

    However, the vast majority of Wikipedia editors involved disagreed and began voting en masse to keep the page alive. Many cited that Barbenheimer had grown beyond a simple internet meme and was actually affecting ticket sales, was being talked about by Hollywood stars, and was being reported on by reputable outlets like Variety, IGN, etc. Others also pointed out that there was too much information in the article to simply dump it all into the Barbie and Oppenheimer movie pages. And in the future, the Barbenheimer page could even provide useful information and context for researchers looking to better understand the whole phenomenon.

    After five days, nearly 100 different editors voted and only about 20 suggested the page be deleted or merged into the main films’ articles. In comparison, most deletion debates only get a dozen or so votes and often end in the page being killed. But not this time. On July 16, after thousands of words had been written across multiple sections of Wikipedia’s often unseen bureaucratic channels, Barbenheimer was allowed to live.

    The continued war over Barbie and Oppenheimer’s meme page

    Though the war over the page’s existence was settled, people weren’t done fighting.

    A quick peek at Barbeheimer’s talk page (a more behind-the-scenes forum where editors discuss changes and tweaks) reveals various debates about the article.

    For example, there was a lot of controversy over including Barbie’s full name in the caption below the page’s top photo. This eventually evolved into people suggesting the caption should also include Oppenheimer’s full name and nickname, Oppie, too. Another debate happened over which photo of Barbie should even be used in the article.

    Read More: Before Barbenheimer, There Was Doom Eternal And Animal Crossing

    Things have finally calmed down over on the Barbenheimer Wikipedia page after weeks of arguments. Most of the recent edits are minor, fixing typos, adding new links, or rearranging sentences.

    However, the war is likely not over—some of the editors involved with the page’s deletion nomination suggested they might return to the debate in a few months, assuming nobody will care by then.

    But I know the internet. I know Wikipedia editors. Someone will still care. And nobody is going to give up an inch on this digital battlefield, even if it means fighting for months or years over a page about a silly meme.

    .

    Zack Zwiezen

    Source link

  • Blow Up the Patriarchy, Or: The Barbenheimer Experience

    Blow Up the Patriarchy, Or: The Barbenheimer Experience

    Perhaps what they don’t warn you about with regard to “the Barbenheimer experience” is just how jarring it actually is. Certainly, that’s the entire “point” of pairing these two films together, the reason the internet has gone apeshit: because they’re so “divergent.” In fact, the phenomenon has proven to be such an excitement to people that they’ve gone “through the archives” to find similar instances of unlikely movie pairings released the same week. Such examples include Jumanji and Heat, The Matrix and 10 Things I Hate About You and The Dark Knight and Mamma Mia! It’s really only the latter example (complete with also featuring a Christopher Nolan movie) that comes vaguely close to capturing the sort of genre/color palette dichotomy that Barbie and Oppenheimer do. But, on a deeper level than that, watching Oppenheimer the same day or week serves as an even more blatant method for underscoring the horrifying patriarchal system that Barbie does. 

    In Oppenheimer’s case, of course, it’s unintentional. Because never was patriarchy in America at its strongest and most accepted than in the mid-twentieth century. Nor could Nolan have planned for a movie about garden-variety male toxicity to have coincided so seamlessly with an actual moviegoing trend/phenomenon. The pairing of these two films fundamentally speaking to how patriarchy destroys lives in far more literal ways than figurative ones. While Barbie (Margot Robbie) at least gets to experience life as it should be under matriarchy in Barbie Land, maybe it’s almost worse to know what that sense of peace and freedom is like only to be forced to enter Real World territory, where males rule with an iron/button-pushing (a bomb allusion) fist. 

    Upon seeing how things are done in Real World, Ken (Ryan Gosling) decides he can no longer be subjected to the “tyranny” of matriarchal dominance. Of being unable to force a Barbie to do anything he wants them to (i.e., return his affection), least of all the specific one he’s pining over. Because, in Barbie Land, men a.k.a. Kens are just background. In J. Robert Oppenheimer’s (Cillian Murphy) world, it’s women who are very much peripheral, serving only as vague sexual impressions. Yet there’s never any issue with making a woman “his.” Except his on-again, off-again paramour, Jean Tatlock (Florence Pugh). Unfortunately for Oppenheimer, she’s the type of “Berkeley free spirit” who can never seem to be pinned down. Oppenheimer’s eventual wife, Katherine (Emily Blunt), on the other hand, is only too eager to take a fourth husband in “Oppi.” 

    And yet, for as important as these women are in Oppenheimer’s life (not to mention being the only sign of women anywhere within this filmic landscape), they’re really just cursory and occasional “presences” that only interrupt the “real” work he’s doing. The truly “significant” aspect of his life. Which becomes helping male politicians destroy the world in the name of war. With Oppenheimer himself growing (like a mushroom cloud) so consumed and titillated by the resources (financial or otherwise) the government provides him with in the name of scientific research, he loses sight of the monster he’s actually creating. Perhaps as Ruth Handler (Rhea Perlaman) once did as well. Not knowing that the woman she unleashed onto the world—the one quite literally made to show girls that they could be anything—only served to further highlight all the things they would never be, both body-wise and career-wise. Therefore, Handler ended up actually accenting a more palpable and depressing divide between reality and what should be…as opposed to conjuring a beacon of hope and feminism in Barbie. And yes, it bears noting that, despite all her evolutions, Mattel has never seen fit to release a “Body Positivity” Barbie. Maybe because they know just how hollow that would come across at this juncture. Though false intentions never stopped a capitalist from trying to make a fast buck. In short, to capitalize

    Obviously, Handler and Oppenheimer are by no means comparable for what they created—though each one did offer up, in some sense, a kind of Frankenstein. Gerwig appears to know that only too well by making Handler a prominent character in Barbie. A conceit that might seem a bit out of left field to some, but is actually entirely appropriate considering she was the brainchild behind Mattel’s best-selling and most iconic toy. And it’s cruelly ironic that Handler’s “ghost” should be left to haunt the seventeenth floor of corporate headquarters while the suits with no insight into women benefit from her invention. For yes, she was eventually forced to resign from Mattel in 1974 after the taxman cracked down on her for false financial reporting (something Gerwig refers to with a joke that Ruth herself makes in the movie).

    Difficulty getting along with the government appears to be a common characteristic in those who simply want to create. For Oppenheimer, too, was viewed with malice and contempt by the very political machine that was dependent upon him for developing an atomic weapon. One that turned out, in the end, to be rather needless as Japan would have surely surrendered without it. But such is the nature of patriarchy, with every man “in charge” needing to prove that his power is authoritative and incontrovertible by swinging his dick around while lives hang in the balance. 

    Oppenheimer makes that disgustingly clear when Henry L. Stimson (James Remar), the Secretary of War at the time, decides they shouldn’t bomb Kyoto because he and his wife honeymooned there and it’s a “lovely” place that has cultural value not just to him, but the Japanese. In other words, fuck those arbitrary shitholes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. To see a scene like this play out is indicative of just how damaging patriarchy is, for it is a system run by a gender that thrives on violence, ego and heartless decision-making. A gender that proves, ultimately, gender is no illusion; for this particular one feeds on destruction, whereas the female one is founded metaphorically and literally on creation. The great yin and yang endeavors of each type of being. 

    So yes, more than merely a means to appreciate the contrasting cinematography styles of Hoyte van Hoytema and Rodrigo Prieto, the Barbenheimer experience does feel somehow essential. Like it shouldn’t get reduced to being categorized as “frivolous pandering to internet tastemaking,” but rather, seen as a brutal and unique way to watch how patriarchy upends male and female lives alike on a daily basis. All because someone wanted to prove he has clout and “intelligence.” Though the dumbest thing of all is to assume that one has any significance whatsoever in the grand scheme. 

    Especially a grand scheme that might now invariably include going “kabluey” because a man wanted to show off the prowess of his mind knowing full well that said result would be used for evil. Indeed, quoting from a Hindu scripture, Oppenheimer would say of his creation, “Now I am become Death, destroyer of worlds.” In some sense, Barbie destroyed worlds as well. Bringing “fire” to the “cavewomen” who were still stuck playing with (read: playing at mothering) baby dolls throughout their childhood. Accordingly, this is the very scene Greta Gerwig rightly chooses to commence Barbie with. And would that playing with/learning to emulate a “slutty” doll was the most affronting and harmful thing a man (/man-boy) ever did. 

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Asteroid City: Wes Anderson’s “Sci-Fi” Movie Is About A Collective and Resigned Sense of Doom More Than It Is 50s Americana

    Asteroid City: Wes Anderson’s “Sci-Fi” Movie Is About A Collective and Resigned Sense of Doom More Than It Is 50s Americana

    A palpable shift has occurred in Wes Anderson’s style and tone since the release of 2021’s The French Dispatch. One doesn’t want to use a cliché like “mature” to describe what’s been happening since that perceptible tonal pivot in his filmography, so perhaps the better way to “define” what’s happening to Anderson and his storytelling is that it’s gotten, as Cher Horowitz would note, “Way existential.” Not to say there wasn’t that element to some degree in previous films, but now, it’s amplified—ratcheted up to a maximum that was never there before. Some might proffer it’s because Anderson has transitioned to a new era of his life, therefore possesses a greater concern with mortality; others could posit that our world and society has become so fragile in the years since 2020, that even privileged white men have been rattled by it enough to let it color their work. Whatever the case, the increased focus on mortality and “the meaning of life” in Anderson’s oeuvre is no surprise considering one of his greatest directorial influences is Woody Allen. Yes, he might be cancelled, but that doesn’t change the effect he’s had on Anderson.

    Of course, Anderson has managed to take the puerility of Allen’s lead characters and render them “quirky,” “oddball” and “postmodern” instead. What’s more, Anderson has the “marketing sense” not to make his characters come across as “too Jewy,” lest it “scandalize” the often white bread audiences he tends to attract. Some might argue that Asteroid City is his whitest offering yet—which is really saying something. And yes, like Allen, Anderson has begun to favor the “screenwriting technique” of setting his movies in the past, so as not to have to deal with the “vexing” and “unpleasant” complications of trying to address post-woke culture in his casting and narrative decisions. Defenders of Anderson would bite back by remarking that the director creates alternate worlds in general, and should be left to do his own thing without being subjected to the “moral” and “ethical” issues presented by “modern filmmaking requirements.” For the most part, that’s remained the case, even as occasional hemming-and-hawing about his “movies so white” shtick crops up when he releases a new film. But to those who will follow Anderson anywhere, the trip to Asteroid City does prove to be worth it. If for no other reason than to show us the evolution of an auteur when he’s left alone, permitted to be creative without letting the outside voices and noise fuck with his head.

    In many regards, the “town” (or rather, desert patch with a population of eighty-seven) is a representation of the same bubble Anderson exists in whenever he writes and directs something. To the point of writing, Anderson returns to the meta exploration of what it means to create on the page (as he did for The French Dispatch), anchored by the playwright Conrad Earp (Edward Norton). Although he’s not one of the more heavily featured characters, without him, none of the characters we’re seeing perform a televised production of Asteroid City would exist. If that sounds too meta already, it probably is. With the host (Bryan Cranston) of an anthology TV series serving as our guide, the movie commences in black and white as he stares into the camera and proceeds to do his best impersonation of Rod Serling at the beginning of The Twilight Zone. Indeed, it’s clear Anderson wants to allude to these types of TV anthology series that were so popular in the post-war Golden Age of Television. And even on the radio, as Orson Welles showcased in 1938, with his adaptation of The War of the Worlds. A broadcast that caused many listeners to panic about an alien invasion, unaware that it wasn’t real. In fact, Cranston as the host is sure to forewarn his viewers, “Asteroid City does not exist. It is an imaginary drama created expressly for this broadcast.” That warning comes with good reason, for people in the 50s were easily susceptible to being bamboozled by whatever was presented to them on the then-new medium of TV. Because, “If it’s on TV, it must be true.” And the last thing anyone wanted to believe—then as much as now—is that there could be life on other planets. Sure, it sounds “neato” in theory, but, in reality, Earthlings are major narcissists who want to remain the lone “stars” of the interplanetary show.

    Set in September of 1955, Asteroid City centers its narrative on a Junior Stargazer convention, where five students will be honored for their excellence in astronomy and astronomy-related innovations. Among those five are Woodrow (Jake Ryan), Shelly (Sophia Lillis), Ricky (Ethan Josh Lee), Dinah (Grace Edwards) and Clifford (Aristou Meehan). It’s Woodrow who arrives to town first, courtesy of his war photographer father, Augie Steenbeck (Jason Schwartzman). Although they’ve arrived to their destination, Augie still has to take the broken-down car to the mechanic (Matt Dillon). After much fanfare and tinkering, The Mechanic concludes that the car is kaput. Augie decides to phone his father-in-law, Stanley Zak (Tom Hanks), to come pick up Woodrow and Augie’s three daughters, Andromeda (Ella Faris), Pandora (Gracie Faris) and Cassiopeia (Willan Faris). Stanley doesn’t immediately agree, instead opting to remind Augie that he was never good enough for his daughter (played briefly, in a way, by Margot Robbie) and that he ought to tell his children that their mother died. Three weeks ago, to be exact. But withholding this information is just one of many ways in which Augie parades his emotional stuntedness. Something that ultimately enchants Hollywood actress Midge Campbell (Scarlett Johansson), who also happens to be the mother of another Junior Stargazer, Dinah.

    All the while, the vibrant, almost fake-looking set seems there solely to reiterate that all vibrancy is belied by something darker beneath it. That was never truer than in postwar America. And talking of vibrant cinematography and explosions, if Barbie’s color palette had a baby with Oppenheimer’s explosive content, you’d get Asteroid City (which, again, features Margot “Barbie” Robbie herself). With regard to explosions, it bears noting that the intro to the movie includes a train plugging along, bound for Asteroid City carrying all manner of bounty: avocados, pecans and, oh yes, a ten-megaton nuclear warhead with the disclaimer: “Caution: DO NOT DETONATE without Presidential Approval.” So much about that wide array of “transported goods” speaks to the very dichotomy of American culture. Priding itself on being a land of plenty while also doing everything in its power to self-destruct all that natural wealth. What’s more, the presence of hazardous material on trains is only too relevant considering the recent tragedy that befell East Palestine, Ohio. And yet, these are the sorts of environmentally-damaging behaviors that were set in motion in the postwar economic boom of America. Complete with the “miracle” of Teflon.

    Accordingly, it’s no coincidence that as the “progress” associated with modern life accelerated at a rate not seen since the first Industrial Revolution, some were concerned about the potential fallout of such “development.” After all, with technological advancement could arise as many inconveniences as conveniences (see also: AI). For those who came of age after the so-called war to end all wars, a natural skepticism vis-à-vis “advancement” was also to be expected. Perhaps the fear of modern existence, with all the implications of war and invasion being “leveled up” due to “better” technology (i.e., the atomic bomb), planted the seed of suddenly seeing flying saucers all the time starting in the 40s and 50s. A phenomenon that many government officials were keen to write off as being somehow related to atomic testing (this being why the Atomic Age is so wrapped up in the alien sightings craze of the 50s). The sudden collective sightings might also have been a manifestation of the inherent fear of what all this “progress” could do. Especially when it came to increasing the potential for interplanetary contact. For it was also in the 50s that the great “space race” began—spurred by nothing more than the competitive, dick-swinging nature of the Cold War between the U.S. and USSR. That was all it took to propel a “they’re among us” and “hiding in plain sight” mentality, one that was frequently preyed upon by the U.S. government via the Red Scare. Such intense fear- and paranoia-mongering does fuck with the mind, you know. Enough to make it see things that may or may not really be there (literally and figuratively). The term “alien,” therefore, meaning “foreigner” or “other” as much as extraterrestrial as the 50s wore on.

    So it was that Americans did what they always do best with fear: monetize it! To be sure, Asteroid City itself only exists to commodify the terror of an asteroid hitting Earth and leaving such a great impact thousands of years ago. Then, when news of an alien infiltrating the Junior Stargazer convention leaks, a fun fair materializes to sell merch (“Alien Gifts Sold Here”) related to commemorating the “event.” As such, the train that goes to Asteroid City suddenly becomes the “Alien Special” and there’s now “Alien Parking,” as well as signs declaring, “Asteroid City U.F.O.” and “Spacecraft Sighting.” With this American zeal for exploitation in mind, plus the alien element, there’s even a certain Nope vibe at play throughout Asteroid City as well. And a dash of Don’t Worry Darling, to boot. Mainly because of the unexplained sonic booms that go on in the background while the housewives are trying to kiki.

    Anderson extracts the paranoia element that might have been present in films of the day (like Flying Saucers Attack!) and instead relates the discovery of an alien life form to the added feeling of being insignificant as a human in this universe. To highlight that point, J.J. Kellogg (Liev Schreiber), father to Junior Stargazer Clifford, demands of his son’s escalating antics related to performing unasked dares, “Why do you always have to dare something?” He replies meekly, “I don’t know. Maybe it’s because I’m afraid otherwise nobody’ll notice my existence in the universe.” To be sure, the reason most people behave obnoxiously is to get the kind of attention that will convince themselves they matter. They mean something in this grand abyss.

    Even Midge, a movie star, feels mostly unseen. So when Augie takes her picture in such an intimate way, she can’t help but feel allured by him. Seen by him. That, in the end, is what everyone wants. In the spirit of alluding to 50s Americana, Midge herself seems to be a loose representation of Marilyn Monroe, also prone to pills and alcohol, and constantly referred to as a brilliant comedienne despite flying under the radar as such. Then there’s another six degrees of Marilyn separation when Willem Dafoe appears as Saltzburg Keitel, an overt homage to Elia Kazan and his Actors Studio—a version of which we see when Earp shows up to a class to try to get insight on how to convey a certain scene. And yes, the concern with whether or not the acting in the play is being done “right” keeps coming up, reaching a crest as a metaphor for what Asteroid City is all about: what is anyone’s place in the universe? Does any of it mean anything? So yeah, again with the Woody Allen influence.

    Toward the end of the play/movie, Jones Hall, the actor playing Augie, asks Schubert Green (Adrien Brody), the director, “Do I just keep doing it?” He could be asking about his performance as much as his very existence itself. Schubert assures, “Yes.” Jones continues, “Without knowing anything? Isn’t there supposed to be some kind of answer out there in the cosmic wilderness?” When Jones then admits, “I still don’t understand the play,” that phrase “the play” doubles just as easily for “life.” Schubert insists, “Doesn’t matter. Just keep telling the story.” In other words, just keep rolling the dice and living as though any of it means anything at all.

    And maybe nihilism, for some people, is part of compartmentalizing that meaninglessness. This much appears to be the case for Midge, who tells Augie stoically, “I think I know now what I realize we are… Two catastrophically wounded people who don’t express the depths of their pain because…we don’t want to. That’s our connection.” But a connection is a connection—and that’s all anyone on Earth is really looking—starving—for…no matter how many decades fly by and how many according “advancements” are made. It’s likely the convention-interrupting alien could sense and see that desperation among the humans during his brief landing.

    So it is that Augie tells Midge afterward, “I don’t like the way that guy looked at us, the alien.” Midge inquires, “How did he look?”  “Like we’re doomed.” Midge shrugs, “Maybe we are.” “Maybe” being a polite euphemism for “definitely.” But even though we are, maybe the art will make sense of it all in the end. Even if only to “just keep telling the story.” For posterity. For whoever—or whatever—might come across the ruins and relics in the future. Hopefully, they’ll learn from the mistakes that we ourselves didn’t.

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link