[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 83 KB, 1284x621, IMG_7203.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22315346 No.22315346 [Reply] [Original]

Like millions of Americans last weekend, I saw Barbie and Oppenheimer in theaters.
Not in that order — my wife and our friends started with Oppenheimer, assuming that we ought to end our night with the lighter film, with Barbie as the chaser to Oppenheimer’s shot. Given the emotional devastation Nolan’s film caused our group, this was definitely the right decision.
I loved both films, but this is not a review of either. Instead, this is an explanation of the two film’s surprising connection. I say “surprising” because the Barbenheimer phenomenon is predicated upon the fact that the two seemingly have nothing in common save for their shared opening day.
“Seemingly” is the operative word there. What drew my attention to the link between the two pictures was actually one throwaway line from Gerwig’s film, spoken by Will Ferrell’s character, Mother, the CEO of Mattel.
Here’s the situation. At this point in the movie, Margot Robbie’s Barbie is standing within a display box, which she mentions evokes an involuntary, “Proustian” memory, prompting the onlooking Mother to ask his corporate peers:
“Remember ‘Proust Barbie?’ That did not sell very well.”

A very funny, if incredibly niche and literary joke. Proust, of course, is famous as the tortured genius responsible for the massive In Search of Lost Time, a seven-volume, 1.25 million word, four-thousand page, early 20th-century novel focused thematically on involuntary memory.
Niche, yes, but it was this joke that evoked for me a trinity of involuntary memories myself, each connecting the two seemingly disparate films.
First, the less important connection: Oppenheimer loved Proust. He loved literature in general, famously quoting the Bhagavad Gita after the Trinity test, but he loved Proust specifically and other Modernist artists too, including T.S. Eliot and Picasso, as is actually shown briefly in the first third of his film.
Second, the more obvious connection: All three are Jewish. Well, sort of. All three had Jewish origins and ancestry, but none of them really claimed their Judaism.
Oppenheimer was born into a Jewish family, but he did not practice the religion. Proust’s mother was Jewish, but Proust was raised in his father’s Catholic faith. Barbie is a doll and therefore incapable of belonging to any religion, but her creators Ruth and Elliot Handler, the founders of Mattel, were practicing Jews.
That brings us to our final and most important connection: All three deal with involuntary memory.

>> No.22315347

(2/2)
Proust’s novel is the archetypal artistic work on the subject, as mentioned, but Barbie regularly confronts it in her film too, both in the example discussed above and as she searches for the child who owns her toy counterpart in the real world. There, she is frequently flooded with involuntary memories that are not her own, but belong instead to her owner, and it’s these memories that shape her personal desires as the film progresses.
Likewise, in Oppenheimer, the titular scientist is confronted regularly with involuntary memories of his own, albeit his memories are far more negative than Barbie’s. Without spoiling anything, throughout the film, Oppenheimer is frequently confronted with involuntary memories of water, of light, of stomping boots and of cheers. His are post-traumatic, but they are involuntary memories nonetheless.
In short, while these movies may have appeared at first as diametric opposites — hence the endless supply of internet memes — they’re far more similar than one may initially credit them. And who could have predicted that the key to connecting both would end up being Marcel Proust?

>> No.22315353

FUCK OFF WITH BARBIE AND OPPENHEIMER YOU RETARDED APE

>> No.22315356

>like millions of americans, I
Stopped reading right there

>> No.22315363

I will never read this. I will never see a Hollyweird "movie."

>> No.22315373

you write like such a fucking faggot. so much useless information before anything relevant. this is not your blog, shitpost in /wwoym/ like everyone else.
also kill yourself, fucking barbie/oppenheimer duo faggot.

>> No.22315377

unlike the other edgelords who have replied to this post, I think this is a thoughtful insight. Thank you for sharing.

>> No.22315386

>>22315377
Yeah so fucking insightful, did you also notice that both Oppenheimer and Barbie have… hair?! It could be a coincidence but maybe it is the ontoligical dialectic as presented by Fichte made into flesh?

>> No.22315389

>incredibly niche

>> No.22315397

>>22315386
oh damn u owned me with facts and logic so hard daddy mmm

>> No.22315708

How is it surprising when this whole thing was fabricated? That's like being surprised some intelligent guy who got Mk Ultra'd killed people.

>> No.22315731

>>22315346
Wow! This is truly the Event of the Summer OP.

>> No.22317294

Kinda reaching. That line was just a 'we're smart and so do you cause you get it'.
As for Barbie is the honest review embargo already over? Or is this the largest gaslighting event ever created?
Even die hard woke types cannot deny this was an own goal.

>> No.22317343
File: 30 KB, 490x736, gug.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22317343

>>22315346
Pynchon's yoyoing in his grave

>> No.22317362

>>22315346

Both movies make fun of spergs

>> No.22317380

I saw barbie but couldn't pay attention because there was a tgirl barbie and I was thinking about sucking her cock the entire time. I'm transphobic btw

>> No.22317384

A fucking gnostic reading of Barbie at this point would have been less trite. A fucking Perlmanian. Omelas. I never want to read a post written by an American ever again