Oppenheimer and Handler
Now that a few weeks have passed since I watched both movies, perhaps my first impressions have stabilized. We saw “Oppenheimer” (the movie) at a mini-IMAX in Kanata. The previews were painfully loud. We almost walked out at that point. With our hands over our ears, we persevered to the start of the main event. It too, was quite loud, but manageable (except in some expected scenes).
Having read Robert J. Sawyer’s “The Oppenheimer Alternative”, I knew the general outline of that critical history. Whereas Sawyer told the tale from a historically accurate perspective (other than the later part where it diverges from known reality), Nolan does not. Sawyer’s Oppenheimer is a complex, multi-faceted human. Nolan’s is one-dimensional. Sawyer’s supporting cast are nuanced and rounded, each with a distinct personality. Nolan’s supporting cast are, again, flat.
A critical scene near the beginning of the movie probably never happened. Yet the entire rationale for the movie’s interpersonal ill will is based on that scene. Although at times life is that simple, usually it’s not. To me, accepting that premise, basing a fiction on another fiction, was a big stretch.
The only character that I thought was played with accuracy, sensitivity, and nuance was that of Leslie Groves, played by Matt Damon. The worst characterization was that of Richard Feynman, played by Jack Quaid. The real Feynman was brilliant, slightly eccentric, and was indeed known to play his bongos in public. But he did so much more, and in the movie that’s all he does, and that is in the distance and not explained. I consider the treatment of that character to be the most insulting part of the movie.
Then we saw “Barbie” at the local theatre. I deliberately saw it second, preparing to find it deeper than the promos implied. I was correct. Sure, it’s a fun, light bit of fluff on the surface. But you don’t have to look very deep to see that it’s a wonderfully subversive story.
After seeing the movie, I did a bit more research about Barbie’s “life story”. Ruth Handler, the founder and co-owner of Mattel, found an adult -shaped doll while on a trip to Germany in 1956. She brought three home with her. The German doll’s name was “Bild-Lilli”, or “Picture Lilli”. Bild was a popular German tabloid newspaper. The original Bild-Lilli was a comic strip in the daily newspaper. According to Wikipedia, she was presented as "a golddigger, exhibitionist, and floozy". Bild-Lilli, the doll, was produced from 1955 until Mattel bought the rights in 1964.
Bild-Lilli, the doll, sold for about a 4% of an average monthly income. That’s about equivalent to $300 today. So clearly it was aimed at working men. Considering the storylines of the comic, this is no surprise. Men were encouraged in advertisements to give the doll to their wives or girlfriends instead of flowers. Perhaps some actually did that.
What fascinates me is that Ruth Handler renamed Bild-Lilli to Barbie, after her daughter Barbara. Later Mattel introduced Ken. Ruth’s son’s name was Kenneth. So Lilli became Barbie. Ken was her brother, not her boyfriend. No wonder that in the movie when Ken suggested he stay overnight with Barbie and she asks “What would we do?” his answer is “Actually, I have no idea!”
Ruth Handler was portrayed in the movie by Rhea Perlman, and gives Barbie some very sage advice. One wonders what the original Ruth Handler, who died in 2002, would have thought of this subversive movie.