For the 14th year in a row, I watched at least three of the 10 movies nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture.
I saw “Barbie,” “Oppenheimer,” and “Past Lives.” Also nominated for Best Picture were “American Fiction,” “Anatomy of a Fall,” “Killers of the Flower Moon,” “Maestro,” “Poor Things,” “The Holdovers,” and “The Zone of Interest.”
I enjoyed all three I saw and, of course, hope to see some of the others if my schedule allows. I watched “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” primarily due to their popular appeal.
And while people have talked about the stark differences of those two, despite being released in theaters on the same weekend last summer, I actually saw a similarity or two. That maybe included concepts of respect, morality and taking the right action.
Although I know the Oscars ceremony is no longer universally watched like it was a few decades ago, I plan to be tuned to my TV Sunday night when it airs on ABC Channel 9. Below are my reviews and summaries of the three I watched, ending with my favorite.
* * *
“Barbie” – While I had zero expectations about this movie as a 64-year-old man – even though the Barbie doll by Mattel and I share the same birth/beginning year of 1959 – I actually enjoyed it more than I thought I would.
The fantasy movie starts out in Barbieland, where all the Barbies are living and fulfilling the great career dreams of the girls who once owned them, while the Ken dolls are nothing more than beach bums. In other words, women rule!
However, after the former owner of the Barbie played by Margot Robbie picks up her daughter’s old doll, Ms Robbie’s character suddenly has fears about her mortality and realizes she is not perfect. She then travels to another place or dimension to try and figure out what is happening to her and to help herself. With her admiring Ken played by Ryan Gosling surprisingly tagging along, they witness a male-dominated society in the real world.
This causes Mr. Gosling’s character to see the niceties of such a world, and he and the other Kens turn Barbieland into a patriarchal society upon his return.
With the help of the original human owners of Ms. Robbie’s Barbie, the Barbies are all snapped out of their spell. They then force the Kens to have some infighting, and Barbieland returns to normal, but with better treatment for all. Ms. Robbie’s character also becomes human.
And that is part of the summarizing and uplifting theme that jumped out at the end to me – that we are all basically imperfect, or human. The real world is at its best when everything does not go either perfectly well, as it helps us enjoy the good moments when they come.
Also, we should never be treated subserviently. Instead, we all need to be treated with respect. So, while having a Barbie doll taught girls to reach for the stars in their dreams, there was also the caveat that you don’t have to be as perfect as Barbie appears to be. At least that is what I got out of the movie.
Another interesting aspect of the movie, especially for a woman or girl who remembers having some of the dollhouses, cars and accessories, is that all the colorful sets of those pieces are also probably very neat to see on the movie screen.
I also developed more appreciation for the hit tune, “What Was I Made For,” sung by Billie Eilish. It is played in a shorter version during the movie – when I kept trying to figure out when it would be played -- and in a longer version as the credits are shown at the end.
* * *
“Past Lives” – I was trying to find at least one more movie to watch besides the two famous ones, and this one was easiest to rent from a public site like YouTube without having to be a regularly paying member of one of the streaming sites. It was also under two hours long, which I like, and it got a high rating on Rotten Tomatoes. That meant it was both popularly enjoyed along with being given the critically acclaimed nod of being nominated for Best Picture.
And I as a sucker for love story movies enjoyed it, despite the somewhat subtle way the story is told.
The movie follows the lives of two 12-year-old children in South Korea – a boy and a girl -- who are best friends and apparently develop a crush on each other at that blossoming time in their lives.
Her family moves to the United States, while he stays in Korea and even joins the Army and later studies some in China. So, they go divergent ways, which is highlighted strongly and symbolically by a Y in a city block before they part.
With the advent of better computer and phone technology, they track each other down 12 years later and have some computer video conversations and appear to have a reblooming relationship thousands of miles apart. However, that relationship is cut off briefly, during which time she gets married and he has a girlfriend for a period.
The male Korean, played by Teo Yoo, does come to New York, where the woman, played by Greta Lee, lives. It is simply a friendly visit to which her husband agrees, and the two have a nice time reconnecting. This is also 12 years later, so I am not sure of the significance, although one summary I read points out that the apartments she walks past at the end show residences 46 and 50, not 48, meaning they are likely not to have another meeting after 12 years.
Their meeting in New York is friendly but perhaps unresolved. They both seem to be fine with where they are, although they wonder about such Asian-focused themes of past and future lives together. However, she somewhat surprisingly cries at the end after he catches an Uber ride and she goes back into the hands of her husband at their door, perhaps symbolizing some late-arriving regret or grief over leaving him behind.
Countless people, whether they are happily married or not, likely think of an old dating mate or romantic friend that they seemed to have a compatible relationship with and were attracted to physically. They, too, probably also wonder what would have happened if they had stayed together. This movie certainly brings out those feelings and thoughts about such past soul mates.
Besides tearing on the heart strings a little, this movie also had some interesting effects that bring a little happy enjoyment. These include a beginning scene showing them at the bar near the end of the storyline and people are talking, and a viewer thinks initially the voices are from the actors themselves. But they are actually narrators away from the screen.
Other interesting scenes are when Ms, Lee’s face is not shown on camera, but it is visible from the mirror, and when she and her husband are lying on the bed. A piece of clothing looks like something that would be on a female, but it is actually part of his clothing while he is turned in an unusual way.
And then there is the symbolism when he arrives in New York at the park to meet her after rain has been forecast and it has already rained heavily, but it is not raining then.
There is also the scene of them talking in a very up-close and important way during a walk through a park below a giant bridge in New York, but they are shown from faraway as very small. The scenes of New York, not all of which I recognized, are great, and the movie makes me want to take a return trip there after visiting it often in past years.
* * *
“Oppenheimer” – This will likely be the first biopic-style movie about a well-known figure in American history to win Best Picture since the popular “Patton” in 1970, even though other biographical movies like “Gandhi” have also won.
And like Patton, it is also three hours long. As I did with the other two, I watched them in segments on my computer within the last week or so before the Academy Awards, while wanting to get back to going to theaters.
This movie has its enthralling moments, but it does require either some knowledge of the early atomic age of American history or some checking on your computer while you are watching the movie or afterward to understand some scenes.
I learned that the color scenes are related to the storyline of when Mr. Oppenheimer’s security clearance was stopped in 1954 due to his debatable affiliation with the Communist Party. The black and white scenes, meanwhile, relate to the 1959 Senate confirmation hearing connected to Lewis Strauss’ unsuccessful nomination to be U.S. commerce secretary.
Evidently, Mr. Strauss, who was involved with the Atomic Energy Commission, had felt discredited by Mr. Oppenheimer, even though they seemed to be friends for a while, and he had orchestrated the 1954 hearing against Mr. Oppenheimer. The Senate, in part aware of his vindictiveness against Mr. Oppenheimer, does not confirm Mr. Strauss five years later.
The movie, of course, is also about the development by Mr. Oppenheimer and other scientists of the first atomic bomb, and that is the more interesting aspect to me. The middle hour of the movie when they are testing the bomb in New Mexico is quite exciting, New Mexico had been chosen as an important development area for the bomb in part due to the fact Mr. Oppenheimer had enjoyed visiting there since recovering from a disease as a child and later had a ranch there.
The excitement everyone feels when the bomb test is successful is a point of pride in American history, and that is shown vividly.
Of course, what all long-term damage the atomic bomb could eventually do was another theme. But the work of the scientists was almost like a nuclear-style chain reaction, as they could not stop once they started and began to realize what could be developed.
And then there was the additional theme of communism and paranoia about ties to the Soviet Union during the Red Scare era of the 1950s. Wanting workers’ rights or aiding a country in a civil war in the 1920s or ‘30s, as was the work of the Community Party in America, was held against people decades later, and Mr. Oppenheimer and his wife fell into this category.
Mr. Oppenheimer, played well by Cillian Murphy, certainly comes across as a sympathetic person for the most part, in part due to his inner turmoil over the bomb’s capabilities and even his outwardly flawed character traits. That latter included an affair that, of course, included a bedroom scene or two.
This man who died in 1967 of throat cancer is someone not mentioned as much in recent decades, and the book this movie is based on actually came out in 2005. So, as someone interested in history, I am glad to see the movie bring Mr. Oppenheimer’s story more to the public eye.
While many might have liked less government hearing scenes in the movie and more shots of the dramatic work developing the bomb – with possibly more mention of nearby Oak Ridge – it was certainly engaging enough to make one understand its critical praise.
As a result, in contrast to the news that was a surprise to most when the atomic bomb was unleashed on Japan in 1945, its announcement as Best Picture will be expected.
* * *
Jcshearer2@comast.net