The man on the radio said it is anticipated that the two blockbuster movies of the summer will be “Oppenheimer” and “Barbie.” The largest number of Americans heading out to movie theaters will select the bomb or the bombshell. What does that say about us?
Politico asked some United State senators which they would prefer to see. As politicians do, most ducked the choice. They said both or neither. Of those who would commit, more democrats said “Barbie,” more Republicans said “Oppenheimer.” What does that say?
Men and women do not always agree on movie selections. More men like horror movies; more women like melodrama. Women think sex and violence are less engaging than men do. However, there is a single point of agreement: 90 percent of men and 91 percent of women like comedy. So, what’s funny about the atomic bomb? Maybe Barbie will win. But wait, what’s funny about an American doll based on a German doll based on a cartoon about a call girl?
Yup. Barbie’s physical appearance is based upon Bild Lilli, a doll sold in German bars and tobacco shops as a gag gift for men. She, in turn, was based upon an uninhibited, platinum blonde cartoon character in the West German newspaper Bild Zeitung. How is it the All-American doll is based on a German working girl?
Time Magazine, March 2015: “In the 1950s, one of the founders of Mattel, Ruth Handler was travelling to Europe and bought a few Lilli dolls to take home. She re-worked the design of the doll and later debuted Barbie at the New York toy fair on March 9, 1959.” Soon after, Mattel bought Bild Lilli and took her off the market.
Admit it, it is an odd choice. Is there any relationship between movie choice and choice for president? Between movie choice and choice for a mate? Between movie choice and occupational choice? Or are movie choices separate and distinct from all other choices? Watching the trailers for both the bomb and the bombshell, let us hope for the latter.
Seriously, if it ends up that the two most popular movies of the summer are about a destructive weapon and a suggestive doll, what does that say? Are we drawn to the consequential or the frivolous? Are we serious or silly? Do we overwhelmingly “think pink”? Are we overwhelmingly drawn to violence and destruction? Or is there something deeper defining us?
Choice is a funny thing. Here’s a statistic: Just 37 percent of citizens in Poland approved of abortion until it was banned. Following the almost-total ban, over 65 percent of the population of Poland supported abortion. Do we yearn for what we lost (“don’t you love her now she’s walking out the door”), or is there a deeper reason? Perhaps once something is taken away, its loss is better understood. Perhaps in the act of taking it away, the legal ramifications are better understood. Perhaps in its absence, the medical ramifications become clearer.
Underlying and motivating choice are our values. In America today, we seem to be accepting too much. We have a clear choice between a pro-democracy candidate and a fellow who clearly articulated a different plan. According to The New York Times, “Trump and his inner circle have a broader goal: to alter the balance of power by increasing the president’s authority over every part of the federal government…”. In obliterating the checks and balances, he plans to kill democracy. Yet, we cannot decide between Biden and Trump? A mob broke into the Capitol of the United States—during a session—and we are not unified in our decision that it was wrong? Governor DeSantis is promoting a sort of both-side-ism that teaches the good parts of slavery, and we are unsure if that’s wrong? The laws being passed do not reflect the will of the majority. True, we are not a pure democracy, but we are a representative democracy, and it is the solemn duty of our representatives to—no kidding—represent us. Yet we watch, we report, we discuss, we do not throw the bums out.
It is too bad that it took so long to figure out the Trump playbook. Too bad it took so long to figure out that those who were agreeing with him agreed with him. The time wasted sorting out if what-about-ism, arguing rationally against lies hurled to inflame, and disbelieving that anyone could be who Trump is did a lot of harm. However, we are not dead yet and while there is life there is …
In the 19th century, when the world we live in was made, discrimination was not a dirty word, it was a necessary trait. Today it means we unfairly judge our fellow man and withhold things from a group of people based upon their physical traits. Two centuries ago, it meant having sound judgment and the will to stand by it even at a personal cost. Do we really accept that, on some level, it is okay that people elected to represent us are representing their own self-interests? You know, campaigning all the time and governing never. Do we really, on some level, think it’s okay they are getting all they can for themselves? Why?
In “Oppenheimer,” there is a poignant exchange about us. A man asks Oppenheimer if he thinks we can be trusted with the bomb. Oppenheimer says he doesn’t know, but he is certain the Nazis can’t. We need to be certain of us.
