Of the numerous viral memes that spread across social media this past summer, none quite dominated the public eye more than the phenomena of “Barbenheimer.” Greta Gerwig’s “Barbie” comedy had been dominating the online and marketing worlds for months since the release of its teaser trailer in December of 2022. Nevertheless, Gerwig’s teaser followed that of Christopher Nolan’s biopic thriller “Oppenheimer” by four months. Both trailers were prominent to audiences in two ways: they each presented their respective directors’ mastery in visual storytelling, and they revealed that theater-goers would get to experience the release of both projects on the same day.

Scrolling through Instagram or YouTube without coming across some kind of content about these films became nearly impossible, especially posts concerning their shared release date. Twin films, or films with releases relatively close to one another, are typically known to be produced by competing studios yet possess very similar concepts (such as the releases of Neil Burger’s “The Illusionist” and Nolan’s “The Prestige” in 2006). The idea of seeing “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” as a double feature mainly to poke fun at their blatant differences in style and tone began to grow in popularity, and thus, the comedy genius of Barbenheimer was born. Even so, this widespread meme has the surprising potential to go even deeper than its clashing pink and black exterior. What if the fan-made trailers and box art renderings that flooded our feeds are justified? Perhaps if each story is intentionally examined, Gerwig’s pink-laden picture show and Nolan’s blazing biopic have more in common than you may think.

“Barbie” Summary:

“Barbie” opens by following the titular fashion doll’s day-to-day life on the fictional island of Barbieland. The disembodied narrator explains how the perfection of Barbieland comes from their matriarchal system where all working and political positions are filled by women. The dolls credit themselves for inspiring little girls throughout the real world and, in turn, changing their neighboring universe for the better. No one holds this belief more than Stereotypical Barbie, the blonde and blue-eyed doll one might initially refer to when thinking of the classic character. The island’s female population is also under the Barbie name, and the male population consists of the Kens. Beach Ken is the film’s deuteragonist, and when he is not pursuing his official occupation of “beach” with the other Kens on Barbieland’s comically artificial coastline, he dedicates his life to (hopefully) becoming Barbie’s second half. With the Barbies and Kens playing their respective roles all day and partying at the Dreamhouse all night—including the discontinued dolls, who serve no real purpose in their society—supposedly no one sees Barbieland as anything less than perfect.

This unfailing perfection is why Barbie is terrified to suddenly discover imperfections from the real world bleeding into her Utopian life. She has begun debating her own mortality, and cellulite is developing across her plastic figure. When she learns these problems are negatively impacted by whoever is playing with her in the real world, Barbie sets off to find her owner, begrudgingly allowing Ken to tag along. She indeed finds her respective child, Sasha, but Sasha unexpectedly harasses Barbie for her reputation of pushing harmful beauty standards onto young girls, a notion Barbie was not yet aware of. She later learns that her current owner is instead Gloria, Sasha’s mother who began to play with her daughter’s outgrown dolls in a reminiscent manner and design realistic Barbie outfits for her job at Mattel. Meanwhile, Ken becomes fascinated with the foreign concept of patriarchy, believing the real world is dominated by “men and horses” and soon enough brings the idea to Barbieland. He misguidedly leads the Kens in brainwashing the Barbies into abandoning their careers and abiding by their every need. He claims the beloved Dreamhouse as his own—and such as how Gloria’s choices in the real world have impacted Barbie’s own life, Ken’s repurposed “Mojo Dojo Casa House” dominates the Barbie product line and spikes Mattel’s sales.

When Barbie comes back to the island with Gloria and Sasha, Ken states how he and the Kens plan on establishing their patriarchal system into Barbieland’s national constitution. Barbie is now at her lowest, but Gloria reminds her that she must fight for the good of what the dolls were originally intended for: empowering girls in a society in which women are not always treated equally to men. They, the Barbies and even the discontinued dolls conjure up a plan to rise up against the Kens, and, much to Ken’s dismay, their plan succeeds. At last Barbie learns why Ken was so passionate about taking control of Barbieland: he explains how insignificant he felt compared to her and the Barbies, and he admits his loss of identity without her mutual interest in him. Barbie encourages Ken to become his own person, and Barbie herself realizes her longing to be more than someone else’s creation. The film ends with Barbieland becoming a more functional and inclusive society, meanwhile Barbie finds a new life as a human in the real world.

“Oppenheimer” Summary:

Although the story of “Oppenheimer” widely differs from Gerwig’s over-the-top humor and fantasy, the film immediately throws the viewer into the physicist’s restless mind. The plot survives off of three separate timelines: a private hearing with Oppenheimer in 1954, a US Cabinet Selection Committee hearing in 1959 and the story of his claim to fame. While the Cabinet hearing is shot in black and white, the other two narratives are shot in color to represent the limited point of view we have in our main character.

Robert Oppenheimer is a “theoretical physicist” who is looked down upon by his professor for mishandling his laboratory work. The strings of Ludwig Göransson’s score quicken as visions of a hidden molecular world gradually course through his mind’s eye. He even injects a syringe of cyanide into his professor’s apple in a moment of frustration, disposing of it the next day when his conscience takes over his right brain. Still, Oppenheimer’s fascination with further exploring nuclear possibilities can easily be interpreted as the beginning of an obsession that will define the rest of his journey.

Oppenheimer earns his PhD in Germany and then teaches quantum mechanics in the US, labeling his political stance as “New Deal Democrat” yet sympathizing with the Communist Party of the USA. He meets Jean Tatlock at a Communist meet-up and later meets and marries ex-Communist Kitty Puening. Although he is questioned for his possible connections to the Party, he is later asked to run the secret Manhattan Project in the US in creating nuclear weapons to use for World War II. The Germans have just discovered nuclear fission, and Oppenheimer’s nuclear discoveries are capable of forming a bomb, something that Oppenheimer is not entirely opposed to if the US has control over it. He and his new team travel to New Mexico and build the makeshift town of Los Alamos near the area at which they plan to test the future bomb.

Throughout this process, Oppenheimer’s previous heinousness with the apple foreshadows the creation of the bomb. He and Kitty are unable to care for their own son—causing Oppenheimer to drop him off with a family friend—and he ultimately neglects Jean. Jean dies, and Oppenheimer is plagued with grief as his team discusses the potentially harmful side effects this bomb could make. After years of labor and Germany’s surrender, the team suggests to Oppenheimer if, at this point, the bomb is more dangerous than the enemy. He is already waist-deep in the project his nuclear grind inspired, so he suggests using the weapon on Japan instead. After all, the nature of his bomb can only be understood if his co-workers see it for themselves.

Oppenheimer learns that his nuclear equation for the bomb could very well cause a chain reaction that would destroy the world, but he responds with how the chances are less than zero. The bomb is at last finished and tested by the team, and it succeeds. As Oppenheimer suggested, the US soon drops the bomb onto the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Oppenheimer is now considered a war hero and enjoys the praise he receives—for some time. Oppenheimer has been hopeful for the bomb’s coming to fruition, but now guilt begins to slowly possess him. On his way to give a speech, he walks between two sets of bleachers as his supporters stomp in their seats. They clap and cheer and wave American flags when he speaks, but Oppenheimer is unable to hear them as he knows he will receive the same response no matter what he might say. He envisions a massive bomb of his own creation hitting his audience, disfiguring smiling faces and warping joyous laughter into sobs of grief.

Now known publicly as “the father of the atomic bomb,” Oppenheimer protests further research on nuclear physics, opposing the thing that used to mean the most to him. The film’s three timelines make sense: the private hearing with Oppenheimer was established by Lewis Strauss to revoke Oppenheimer’s security clearance after having been questioned for his Communist relations. Apparently Oppenheimer had embarrassed Strauss in front of the scientific community multiple times, and he wished to destroy his connection with the US. As for the black-and-white narrative at the Cabinet hearing, Strauss is unfortunately denied his place in the Cabinet after someone testifies to the fabricated hearing Strauss made five years prior. The film wraps up with Oppenheimer stating how he, after following through with his obsession, indeed ended up destroying the world.

Connections Between the Films:

With all this being said, these seemingly polar opposite films share various deep-cut similarities. For one thing, both directors cared about the look, feel and even sound of their projects. Greta Gerwig was inspired by Shakespearian maximalism when designing the physical sets and painted backgrounds of Barbieland, referencing classic motion pictures and Mattel play sets. Christopher Nolan decided to use practical effects for the imagery of the bomb on screen rather than heavily relying on CGI like most modern studios. Ripples of water and the stomping of feet can be heard whenever someone discusses the future of the bomb in “Oppenheimer,” and an instrumental rendition of “Barbie”’s closing song (“What Was I Made For?” by Billie Eilish) plays during Barbie’s heartfelt scenes in the real world. Also, both films were in the works long before their first trailers. A live-action “Barbie” film was announced in 2009 before going through several production hoops, and Nolan had been wishing to make an Oppenheimer film 20 years prior to handling the project.

In another case, the main characters’ definitions of reality add dramatic irony for the audience. “Barbie” is self-aware when claiming the Barbies single handedly ended sexism in the real world (which, of course, is far from true) and even breaks the fourth wall a couple of times. “Oppenheimer” follows the physicist’s journey into developing, creating and facing the repercussions of a bomb the audience already knows is harmful.

Most importantly, the stories of both films tackle the reality of identity, creation, ideas and humanity itself. All Barbie wanted throughout most of her film was to continue living a perfect life when she was bombarded by real-world struggles, such as gaining a Garden of Eden understanding of mortality. Oppenheimer’s main goal was to make his nuclear discoveries a reality, but he was plagued with guilt when his bomb obliterated Japan and ended up opening a new door on research for deadly weapons. Both Barbie and Oppenheimer put their identities in their end goals and became broken when they failed to meet their expectations. 

In fact, both Oppenheimer and Ken held ideas that could likely destroy their worlds as they knew it. If Ken succeeded in establishing his patriarchy, neither Barbieland nor the real world would have ever been the same—similarly to how Oppenheimer’s bomb had a chance at obliterating his own world and succeeded in destroying his conscience. Barbie sought out perfection, Ken sought out power and Oppenheimer sought out the fruition of his work.

In addition, Barbie herself was an idea brought to life by her creator, Ruth Handler, in 1959. While Sasha saw Barbie as a vice in her society, Gloria and Barbie understood the goodness of the Barbie brand. Oppenheimer’s team debated the bomb’s potentially deadly impact, whereas Oppenheimer only saw the good his research would bring for the US. The underlying hope Gloria had in Barbie led the Barbies to their happy ending: since they and the Kens could empathize with each other better, their society became more functional and fair. Oppenheimer unfortunately did not meet a similar ending. For him, the roles between the supporter and the opposition were reversed—and unlike how Barbie’s hero’s journey was for her own good, Oppenheimer’s struggles made his world worse.

Although “Barbie” is “most certainly a feminist film,” Gerwig claims that the film is ultimately about being human. Barbie and Ken both experience the real world for themselves for the first time. Likewise, Oppenheimer battles morality after Jean’s death and the bomb’s destruction. Barbie and Oppenheimer advance toward a “hidden world” outside of the norm and wind up facing consequences for doing so. Both strive to become more than what they were “made for,” changing their societies and facing reality.

In the end, “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” are not all too distant from one another. They are both beautifully crafted films in visual and traditional storytelling that tackle what happens when ideas meet reality and what it means to be human. Whether your experience with Barbenheimer was seeing this double feature in theaters or simply viewing the memes online, hopefully you can now better understand the equivalent identities of this unlikely pair.