It’s been over a year since the worldwide box office shook off the post-Covid 19 cobwebs with the one-two sucker punch of “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer.” The phenomenon that became known as “Barbenheimer” (All credit to NBP’s own Matt Neglia) was a once-in-a-lifetime filmgoing event. Two ensemble-piece blockbusters that appeared to be complete opposites in so many ways guided each other to eye-watering receipts and critical acclaim. The brighter and pinker of these two films was particularly successful for its writer/producer/co-writer, Greta Gerwig. In becoming the first female billion-dollar director, the indie darling-turned-blockbuster helmer broke barriers and laid out a path for other independent filmmakers to follow to greater success. Her journey from indie darling to blockbuster director has inspired many, proving that independent filmmakers can make a significant impact in the industry with the right vision and determination. One year on, two films arrived in the middle of this year’s summer season to demonstrate the dos and don’ts of moving up to blockbuster filmmaking. The success of “Barbie” not only marked a significant milestone for Gerwig but also reshaped the landscape of blockbuster filmmaking, proving that its budget or star power does not solely determine a film’s success but also its unique storytelling and thematic depth.
To be fair, “Barbie“ was always likely to be a hit. A film based on one of the most famous toys in the world already had brand consciousness. Infectious marketing and the perennially potent drug of nostalgia sealed the deal. However, Gerwig’s stamp is all over the finished film. As co-written with her husband and frequent collaborator Noah Baumbach, Gerwig’s “Barbie” is a film about a woman in crisis. Margot Robbie’s titular doll questions what it means to be a Barbie girl in a Barbie world, and her interactions with people in something approximating our world offer a heady dose of reality. Such stabs at entertaining existentialism are Gerwig and Baumbach’s bread and butter. When Barbie randomly asks, “You guys ever think about dying?” in the middle of a dance party, and instantly kills the mood, it’s an awkward faux pas from Gerwig’s and Baumbach’s previous films. From the pair exploring arrested development in “Mistress America” and “Frances Ha” to Gerwig spreading her wings to fly solo with “Lady Bird“ and “Little Women,” a streak of malaise abounds. Gerwig’s heroines are often searching for a sense of identity in their chosen milieu or a way to escape those same milieux. How successfully that malaise is articulated in “Barbie” is a matter of opinion (This critic found “Barbie“ to be amusing, but also confused in its messaging, most likely by design). Still, there is no escaping the fact that “Barbie“ is a $1.4 billion blockbuster centered on philosophical concerns about the malleability of the self. David Hume would be in stitches. The film’s exploration of existential themes and its unique storytelling techniques, such as using a dance party to disrupt the narrative, contribute to its artistic merit and distinguish it from typical blockbuster fare.
Gerwig made “Barbie” work by making it work for her. The choice of material allowed her to parlay her thematic interests into something at once light and engaging. One film that clearly learned how to meld filmmaker to material is “A Quiet Place: Day One“. It’s another hit for the franchise, but one that wasn’t as assured as its previous installments. The fact that it’s a prequel has pros and cons. This time around, you don’t get to see Emily Blunt and her onscreen kiddos fending off interplanetary beasties, but this new story exists on its own terms, separate from the first two features. The film is doubtlessly a hit because it’s part of a franchise, but it’s easily the best of the lot so far. John Krasinski’s first two “A Quiet Place” films are effective action delivery vehicles centered around several thrilling setpieces delivered with adequate craft in little over 90 minutes. “A Quiet Place: Day One“ also fits that mold, but a significant change in personnel behind the camera brings a shift in focus and freshness in the storytelling.
Prior to “A Quiet Place: Day One,” writer-director Michael Sarnoski was best known for “Pig.” Released in 2021, it was hailed as a compelling drama and a vital stepping stone in Nicolas Cage’s career resurgence. Centering on Cage’s reclusive former chef who seeks revenge after the kidnap of his prized truffle-hunting pig, the film is impressively low-key, thrumming with intelligence, and infused with a depth of character. Cage is magnificent, but the film is Sarnoski’s brainchild. Krasinski was clearly impressed enough to offer Sarnoski the chance to write and direct “A Quiet Place: Day One” (after original choice Jeff Nichols dropped out). While expanding on the previous scripts by Krasinski, Scott Beck, and Bryan Woods, Sarnoski puts his mark on the film with his characterizations. Like Cage’s Rob in “Pig,” Samira (Lupita Nyong’o) operates with a stoic fatalism. In her case, she’s terminally ill and uses a day trip from her hospice to New York to seek out a slice of pizza at her father’s favorite restaurant. Contrived as this sounds, Sarnoski is able to get away with it because contrivance is already baked into the DNA of “A Quiet Place.”
The aliens that hunt the protagonists of these films come from no set place, with no clear purpose, and are defined only by their bloodthirstiness and ability to hunt only by sound. Their lack of definition puts the focus back on the human characters. While Blunt, Krasinski, et al. were adequate leads for the first two films, there is an extra richness to the characters of “A Quiet Place: Day One.” Samira is briefly shaken from her fatalistic tendencies by the arrival of the aliens, but the film really shines when she forms an unlikely bond with fellow survivor Eric (Joseph Quinn). They have no pre-existing links to family or friendship; all they have in common is a need to survive. It is their interactions, borne of this need, that keep us riveted. Since they find themselves thrown together by circumstance, we watch their relationship from its inception. They teach each other the skills they need to get through this most extraordinary of circumstances and offer each other growth and development as a result. Nyong’o and Quinn are excellent; both possess wide-eyed stares to convey their fear, yielding to the fiery determination to overcome it. As with “Pig,” Sarnoski focuses on the more human elements of the story. He knows that Nyong’o staring down the barrel of the camera is more compelling than any sight of the monsters. Throw in a handful of decent setpieces, milking the need for silence that the film’s premise brings, and “A Quiet Place: Day One“emerges from the shadows of its predecessors to stand on its own as a muscular, engaging watch. It engages because, like Gerwig with “Barbie,” Sarnoski brings his own concerns to the script. His protagonists in “A Quiet Place: Day One” and “Pig“ search for reasons not to give up when everything around them suggests they should.
If only the same could be said of “Twisters.” Unlike the relatively modestly-budgeted “A Quiet Place: Day One“ ($67 million), this $200 million belated sequel to 1996’s “Twister” will struggle to break even (“Deadpool and Wolverine,” released just a week after “Twisters,” has to take a certain amount of the blame for that). While “Twisters” is borne of an existing IP, it has a strange relationship to its predecessor. It tries to both bask in the warmth of the nostalgia of the original film and stubbornly carve out its own identity. Directed by Jan de Bont, “Twister” is a solid disaster picture of its time, best known for its special effects that still hold up quite well and its surprisingly stacked list of supporting actors. Alongside Helen Hunt and Bill Paxton in the leads, you’ll find the likes of Lois Smith, future “Tár“ writer-director Todd Field, and the late lamented Philip Seymour Hoffman. Building on the groundwork laid by the likes of “Jurassic Park,” “Twister” uses its then-novel computer-generated tornado effects to unleash an untethered vision of Mother Nature’s wrath. Coupled with the likable cast, “Twister” is an enjoyable slice of ’90s action.
A follow-up to “Twister” sounds like an ideal opportunity for Lee Isaac Chung to break through to filmmaking on a blockbuster scale. Chung’s breakout film was “Minari,” a semi-autobiographical account of a family of Korean immigrants trying to make a living in 1980s rural America. Box office success and an Academy Award later (Youn Yuh-jung won Best Supporting Actress), Chung would have his pick of projects. After directing an episode of “The Mandalorian,” Chung felt confident enough to pursue “Twisters.” In his pitch to the film’s producers, including no less than Steven Spielberg, Chung used footage from “Minari“ intercut with scenes from “Twister” to illustrate his vision. Chung spent his childhood in Colorado, Georgia, and Arkansas, and his experiences informed “Minari’s grounded tale of the pursuit of the American Dream. For all its tornado action, that same proximity to rural Americana is part of the appeal of “Twister.” You crane your neck to watch what happens when an oft-overlooked part of the country is touched by phenomena referred to by characters as “the finger of God.” Chung aims to balance complex drama and intense action, but he’s only partly successful in that attempt.
There is ample evidence that Chung tried to bring his own concerns and tastes to “Twisters.” For example, he insisted on shooting on 35mm film when such big films are shot digitally almost by default. Yet, such decisions don’t show in the final product. Bar some wide landscape shots in the calm before the storm, “Twisters” looks as underlit and grey as any other blockbuster fare. It doesn’t help that the tornado effects don’t appear to have improved since 1996. Unlike Sarnoski and Gerwig before him, Chung cannot make “Twisters” his unique vision and the crucial difference is that Chung didn’t write the screenplay. Mark L. Smith’s script for this sequel is a hodge-podge of clichés and leaves you wishing Chung could have redrafted it to infuse it with some of the introspection he brought to “Minari.” Narratively, “Twisters“ makes the fatal mistake of failing to tie this sequel to the original film adequately. It centers on a raft of new characters, but by definition, it is not a “legacyquel,” with no handing over of the proverbial baton from old characters to new. (The only tangible connection between the films is the ‘Dorothy’ system, the tornado mapping technology used by the tornado chasers of the first film, and we only get to see this in the opening scene.) The original “Twister” is solid, not least because its script (co-written by no less than Michael Crichton) kept a firm emphasis on the people on the ground. Like Sarnoski’s work on “A Quiet Place: Day One,” it has enough character beats and talented actors to sell the fear and bravery the protagonists find in themselves. As the lead in “Twisters,” Edgar-Jones is left flailing, with her traumatized ‘storm whisperer’ being talked into one last tornado-chasing job for a research project headed by her former colleague Javi (Anthony Ramos). The new film’s cast has young talent aplenty (Sasha Lane, Brandon Perea, David Corenswet). Still, none get the chance to make an impact like the cast of “Twister.” Only Glen Powell emerges intact, with his gung-ho YouTubing storm chaser acting as a tornado of charm, swanning about the featureless landscape that is the film he’s in.
For all their box office success, “A Quiet Place: Day One” and “Twisters“ offer different lessons to directors who think they might want to wrangle with a blockbuster of their own. Should they ever get a film of this scale to direct, the key is to go all in on making it their vision, even in a CG-laden disaster flick or action spectacular. Greta Gerwig certainly did, but only by taking on material she knew she could mold to her requirements. “Twisters“ proves that muting creative voices renders the final product immemorable, but “A Quiet Place: Day One“ shows that even a world that must remain silent can allow a director’s voice to be heard. The lesson is simple: don’t be afraid to speak up.
Have you seen “Twisters” yet? If so, what did you think? How do you feel about the current career trajectories for Greta Gerwig, Michael Sarnoski and Lee Isaac Chung? Please let us know in the comments section below or let us know on Next Best Picture’s X account.
You can follow Philip and hear more of his thoughts on the Oscars & Film on his X account @CynicalFilm
