Barbenheimer Weekend: A Lesson in Moviegoing
Saturday, July 22nd. 5:30 pm. “Oppenheimer” flashes on the screen at the TCL Chinese Theater. The lights slowly turn on, and I leave my seat, blinking. I finally finished the second film of my Barbenheimer double feature. “Barbenheimer”- the portmanteau coined to describe the coupled release of Barbie and Oppenheimer. When I learned that Greta Gerwig and Christopher Nolan were releasing films on the same day, I planned to watch them back to back. Suffice it to say, Barbenheimer was my Super Bowl (even though the Super Bowl also tends to be my Super Bowl.)
So when I emerged from Oppenheimer feeling simultaneously overwhelmed and numb, I was disappointed. I couldn’t speak. But not because the movie left me speechless, but because I hadn’t digested the 3-hour spectacle I just saw. Sure, I watched it. The images flashed before my eyes. But I saw nothing besides Cillian Murphy’s gorgeous eyes and sparks streaking across the screen.
So, as Hillary Clinton asked so courageously in 2016, what happened? Did the industry I love so deeply and the day I anticipated so greatly let me down?
Wednesday, July 25th. 2:30 pm. Three Days Later. I sped down the 170 Freeway through the Hollywood Hills. Universal Studios’ one-eyed Minion peered at me as I rushed to make my 3 p.m. screening. Oppenheimer Round 2. I snagged a ticket the day before to the only showing in IMAX 70mm I could attend before returning to Washington, D.C. For those who don’t know, IMAX 15 70mm is known to be “the highest quality image format ever devised,” featuring scenes that “expand images up to a 1.43:1 aspect ratio,” meaning that the picture fills the entire screen.1 This unique format is how Christopher Nolan shot the film and intends for it to be viewed. The problem is that only nineteen theaters in the country have the technology required to show the film in this format. The closest of these theaters to Washington, D.C. is in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. I don’t know where that is, and I don’t plan on finding out. So a sold-out matinee showing at the Chinese Theater on a Wednesday in Los Angeles would have to do.
But this time, I was prepared. I hadn’t just sat through a two-hour screening of Barbie. I didn’t have corner seats in the third row. I had middle seats in the fifth row. And I knew what to expect. I was familiar with Oppenheimer’s breakneck pace and unique structure. I was ready to go. And when the movie concluded and the title flashed on the screen at 5:30 pm, I left the theater, transported into the chaotic mind of a troubled genius and transfixed by the world he created.
Greta Gerwig brings to life a plastic world to communicate the challenges of being defined by a set of rules you didn’t create and the empowerment that comes from escaping the box that the world (or a Mattel executive) places you in.
This brings us to the central question…is the worldwide phenomenon and marketing success that created hype for both films by encouraging their consumption as a double feature actually a good way to watch both movies? In other words, is the Barbenheimer double feature a quality experience? To me, the answer is no. Five hours of movie-watching in one day is a tall task. Especially when those five hours comprise two thoughtful and distinctive movies, each asking you to bring them your full attention. Two vapid action movies or simplistic romantic comedies might have been easier. But Oppenheimer and Barbie are both unique and dazzling spectacle experiences, too much to consume in one sitting. It’s better to digest one before devouring the other.
When I saw Oppenheimer with a fresh set of eyes and a full attention span, my experience was completely different. I gave myself over to the movie, which unlocked itself in turn.
When I saw Barbie for the first time, I was blown away by its accomplishment. Greta Gerwig brings to life a plastic world to communicate the challenges of being defined by a set of rules you didn’t create and the empowerment that comes from escaping the box that the world (or a Mattel executive) places you in. She creates a hilarious satire that also cuts deep into the pathos of being human through dialogue, song and dance, and her own unique aesthetic. I left the theater gobsmacked by the accomplishment and wrestling with its nuance. And then, 45 minutes later, I saw a three-hour biopic about the man who created the nuclear bomb. It sounds like a bad idea. It was.
For Oppenheimer, I had two viewing experiences and two completely different reactions. I was reminded that when you watch a movie, your emotional, personal, and physical baggage affects how much you enjoy it. Context matters. The way we watch movies matters. And the way movies are packaged and presented to us can drive their commercial and critical success.
So what if it all went differently? Let’s say that Barbie came out in June and Oppenheimer in August. Warner Brothers didn’t retaliate over Cristopher Nolan’s departure to Universal and didn’t counter-program Barbie to blot out Oppenheimer’s acclaim. Would Barbie and Oppenheimer both have been as successful? Barbie is Barbie, so it’s safe to assume that a film based on American history's most recognizable female-driven iconography would have done decent business at the box office. A three-hour biopic about a nuclear physicist is a less sure bet. There’s no way to know what would have happened without Barbenheimer and just Barbie and Oppenheimer. But I do know that their coexistence did nothing but help them both. It was a mutually beneficial relationship where dorks who like biopics and Barbie fanatics were forced to engage with their counterparts.
Simply put, Barbenheimer became a movie event whose sum was far greater than its individual parts. Barbie is a fantastical party at the movie theaters, and Oppenheimer is a muscular interpretation of one man and his impact on the world. But together, Barbenheimer is an eruption of the two in conversation with each other. Instead of splitting the atom this July, we fused two fantastic films. And the result was an explosion unlike any movie event in recent history.
“People want to dress up in pink and party to Barbie and want to see Oppenheimer on the biggest screen possible, mesmerized by the crackle of nuclear fission backed by a thunderous score. People like an event. People like a phenomenon.”
Executives may try and fail to replicate this experience. They may try to counter-program two drastically different movies to create a delicious dissonance that inspires dual consumption. But unlike the repetitive process of building a bomb, this convergence of artistic creativity happened by chance and is unlikely to be recreated. But what studio executives should learn from last weekend is that people enjoy the collective moviegoing experience that theaters provide. People want to dress up in pink and party to Barbie and want to see Oppenheimer on the biggest screen possible, mesmerized by the crackle of nuclear fission backed by a thunderous score. People like an event. People like a phenomenon. People want to see movies and talk about them with their friends after. People want experiences that can wow them, challenge them, and get them through a hot summer day in an air-conditioned theater.
A movie is so much more than what’s on screen. It’s how you see it. It’s where you see it. It’s who you see it with. It’s the screen it’s playing on. It’s where you’re sitting in the theater. It’s what you’re doing before and after. It’s your mood when you walk into the theater and what you think about while watching. A movie can be great, but maybe you’re feeling sad. And a movie can be subpar, but maybe you just got drinks with a group of your best friends beforehand. Movies meet you where you are in life, and maybe you’re ready for it, or maybe you’re not.
No studio executive, no matter how powerful, can control how every person experiences a movie. But while studios may not be able to manufacture the sensational event that Barbenheimer became organically, they can put their movies into theaters with fanfare. They don’t have to treat movies like week-old Chinese food and theaters like the dumpster out back. Instead, they can create an environment where the public is excited and ready to fully embrace the movie they release theatrically.
Maybe the quintessential Barbenheimer experience didn’t fully work for me, but it created a context that allowed both movies to achieve massive critical and commercial success. Everyone went out to see the same two movies at the same time. And most people who watched both liked or loved them. It sounds easy. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. But this July, we got a taste of a truly communal film experience, and I can’t help but want more.
https://blog.sciencemuseum.org.uk/a-projectionists-guide-to-oppenheimer/#:~:text=15%2F70mm%20refers%20to%20the,seen%20in%20most%20digital%20cinemas, https://www.imax.com/news/oppenheimer-in-imax-70mm
Makes me want to see both movies! 👍