Barbie‘s Greta Gerwig becomes highest-grossing female director of all time at the domestic box office
Although Barbie still trails behind Frozen II in the international box office, at home, Greta Gerwig reigns supreme
Aux News Barbie
The Barbie juggernaut continues to smash records at the box office, with THR reporting this weekend that Greta Gerwig has just become the highest-grossing female filmmaker in the history of the U.S. box office, as her plastic-wrapped opus blew past the previous record-holder, Frozen II, on Friday.
Gerwig’s collaboration with Margot Robbie is doing huge numbers both at home and abroad, actually: Although it still has a ways to go before it can beat the second Frozen movie (co-directed by Jennifer Lee and Chris Buck) for global performance, it’s already topped its only competition in the live-action realm, 2019's Captain Marvel. (Co-directed by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck.)
Let’s talk numbers: At the domestic box office, Barbie is closing in on the top performance of the year, period; at $502 million, it’s now trailing behind The Super Mario Bros. Movie by just $70 million. (It’ll have another $100 million to go beyond that if it wants to beat Avatar 2, which split its theatrical run between 2022 and 2023, overall, although it’s already beaten the James Cameron movie’s 2023 take.) For comparison, Frozen II grossed $477 million in domestic markets in the sunny, pre-pandemic days of 2019.
Internationally, Barbie will have a slightly harder time mustering the Kenergy to win: Although it’s doing well in most markets (beating out its unlikely theatrical sibling Oppenheimer in nearly every country where the two are both in theaters) it’s unlikely to match Mario’s global appeal. (Slow rollouts, and even bans, in some countries in the Middle East, probably aren’t helping there.) And it’s really going to have to move if it wants to beat Frozen II internationally; Disney’s movie did huge numbers (more than $100 million apiece) in both Japan and China during its theatrical run. Barbie, meanwhile, has yet to open in Japan, where Warner Bros. has faced criticism for pairing the movie up with Oppenheimer in memes—although the movie is getting some modest success in China, despite a slow opening in the country. (If you want to track the film’s fate across the planet, Variety has an interesting piece comparing its performance with Oppenheimer’s across pretty much every market on Earth.)
The upshot of all this is that Gerwig now finds herself the highest-grossing solo female director of all time—and the only such director to have cracked the billion-dollar box office mark. (Which is kind of depressing, when you consider there are 53 movies on the list, only three even co-directed by women.) Still, what’s Barbie for if not breaking barriers (in a fiscally successful way)?
70 Comments
Go woke, not broke. And kudos to Gerwig and Robbie!Barbie, meanwhile, has yet to open in Japan, where Warner Bros. has faced criticism for pairing the movie up with Oppenheimer in memesOn Twitter. They’ll be fine.
Republicans can eat their hearts out baby. Barbie gives her middle finger to the conservative sexists out there! 👍
Ehhh… Yes and no. I’m all for the girl power messaging of the movie but it sometimes feels like most people are ignoring how commercial it is. It’s a movie based on children’s merchandise that’s produced by a children’s merchandiser. It’s kiiiinda an upscale, smarter episode of Transformers or G.I. Joe. The capitalists among those conservative sexists are quite happy for its continued success, I assure you.
It’s a movie based on children’s merchandise that’s produced by a children’s merchandiser.And it is rated PG-13. So its target audience is not the children who play with the dolls. The capitalists among those conservative sexists are quite happy for its continued success, I assure you.They’re probably just relieved that the movie didn’t tank the Barbie brand name like Bud Light and other brands have done through their woke messaging.
Not to mention the whole point of it could be seen as retconning barbie so millenials and zoomers will give mattel money and not hate them for (along with hollywood) being responsible for the vast majority of body image issues
I take it you have not seen the reviews by those who interpret the Barbie movie as a satire of feminism, as unintentionally based, as upholding conservative values since Ken is pretty much the only character in the entire movie who isn’t a complete asshole.It wasn’t really an interpretation I was expecting, but making Barbie to overtly advocate for the feminist dream world of female supremacy could have only had one of two outcomes – horror movie or unintentional self-satire.
In no way shape or form is this movie anti-republican. If anyting, its pro capitalism and shows the power of marketing a movie around a toy doll that has mass appeal to women. Not to mention making the male star one of the most desirable men in Hollywood that shows his abs the entire movie. Liberals are acting like this is some triumph for woke agenda. It isn’t. There isn’t anything woke in it. Its mostly a wacky comedy that has some nice messages in it. Its bizarre how liberals are running around acting like this is a massive win for their political party.
Bud Light says hold my beer… please!
I feel like we’ve had arguments over this before but while I totally acknowledge that Twitter users are not *wholly* representative of the culture at large, they still ARE a segment of the population. No, you shouldn’t take Twitter posts as the bottom line of cultural discourse. But you’re way too dismissive.
You’re free to take it as seriously as you like.
I’m not a user. Whatever cache it had has diminished thanks to Musk’s nonsense. I would never deny that it’s the domain of the terminally online.That said, I think there are more terminally online people than anyone would like. 450 fucking million users. Obviously a percentage of that is bots. But still, to act like people having an opinion on Twitter means nothing just because they’re on Twitter is just ignoring math.
Duly noted, and again, you are free to take Twitter and math as seriously as you like. Maybe the Japanese population, or at least a significant segment of it, *is* offended that the American Barbie account replied to a post referencing the Barbenheimer meme, but I’m skeptical. I don’t live in Japan, but I don’t trust the A.V. Club to have its pulse on the public opinion there. I trust them to keep some controversies alive despite a lack of news or updates by cramming references to them in tangentially-related articles so they can hyperlink back to those articles. YMMV.We done here?
*to have its finger on the public opinion’s pulse
The people actively criticizing Barbie on X are a small subset of those 450 million users. One person having an opinion on X doesn’t mean the other 450 million agree with that opinion. A person saying something on X means no more to the world than the same person talking to their great-aunt on the telephone.You want “cachet”, by the way. Sorry to do that, it’s just that particular one is a pet peeve of mine. “Cache” (CASH) is a hidden hoard. “Cachet” (cash-AY) is clout or standing.
Fairly spanked on the cache/cachet.As for the other… Mostly I say “Sure. Whatever.” I don’t like Twitter, don’t use it, don’t think it’s that important to history. I just also get annoyed when people dismiss it as nothing when it very fucking clearly has impacts. Even if those impacts are unfair because of how little importance the app has in “reality”. Reality is what we fucking shape and if a bunch of bozos in power think that Twitter or Truth Social or what the fuck ever MATTER, then it fucking DOES matter because those people make the rules. As far as I know, Oppenheimer still doesn’t have a release date in Japan. Is that because of Japanese Twitter? Probably not. But we can’t say for sure. As long as that’s the case, I think it’s kind of dick to be all, “bUt ItS jUsT tWiTtEr”. You’re not wrong but you’re ignoring everyone who doesn’t think 100% like you, which is a bad move if you give a shit about how media affects discourse.That said, it’s not a hill I’m gonna die on, as evidenced by my lack of response to Killa K below. Which was really fucking hard, believe me, because they tagged it with “We done here?”. That is the juiciest of bait.
Ahem. It’s X now.
I love how the left is painting this as a liberal movie. Its not, its mostly a lighthearted comedy. Some people are going to like it, some aren’t. The people taking any political side on this movie are morons as there isn’t a single solitary political thing in it.
Exactly. Saw a few troll on the Steam forums says the old “Go Woke, go Broke” thing right at the launch of Baldur’s Gate 3 and last weekend it broke its concurrent players record at something like nearly 900,000 people playing. It’s almost, as if, that slogan means nothing
The culture wars have broken people’s brains. One of the co-creators of the Jaime Reyes Blue Beetle has been sharing all of the positive reactions to the movie on social media, and someone commented lamenting that “every” comic book movie has an agenda “nowadays,” which in and of itself isn’t a valid or new criticism, but the co-creator replied. Turns out this commenter has been reading comic books for fifty years and remembers previous diversity pushes, including Jaime Reyes’ original introduction in Infinite Crisis, but when pressed to explain what makes movies and comics that introduce minority characters, especially characters that take over the mantle of previously-white characters, different than minority characters that have been introduced in the past, he couldn’t give a coherent answer. IIRC he even praised the first Black Panther movie. I always assumed these “go woke go broke” idiots were either younger people who grew up on Fox News (and therefore didn’t know that things like comics and Star Trek have always told progressive stories) or older people that were always holding racial biases but now feel emboldened to take the mask off. But there’s really no consistency. Anyway, I digress. The “go woke go broke” slogan was always a stupid confirmation bias chant. Now that the box office is slowly recovering from the global pandemic, I notice they’ve turned to pointing at falling stock prices as proof that people are “rejecting their woke agendas.”
Oppie is also doing gangbusters, just passed 600m internationally and is expected to end up around 900m or more. Which is insane for an R rated three hour long depressing movie about the atomic bomb.
When you have well-crafted movies that are either serious and informing or insanely fun as appropriate, it’s amazing what can happen.
It’s a very different world than having a studio demand an on-time cash grab from a popular franchise such as the Hobbit debacle.
Mojo has Oppenheimer at 577M worldwide
The $600 million figure comes from the Variety article. Idk where they got that number from, but they’re an industry trade. Well-deserved, regardless.https://variety.com/lists/barbie-oppenheimer-global-box-office-numbers/north-america/
Cult of Nolan. It IS insane that such a mid director (and bad screenwriter) engenders such hype.
Even with his name attached, I’d argue that Barbenheimer probably did more to boost that movie’s ticket sales than the fun summer romp’s.
You won’t find any disagreement from me.But don’t let the Nolan stans hear you even remotely suggest that Oppie was the bigger beneficiary.
I’m skeptical of the mostly-accepted rumor that WB scheduled Barbie’s release for the same day as Oppenheimer’s out of spite, but I would love it for be true. Imagine thinking you’re going to crush a filmmaker’s little 3-hour biopic because he bad-mouthed you in the press and you end helping his box office instead. 😂
Yo, we got a hot take here!
Please don’t encourage that Nazi troll. Yes, it’s a Nazi. Check its comment history if you dare.Have a nice day!
Shit. Had no idea. On the other hand, it was a rare opportunity to reference baffling professional wrestler Curry Man!
A wise man or just some guy said that’s why pencils have erasers.Enjoy your day.
Simplistic works marketed as being intelligent will always sell well to the sorts of dweebs who picture themselves as smart…but aren’t. These are the same sorts of people who will not just watch a movie that panders to them, but will do so multiple times, on several platforms, and buy the box set.
Hell, what you consider mid and bad is exactly what they think is genius (Poor dialogue? Zero-dimensional female characters? Pointlessly complicated for the sake of being pointlessly complicated? That’s what they love, baby!)
I continue to be disappointed by that very issue. The premise of Inception is pretty simple to grasp and yet people think it’s some complex piece of brilliance. Including his own characters, who spend the bulk of the dialogue just… fucking… endlessly explaining it. God, I hate that movie. But fuck, it’s stylish! It’s undeniably cool. Same thing with Interstellar, although that one leans hard into mawkish sentimentality.The best Nolan films are either adaptations or co-written with his brother.
Including his own characters, who spend the bulk of the dialogue just… fucking… endlessly explaining it.They fucking love exposition. They think it’s smart – more to the point, they think it shows how smart the writer is, and so if they sit through that, then they too become smart.Whether or not it’s good to actually sit through is beside the point (they can’t actually judge that, or at least don’t like to). Whereas normal people approach art as a dialogue between the audience and the artist, these guys approach their “art” more as a lecture they attend.But for all the hullaballoo around Oppenheimer, I’ve yet to here much of anything about its writing, its characters, its acting (save for a bit about RDJ). Mostly it’s been treated with the exact same sort of scrutiny as a video game launch: lot of waffle about its technical specs, about its marketing hype, about Chris Nolan, about the effects on the markets and such, but I’ve yet to hear anything about how a certain actor turned out a spectacular performance, or how a particular scene was revelatory, or anything to do with the art of the film. It’s just like how video games are typically talked about – the fans and commentators unwilling to engage with any artistic aspects of the media. I’m sure that’s not a coincidence. (Also, like most gamers, no one gives a shit about the audio…) I’m glad Oppenheimer was shot on film, because at least that means Kodak’ll still be churning emulsion for a while yet (I love film photography). Maybe even Fuji’ll get back into it. I think it was you who said he didn’t even do the black-and-white properly, and failed to light or set the scenes in a way that plays to black-and-white’s strengths. And looking at some of the bits of the black-and-white scenes of the film…yeah. It’s a shame, they were shot on Kodak Double-X (the legendary 5222), which is a fantastic film when used correctly by someone who knows what they’re doing:He manages to make it look flat – like he’d just just shot it on digital and hit desaturate in post-processing, rather than trying to filter or curve it. He wanted black-and-white, but didn’t know why or how to use it. I haven’t exactly been searching out Oppenheimer takes, but I haven’t been deliberately searching out Barbie takes either, yet there’s much more focus on the artistic aspects of Barbie popping up then there has been for Oppenheimer.
there’s much more focus on the artistic aspects of Barbie popping up then there has been for Oppenheimer.I think that’s because despite Oppenheimer being a much better film than the last few of Nolan’s, it doesn’t really have much of a point of view. I just saw it a couple of days ago, and I walked out thinking that Murphy and RDJ will get nominations (maybe Emily Blunt if the field is weak this year- not because she was bad but just because there’s not much for her to do), and that was about it.
And you are entirely correct about this being needlessly complicated. It’s not as bad as Dunkirk, but that tendency is growing really stale with Nolan. At this point, I don’t know if he could even tell a story linearly if he tried.
I wonder if it’s comparative simplicity is because it was based on a biography, so there’s really no way that even Nolan could get away with pulling some shit like how Nolan was actually from the future who time travelled to the past to build the nuclear bomb to prevent the nuclear bomb being built in the first place or some such convoluted, nonsensical horseshit that his fans will praise endlessly but never actually be able to explain. It might get a token best picture nod for the same reason Maverick did, as a defender of the cinema in the age of streaming. Ah, I’m obligated to post Michael Spicer…He makes things complicated for…the sake of saying he makes things complicated. He’s never figured out that if you cannot follow the story, then there is no point in having a story in the first place. It’s like serving me lobster and expecting me to be grateful for it. I can’t fucking eat it, so what’s the point?I wish I could agree with you about Dunkirk. Really, I wish I could discuss it. Truth of the matter is I gave up on that movie before the even got off the beach. So I don’t really know if it got better or worse. It is aggressively boring. He made the evacuation of Dunkirk, one of the biggest defeats in military history, boring. It is shot with all the emotional depths and artistry of an instructional video for a piece of Swiss industrial machinery. Yes, yes, everything is very well shot, you can see everything you’re meant to, yes…It felt like an unnarrated documentary, like it was meant to have a voiceover to tell you exactly why the scene is important, who the guys are in it, because I frankly could not tell. This guy’s in a French town- wait, now he’s on a hospital ship in the next scene? Wait, is this the same guy? Is it? He looks and sounds like the other guy. Is it? Did he teleport? Did Nolan insert teleportation bullshit into what is meant to be a serious WWII drama? That sounds like something he’d do. (There’s a reason why you get a diverse cast in for war films – uniforms make everyone look the damn same. It’s kinda the point of uniforms. The actors all looked like they went to the same public schools and their parents were all cousins.)Christ, that dogfight with the Spitfires – Spitfires! PLURAL! – managed to make one of the beautiful aircraft ever built look boring. Yes, yes, it’s all very realistic, I’m sure. I’m sure it’s accurate, and I’m sure his fanbase spunked all over their jorts when he had the pilots calmly expositing on their remaining fuel and loiter times.
I’m not sure what you define as normal, but I don’t think the majority of people consider art a dialogue between the audience and artist. I doubt most people have thought about it enough to even consider this as a possible conclusion. You’re giving regular people too much credit. At least the Nolan stans are better than that.I think the reason you’re noticing more takes about the artistic aspect of Barbie is because it’s a novelty that a movie based on a children’s toy has an artistic aspect at all. It’s sort of a given that a 3 hour prestige biopic is going to have an strong artistic aspect (however shallow you may consider it). I think the AV Club has been more interested in talking about box office than art for a while. There are many places you can find discussions of the performances or scenes that were revelatory that aren’t here. I disagree that Nolan doesn’t know how to use b&w. He’s probably just got very weird ideas about it. Just look at his approach to mixing dialogue. The guy is such a tech nerd I’d be very surprised to learn that he’s completely uneducated about shooting b&w.No offense, but I find it funny that you criticize people waffling about technical specs, and then only talk about the film stock. Even you can’t be bothered to talk about the art of the film. I think Nolan really lends himself to this sort of talk, though, because he’s so obsessive about it himself.
I’ll give it to ya: this is some 24-karat gold Nolan hagiography. Brilliant example. I’m not sure what you define as normal, Non-dweebs. but I don’t think the majority of people consider art a dialogue between the audience and artist. I doubt most people have thought about it enough to even consider this as a possible conclusion. Most wouldn’t phrase it this way. But I guarantee you most interact this way – they allow themselves to have their own interpretation of a movie, song, artwork, whatever rather than simply taking the artist’s genius as a given. I think the reason you’re noticing more takes about the artistic aspect of Barbie is because it’s a novelty that a movie based on a children’s toy has an artistic aspect at all.And that’s still more artistic effort than anything in Oppenheimer. It’s sort of a given that a 3 hour prestige biopic is going to have an strong artistic aspectSee? This is how Nolan got away with it. Instead of actually, y’know, assessing the film for themselves and see if it has any artistic merit, you simply, assume that it’s, quote, “sort of a given” that it has artistic merit. Like I’ve always said, he’s like the Emperor’s New Clothes for nerds. I think the AV Club has been more interested in talking about box office than art for a while. There are many places you can find discussions of the performances or scenes that were revelatory that aren’t here.Name three of those places. Hell, name one.Look, if you’re going to try to keep the gate, could you oil the hinges? The squeaking’s starting to shit me. I disagree that Nolan doesn’t know how to use b&w.I’ve yet to see anything that says he does. He’s probably just got very weird ideas about it. He certainly does have weird ideas about it, I’ll give you that. Except I’m basing this off what I’ve seen, not some desperate speculation in defence of an idol. The guy is such a tech nerd I’d be very surprised to learn that he’s completely uneducated about shooting b&w.Allow me to surprise you, then. I’ve got buckets of Diafine older than the average Nolan fan. Shit, I’ve still got a roll of Reala in the fridge. As someone who’s been shooting film and digital for nigh on twenty years, hell occasionally getting paid for and published nationally: tech nerds are always the least qualified to understand photography. “All the gear and no idea”. Instead, they think their equipment compensates for a lack of skill, talent, or willingness to learn. Photography forums are littered with IT guys who buy $10,000 worth of Nikons, take fourteen brick wall shots with them, play their purchase up for clout, and then put the gear on Facebook marketplace six months later, because they’ve got nothing they can think of shooting. No offense, but I find it funny that you criticize people waffling about technical specs, and then only talk about the film stock.I can understand why people who love Nolan think that technical knowledge precludes artistic knowledge. There’s not a lot else to talk about, and all Nolan’s PR team has been talking about is the technical aspect. Congratulations: first person to do 70mm 5222. Even you can’t be bothered to talk about the art of the film.I would if there were any art in the film to speak of. Plus, then I’d have to see it. I think Nolan really lends himself to this sort of talk, though, because he’s so obsessive about it himself.If only he were as obsessive about writing, characters, and audio mixing.
You’re getting weirdly defensive in response to someone who very mildly spoke up for Nolan. Also, you’re being very intense about a movie you’ve just admitted you haven’t even seen.
Yeah, that’s anothet failure on Nolan’s part.And, no, I’m not being weirdly defensive – weirdly defensive is when you make shit up about Nolan in order to defend him. So maybe talk to TVCR about that.
If you really think my measured rebuttal to your response is hagiography, then I can’t say anything that will satisfy you. However, I’m willing to bet that behind all this blustery hyperbole is a guy who actually wants to debate the relative merits of art. If I’m wrong, don’t waste your time with the rest of this.I think you’re giving the average person a lot more credit than they deserve. Most people’s dialogue with art ends when they pronounce it good or bad. They rarely engage very deeply with their own opinions. When most people don’t understand a work of art, they’re very happy to defer to public or critical opinion instead. It’s ironic that you criticize Oppenheimer without having seen it, but also criticize people for unthinkingly praising the film.I’m puzzled by your comment that Barbie displayed more artistic effort than Oppenheimer. Do you think that Nolan’s not even trying to create art? The rest of your comments made me think that you just believe he’s not very good at it.When I said that it’s a given that Oppenheimer will have a strong artistic aspect, you rephrased what I said and subbed in “artistic merit.” These are not the same thing, and I fear you’ve misinterpreted what I was saying. To rephrase: Generally, if you compare any given movie based on a toy to a prestige biopic, the toy movie will be more commercial and the biopic more artistic. In fact, the public expects this, so marketing tends to instead focus on aspects that make the particular films unique. So for Barbie you hear a lot about how artistic it is, and for Oppenheimer you hear what a technical achievement it is.I’m not even sure how you think I’m gatekeeping by telling you that there are other sources for film discussion. I’m literally telling you that if you want different perspectives they are available to you.When I was young I hated Spielberg with a passion, because he didn’t satisfy my definition of art. I thought all his work was sentimental schmalz or soulless popcorn wanking. Then one day I realized that every movie didn’t need to be a haunting mediation on grief and loss or an inscrutable technical marvel to be considered good. You really seem to think that Nolan is my idol, and that I’m scrambling to find something to justify why he is the greatest filmmaker ever. I’m not a Nolan apologist, and haven’t enjoyed his last few films. But I do think the guy has put out a few very satisfying blockbusters that have a little more to them than the latest Fast and Furious or MCU film. Memento is a very good film, and I wish he kept making movies like that.
Nolan strikes me as a perfect example of a would-be DP with too big of an ego to work on other people’s projects. He wouldn’t stoop to be hired out because he has too many Big Ideas. He’s not alone. There are a LOT of hyphenate types (or “auteurs” if you want to use that terminology) who seem to think that they’re too good to just work as a camera op despite the fact that they’re not very good storytellers. It’s bad enough that Nolan stans think he’s an amazing technical filmmaker (he’s very good at some things, not so good at others) but when they talk about the narratives of his films? Get the fuck outta here. His brother is the superior writer and even he has some truly shite instincts. (The obsession with twists is foremost in my mind.)
I couldn’t agree more. I liked pretty much everything he did until he started writing by himself. Haven’t really like Jonathan Nolan’s other stuff, though. They’re like a band that breaks up and the solo work is never as good.I think we need good middlebrow filmmakers, though. There needs to be someone to nudge self-serious teenagers into checking out more challenging stuff.
Ehhhhh… I’m not sure that self-serious teenagers who are inclined to expand their horizons “need” guys like Nolan. If they’re so inclined they will branch out anyway. I also don’t wholly agree with the idea of “challenging”. I *like* challenging art but I don’t need it and I don’t think it’s a requirement of someone who wants to consume art. And I don’t think it’s necessary for would-be *artists* to consume challenging art. Maybe they’ll be limited but that’s okay. Generally speaking I find that there’s a strong impulse in artistic communities to hold up certain unnecessary elements or qualities of their art as necessary or superior when they aren’t. Novelty is a big one for me, I hate novelty for its own sake, but “challenging” is another one. I can look at any given Bob Ross landscape and feel warm and comfortable and happy. No challenge necessary. I wouldn’t say that Mr. and Mrs. Smith is an artistically impressive film, it certainly doesn’t “challenge” me, but I have a good time watching it and that’s enough.
For teenagers who aren’t inclined to expand their horizons, and especially ones who have never been exposed to art that would, Nolan can be a gateway. I didn’t mean to suggest that challenging is the end goal, but when you’re only seeing mainstream cinema anything even slightly different can seem difficult to appreciate. Some people need baby steps, and it’s better they test out Nolan, rather than go for the extreme with Lynch or jump right into Von Trier, and be put off from trying something else.
Sorry, already responded but I forgot to mention that I feel very similarly about Wes Anderson. I am still a fan overall but I think the writing of his material was much better when he was co-writing with Owen Wilson. To the point that I have often wondered if the writer I *really* like of the two is actually Wilson. I’ve found that a lot of Anderson’s latter work is too mannered in the storytelling. I enjoy it (all but Life Aquatic, which I kinda dislike) but I don’t love it like I do the first three films. Especially Rushmore and Royal Tenenbaums.
Anderson is like the painter Mondrien. I always thought his whole deal was painting different coloured squares until my wife showed me some of his earlier work. It wasn’t fully abstracted, but was still stylized. You could tell that it was supposed to be a tree or a car or whatever the subject was. We went to an exhibition that showed his work chronologically, and you could see the realism disappear over time. Anderson’s work has followed the same path. It’s become more and more abstract, not just visually, but emotionally.I saw some teenagers at a screening of The French Dispatch who clearly didn’t get it. I think it’s Anderson’s most abstracted film and isn’t for the uninitiated. I wanted to tell them to watch Rushmore and Royal Tenenbaums. These were kids who had the inclination to see something less mainstream and more challenging, but they very easily could have concluded that Anderson just wasn’t for them because they had no context for what they were seeing. So to bring this back to Nolan, sometimes people need to see the progression before they can appreciate different modes of art. Sometimes they need to see Nolan before they can appreciate Kubrick.
The French Dispatch… oof. I like it a lot but it is niche even for him. To best appreciate its charms you kinda have to know about the publications its based on (generally speaking, not necessarily an in-depth knowledge of The New Yorker in particular) and enjoy anthology films. I’m not a devotee of newsmagazines like The New Yorker but I appreciate old-fashioned journalism and I definitely enjoy anthologies. Though admittedly I tend to favor horror anthologies like ABCs of Death, V/H/S, Southbound, Creepshow, etc.
The black and white point wasn’t me. I’d love to take credit for more complaints about the guy but most of my critiques of this stuff comes in the form of narrative as that’s my wheelhouse. I *can* discuss technical filmmaking/visual technique and do teach classes on aesthetics/audio-visual technique but I learned early into my film education that story was more my bag. (I have kind of a shitty sense of spatial relations that made it clear directing was not for me.)
I know I already responded, but I had time to sit with this and I *really* like how you phrased it. Yeah, it does feel like too many people engage with Nolan films (not the only one, incidentally, this happens with a lot of these cult directors) as a lecture.
But…but…he wears a suit…like ALL of the time…that means he’s good…right?
it’s really worth noting that barbie did all this without the premium screens. all respect due to oppenheimer (it’s an unqualified hit by any metric), but the more expensive tickets are definitely helping.
Barbie not only played on premium screens, but it’s back on them this week in my local theaters, and will probably hop on and off again for the next month if not longer.
There are different tiers of premium screens. Barbie did not release on IMAX.
Does that somehow negate my comment? Dolby tickets cost more than IMAX tickets near me. If there are tiers (there aren’t, that’s silly) then Dolby is definitely a tier above any digital IMAX screen. Different chains have alternate PLF screens too, which they are certainly showing Barbie on.
I’m sure Oppenheimer made a larger share of its profits on its PLF screens than Barbie did, but given their respective hauls, I wouldn’t be surprised if Barbie made just as much or more total gross off PLF tickets than Oppenheimer did, because it was showing on nearly as many premium screens, as well as a bunch more standard screens.
Woman directs movie about how women are held back by society, then becomes one of the highest grossing directors of all time. 🤔
What’s a female?
Alriiiiight. I popped into a Toys R Us yesterday (shocked to see it was open). And they had a whole section with a pop up display of Robbie as Barbie… maybe that’s not a good-good thing but goddamn… Margot Robbie is becoming an icon. Okaaaaaay let’s gooooo.
She deserves it, frankly. I really admire the projects she produces.
Finally, Dalby produces a true queen, instead of that cunt Alan Jones.
Maybe it’s just confirmation bias and American liberal self-loathing but I feel like Australian actors who get into producing are genuinely passionate and smart about it whereas a lot of American actors just want the clout and money.
But where are all the Oppenheimer action figures!? Sounds like another case of the toy industry neglecting the market for boys!
Congratulations to her and Robbie.
I liked the movie. It wasn’t brilliant but the message is clear and necessary. I didn’t like any of the Ken parts (no pun). Turning him into a hypermasculine monster was a bit too obvious. I hope Gerwig goes on to direct more and greater projects, along with the other esteemed female directors we have. And, hopefully, more new directors too.
I’m sure I’ll engender some name-calling, either off-line or on, but I’m nervous about the future for new directors, including the increase of women and POC. It seems like a LOT of them are getting snatched up by the big, stupid IP gangs. Comic book movies, nostalgia bait, legacy sequels… It’s a lot of unoriginal property management.
I ask this with genuine sincerity: shouldn’t this record keeping also include the Wachowski siblings and the Matrix movies?
That’s why the article uses the word “female” instead of woman lol.
I’m happy Greta Gerwig no longer has to be in lesbian art collectives starting fights in bars for money.
Congrats to Greta on beating all the other women!