How a metaphysical matriarchy aggrieved a petulant patriarchy

By Mia Oliva mfoliva@my.loyno.edu

In spite of being long overdue, Greta Gerwig has become the rst female director with a billion-dollar lm under her belt.

“Barbie” has been the highlight of the summer, drawing discourse from far-right and leftist media platforms alike. While some claim it was “anti-man” feminist propaganda, others believe it was an existentialist commentary on the transition from girlhood to womanhood. I can wholeheartedly say that I’m in complete agreement with the latter viewpoint.

Stereotypical Barbie (Margot Robbie) lives her pristine day-to-day life in Barbieland with Ken (Ryan Gosling) and a myriad of other Barbie and Ken variants. From one day to the next, Barbie develops an awakening desire for purpose and self-ful llment. She makes a visit to Weird Barbie (Kate McKinnon), who informs her that she must visit the real world in order to uncover the truth she seeks.

Even though I went in with a preconceived notion of the lm’s excellence based on Gerwig’s previous work, “Barbie” exceeded my expectations in every way. Gerwig’s ability to weave and intertwine elements of the human experience through the lens of female autonomy never ceases to amaze me.

Gerwig presented audiences with a light hearted, sentimental depiction of what it is to be a woman and how inherent societal structures and ideologies often limit us.

Nonetheless, “Barbie” received backlash for all sorts of reasons. Primarily for its feminist themes and commentary on patriarchy. However, it seems those who were vexed by this lm lack a fair amount of media literacy.

“Barbie” turns the table in terms of narrative and in regard to gender roles throughout the history of cinema.

“Women in Refrigerators” is a trope that was generated by writer Simone Gail which places emphasis on the recurrence of female characters being portrayed as assets to their male counterparts. A student writer for the Women’s Center worded it best; “Utilizing female characters as assets to their male counterparts contributes to the sexism women are subjected to their entire lives. Young girls or women who consume this media get the impression that they are only a mere accessory to the plot rather than an in uential factory in the story."

All “Barbie” did was ip the script, yet men with fragile masculinity still managed to be upset with the lm and its premise. Imagine how tired we are, as women, who have been complacent and have kept silent for decades when we’re depicted as nothing more than a looming shadow, a supporting character.

Ken stands as a metaphor that patriarchy fails to uplift men and women all the same.

While it's more transparent as to how it a ects women, it's still dismissive of men by subconsciously insinuating that boys don't need a doll to show them that they can be astronauts, doctors, politicians, authors, and so on. ey have historical gures, status quo, and the upper hand in one of the world’s most dominant countries. For over three centuries, the head of the country has been a male. Not once has a woman been granted this utmost position of power. e issue is that most men would rather be perceived as immoral than subsidiary, and that is the poison that the patriarchy has perpetuated since the beginning of time. As the saying goes, “when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression”.

All in all, “Barbie” was a candycolored masterpiece with a stellar cast, phenomenal writing, and an intricate narrative that appeals to audiences of all ages. ere’s talk of a sequel and I couldn’t be more delighted to see what Gerwig makes of it.

“Barbie” is now playing in theaters.

be, for we see the perspective of those alive who are experiencing this event, rather than an objective view. Plus, witnessing gory detailed shots of nuclear victims doesn’t t the tone of this lm and would be ultimately jarring for audiences in this case.

By Arianna D'Antonio asdanton@my.loyno.edu

A star-studded cast, backed by Christopher Nolan, had audiences expecting a box o ce success. But what sets this lm apart from the rest of the biopics that have been taking over the industry in the past few years?

“Oppenheimer” and “Barbie” both premiered on July 21. However, nothing really ties these two lms together besides the fact that their portrayals are polar opposites. is phenomenon led to over $235 million in sales for domestic box o ces, helping movie theaters make the ultimate comeback ever since their decline during COVID-19.

But could “Oppenheimer”, an intense 3-hour lm about the Father of the Atomic Bomb, compete with a philosophical, cult classic-type like Barbie?

e answer is yes.

Cillian Murphy, known for several other Christopher Nolan lms such as “Dunkirk” and “ e Dark Knight,” brings this lm home with extensive character research and stellar acting choices. In an interview, Murphy said that he learned at least 30,000 words of Dutch for a single scene in the lm. He also lost an immense amount of weight to appear more like the real J. Robert Oppenheimer.

As with any Christopher Nolan lm, “Oppenheimer” is eshed out and detailed. Nolan is known for aptly focusing on his starring roles and captivating audiences with the depiction of their internal thoughts and feelings.

is is best shown in “Oppenheimer” as we see Murphy experiencing severe internal anxiety and moral dilemma from the decisions he, as Oppenheimer, has made. e clapping audio that increasingly intensi es is later revealed as the crowd clapping for Oppenheimer while he gives a speech following the Japan bombings.

is lm’s subtlety is just as compelling as its story. A good example is how the lm – like the book its is based o of – recounts the bombing announcement through the radio, rather than with visualization of the bombings. e only visualization we are given is much later in the lm during Oppenheimer’s major hallucination during his speech, where he sees a burn victim and a young woman mourning over her dead partner.

e destruction being represented this way was more impactful than multiple shots of mass death could ever e perspective changing between black-and-white and color was one of the most apparent aspects of the lm. e black-and-white represents objective perspective whereas the color represents subjective. We see this di erence re ected in the characters as well. Strauss sees the world in black and white, whereas Oppenheimer sees the possibilities of the world in a more colorful perspective. e fact that audience members can go home and debate the meaning of the use of black and white versus color only adds to the subtle avor that Nolan weaves throughout this lm.

Another example of subtlety is the rst conversation between Oppenheimer and Einstein (Tom Conti) witnessed by Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr.). We, like Strauss, are unable to hear what the two are conversing about. But, this scene launches the catalyst of distrust that Strauss has for Oppenheimer, following the smart comment Oppenheimer made about Strauss’s upbringing.

By the end of the lm, we nd out that this conversation had nothing to do with Strauss, but are we as an audience feeling the way Strauss felt? Now that we understand what was being said, do we have more trust for Oppenheimer?

By the end of the lm, are we on Oppenheimer’s side? We have witnessed several perspectives that allow us to sympathize with him and others that make us question his motives.