Saw the movie last night, I (humbly) think you are missing the deeper message in the movie, which (at least from my perspective) is actually a critique precisely of that "brand of modern feminism."
"I emphasize that this is not what the filmmaker believes. Rather, it’s a nod toward what the film maker might believe about real world gender relations. "
I think that you're right, that's not what the filmmaker believes, but rather than a "nod toward," is actually a satire/critique of what the filmmaker thinks other people think about real world gender relations. When you actually walk through the movie, all the statements that characters make that fit that "brand of modern feminism" are actually undermined by the events in the story. Sure, at no point does a thinly veiled stand-in for the director break the fourth wall and make that critique of "obviously Barbie isn't a fascist, who would think that?" but the film implicitly does it in a way that can't possibly be an accident. If I were posting this on Marginal Revolution, I might use the term "Straussian."
Even the long speech the real-world mom - about the demands on women - gives to Barbie is full of items that are not "things imposed on women by men" and even though the shallow context of the scene makes it seem like it might be - it's more of an intra-woman debate.
At the end of the movie, it very much stands up for the conservative idea that, contra that "brand of modern feminism", that there are actual real-world differences (but certainly that they don't lock anyone into anything) between men and women (what is the first thing the director shows the character that is an "non-human idea" doing when she actually becomes a real human?), that ideas and aspirations and themes in movies, toys or media should not replace the real world practical dreams and needs of real humans, and the by-far most strongly implied message: that the human parental impulse (theoretically rejected in the opening 2001-parody, and implicitly by Mattel's/everyone's revulsion of "Midge") is actually vastly more meaningful than anything else in the movie? After all, who are the people and relationships who actually matter in this movie? The real world mom and her daughter. Barbie and Ken and their feelings and relationships don't actually matter, they're just ideas - they only matter how they reflect into the real world (explicitly outlined by the mom's thoughts directly affecting idea-Barbie)
What is the most important, climactic scene in the movie, where the director really DOES insert a stand-in for their voice? A mother/God/Geppetto literally breathes life into the clay of (giving birth to) their non-human created idea, giving them true human/woman life - and with the explicitly listed-by-the-camera necessary traits of: exhalation, heartbeat, attachments to friends/family, acceptance of the need to grapple with mundane reality and.... visits to the gynecologist's office.
I'm not a member of that "brand of modern feminism" - or social conservatism. But I have eyes, and I can see where the movie lands.
100% The early tip off is the fact that she is confused that there are not women construction workers. Hardly a glamorous profession that feminists argue should be equally or overrepresented by ladies.
Very insightful, thanks! I haven't seen it yet but have to wonder why this satire would be so subtle as to be easily misunderstood, or is it not that subtle but people aren't so smart/blinded by their preconceived notions?
I don't think it's subtle, but I think the reason is that it doesn't fit into people's perceptions of modern satire because it's not an all-out attack. I don't think the filmmaker was thinking "these people are terrible and I need to show them up!" There's genuine sympathy for parts (and in different contexts or timeframes) of the viewpoints being satirized and that's what I think people don't recognize: that a film can accurately express a viewpoint (intellectual Turing test?), express sympathy for certain points of it, and also satirize and critique where perhaps it falls down. Below "Vaniver" says that it is a "humanist" movie in dialogue with a lot of different view points, and I'd agree with that.
I completely agree. This interpretation is what my brother and I immediately landed on after walking out of the theater. So when we'd see reviews by the likes of Ben Shapiro or the Critical Drinker, we'd just roll our eyes because it seemed like they were completely blind to the satire and could only get angry at what was on the surface level. I understand that they have their audiences who would totally agree with them on this analysis, but I was honestly disappointed in their lack of depth for what seem to be partisan/ideological reasons.
Ultimately, it's doing well at the box office, so they either have to explain why the "go woke, go broke" trend doesn't apply to this one, turn the tide of opinion so that it does apply, or reflect and realize that there's more to this one. Somehow I think they're going for the middle option given the success of boycotts of companies such as Bud Light.
I really liked the movie because it captures a more fundamental truth than Feminism vs. Patriarchy. It displayed how women tend to want a nice environment that validates them as they are and how men want a competitive environment where they can win through self improvement. I think these are valid and important gender differences that a mature culture has to consider versus the somewhat shallow ideologies of Feminism vs. Patriarchy
I appreciate the sentiment of this post, but these examples/arguments are hardly convincing. You say "I do not live in a "men rule" world. All I need to do is look around me to see women in positions of authority." and then a few sentences later use "women now make up about 55% of law school students, 38% of practicing attorneys, and 22% of equity partners" as an example of that...from my perspective 55% of students --> 22% of equity partners is actually quite a terrible example of what you are trying to prove. Regardless of the reasons for this (I'm guessing we would actually agree on them), this example doesn't help your argument. You also just cherry pick examples of women in leadership positions...is it supposed to be impressive that the UK (and 2 other countries you listed!) has, at some points in the past, elected a female leader?
Additionally, you write: "Barbie’s description of Mattel itself is somewhat off the mark. When you watch the film, the executives are all depicted as men with one exception". You then go on to talk about how the board of Mattel actually includes women, and then finally come back to "To be completely fair, Barbie has a more accurate depiction if you stick to the executive leadership, where only the human resources director is female". They WERE sticking to executive leadership in the movie, so not sure why you went on the tangent about the board at all. At least you came back to disprove your own point.
IMO Barbie is a humanist film more than a feminist film, especially at the end.
For years I had people on the internet tell me some variant of "feminism supports men too" and it always seemed like a transparent lie. But the Barbie movie takes Ken's plight seriously. (Famously, Ryan Gosling took the role after he read the script, walked outside, and found his daughter's Ken doll facedown in the mud.) It's like someone looked at the actual scenario and tried to figure out who was getting a fair deal and who wasn't.
I don't think the film takes a stance for any particular wave of feminism or gender relations; instead I think it's trying to be a conversation between them.
Jesus, did you watch the movie? The movie has two narratives: a pink colored glasses, and a rational.
You just review the pink version. Barbie lives in a land where a black woman is president, SCOTUS is all female, scientists are women, and Ken plays a secondary accessory. However, Gerwen could not make it more clear it is a fantasy land. Tea cups have no tea, presidents and scientists have no skills, transportation is automatic, and you can step from the third floor without hurting yourself. Somehow the plumbing works. In the pink story stereotypical Barbie saves Barbieland from mean Ken with the help of a real world mother, adopting the archetypal hero frame. This is the story that is _told_.
However, there is also a story _shown_. When we move to the real world, we learn it is the men of Mattel that build, maintain, and protect Barbieland. When they detect an anomaly, the whole company drops everything and jumps on a bike to fight for the Barbies. This is the male protector role that is not very big in feminism.
When Ken finds out about the Patriarchy, he really likes it because women seem to appreciate him when he helps them. Enjoying the patriarchy, he decides to join it but is then asked about his skills. Since he has none, he can't find a job. As Kaplan says, the core message of feminism is that men are treated more fairly than women. Ken being rejected because he lacks competence is the core conservative message but definitely not part of feminism as we know it.
He then moves back to Barbieland and transforms it into the Patriarchy. When stereotypical Barbie comes back with the mother, the Barbies and Ken's seem to be pretty happy with the more traditional division of work between the sexes
In the real world, Barbie has a nervous breakdown because she was spoken to by men interested in her body. Thus she requires a pep talk! By telling her how beautiful she is (which is absolutely true) and how smart she is (she has not displayed any skills or competence?) the mother gets stereotypical Barbie on her feet again. This is of course not compatible with the feminist manifest. Women are strong!
They all move back to Barbieland where they find Ken took their fantasy land. The women then incite each other in a typical feminine way and convince themselves the Barbies were brainwashed by Ken. Interestingly, there are no scenes where Ken is doing this, nor do the Barbies indicate any unhappiness.
The mother than recants speech that resembles Lewis Caroll's Jabberwocky or a Judith Butler study. The speech wallows in how unfair women are treated although the abuser is as vague as the Cheshire cat.
"You have to be thin, but not too thin. And you can never say you want to be thin. You have to say you want to be healthy, but also you have to be thin. You have to have money, but you can't ask for money because that's crass. You have to be a boss, but you can't be mean. You have to lead, but you can't squash other people's ideas. You're supposed to love being a mother, but don't talk about your kids all the damn time. You have to be a career woman but also always be looking out for other people. You have to answer for men's bad behavior, which is insane, but if you point that out, you're accused of complaining. You're supposed to stay pretty for men, but not so pretty that you tempt them too much or that you threaten other women because you're supposed to be a part of the sisterhood."
This speech has a magical effect on Barbies! With a ping they are suddenly feminist again! It is hard to unsee that Gerwen's blames the mothers for brainwashing their daughters info feminism.
Using their sexual powers, the Barbies then seduce the Ken's and when the Ken fall for them, they seduce another Ken, causing a fight among the Ken's. Again here, the message is crystal clear that although the men fight, this was as clearly provoked by the women as Russia was by the US. Feminism tends to pretend sexual powers are not real powers but their enormous force is depicted pretty clearly. It directly attacks the #metoo story 'always believe women' in harassment cases, the women use their sexual powers clearly with an agenda.
While the Ken's are fighting, the Barbies then steal the democratic election and reinstate president Barbie and the SCOTUS Barbies. Since they've got the men of Mattel, things keep working, the lack of competency is not an issue.
----
Gerwen paints a very bleak picture of modern women. The Barbies clearly want the prestige of the roles but they are completely uninterested in learning the required competencies. When the prestige is taken, they viciously stoop to a very low moral level to get back their fantasy. They seduce the men to make them fight and steal the election.
For me hard to understand, but when I look at TikTok there are thousands of young women that cannot only see the pink story. They see mean Ken's. Never a moment inspection how the plumbing is supposed to work in Barbieland.
"Again here, the message is crystal clear that although the men fight, this was as clearly provoked by the women as Russia was by the US."
The most funny part of an overall comically absurd comment. But I guess being pro-Russian goes hand in hand with being against whatever goes as "feminism."
The biggest problem for me is that it's a movie that seems obviously marketed to children that seems inappropriate for children. Until reading reviews I had assumed it was a very different movie then it was based on the trailers. Feels like a real bait and switch. Glad I didn't bring my kids.
Cultural conversations of the type that focus on feminism, gender differences, sexual identity, masculinity, etc, are so dominant in the national discourses of countries like the US, the UK, Australia, Canada - but especially the US - so much that I always ponder (still vaguely) what it means and whether it's saying anything about the collective state of consciousness, cultural evolution, and stages of civilization of these mostly western countries relative to other societies (mostly non western) where these sort of conversations are either less advanced in depth and breadth, or less sophisticated, or outrightly nonexistent.
Yes, reading about these things as an outsider in a third world country, often sounds ridiculous. But I also know that it takes some level of evolution (or sophistication?) of the mind to have even ventured into this region of discourse at all. There seems to me an optimal level of freedom of thought and expression as well as a minimum level of sociopolitical tolerance a society must attain in order to find itself where many western countries are today in terms of what currently dominate their cultural discourses (which I must note dates back to the 60s if not farther).
One tentative conclusion I'm beginning to draw is this; it's either the west as a collective entity (and as represented by her values and cultural forces) is made of a stuff fundamentally different from those of other non western societies or she is merely ahead of the curve in terms of advanced civilization - not just technological but, perhaps more importantly, moral. Such that some of the issues that appear to be radically polarizing her citizens are actually the end result of an intense collective consciousness in ebullition.
Saw the movie last night, I (humbly) think you are missing the deeper message in the movie, which (at least from my perspective) is actually a critique precisely of that "brand of modern feminism."
"I emphasize that this is not what the filmmaker believes. Rather, it’s a nod toward what the film maker might believe about real world gender relations. "
I think that you're right, that's not what the filmmaker believes, but rather than a "nod toward," is actually a satire/critique of what the filmmaker thinks other people think about real world gender relations. When you actually walk through the movie, all the statements that characters make that fit that "brand of modern feminism" are actually undermined by the events in the story. Sure, at no point does a thinly veiled stand-in for the director break the fourth wall and make that critique of "obviously Barbie isn't a fascist, who would think that?" but the film implicitly does it in a way that can't possibly be an accident. If I were posting this on Marginal Revolution, I might use the term "Straussian."
Even the long speech the real-world mom - about the demands on women - gives to Barbie is full of items that are not "things imposed on women by men" and even though the shallow context of the scene makes it seem like it might be - it's more of an intra-woman debate.
At the end of the movie, it very much stands up for the conservative idea that, contra that "brand of modern feminism", that there are actual real-world differences (but certainly that they don't lock anyone into anything) between men and women (what is the first thing the director shows the character that is an "non-human idea" doing when she actually becomes a real human?), that ideas and aspirations and themes in movies, toys or media should not replace the real world practical dreams and needs of real humans, and the by-far most strongly implied message: that the human parental impulse (theoretically rejected in the opening 2001-parody, and implicitly by Mattel's/everyone's revulsion of "Midge") is actually vastly more meaningful than anything else in the movie? After all, who are the people and relationships who actually matter in this movie? The real world mom and her daughter. Barbie and Ken and their feelings and relationships don't actually matter, they're just ideas - they only matter how they reflect into the real world (explicitly outlined by the mom's thoughts directly affecting idea-Barbie)
What is the most important, climactic scene in the movie, where the director really DOES insert a stand-in for their voice? A mother/God/Geppetto literally breathes life into the clay of (giving birth to) their non-human created idea, giving them true human/woman life - and with the explicitly listed-by-the-camera necessary traits of: exhalation, heartbeat, attachments to friends/family, acceptance of the need to grapple with mundane reality and.... visits to the gynecologist's office.
I'm not a member of that "brand of modern feminism" - or social conservatism. But I have eyes, and I can see where the movie lands.
100% The early tip off is the fact that she is confused that there are not women construction workers. Hardly a glamorous profession that feminists argue should be equally or overrepresented by ladies.
Very good point, there's a gentle critique of the "representation matters" idea throughout the movie.
Very insightful, thanks! I haven't seen it yet but have to wonder why this satire would be so subtle as to be easily misunderstood, or is it not that subtle but people aren't so smart/blinded by their preconceived notions?
I don't think it's subtle, but I think the reason is that it doesn't fit into people's perceptions of modern satire because it's not an all-out attack. I don't think the filmmaker was thinking "these people are terrible and I need to show them up!" There's genuine sympathy for parts (and in different contexts or timeframes) of the viewpoints being satirized and that's what I think people don't recognize: that a film can accurately express a viewpoint (intellectual Turing test?), express sympathy for certain points of it, and also satirize and critique where perhaps it falls down. Below "Vaniver" says that it is a "humanist" movie in dialogue with a lot of different view points, and I'd agree with that.
I completely agree. This interpretation is what my brother and I immediately landed on after walking out of the theater. So when we'd see reviews by the likes of Ben Shapiro or the Critical Drinker, we'd just roll our eyes because it seemed like they were completely blind to the satire and could only get angry at what was on the surface level. I understand that they have their audiences who would totally agree with them on this analysis, but I was honestly disappointed in their lack of depth for what seem to be partisan/ideological reasons.
Ultimately, it's doing well at the box office, so they either have to explain why the "go woke, go broke" trend doesn't apply to this one, turn the tide of opinion so that it does apply, or reflect and realize that there's more to this one. Somehow I think they're going for the middle option given the success of boycotts of companies such as Bud Light.
I went with daughter 2 (25) and daughter (3) 23 plus my present wife.
As a piece of entertainment I enjoyed it. It looked good, was original, and the actors were great.
It didn’t annoy me and I laughed a few times. Never felt like I was being hit over the head with theory. Ken’s references to “beach” was very funny.
I really liked the movie because it captures a more fundamental truth than Feminism vs. Patriarchy. It displayed how women tend to want a nice environment that validates them as they are and how men want a competitive environment where they can win through self improvement. I think these are valid and important gender differences that a mature culture has to consider versus the somewhat shallow ideologies of Feminism vs. Patriarchy
When Ken said he liked the patriarchy until he found out it wasn’t just horses made me laugh.
definitely the best line in the movie
I appreciate the sentiment of this post, but these examples/arguments are hardly convincing. You say "I do not live in a "men rule" world. All I need to do is look around me to see women in positions of authority." and then a few sentences later use "women now make up about 55% of law school students, 38% of practicing attorneys, and 22% of equity partners" as an example of that...from my perspective 55% of students --> 22% of equity partners is actually quite a terrible example of what you are trying to prove. Regardless of the reasons for this (I'm guessing we would actually agree on them), this example doesn't help your argument. You also just cherry pick examples of women in leadership positions...is it supposed to be impressive that the UK (and 2 other countries you listed!) has, at some points in the past, elected a female leader?
Additionally, you write: "Barbie’s description of Mattel itself is somewhat off the mark. When you watch the film, the executives are all depicted as men with one exception". You then go on to talk about how the board of Mattel actually includes women, and then finally come back to "To be completely fair, Barbie has a more accurate depiction if you stick to the executive leadership, where only the human resources director is female". They WERE sticking to executive leadership in the movie, so not sure why you went on the tangent about the board at all. At least you came back to disprove your own point.
IMO Barbie is a humanist film more than a feminist film, especially at the end.
For years I had people on the internet tell me some variant of "feminism supports men too" and it always seemed like a transparent lie. But the Barbie movie takes Ken's plight seriously. (Famously, Ryan Gosling took the role after he read the script, walked outside, and found his daughter's Ken doll facedown in the mud.) It's like someone looked at the actual scenario and tried to figure out who was getting a fair deal and who wasn't.
I don't think the film takes a stance for any particular wave of feminism or gender relations; instead I think it's trying to be a conversation between them.
[Spoilers]
Jesus, did you watch the movie? The movie has two narratives: a pink colored glasses, and a rational.
You just review the pink version. Barbie lives in a land where a black woman is president, SCOTUS is all female, scientists are women, and Ken plays a secondary accessory. However, Gerwen could not make it more clear it is a fantasy land. Tea cups have no tea, presidents and scientists have no skills, transportation is automatic, and you can step from the third floor without hurting yourself. Somehow the plumbing works. In the pink story stereotypical Barbie saves Barbieland from mean Ken with the help of a real world mother, adopting the archetypal hero frame. This is the story that is _told_.
However, there is also a story _shown_. When we move to the real world, we learn it is the men of Mattel that build, maintain, and protect Barbieland. When they detect an anomaly, the whole company drops everything and jumps on a bike to fight for the Barbies. This is the male protector role that is not very big in feminism.
When Ken finds out about the Patriarchy, he really likes it because women seem to appreciate him when he helps them. Enjoying the patriarchy, he decides to join it but is then asked about his skills. Since he has none, he can't find a job. As Kaplan says, the core message of feminism is that men are treated more fairly than women. Ken being rejected because he lacks competence is the core conservative message but definitely not part of feminism as we know it.
He then moves back to Barbieland and transforms it into the Patriarchy. When stereotypical Barbie comes back with the mother, the Barbies and Ken's seem to be pretty happy with the more traditional division of work between the sexes
In the real world, Barbie has a nervous breakdown because she was spoken to by men interested in her body. Thus she requires a pep talk! By telling her how beautiful she is (which is absolutely true) and how smart she is (she has not displayed any skills or competence?) the mother gets stereotypical Barbie on her feet again. This is of course not compatible with the feminist manifest. Women are strong!
They all move back to Barbieland where they find Ken took their fantasy land. The women then incite each other in a typical feminine way and convince themselves the Barbies were brainwashed by Ken. Interestingly, there are no scenes where Ken is doing this, nor do the Barbies indicate any unhappiness.
The mother than recants speech that resembles Lewis Caroll's Jabberwocky or a Judith Butler study. The speech wallows in how unfair women are treated although the abuser is as vague as the Cheshire cat.
"You have to be thin, but not too thin. And you can never say you want to be thin. You have to say you want to be healthy, but also you have to be thin. You have to have money, but you can't ask for money because that's crass. You have to be a boss, but you can't be mean. You have to lead, but you can't squash other people's ideas. You're supposed to love being a mother, but don't talk about your kids all the damn time. You have to be a career woman but also always be looking out for other people. You have to answer for men's bad behavior, which is insane, but if you point that out, you're accused of complaining. You're supposed to stay pretty for men, but not so pretty that you tempt them too much or that you threaten other women because you're supposed to be a part of the sisterhood."
This speech has a magical effect on Barbies! With a ping they are suddenly feminist again! It is hard to unsee that Gerwen's blames the mothers for brainwashing their daughters info feminism.
Using their sexual powers, the Barbies then seduce the Ken's and when the Ken fall for them, they seduce another Ken, causing a fight among the Ken's. Again here, the message is crystal clear that although the men fight, this was as clearly provoked by the women as Russia was by the US. Feminism tends to pretend sexual powers are not real powers but their enormous force is depicted pretty clearly. It directly attacks the #metoo story 'always believe women' in harassment cases, the women use their sexual powers clearly with an agenda.
While the Ken's are fighting, the Barbies then steal the democratic election and reinstate president Barbie and the SCOTUS Barbies. Since they've got the men of Mattel, things keep working, the lack of competency is not an issue.
----
Gerwen paints a very bleak picture of modern women. The Barbies clearly want the prestige of the roles but they are completely uninterested in learning the required competencies. When the prestige is taken, they viciously stoop to a very low moral level to get back their fantasy. They seduce the men to make them fight and steal the election.
For me hard to understand, but when I look at TikTok there are thousands of young women that cannot only see the pink story. They see mean Ken's. Never a moment inspection how the plumbing is supposed to work in Barbieland.
We're in for some tough times.
"Again here, the message is crystal clear that although the men fight, this was as clearly provoked by the women as Russia was by the US."
The most funny part of an overall comically absurd comment. But I guess being pro-Russian goes hand in hand with being against whatever goes as "feminism."
Do not let my facts and logic get in the way of your fantasy?
"facts and logic"
"Russia was provoked by the U.S."
Exactly my humor. Keep up the good work, bro.
The biggest problem for me is that it's a movie that seems obviously marketed to children that seems inappropriate for children. Until reading reviews I had assumed it was a very different movie then it was based on the trailers. Feels like a real bait and switch. Glad I didn't bring my kids.
Cultural conversations of the type that focus on feminism, gender differences, sexual identity, masculinity, etc, are so dominant in the national discourses of countries like the US, the UK, Australia, Canada - but especially the US - so much that I always ponder (still vaguely) what it means and whether it's saying anything about the collective state of consciousness, cultural evolution, and stages of civilization of these mostly western countries relative to other societies (mostly non western) where these sort of conversations are either less advanced in depth and breadth, or less sophisticated, or outrightly nonexistent.
Yes, reading about these things as an outsider in a third world country, often sounds ridiculous. But I also know that it takes some level of evolution (or sophistication?) of the mind to have even ventured into this region of discourse at all. There seems to me an optimal level of freedom of thought and expression as well as a minimum level of sociopolitical tolerance a society must attain in order to find itself where many western countries are today in terms of what currently dominate their cultural discourses (which I must note dates back to the 60s if not farther).
One tentative conclusion I'm beginning to draw is this; it's either the west as a collective entity (and as represented by her values and cultural forces) is made of a stuff fundamentally different from those of other non western societies or she is merely ahead of the curve in terms of advanced civilization - not just technological but, perhaps more importantly, moral. Such that some of the issues that appear to be radically polarizing her citizens are actually the end result of an intense collective consciousness in ebullition.