Why Greta Gerwig SHOULDN'T Have Been Nominated for Barbie

Why-Greta-Gerwig-SHOULDNT-Have-Been-Nominated-for-Barbie

Well, I’m sure you’ve heard - Greta Gerwig was not nominated for Best Director! Down with Hollywood! Burn it to the ground! Well, before you grab your pitchfork and torch (because everyone has those), let’s examine WHY she didn’t receive a nomination. Because, let’s be honest here, she didn’t really deserve one.

First, and perhaps most obviously - “Barbie” is just way too mainstream, and the Academy doesn’t like that. It’s a goofy comedy based on an iconic toy brand that’s been around for decades, and it’s full of product placement, however tongue in cheek they are depicted. Heck, there’s an entire sequence that takes place in Mattel headquarters! “Anatomy of a Fall” is a dramatic examination of family and trauma. “Killers of the Flower Moon” is a three-and-a-half-hour epic about a silenced tribe, the turbulent nature of greed, and the bloody path of American expansion. “Oppenheimer” is a three hour biopic about the father of the atomic bomb. “Poor Things” is Yorgos Lanthimos at his most Yorgos Lanthimos-y. And “The Zone of Interest” is a heavy examination of the Holocaust. A comedy about sentient Barbie dolls being among this group is like someone in sweatpants at a black tie event - you don’t fit in, and you’ll probably get laughed at for being there.

Unlike her nominated contemporaries, Gerwig doesn’t do anything flashy as a director. “Barbie” is a very straightforward film without much “flourish,” and there’s nothing wrong with that. Heck, it allowed the film to scale that rough 2023 box office mountain and gross well over $1 billion. But it’s not Best Director material. The story is told linearly. There are no gobsmacking editing techniques. No subversion of convention. The messages, while good, are conveyed in a blunt manner, with characters giving speeches that would make Shakespeare proud and outright vocalizing the movie’s themes. It’s clunky, and it comes across very “Look at us, we’re being IMPORTANT!” Gerwig also didn’t command powerhouse performances. Ryan Gosling is funny, sure, but her own lead actress - the character the WHOLE movie revolves around - wasn’t recognized, and the nomination of America Ferrera was considered the biggest joke of the year. She couldn’t even believe it herself!


The power of “Barbie” lies almost entirely in its writing. It’s a fantastic script. The themes and messages, while somewhat awkwardly delivered, are nevertheless very powerful. The characters are enjoyable, and they’re given plenty of witty lines and scenarios to act out - Ken putting on two pairs of sunglasses will never not make me laugh. The whole movie also has a very self-aware attitude about itself, and Gerwig was smart to write it in that style. And, wouldn’t you know it, the writing WAS recognized by the Academy! Crazy! Think about this: Would another director have been able to do what Gerwig did in adapting her script to the screen? Yes, probably. But would another writer have been able to write the script in the first place?


“Barbie” is also a very technical film, and, admittedly, a very well made one. The eye-popping costumes were recognized, as was the brilliant production design. And, of course, there are the two songs. Put Billie Eilish on the Oscars stage and watch those Gen Z numbers roll in! Of the movie’s eight nominations, half are found in technical categories. Over half if you don’t include Best Picture. But technical mastery doesn’t often equate to a Best Director nomination. Whether you agree or not, the Oscars are typically split into two halves - the “technical” half, and the more “serious” half, which encompasses the writing, directing, and acting categories. Sorry editors, sound designers, and visual effects artists, but this half is typically the one that draws all the attention. Many popular blockbusters have received technical nods without the director themselves being recognized. Sure, it’s the director’s job to unify all these aspects into one cohesive whole, but the director’s job is much larger than making their movie look and sound professional.


Finally, what many people seemingly don’t realize around Oscars season is that there are only a finite number of slots. Despite repeated claims that “the Oscars don’t matter!”, you can bet that every single year there will be a heated discussion about snubs and upsets. Not everyone can be nominated, and sorry, just because a movie was entertaining doesn’t mean it’s Oscar material. Who do you take out to give Greta Gerwig a spot? Justine Triet? No, “Anatomy of a Fall” won the Palme d'Or and is the best foreign film of the year. Christopher Nolan? Nah, he once again blended a strong, emotional story with technical virtuosity (and, come closer…he’s probably going to win). Yorgos Lanthimos? Have you seen the beautiful mindwarp that is “Poor Things?” Jonathan Glazer? He directed a modern masterpiece of Holocaust drama. Martin Scorsese? You’re going to deny that man his tenth Oscar nomination? You’re going to deny him becoming the most-nominated living director and second most-nominated director in movie history? Get outta here. So, who gets the boot? If you can’t say, then don’t tell me Greta Gerwig was snubbed.


Look, “Barbie” is an entertaining film. There’s no doubt about it. But it’s just not Best Director material. It’s too mainstream. Too straightforward. Too blunt in its preaching and moralizing. It’s a movie that gets by mainly on the charisma of its cast, the wit of its script, and the fun of its production. A director needs to make a statement to be nominated - “I am here, and this is my movie. I dare you to not recognize me.” “Barbie” certainly has “Greta Gerwig” in its DNA, but it’s not a “Greta Gerwig Movie.” You want that, watch “Lady Bird.” Guess what? She was nominated for that.