#what even WAS the message of the barbie movie like genuinely

[imflyingfish]

Literally what was even the point of The Barbie Movie when Legally Blonde exists.

[seddair]

Briefly back from my (sort of?) hiatus to say holy shit, Oppenheimer genuinely blew my mind

[balioc]

Thoughts on the Barbie Movie

Hoo boy. Here we go.

This is long. Spoilers abound.

I

The movie is not, in any normal sense, a Barbie movie (like this or this or this or whatever). It is not a story of Barbie doing the kinds of things that Barbie does in stories. It is an endlessly postmodern and self-referential movie about Barbie, which is to say, about the Barbie franchise and its role in culture. Which is, at least plausibly, an interesting thing for a movie to be.

You probably knew all that already. But it does give us a baseline of "this movie kind of had to be political and discourse-y, one way or another." Or even, to be more specific: "to some large extent this movie had to be about feminism, explicitly, if it was going to exist at all." How could you talk meaningfully about Barbie's role in culture without touching on that stuff?

II

The evaluative TLDR:

Barbie is very ambitious, and in many places very fun. It is also deeply confused, and fragmented, about what it's trying to say and do. Often it raises genuinely interested problems/scenarios and then totally fails to address them, or else addresses them in ways that are incoherent. The text knows that it's doing this, and on several occasions kind of apologizes for it; a couple of times it more or less looks into the camera and says "sorry, we're not going to deal with this properly;" but, well, that's not a substitute for dealing with things properly.

There is also a streak of genuine political nastiness running through the film, in a place where the story really cannot afford it. It...doesn't match up, tonally or thematically, with some of the surrounding material. I have no background at all in cinematic stratigraphy, but I would be fascinated to learn about Barbie's editorial history, because I have the vague sense that a more-cogent (and more-interesting) story got hacked apart and then Frankensteined together into something much cheaper and worse.

III

The opening sequence of the movie is wild. You've seen most of it -- or you can, if you haven't, and you want to -- because it is the film's first teaser trailer. Girls are playing listlessly with baby dolls; a giant Barbie appears like the monolith from 2001: A Space Odyssey; and then the girls enter a frenzy of destruction, bashing their baby dolls' heads against the ground.

I don't know whether I would have found it as disturbing as I did, if I didn't actually have a baby of my own. But speaking from the standpoint of a parent...yeah, wow, it's more viscerally horrific than most actual horror I've seen recently. The narration says some stuff about Barbie providing a new and more rewarding set of imagination games to play, but the visuals by themselves tell a message loud and clear, which is: Barbie will turn your daughters into infanticidal maenads. It wouldn't need any editing at all to be part of a shock-you-silly Reefer-Madness-y moral panic film.

Which is really good! And really interesting! It starts us off on an undeniable thematic note: there is something primal and powerful and very dangerous about Barbie.

IV

The very best part of the movie is probably the part that comes right after the opening, when we explore the movie's depiction of "Barbieland" by going through Barbie's Typical Day, before we get into any of the notional plot or metaphysics. It's joyful and charming in a consistent way. The gags are (mostly) great. The movie is in love with its base premise, and that love is palpable.

This sequence makes one thing very clear:

Barbie treats Ken like absolute dogshit. She is a bad girlfriend.

And it's taken seriously. I mean, it's played for laughs, almost everything in this movie is played for laughs, but...it's not mean-spirited, not here. It's not, like, "ha ha, Ken, what a contemptible loser." He's Pierrot, asking for very basic forms of affection and attention and respect, and getting the door slammed in his face over and over. It's honestly kind of heartbreaking.

That colors everything that comes later.

The movie doesn't forget this, or fail to acknowledge it. At the end, after everything, Barbie does apologize to Ken for her treatment of him. It's a halfhearted and supremely unsatisfying kind of apology, especially in context, but...it's there, in so many words! I'm not making it up! This thematic foundation was laid down, not-very-subtly, right at the beginning!

V

This movie, which is at least trying to be ambitious, is juggling a million themes. Many of them are dumb at their core, and have no real promise; many of them lack any kind of narrative synergy with the others. But there are at least two which, I believe, (a) are genuinely worthwhile individually and (b) work well together in a story.

One is: What does it mean to be a symbol rather than a person? To exist, not for your own sake, but for the sake of influencing the dreams and culture of entities that you don't know and can't really understand?

The other is: What is the proper ordering of the relationship between Barbie and Ken?

I've seen a number of Takes in which people say, essentially: Couldn't this have ended with the Barbies and the Kens just being decent to each other and treating each other like humans? Couldn't there have been equality and mutual respect, instead of the weird uncomfortable girlboss-supremacist stuff that we got? And I sympathize with that impulse tremendously, but the honest answer has to be: No. We cannot have simple equality and esteem between Barbie and Ken, not in a movie like this. That would be a lie. Because this is a movie about Barbie-as-symbol, and when you're looking at Barbie through that lens, it is true and unavoidable that Ken is an appendage and an afterthought. You can have toys for boys; you can have dolls for boys (even if you call them "action figures" or whatever); for that matter, you can have dolls of boys for girls, so that girls can tell stories centering on male characters; but that's not what Ken is, and never has been. There are no Ken stories, and no one particularly wants them. Ken exists to be Barbie's boyfriend.

(One of the most painful moments of the movie comes during the resolution wrapup. Ken wails to Barbie that he has no identity outside her. She says, basically, "you have to find one, because I'm leaving you." And he...acts like he's had an epiphany, and does a little silly celebration. But his "insight" is just literally "I'm Ken," there's absolutely nothing there, and of course it's the most hollow and awful thing in the world because he really does have no identity outside her.)

VI

The movie's metaphysics are not even slightly consistent. The nature of Barbieland, and the ways that it affects and is affected by the real world, are completely different in every scene. In large part because the film can't ever pass up a gag, whether or not it's funny, no matter how much damage it does to the narrative and the theming overall.

The worst part is that the movie is not capable of saying anything remotely coherent about the real world, because its version of the "real world" is as weird and fake as its Barbieland. Will Ferrell's CEO of Mattel character is more of an absurd cartoon than any of the Barbies or Kens. Mattel HQ is some kind of surreal labyrinth tower out of The Matrix. A random receptionist can handle herself like James Bond in a car chase, for reasons that are [handwaved in a gag].

VII

So. Yes. There is the sequence in the third act where Ken takes over Barbieland with the power of patriarchy. This is pretty much as bad as it can be. And I say this as someone who thinks that the movie probably did actually need a plot thread doing roughly that kind of thing.

Almost as bad as it can be. The wannabe-patriarch Kens are gleefully goofy in a way that you can't help but love, or at least, I couldn't help but love it. Which has something to do with the writing and something to do with the charisma of all the Ken actors. The main Ken, Ryan Gosling's Ken, really seems to believe that being a successful patriarch has a lot to do with riding majestic horses and wearing a giant fur coat without a shirt, and when he takes over Barbie's Dream House he names it Ken's Mojo Dojo Casa House -- that kind of thing.

But. Apart from that, it's real unfortunate. The justification for Ken's ability to conquer Barbieland with patriarchy, instantly and effortlessly, is -- in almost so many words -- they had no defenses against it, it was like the American Indians encountering smallpox. I...don't think I need to spell out the problems with that.

Worse yet, the whole sequence is soaked in, uh, let's call it "2014-era upper-middle-class social-status-oriented feminism." The real bad behavior on the part of the Kens, the stuff they do when they're not being adorably weird, is: mansplaining their extensive opinions about cars and movies, and wanting to show off how helpful and knowledgeable they are to "damsels" who are having trouble using machines or computers. Apparently that's the real problem at hand, the causus belli of the gender wars. The way that you deprogram a patriarchy-brainwashed Barbie is by...ranting to her about the stereotypical social irritations of upper-middle-class women (e.g. "you have to keep yourself thin but not act like you care about being thin," "you have to be a confident leader but also be nurturing and supportive," etc.) [note that the Barbies of Barbieland have never encountered these irritations, at least not at the hands of men]. And the girlboss victory montage consists of having the Barbies put on deceptive manipulative bimbo acts to stroke the Kens' egos, which sure is one way to depict girlboss feminist victory.

But the most unforgivable thing of all is the depiction of the patriarchy-brainwashed Barbies. They're lad-magazine caricatures, endlessly offering their Kens "brewski beers," dressing up as French maids, gazing on in cow-eyed adoration as their Kens mansplain stuff to them.

Barbie does, in fact, have a problematic history with the patriarchy. And it does not look like that.

VIII

@brazenautomaton:

Barbie isn’t someone who had to fight through the patriarchy to be seen as good enough to be an astronaut even though she’s a woman. Barbie’s a fucking astronaut because she’s fucking Barbie of course she’s good enough to be an astronaut.

That is...one aspect of the deep Barbie lore. It is the Barbie-nature that Mattel was trying to push, as far back as my own childhood; it's certainly the Barbie-nature that Mattel is trying to push in this movie. But there is another side to Barbie, even older and even more fundamental than Senator Astronaut Veterinarian Barbie, and you can't make a postmodern movie-about-Barbie without addressing it.

This is Barbie the fashion doll. The Barbie who is an icon of ultra-consumerist teenage girlhood, whose life is defined by her fancy clothes and her fancy car. The Barbie whose most salient traits are her hourglass figure and her long blonde hair and her feet that are always posed to fit into high heels. The Barbie of "math class is tough!" The Barbie who is kinda vapid and shallow and, yes, boy-crazy.

How can you tell a story about Barbie wrestling with the culture of patriarchy, and not talk about that? How can you depict Barbie falling victim to the patriarchy and have it look nothing like that?

...the movie does bring up the specter of Vapid Consumerist Barbie, briefly. When Margot Robbie's Barbie first comes to the real world and meets with the sullen teenage daughter character, she has a litany of That Thing thrown in her face, and it makes her sad. But nothing is ever done with it, and it goes nowhere.

IX

And it could all have fit together so well. That's the hell of it.

You can imagine the version of the story in which Ken conquers Barbieland with patriarchy, because the Barbies are actually vulnerable to patriarchal narratives, because Vapid Consumerist Barbie is the chthonic serpent that gnaws at the foundations of Senator Astronaut Veterinarian Barbie civilization. He successfully makes them all forget that they're senators and astronauts and veterinarians, and turns them into airheaded teenage fashionistas who think that math class is tough.

And this avails him, and the other Kens, nothing. Even within the "patriarchal" version of Barbieland, Ken is still an afterthought and an appendage. He still gets treated like dogshit, just in a different idiom.

Because the thing that has always been true of Barbie, though every age and every phase of her mythos, is: she is the main character of her own story.

This is what the movie was telling us all the way back in the horrific 2001-pastiche prologue, right? Even when Barbie was just a swimsuit model, the point was that she let girls tell stories about themselves (or idealized/aspirational versions of themselves), not about boys or babies. That is a truer, and more powerful, feminist message about the meaning of Barbie than any message the movie actually bothers conveying.

The gag scene practically writes itself: the brainwashed Barbies are sitting around in a giggly slumber-party huddle talking about how dreamy Ken is, and actual Ken cannot get a word in edgewise, he can't even get them to notice he's there, because even Vapid Consumerist Barbie is fundamentally centered in her own life. Her narrative is not about a boy, it's about the experience of being a girl (mostly engaging with other girls) who likes thinking and talking about boys. Which is very much beside the point, if you started out with the complaint that your girlfriend never paid any attention to you.

Patriarchy hurts men too, indeed.

X

The movie ends, as I've intimated, in a disappointing squidge of thematic confusion. Barbie announces that she never really loved Ken, and leaves him, because...well, because these days the smart-set target audience is allergic to romantic narratives that Produce the Couple, as far as I can tell. Then she goes to the real world and becomes a real girl, a move that means nothing and is nonsensical even by the standards of the Barbie metaphysics, because the storytellers don't know how to end her arc and Becoming a Real Girl is the sort of thing that feels like a meaningful conclusion.

The Kens...sigh...the Kens ask for equal rights in Barbieland, more or less, and get told, "nah, but we'll throw you some bones." And they're happy with this, more or less, because they're dumb and don't really care. The narrator says, approximately, "maybe someday they'll make as much progress as women have in the real world." Haw haw.

It's probably too much to hope for a movie like this to be willing to say something substantive about responsibility and kindness in relationships. It's almost certainly too much to hope for a movie like this to be willing to say something about the nature of love symbols and love narratives. But all the pieces really were there, laid out very conspicuously. The movie could have wrapped up with: Ken doesn't need to be more important than Barbie, he doesn't even need to be as important as Barbie, he just needs to be treated with human decency. And if little girls are going to play with Barbies, and fantasize about having cute guys hanging all over them -- maybe they should have functional models of romance and human connection in which to root their fantasies, and not terrible ones.

[joons]

barbie is a fun, clever, visual feast with some lovely moments that i am happy to see resonate with people. the movie is definitely worth seeing. but i would only give the film a 3.5/5.

i am now going to talk at length about my thoughts on the film, most of which will be an attempt to understand what is being said here.

i think barbie's acceptance of the gender wars as inevitable and perpetual ends up being more regressive than a lot of what it's trying to critique. it mostly ends in a healthier place, but along the way, it has little ability to make meaning outside of that frame. i loved the interactions barbie had with older women, particularly ruth, and i think there's a wonderful message there about girls needing both aspirational role models and grounded older mentors who can help them manage any obstacles they find. what a wonderful theme, and one that is given subtle, genuine weight, which i prefer over the more overt, "telling" moments the film does throughout. but a lot of the story gets sidetracked in assuming women's role is tricking men (a role foisted on them as a reaction to the patriarchy, so don't blame them) and that any true reconciliation or mutual support between men and women is only based on pity. i think the film could have landed better as a reflection on womanhood if it actually dared to be about ... women. if it could imagine women as more. if it truly tried to show the complex roller-coaster of emotions instead of staying stuck in one gear.

i have seen people say how ironic it is that ken is the best part of a barbie film, but it's true, on even deeper levels than people realize. why is ken the only one with true agency, whose feelings are true to himself and not a reflection of someone playing with him? where is the boy playing with his sister's dolls and desperately trying to understand why he feels so inadequate? why are those questions never asked in a film that generates endless questions and observations about human frailty? none of the barbies are capable of doing anything for themselves; they are easily brainwashed by the kens, and all it takes to shake them out of it is a speech about how "complex" women are. kens just have to accept themselves as they are to be happy; barbies have to believe they are doing something productive and worthwhile. except main barbie, who feels like she can't do anything meaningful, because this movie thinks the different barbies are genuinely incapable of doing something if they don't have an outfit to go with it. if the point is that she feels less than because she has seen the real world and feels unprepared for it, well, none of the other barbies would have fared better. astronaut barbie couldn't get a job at nasa, just like beach ken can't get a job at beach. the one time we see barbie make a choice for herself, unprompted by others, unburdened from her anxieties, is to ... go to the gynecologist. um. empowering. i guess.

(i think the ken/barbie plot would have worked better if they were "packaged" together. there's no real reason this ken has the crisis, why barbie feels any special responsibility for him.)

the fact that barbie begins to feel angst and anxiety as a result of real women's insecurities is fascinating; in being the avatar of girls' hopes, she also becomes their "competition," a symbol of all their grief and all their inadequacies. maybe you can see how kens get off easy here; they are not evolved enough; they will never be chosen by the gods as friends or idols or objects of hatred. that could have been explored more, especially through the mother-daughter relationship. why do teenagers begin pulling away from their mothers? perhaps for the same reason they grow out of barbie, because they want to be something beyond the touchstones of femininity they have. they want to be their own person and have to separate themselves, but the girls their age are obsessed with tearing each other down and taking their insecurities out on each other because they feel broken. barbie was experiencing that rejection for the first time. the film could have had something to say about how women can be cruel to one another as they struggle to find their own paths, but it's understandable and part of learning to identify what feels real and true to you. but none of the human characters have enough screentime to address any of this.

i liked the point that women dolls are saddled with the same impossible standards that many women feel. they're blamed in society for women's insecurities and also become totemic, like, "we gave you barbie, what more do you want?" i get that, i get the frustration that animates some of the plot, but i couldn't relate to it all that much. but it does ring true for me that b a r b i e as a concept, a company, a doll, is not the problem or the solution. she's just cool.

("why not make barbies that are relatable and normal?" the movie suggests. oh my god....... 💀 💀 💀 what year is this?)

i think allan (almost inadvertently, or at least subtly) makes the movie's best point: the lack of expectations can be an incredible gift. without them, you are free to become your own person on your own time instead of feeling less than because you're comparing yourself to others. we must all be allan. allan is our friend.

there are honestly so many smart concepts and sly commentary here that feel buried in Telling Not Showing; like the ken war was SO funny, and it would have hit hard if we saw the barbies struggling to find a way to understand and interact with the kens ... and they decide to play nice before realizing jealousy and competition seem to motivate the kens ... and then the kens do the most ken thing and do a normandy reenactment to gain women's attention. that's so archetypal, such a funny nod to the cyclical weirdness of human history, to the idea that women (and men) work within the system that is created for or against them, using the tools they have, living up to the gender roles/models they've been taught! but because the characters are like "i know what we will do. we will manipulate them and then they will go to war because they are men!" it's like ... ugh. it messes up the pacing of that whole sequence. it kills the surprise and delight of watching it unfold, so all we can react to are the sight gags (giving mouth to mouth to the horse lmaoooo) and the juxtoposition of war film and gene kelly musical. but the actual gender role commentary is stated so explicitly, afraid to question itself, afraid to say anything surprising or insightful, that it amounts to putting everyone right back in their box. the film tries to balance this at the end, pitying patriarchy as a cope against death, trying to empower the kens to be themselves, but it refuses to imagine any true healing or change, anything beyond "well, kids need to imagine barbieland as a matriarchal utopia, even though we have established that doing so leaves them unprepared for a world of unfair standards they can't control." all women can expect to do is fight for a land of dreams, but always know that the most that land can achieve is creating an image that will be sold back to them as empowerment. genuinely, what the FUCK is the point of this film. oh, it's too hard to say that imagination is what makes us human and that ultimately means more than the object. again, the film will outright state some version of this idea ("I want to do the imagining, I don't want to be the idea"), but every other part of the plot undercuts it with its own failure to imagine women as more than reactive.

and it had the chance to let women be real characters! (hell, does this movie even remember that barbie has Lore, a Family, a Last Name, that she hasn't been "just a doll" in a long, long time?) but the film seems to set up plots that would have given us organic interactions and fully realized characters. i got so excited when america's character, gloria, showed up, because okay, we're going to be able to explore womanhood through the eyes of a real person, we're going to see the push and pull between idealized utopias and dreams and real-world survival and hope and despair by learning more about her. but no. gloria is there to give a speech that doesn't sum up her life and her passions but all women in very generic terms. it's not experiential, it's definitional (and it's a definition built on what a woman is not -- not this, not this, can't be that). it is relying on the audience to point and say, "i recognize that," instead of building gloria as a person we love and know and laugh and cry with. you are building a wall between the story and your audience; if they never had "complicated feelings" about barbie, if they aren't sure why gloria cares so much about the doll while her daughter has such a negative reaction, then it is not going to let them in and explain that. it is going to say, "if you don't get it, you are brainwashed, probably, or a man, and you don't want to see it, and i am not going to open it up to you because it is an exclusive club, intentionally, because it is the only club we have, and i am not going to open it up to further ridicule or commentary, even though that is what this entire movie is doing." gah! tell a story! tell a STORY! surprise me! why are we just pointing at things?

i'm telling you, when barbie sits on that bench and has an interaction with an older lady, who is totally at ease in her own skin, who is un-selfconscious and not angry and peaceful, it brought immediate tears to my eyes. it was such a breath of fresh air. a real person, reacting in a way that surprises and moves you. what was her story. who is she. what is her secret to confidence and balance, and how can women share that with one another. no no no, go go go, take on capitalism and patriarchy until you're too tired to remember how to laugh, this is healthy and good. @~@

ultimately i am talking about the themes i wish were there or wish were more emphasized because the messages that are there feel contradictory. for instance, the kens' patriarchy is shallow and cartoonish, both in barbieland and the real world (that mattel executives were just as stupid and pointless as TOY PEOPLE was so INTERESTING to me; like what does it mean that men can still "play," and get paid enormously for it? but it's kind of just "isn't this dumb"), and the barbies are more than happy to manipulate their kens' emotions to get what they want. america ferrera tells barbie she is justified to feel mad at ken for what he did to her and her friends. but in the next scene, barbie comforts ken and connects to his feelings of vulnerability. it feels like the movie is rolling its eyes through the scene, when it could have been a really beautiful, sweet moment where humanity is recognized as universal, a true "man was not meant to be alone" moment of meaning, turned inside out and shaken and reconfigured as complementary and supportive, where barbie and ken realize community is crucial to weathering their own insecurities and flawed emotional responses, and maybe you can need someone without making it your whole personality. maybe the fear of connection is something all girls start to struggle with as they become teenagers, and they need that world where men don't want anything from them, and they want to cling to it a little longer than necessary. but because it's been bookended with "of course he's going to cry about it, don't give in, it's not your job to support him," the emotional core of the scene is undercut by shallower stuff. the scene genuinely reads like "placating men is important and you should do it," which is INSANE to me, but that's what is coming across with the wild whiplash between rage and sweetness, denying kens any humanity the whole film and trying to patch it up right at the end. barbie's ennui stems from the fact that a weary mother is playing with her, but the rest of the barbies - and the film as a whole - feel puppeted by the surly teenager who has not moved beyond rage-filled one-liners. i don't like that this is the case because those moments of human connection (barbie with the older woman on the bench, the mother-daughter relationship, even ken trying to understand why he cares so much what other people think of him) are so great. we're just supposed to ... not apply compassion to characters the film doesn't like. and we are supposed to like the characters we do like not because we are experiencing their lives with them but because they are saying The Right Things Loudly.

(and don't you love how the film even has a prepackaged response to being criticized? wanting men to be real people is brainwashed behavior. wanting women to have thoughts that go beyond regurgitated feminism 101 catchphrases is asking too much of a plastic toy. it's just a reflection or reality, see, but it's also exaggerated satire. i think the glib tone just crept into everything and made for some wild subtext that i don't even think the film recognizes.)

greta gerwig is more successful at dealing with the tension between made "things" and real life in little women. jo, as a stand-in for louisa may alcott, is resistant to getting jo "married off" and only caves in to get the book published. but the life and joy still sing in the scene where she reunites with bhaer, even when the audience is already primed to see it as artificial and cynical. the play between what jo says she wants and what jo indulges in is obvious; we can find joy and light even in the things that feel like a compromise of our principles. sometimes they are better than life, better than what we could imagine, they take on lives of their own, they become little women who exist off the page and no longer have to carry the burden of being "The One Narrative For Women" because they spark thousands of other stories and hopes and longings that the author doesn't have to be responsible for. as much as i waffle on whether i like the ending of gerwig's little women, it's clear that part of greta is throwing up her hands, in a "but what do i know?" gesture ... indulgent romance might just be the little antidote we need to stave off the lonely feelings we get sometimes. it's not weak, it's not a compromise, it's just cool.

for whatever reason, she doesn't bring that same verve or ambiguity to this film; she can't infuse barbie with meaning beyond what her critics say about her. barbies, like women, have to be perfect, but they can't be. they can't be totems, but they are. we must get away from them, but we can't. they are creations of men, but women can't think their way out of the box. barbie is an immortal ideal, but none of what she symbolizes has any impact.

"that's the point. it's complicated," greta says to me. "my job here is done."

"but declaring things complicated is not a point of view!" i yell back. "you didn't do anything!"

maybe i am too invested in barbie to even recognize that people have such negative feelings about her. maybe i have seen this premise done better in the lego movie, teen beach movie, barbie: life in the dreamhouse! (all of which genuinely love toys and kids/teen media and are not using them to sort out their own disgruntled feelings — and have a genuine belief that even flawed media bankrolled into existence can be real art, something gerwig seems so skeptical about that she lets her ambivalence about taking on this particular directorial gig become the driving tension in the story. how ... relatable?) maybe i have unresolved issues with greta's themes from little women and am now realizing how little she seems to get the things that matter to me, and we just need to part ways.

as anthony lane writes in the new yorker, "maybe the movie is for greta gerwig. and, by extension, for anyone as super-smart as her—former barbiephiles, preferably, who have wised up and put away childish things."

to that, i'd put a quote from c.s. lewis, whose work greta will soon try to get her hands around: "when i became a man i put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." the soul shudders at a narnia, a barbieland, a march family home, that are only notable for how "complicated" our feelings about them are supposed to be, and i think that puts my thoughts on greta's work into words.

now ... proust barbie, i would buy.

[surely-galena]

MC/Rosa sits the NXX Investigation Team down to binge watch a series of Barbie movies and then asks which was their favorite:

[WC: 0.8K]

Luke: Barbie: Princess Charm School AND/OR Barbie as the Island Princess (to be separated from your place of birth and return years later, changed)

Princess Charm School

Because he laughs out loud every time Portia is on screen. The meme potential of most things in the film delights him

Also, the whole missing princess plot genuinely interests him. MC is telling him there's an assassination cover-up in a Barbie movie? Iiiinteresting.

You know that one scene where Blair and friends have to escape from a locked room using their skills and memory? That's his favorite part.

He likes the friendship and espionage and drama and fantasy political discussion. Also, there's a golden retriever.

The Island Princess

There is something that he relates to in a girl who is lost somewhere for years. Especially when she eventually makes it back to civilization, and finds how different it is -- and realizes how different she is, and how in the end, she still finds the people she lost so long ago.

And those people from years ago recognize her, and they remember her, and they still accept her for who she is even though she is now a different person to the one they lost.

(And she talks to animals, too, but Luke thinks that Peanut counts.)

Artem: Barbie as the Princess and the Pauper (oh to be loved just for who you are)

The message about being accepted for who you are and not the place you are born into hits different for him because so many only see him as that perfect, untouchable lawyer (and bonus points if they recognize him as Bryan Wing's son)

The ballad between Erika and Dominick is so Artem-coded. "In my heart I'd be glad / If you loved me for me" and "Hope will blossom by believing / The heart that lies within"? The lines strike him like an arrow to the chest

In a way, both main couples remind him of the difference in stations between him and MC -- him as a senior attorney and her still yet to take her senior exams

There is a cat. That barks.

He also sees part of himself in Julian because of the quiet leader aspects (and the beatboxing scene in the credits. He almost fell out of his chair when he saw that.)

Vyn: Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus (because horses and sass)

Vyn actually also likes The Princess and the Pauper, but Artem already took that and of course he can never be seen agreeing with Artem, so he slots that into second place and puts another film above it in his ranking

And the movie with that honor is the pegasus one

A member of royalty feeling limited by her parents? The amount of sass and banter in the film between Annika and Aidan? Vyn finds these qualities to be quite charming

He's not sure how he feels about the polar bear with the strangely long eyelashes. He's grateful that it doesn't talk, at the very least.

There are flying horses and sure, maybe the main flying horse is related to the protagonist, but haven't all nobles wished at least once for horses to be able to talk back to them at least once in their childhood?

Marius: Barbie as Rapunzel AND/OR Barbie in the Twelve Dancing Princesses (magic paintbrushes, siblings, and self-expression)

Rapunzel

Part of how much Marius enjoys Rapunzel is because of the wonder that is so prevalent in the film. He does kind of wish he had a magic paintbrush like the one in the movie, but he's also content with enjoying the process of the artwork that he makes.

The fairytale adaptation reminds him of his own childhood when he had spent many hours reading through storybooks.

There is something about being trapped in a small space that disturbs him. It makes him root for Rapunzel.

He's also very satisfied with the way the villain meets her end.

The Twelve Dancing Princesses

Marius finds the music very charming in this one

But there's also: the haunting presence of a dead mom and how her love for them is made clear in what she left for her daughters, and an alive father who means well but does not necessarily always make the right actions

There is the value of self-expression, of refusing to conform to what an overbearing power insists on -- but there's also teamwork and taking responsibility and acting on what one believes to be right

Marius doesn't know anything about having eleven other siblings, but having one is enough to relate to the sisters' bond (especially between Genevieve and Lacey. Hasn't Giann been a Genevieve to him countless times when he was young?).

On the whole, the NXX Investigation Team has more fun than they may have first expected. That's team bonding for you :D

[thelesbianpoirot]

It's fine...

I did not like the Barbie movie. I didn't hate it, it was just a slog to get through. I was cringing, bored or annoyed. I didn't expect it to be groundbreaking, but I also didn't expect it to be a generic pop culture icon comes to the real world hijinks movie either. I thought it would be this eras Mean Girls, oddly insightful message hidden in a unassuming package. I was a bit let down. 1. The messaging in the movie is so convoluted. There is some basic feminism about women being allowed to be imperfect people, who grow and change, but then they have women save the day by seducing men, feminine wiles to distract them, and sew discord amongst them like woman are accused of, instead of any real innovative non-stereotypical plans. Men aren't really shown to be malicious, just misguided, unappreciated and incompetent, but they essentially wanted to run barbieland/kendom as a gentleman's club/hooters/ a brothel (if they knew anything about sex), they suffer no consequences for this. The movie "don't worry darling" that people shat on last year because of drama had a way more consistent message and theme than this. 2. The kens are so ugly. The Barbies except for like one or two are supermodel types, yet all the kens are just men you'd find in a parking lot of a Walmart, even the ken that belongs to the stereotypical Barbie is old and has an old man's body. If the Barbies are supposed represent perfect womanhood, why not the men? I know i'm a lesbian but other than the barbie that is clearly a man with plastic surgery uncanny valley face, and nasally voice, they all are hot. They just picked random men to be ken, like if Kens are supposed to be decorative accessories, how come Kens can be shlubby and old. And Barbie can't. You could say it's supposed to be that way, but they write it like Ken's are equally objectified, or a perfect specimen of manhood, but they don't have to look nearly as good as the barbs. 3. I expected weird Barbie to be our lesbian representation, I hoped a subtext of her weirdness meant she wasn't het, they didn't even have to give her a girlfriend, Kate carries lesbian subtext with her, but they had Kate McKinnon say a line about wanting to see Ken's smooth privates despite earlier in the movies Barbie and Ken don't know what sex is. Was it written just to make sure we don't think she's a lesbian? Alan is implied to be gay, by a line or two, but I just think it is a wasted.

4. The dialogue is too plain to be surreal. It wasn't transported to this world, I was lectured to, by a teacher speaking through dolls/puppets. I won't complain about it not being funny, because I know comedy is subjective, but the dialogue did nothing for me. It was preachy in a lot of areas, and I wouldn't have some a problem with preachiness if the message didn't suck. "We just need to coddle and comfort men to get/maintain our rights?"

5. There wasn't a single line or reference to tomboy girls, masc girls, gnc girls/women, like the existence of women who may not want living bright pink empty existences. I wouldn't count weird barbie as gnc, because it wasn't a natural feature of hers, not something she chose. Main Barbie at the end just looks the same, and probably has the same interests, she just wears flat sometimes. GIVE BARBIE A BUZZCUT and some combat boots. IDK Mean Girls had a more radical consistent message in the 2000s.

I don't think I am explaining it right, but why not have Sasha, gloria's daughter be a tomboy that genuinely isn't into this stuff, instead of just pretending she's too cool for it. It is just always a little bit of a let down when a film/movie claims to be speaking to women but instead it speaks to femininity/instead of femaleness. i.e, I do like that barbie when to the gyno.

6. I don't think this movie would be as popular as it is, if it was just about a generic doll, and not connect to the barbie brand name. There is absolutely nothing in this movie that stands out to me. It is barely better than a sonic comes to the real world, or smurfs come to the real world story to me. It's fine. Every woman who said she felt a deep connection with the women they watched it with, I am jealous of you, like what are we connecting over? Our joint love of clothes, pink, our goofy yet lovable boyfriends? I feel nothing.

7. Ken, Ryan Gosling, was given too much screen time without Barbie. Everyone online is singing his praises. Saying that he was the best one in the movie, what were they talking about? He was doing Saturday night live worthy performances. I am starting to think these people just love men. Because the only value this movie had is the few scenes where Margot Robbie is allowed to show genuine sadness, dismay and existential dread.

8. The parts I appreciated: a) Barbie meeting that older woman on the bench, b) am I a man without power a woman? c) Barbie deny Ken's any real power. (They should have exiled the Kens to fucking the desert!).

Overall, I like a line or two lines, but all together it is just a confused movie. Not confusing, but this was a movie talking in circles to distract you that it is saying nothing of value really. Real throwing shit at the wall kind of messaging. It's like a whole movie of not a single new or exciting idea or concept being is introduced to you. I wouldn't care to watch it again, or spend time ranting and raving about it online. But I just felt like sharing. I will forget the contents of the movie in a day or two.

[gobbluthbutagirl]

realizing i have a whole bunch of “hope you’re ok” type messages from the past 1.5 months….SORRY GUYS!!! literally nothing happened!!! i just decided to stop posting for a while because i had had those two posts both blow up within a week of each other which of course was an unfriendly reminder that if you go more than like 3 degrees of separation outside of your immediate circle on this website you start encountering people who are genuinely too stupid to be alive. and i went through that whole “what do i get out of posting on here? NOTHING!” conversation with myself which of course was the same conversation that infamously led me to quit my job and move out of my shithole apartment/temporarily across the country 6 months ago and obviously not posting on a website is a much easier decision to make than either of those So. and then i didn’t post on here that i was doing that because i had no idea how long it would stick and i didn’t want to have a Goodbye Forever(See You Tonight!) moment. and then a few days after deleting the app i was like wow…i have so many more hours in the day all of a sudden! so i did not come back even to say goodbye which of course made it look like i had disappeared without a trace. SAD!

anyway…i have an extremely temporary part-time “job” now helping my mom’s friend move out of her house which she has dubbed “grey gardens” for reasons i assume are self-explanatory. which is the main thing that has changed since i’ve been gone. AND she’s actually paying me more per hour than target did 😃 so Yeah. and here’s some other thoughts i’ve had in the past 1.5 months that could’ve been posts, in no particular order and as a wall of text with little to no punctuation for your inconvenience:

Search party “when you know you know you know you know” scene scene of all time Daily Dot article about tiktok about walmart customer who loudly asked where the douches were or some shit and someone commented “target customers would NEVER” literally YES they would what planet are you living on My mom asked me in the middle of hobby lobby why she’s seeing so much stuff online about folding chairs now My mom forgot who mitch mcconnell is AGAIN My brother’s friend alex sent my brother a snapchat from behind the wheel saying “fuck yeah nerve damage!!!” My brother’s manager at dunkin who they demoted him to bring over is already quitting I finally met my nephew’s father and he wore his cookout hat and an anime t-shirt to his son’s first birthday party and he was too scared to say a single word to me and later my sister said he said he wants me to bake his birthday cake and also asked if i smoke weed because i’m “so creative” and this man is almost 28 years old My dad finally got rid of the couch i had been telling him he should get rid of for 2 years because his mom was coming to visit and he didn’t want her to see it There was an arrested development reference in the barbie movie did anyone else notice. Also this was my birthday cake that i made:

and here are some hounds:

[necronatural]

I totally agree with you that the barbie movie has some issues but I think the worst case of "misogyny is fine if it's not to women" is amongst the fans from what I've seen. Like the amounts of times ive seen people act like the Ken's embracing patriarchy is an enherently evil act and not an understandable reaction to them experiencing respect and control for once, is astounding. Like they've been oppressed their whole life of course they're rebelling when they learn they don't have to be.

Within the metatext of the film they are patronizing men for liking Andrew Tate, baby-talking them for their reaction to general frustrations of not living up to meaningless ideals.

The thing is that in real life the frustration with the absence of ideal is inflicted by other men. Men create a supreme image to disenfranchise women, and other men feel anxious that they can't attain this false dichotomy. The Kens are genuinely second class citizens. My point is that they experience ACTUAL oppression, but rather than using it as an empathy tool, it moves into what appears to be a story beat from entirely different script. There's a total mismatch. It is not coherent.

The message here, from men experiencing misogyny learning hurtful and oppressive language, is that if you stopped being misogynistic, those fucking horse-loving harpies will indoctrinate women, so we need to keep them in line. That's insane. If you think about it from the perspective of the film and not the sociopolitical situation the film was produced in - where it makes perfect sense; both men experiencing misogyny and patriarchy humpers being morons are two completely different expressions of female perspective not meant to interact, this is why the film is still enjoyable - it is a bizarre misogynistic "what if straight people were the ones who were oppressed" type message to send.

This in combination with beats like how you can just brainwash vulnerable women to your whims vs you must give men therapy with respect to their vulnerabilities (this is another female perspective thing that is incomprehensible at face value but resonates emotionally with how women deal with the men in their lives) & all the major female characters besides Barbie herself being less important than the male characters to the point the emotional core of the movie (the mom) is discarded to be an object stripped of her personal individual interiority regurgitating themes that don't even cohere in the first place, with her humanity and her relationship with others (her child, her husband, her career) forgotten in favour of teaching Barbies a very special lesson about female empowerment. This is not the Great Feminist Film I'll tell you that much

⬆️ I really liked the Barbie movie I think it's fun

[sporesgalaxy]

Not mad saying this or anything and feel free to ignore me I don’t control you but I just wanted to say as someone who has actually seen Oppenheimer (and trust me it’s a long movie with a heavy subject and a lot of loud noise so it’s not for everyone and I’m not gonna say everyone has to see it) and Barbie I wanted to say Oppenheimer really isn’t military propaganda it is very much about the indifference of the government and military towards death in pursuit of power and the evils of atomic weaponry. Minor spoilers but the movie just straight up ends with saying the invention of the bomb destroyed the world (while showing warheads and military weapons) it’s very much a film that paints the government and war and invention of the bombs in an extremely negative light and of course being about a man who actually existed it isn’t perfectly accurate to how he may have felt but I do think its worthwhile to watch if you can handle the subject matter and a long movie like that because I felt like it was the first movie about a war in a long time that actually doesn’t glorify any of it. Sorry for long ask I’m passionate about film and I feel like people are forming these opinions without any real knowledge of the actual film itself while just deciding since it’s about war it’s bad. It isn’t for everyone and I would never say you HAVE to see it because like I said it’s a heavy subject but it IS a film I actually recommend for those who can handle it.

Also yeah the Barbie movie is definitely gonna sell a lot of dolls Mattel wouldn’t ok it otherwise but by itself it is very worth watching and really a beautiful film about existing as a woman and the intentions behind Barbie vs what she became and a bunch of other important and beautiful things.

Sorry to write an essay in your inbox like I said I’m very passionate about film and I kind of just wanted to like. Share that Oppenheimer is in fact not pro military or war and if someone watches it and thinks it was in favor of any of the events depicted I don’t think they really understood the film or even paid attention to it because it was pretty on the nose about how bad stuff was.

Again feel free to delete or ignore or whatever you do. you don’t have to publish this or do anything other than I hope read it. And again I’m not mad or vindictive towards you I just have strong feelings about movies.

Ah, I knew I was being reductive in those tags calling them "both propaganda" but I had just woken up and considered it close enough. Apologies all the same.

Interesting to know that the film apparently isn't pro-war! I am much more interested in watching it for myself knowing that, although I'll admit my curiosity is not entirely in good faith. I'm interested in the history of WW2 and the Cold War and there are a lot of easy stumbling blocks and common points of oversimplification and misrepresentation, even for anti-war media. I'm curious to know how much nuance the film really manages to take into consideration in this regard.

I have heard from critics of Oppenheimer who did watch the film that it made no mention of the Navajo people who were radiation-poisoned for generations because of the nuclear testing in New Mexico. I think even if the film is anti-war and anti-weaponry, this oversight was a mistake that wastes compelling support for the anti-war argument, and undercuts itself in doing so.

I apologize again for misrepresenting what I expect from the Barbie movie. Interviews with the director and advertisements have made it clear that the movie aims to have a feminist message, which from what I have seen will probably be a strong and philosophically sound argument.

Still, there's a counterargument to be made that this ultimately serves as another example of a brand capitalizing on values-based marketing (i.e. the Gilette razor ad ["short film"] about toxic masculinity bring uncool). I think that addressing it that way is more than a little reductive, but I genuinely assumed that this was the reasoning behind pairing Barbie and Oppenheimer in memes (besides their clear tonal juxtaposition and shared opening day).

[feminismisstillahatemovement]

Also I dunno whether you've watched Barbie movie in the end, but there is an actually good message of one embracing their life in their *entirety* and not just at the time of youth, energy and beauty in like period from 20 to 30 or something. Though I'd think mention of a scene where Barbie tells an old woman that she is beautiful (thus embracing the idea) and thing about her choosing to become a human and live whole life rather than always be a (literal) doll already would reach anyone by now? 🤔 And also I personally think the message that a person is already valid and enough as their own entity, even without a partner (of the opposite gender in this case) has a good merit (when Barbie and Ken let each other go). Plenty of people still think that they have "failed" in life if they don't have husband/wife. It is important to love yourself first and foremost, rather than place your worth on having a partner! Some people simply will live and die single, and it is not always a bad thing (for example, plenty of scientists of the past never found wives, instead choosing life of solitude for proper pursuit of knowledge). Basically it strangely speaks with men too, not just women. If you didn't have context for the "I am Kenough" pictures here it is yeah

Basically what I am saying is, this movie actually has kinda valid existential messages that maybe *should* be obvious but most people will get caught stressing over dumb things. Like, seeing your "worth" as a human being only in period of youth and beauty is very 'human' message. Recently one feminist movie after another fails and evokes nothing but arguments and hatred, but this movie feels different? But now I do want to know what do you think of it. Would you say that 1) they boosted it with actually very 'human' sentiments to push the agenda better (the 'giving medicine with a spoon full of sugar' kinda logic) or 2) there was *genuine* intention and positive vision of feminism? Like... do you think this is "all part of the plan" but this time trying to be "nice" instead of just insulting their own audience (like feminism movies normally do), or creators had genuinely optimistic vision and what they *think* feminism means? Or maybe the secret third thing where the movie is not bad because it doesn't take itself all that seriously + did NOT have advertisement campaign built on fabricated audience's outrage (you know, THE ones)?

I'm glad you found things in the movie to provoke thought, but I've no intention of ever seeing it myself. It's good to remind oneself sometimes that just because something's in the news this week, you don't have to jump on board the coach and go pay to look at it, with either your money or your time. I've heard in passing many detailed reports on the plot of the film, from many differing points of view, so I feel I've received enough of a multifaceted picture of what it does to know I don't want to waste two hours of my life on it. There are tens of thousands of actually good films out there that aren't trying to smuggle in radical feminist hatred of men, so I'll choose to watch those instead.

[ms-hells-bells]

I think... Genuinely yes, it would be much better if they were up front about it being a toy commercial rather than coopting feminist language to sell the toys while pretending it ISNT a commercial. Because there is no amount of feminist words you can insert into a movie made by Mattel to sell barbies that would change its use of a political movement to push consumer goods. (I sound meaner than I'm trying to but you get me I hope). It's not about preferring it be a toy commercial or not, it's just a toy commercial no matter what. Delivering a good message in a watered down, confusing and preachy way for the sake of sales is not going to do us favors, I don't think.

i know it's a toy commercial, and it's hypocritical (even greta gerwig herself said that), but these movies get made no matter what. i was pretty cynical and against it beforehand, and there's still the whole hype and environment around it that i hate, and in the end it is consumerist capitalism (and being self aware doesn't remove the harm it does), but like i said, when i saw women and girls of all ages clapping and cheering and asking questions when seeing these characters saying that women are in a patriarchy and are in fact oppressed, and femininity is a part of that, when we currently live in a major anti feminist backlash where even leftist men refute the existence of modern misogyny, then i don't have the heart to completely denounce it.

it is obviously not truly feminist or a solution to anything, but i have always said that true liberal feminism in its original form (which is to strive for equality within the existing system) is supposed to be the moderate sister movement to radical feminism, where while we're seeking solutions for complete system overhaul and massive societal change, they bandaid the gaps in the meanwhile by being the more accessible and welcoming side, and helping women while more serious progress gets made. an equivalent would be moderate protesters who give first aid and create molotovs, and make good press, while the radicals throw the bombs and fight the police and overrun officials.

i think getting millions of women and girls worldwide to think about how they're treated in life, and how unfair things are, is likely more than you or i will ever do for women in our lifetimes.

[thecandyclusteragain]

Contains Barbie Movie spoilers

The Barbie Movie is honestly so weak as a "feminist" text (I won't try to rehash what other people have said about it, if you want to learn more about it I recommend the videos essays The Plastic Feminism of Barbie by VerilyBitchie and The White Feminism of Barbie by Jessie Gender on YouTube) but it is honestly perfect for people with weird gender kinks.

Like- Feminisation, masculinization, bimbofication, objectification, patriarchy/misogyny, femdom- that's all basically textual, but with that foundation there's even more you can play with! Different varieties of gender and queer sexuality kinks that explore the taboo of those things in a world that has a rigid society and binary- like ours -but with much lower stakes. Could easily see tf, forced tf, or sissification in this setting as well. I completely forgot for a second that cucking could be seen as textual as well? (If any of my connections seem unclear to you as a reader, please do ask about them because I'm high and I have AuDHD and my connections aren't always obvious to others)

What a beautiful plastic play place to explore gender and sexuality and social rules in!

Outside of my fantasies, I can get really anxious and paranoid about playing with other people when it comes to some of these kinks because they are quite reactionary. A particular part of my upbringing had a specific religious tone that has been really difficult to shake and I unfortunately internalized a lot of those messages that were really anti-kink- kind of your typical "kink-critical" "how do you know the person who says they're pretending to want to rape you doesn't actually want to rape people? How do you know they're not an actual rapist? What's the difference between the person you're doing impact play with and a domestic abuser?" I'm sure my experience is unfortunately not that uncommon and a lot of kinky people have had to deal and are still dealing with this. So when I have fantasies about non-consensual encounters, particularly of misogynistic and queerphobic varieties, I can get really panicked about whether the people that are also in this space are just pretending like I am. It also doesn't help that I have been in some virtual spaces where people do have on their profiles "this is not pretend, this is not a fantasy, these are my actual beliefs"

But in Barbieland...it's all just pretend, it's playing with toys. Everything is fake! The food is fake, the fire is fake, the ocean is fake- it is literally a world designed for play and make believe!

When the Kens take over Barbieland, it is a shallow pastiche of masculinity. Ken has seen these visual signifiers of what it means to be a man in the real world and it made him feel good. When he came back to Barbieland, he didn't attack anyone or force anyone to do anything- the ideas just kind of osmosed out of him into everybody else. He doesn't actually know what it means to "be a man" (and honestly, who does?), but he has these cultural signifiers of masculinity and manhood. He has insecurities and desires.

And that's no different from anyone who takes part in kink. People who have what I've been calling so far "weird gender kinks" (because that's how I describe it in myself) have insecurities and desires and we often soothe those in the scene of kinks that either reinforce or subvert societal norms.

When I watched the Barbie Movie, I honestly wasn't as blown away as all my friends seemed to be (but there were mitigating factors that could have affected that), but I did genuinely enjoy looking at it from the perspective of Weird Gender Kinks. What a fun environment to play in, what a safe environment to play in, I thought. The shallowness of the movie added to this. The Kens takeover of Barbieland didn't recall to me actual governments and social movements to restrict the rights of women or cultural misogyny- it felt to me like a bumbling attempt to soothe a base, animal and emotional need (part of the reason it failed as a commentary imo).

In conclusion, if I had the spoons, I would start a Barbieland group that would be all about Weird Gender Kinks and give everyone a chance to make a Barbie or Ken sona (or get to play with the Barbieland concept of gender divergence and being non-binary- what if you're not a Ken OR a Barbie?)

[patmax17]

Some more thought on the barbie movie:

Can anyone explain the Mattel CEO to me? Is he a parody of capitalism, who only want profit even though it hides itself behind seemingly positive messages (cue pride month)? Does he genuinely mean it, ie does he actually *want* to empower girls and women with the toys his company produces? I think he's the character I understood the least.

***

From the various comments and thought I see around tumblr, i understand that the character of barbie is also a metaphor of a little, innocent and childish girl?

- she lives a happy life thinking about partying and having fun. No responsibilities, no worries

- she doesn't know what death is

- she doesn't have (think about) genitalia

- she starts feeling ashamed and uneasy when people around her make her aware that her body is sexually desirable

- she's presented with a world that's way more complex and less idealized than what she's ever known. And once she realized that, she can't go back

- in order to become a woman and accept the complexity and the expectations of the real world, she has to cease being Barbie (a little girl), and becomes a woman (with her problems, imperfections, aging, and genitalia)

Does that make sense or am I reading too much into it?

***

Margot Robbie did an awesome job portraying "Stereotype Barbie" coming into the world with her permanent smile and crashing face first into all the emotions and issues and complexity the real world has. Her performance is so good.

***

Ryan Gosling strikes the perfect balance for Ken. He's campy, goofy, adorable, but also creepy and toxic when he needs to. The scene where he tells Barbie that "that is Ken's Mojo Dojo Casa House, not Barbie's Mojo Dojo Casa House. How does it feel?" gave me the shivers. It's hurtful and vengeful, but I understand where he's coming from, it's wrong but also very real, and the reason why a lot of men hurt the women who refuse them.

***

I loved Weird Barbie. She's weird, but self conscious and makes fun of herself. She's accepted her weirdness and ousiderness, and helps other people who have cast out of Barbieland (BTW, not sure why Midget isn't with weird Barbie?). I have to role play Road Warrior Weird Barbie in some form sooner or later.

***

The song of the dance in the first part of the movie is so catchy. Not my usual genre but it's stuck in my head. And I loved seeing barbie on the wheelchair dancing and having fun with all the others.

I also loved the choreography of the Ken towards the end of the movie, though I can't pinpoint why exactly.

***

Did I already mention how much I liked Allan's character? He's so average but so memorable. He reads as queer coded to me, but I think of him as an ally, even sporting the pink jumpsuit during the operation to un-brainwash the Barbies

[sagevalleymusings]

You already know what people missed in Barbie, but I'm going to deep dive it anyway because these negative reviews are hilarious

Reading one-star reviews to the 2023 movie Barbie are genuinely hilarious. 

First and foremost, the male characters lacked any significant development. They were one-dimensional, bland, and existed primarily to either praise Barbie or act as obstacles for her to overcome. This reduction of male characters to supporting roles, devoid of any substance or complexity, was a disservice not only to the male characters themselves but also to the narrative as a whole.

Like, yes. That’s… that’s literally the point. You have correctly assessed the central criticism the movie is making about patriarchy. But you think it’s a bad thing because you haven’t realized it’s on purpose.

Mattel's CEO and corporate people started as a mockery of men having all the top positions in a company; as the movie goes, they're just there at the back of your mind, and it's an unpleasant experience because they did nothing after.

Like… yes! Mattel had to sign off on this movie. Their real-world attempts to control and influence the plot of Barbie would have been sitting as an unpleasant reminder in the back of the minds of the creators, even if they ultimately did nothing. The writers clearly responded to this pressure by just making it a part of the movie.

Overall, a movie that comes off strongly like the 2016 reboot of Ghostbusters; during which year, it was reviewed as being "stunning and brave" with the same misandry-esque storytelling (that time, replacing an all-male cast mind you).

This one is just funny. The rest of the review didn’t even seem that negative, and then there’s this, “I hated Ghostbusters specifically because it had women in it” dig that’s just… so telling on yourself.

More analysis after the cut. Stick around if you want to learn something ;-) 

I want to take a break from laughing at people with no understanding of subtlety and nuance to actually look at the film. I watched Barbie last night, and I thought it was great. There were a lot of relatable moments, as someone who grew up playing with dolls. The basic setting is that there is a world parallel to ours called Barbieland, which is essentially a kind of alternate dream universe, where beings in the universe are tied to and influenced by objects in the Real World. In theory, Barbieland cannot change without influence from the Real World, but if it does, it can have echoing ramifications in the Real World. That’s a setting you could do some interesting things with, and it does necessarily require some degree of surrealism. 

Surrealism was a post World War I art movement in Europe which sought to combine dreams and reality into something Andre Breton called a super reality. The irrational juxtaposition can be nonsensical, but is often used to attempt to heighten the real by contrasting it with the unreal. It is extremely relevant that it came out of Europe post “The Great War” because it is by nature a way to grapple with feelings which feel too great to express through realism. Much like Goya, when painting the Penninsular War, painted a Colossus trampling the countryside with no real acknowledgement of the harm being caused, surrealism taps into one’s feelings, to evoke the sense that the real causes, instead of simply portraying the real with accuracy. 

And I pause to explain this because Barbieland is a land of dreams. It is literally the surreal. By opening our movie with an unambiguously surreal portrayal of Victorian girls playing with baby dolls in an empty wasteland, then transitioning to the imagined Barbieland, our writers are sending a pointed message: nothing that happens in this movie should be taken literally.

That aside, the film’s scenario is disjointed, didactic, and literal. The duration of the movie is a series of speeches with every woke cliché.

Barbieland cannot be divorced from its origins. Rather than having been created organically, it was made - by men. While looking into the character/real person of Ruth Handler, I discovered that the name “Mattel” was created by combining the names of businessman Harold Mattson and Ruth’s husband Elliot. Ruth’s contributions are written out of history every time someone says “Mattel.”

Barbieland is ostensibly a matriarchy. Barbies are dolls made for girls, so the dolls are mostly girls. With the wave of second wave feminism, there was a desire to market to a more empowered type of girl. What does that look like to the men trying to come up with it? You give the dolls jobs. President Barbie, Nobel Prize Barbie, Construction Worker Barbie. Barbieland has all the trappings of a patriarchy, just with women in the gender of power instead of men. That may sound like it is therefore a matriarchy in that case, but in fact that’s not how that works. There have been real matriarchies in the world, and they don’t function the way that Barbieland functions. That Barbieland is a playhouse run by men with Barbies acting out their roles and Kens acting out the roles of women in an idyllic fantasy for the men creating them with the intent of producing a profit under patriarchal capitalism matters when analyzing this movie.

It's a long ramble about how matriarchy is perfect and patriarchy is stupid. I agree with the latter, but the execution is just awful. 

Having said that, Barbieland isn’t exactly a one-to-one to our world - it’s more like a “good old days” subversion of our world, with a specific focus on tradwife nostalgia. It’s reminiscent of 1950s “return to the home” propaganda post World War 2 - shows like Leave it to Beaver or I Love Lucy which re-emphasized to a generation of women that had been forced to enter the workforce that what they should be striving for was a husband and a home. 

In Barbieland, Kens can’t have jobs - they just stand around looking pretty, especially on the beach. Barbies have all the jobs. Also everyone owns their own homes. The aesthetic of friendly, white-washed suburbia is deeply ingrained in how everyone knows and likes their neighbors, even while 1990s multiculturalism bleeds in.  

now if we were sticking to an actual representation of Barbie Land we would also have a BEACH barbie just like we have Crystal Barbie and Ken or Great Shape Barbie and Ken or even Animal Lovin Barbie and Ken! This perception that Ken doesn’t have a REAL job is just untrue, in fact there is many Ken Careers including DOCTOR KEN!

There’s a point in the movie that I find is deeply profound actually. The Kens have taken over the Barbie dreamhouses, which prompts the question, “where do the Kens sleep?” Not only does Barbie not know, but the question is never answered. DO they sleep anywhere? 

I’m reminded of a real world parallel. Before women were allowed to work, where did they live? That might seem like a stupid question, because of course they lived somewhere, but the fact of the matter is that if you were not allowed to generate income, you could not afford a home. Girls lived with their fathers until they were married at which point they moved in with their husbands, because of course they had husbands by that point. Women didn’t have their own homes. Kens don’t have houses. In that context, the fact that Barbie continues to reject Ken to have a sleepover with other Barbies who all have their own homes takes on a much darker tone. Kens in Barbieland, much like women were in parts of the history of the Real World, are so subjugated in society that they literally don’t have access to food or shelter without relying on the other gender.

They even point out “oh where do the Kens sleep at? I have NO idea!” basically is saying they don’t have Kens contribute at all the Barbieland and all they are is dumb dressed up side pieces for the Barbies.

But I don’t think this metaphor of “patriarchy but the genders are swapped” is the only metaphor at play. After all, at some point, Barbie and Ken enter the Real World, and discover that the playacting they have been doing is literally a lie. In the Real World, patriarchy is the rule of law. Barbie is uncomfortable. Her playacting is called fascist. Meanwhile Ken is given access to any space he wants, even while having to realize that his experience - the way he was raised - means that he’s still missing critical components necessary to enter Real World patriarchy. He decides to bring patriarchy to the play world.

In our metaphor, it seems to me that this component of the movie is a direct criticism of radical feminism. The whole movie essentially speed runs the last sixty years of feminism. This also means that the metaphor becomes strained, as we maintain the plot through lines while changing the meaning, but I think it still functions well throughout. 

As the movie progresses, we reach the Kens want power in society movement, and they go way too far with it, choosing to place themselves in power with women being subjugated instead. There were separatists in second wave feminism that called for this move specifically, who argued that men were too violent to assume any position of power, and genuinely argued that a matriarchy should be instituted instead. 

I can see why someone experiencing power for the first time might believe this was the solution. Ken isn’t concerned about equality, not really. But he is concerned about the way his gender has been treated in this world, and he wants to bring other Kens out of their status as second class citizens. 

But Kendom isn’t better. Wanting to subjugate and oppress the people who were subjugating and oppressing you is an understandable reaction, and it’s the wrong one. The goal is equality, not retribution. 

Was Barbie's Director aiming at an anti men revenge film?  The film subjugated men; demeaning and objectifying them and labelling them as dumb and superfluous. They are so worth more than that and young men today struggle to find their place in a society trying to demonise them.

But by the end of the movie, the Kens haven’t gained equality. And in an extremely barbed line directed straight at the audience, our narrator says, “maybe one day they will be as represented on the Supreme Court as women are in the Real World.”

I do think it bears noting, though, that right now, in 2023, four out of the nine justices on the Supreme Court are women, which is just about fifty percent. We are achieving equality, we really are. The point isn’t that women have not achieved equality. The point is that that happened extremely slowly. There are four women on the Supreme Court today. Those four represent nearly 70% of the TOTAL number of women who have ever served on the Supreme Court. The first woman served on the Supreme Court 192 years into its existence.

I think there’s some relevant context here, then, that Barbieland, the imagined space created when playing with Barbies, has existed since 1959. Barbieland isn’t starting from nothing, since it is importing Real World values, but it has only existed for 64 years. If Barbieland operated on the same time scale that the United States did (which we know it doesn’t but let’s pretend) then men would see someone represented on the Barbieland Supreme Court in the Real World year of 2151.

In conclusion, "Barbie" is an unforgettable journey into a realm where men are vilified, female empowerment lacks subtlety, and any semblance of realism takes a backseat. 

There’s a lot more that I could say. There’s a lot more feelings I had about this movie. But I want to keep this to responding to the unintentionally hilarious critiques of this movie. It’s endlessly amusing to me that the primary critique of this movie seems over and over again to be “the movie accurately portrayed what it was trying to portray.”

The disconnect is one that I’ve seen in an increasing amount. Barbieland’s idyllic, “matriarchy is perfect” version is extremely bad. In the end, even the Barbies don’t want to return to that version of their world. Confronted with the degree to which they’d been subjugating their Kens up to this point, they now see at least in part how harmful that version was not only to the Kens, but to the Barbies too. 

But viewers can’t seem to understand that just because something is being portrayed on screen does not mean it is being condoned. 

Such an incredible steaming pile of liberal garbage that it almost seemed satirical. The supposed intention of the film was to empower women, but instead did nothing but tear down men. 

There’s one last thing I want to say before I sign off on this fun romp through Barbie’s one-star reviews, and it’s something I didn’t see very much critique of. 

Barbie is transgender. 

Barbie wanting to be human: A theme that starts with Barbie‘s interaction with an old lady and her observing other people. That motive disappears completely until the end, Barbie has no motivation to become human throughout the movie.

I think this is a metaphor that people just completely missed on. The only real critiques I saw on this part of the movie was that Barbie wanting to be human seemed like it came out of nowhere. And in some ways I’d agree that it was not as obvious as the rest of the movie was. But if you read that plot point through the lens of metaphor, it’s much more obvious.

Margot Robbie has gone on record saying that Barbie and Ken are sexless, and that therefore, they don’t really have sex drives. In a very literal way, Barbie’s existence highlights the difference between being socialized as a woman and being born as a female. But in Barbieland, there are no ‘women’ in any sense of the term. Barbie is not a human. She hasn’t been socialized the way human women have. Her gender literally isn’t ‘woman.’ It’s Barbie. And Barbies don’t have genitals. Midge was an embarrassment for Mattel in the Real World, and she’s also taboo in Barbieland, because she’s non-gender conforming to what that means for Barbies specifically. 

With that in mind, is it really true that this comes out of nowhere? I would argue no. In fact, I would argue it is the central conflict of the movie, because there is a specific gendered aspect of Stereotypical Barbie that she is not conforming to outside of Gloria’s influence. 

She doesn’t want to date Ken. They are dating, nominally, because that’s what Barbies and Kens do. But she won’t kiss him, and she won’t let him sleep over. And it’s made clear in the beginning scenes that this strain on their interactions existed before Gloria started imagining “Irrepressible Thoughts of Death Barbie.”

Barbie doesn’t want things to change. Perhaps that’s because she can only imagine a world where things change for the worse. Where she does let Ken sleep over. And there’s something deeply troubling to Barbie about that scenario. It simply isn’t part of the version of herself this Barbie wants to be. 

Barbies playact the real world. And an extremely common and expected aspect of the playacting is the relationships they have to Kens. And regardless of the fact that all Barbies and Kens are asexual because they literally don’t have sex drives, it does seem to be the case that there’s still a gendered aspect to Barbies and Kens that they both be heteroromantic. Ken certainly has feelings for Barbie. All of the Kens are seen exhibiting jealousy. None of the other Barbies are seen as unhappy in their interactions with Kens the way that Stereotypical Barbie is. 

She’s different. She can’t playact a relationship the way everyone else can. She needs it to be… real. So she becomes real. Ken does not come along, this was never about Ken.

But that process of becoming real, of becoming human… it does mean that her gender changes. It means her sex changes. Barbieland being surreal means that this can happen instantaneously, but I do think it’s intentional on the part of the writers that the very last page of feminism - after second wave feminism, after radical activism, after reactionary conservatism pushes radical activism to the fringes, after speedrunning the last 60 years of feminism, the very last form Barbie takes is queering the narrative. Barbie has a vagina now. And she’s very proud of it. And that’s feminist too actually. 

So yeah Barbie is transgender and Greta Gerwig said trans rights, and it’s extra funny that no one noticed because they were too busy being mad that the rest of the movie was effective storytelling actually.

[chaosclover1999]

the Ken tumblr tag is not a safe space 4 oppressed men and that's a real problem (talking abt Ken from the Barbie movie)

i shouldn't b having 2 deal w/ most of the tag being either ppl acting like men can't b oppressed and r always oppressors or sexualising Ken in a rly fucked up and dehumanising way or making fun of Ken having emotions and his own struggles in the movie, none of u learned anything from Ken's story in the movie i hate it here, i hate how even now i feel like i need 2 make this post devoid of my own personal emotions 2 b taken seriously

Ken is a perfect analogy for being an oppressed man, the fact that he's a himbo makes him a good analogy 4 existing at the intersection of being a man and having some sort of cognitive/intellectual disabilities (speaking as some1 who has brain damage from a traumatic brain injury i suffered b4 i was a year old) and its present in the way the ppl around him treat him, he wants 2 leave Barbie's side for a little bit and she says "don't go 2 far" he wants 2 go 2 the library and she says "don't get in trouble" he's consistently seen as her accessory, the movie mentions how it's not fair that some women are expected 2 "mother" their male partner and that's true its not fair but it also SHOWS us that sometimes women push that onto oppressed men, Ken is very clearly upset when Barbie mothers him, getting upset when she tells him not 2 go 2 far or not 2 get into trouble like he's a child and it's also not fair that some women push that onto men (usually disabled men) and expect those men to just allow them to "mother" them and infantilise them and dehumanise them and then on top of that because of Ken being a man he is taught that the only way he can gain respect is by taking over and starting fights and wars

so yeah, genuinely fuck you guys for seeing a movie about how both men and women deserve better and then choosing to ignore half the message because you would rather get wasted on gender essentialist politics that tells you that women are always safe and men are always oppressors so you can make jokes about killing all men and traumatising all men because each man is the same to you, i am a disabled, gay, trans man of colour and i am so fucking sick of this shit and i genuinely thought i would be able to escape that in the Ken tumblr tag and just be able to see posts from ppl who get it since that's partly what the Barbie movie was about but no, because oppressed men can't have anything, in fact i'm probably gonna get a bunch of comments making fun of me for being emotional because u guys probably also think men shouldn't b allowed 2 hav feeling right?

[cuchufletapl]

Broadly speaking, most of the negative (non-mysogynistic) criticism of Barbie (2023) that I've come across seems to fall into either of two categories:

a) people who were expecting a dissertation of intersectional feminist theory in a 2-hour movie co-produced by Mattel and were thus disappointed when it wasn't that,

and b) people who are so aware of the Mattel thing and that this movie was going to be liberal at best, that they approached it too cynically to even consider that it was in any way genuine in its message.

And, like, I dunno, there's a middle ground here? I do think that the conversations that these stances spark are interesting and important, but from those perspectives I don't think the movie itself is being analysed for what it actually is and does.