barbie (2023): a feminist's retrospective
on beauty standards, corporate humanization, consumerism, intersectionality, and the Male Loneliness Epidemic
Warning: Barbie spoilers ahead! Also, there’s a brief discussion of negative body image, weight, disordered eating, sexual violence, and a suicide mention, so please proceed with caution if needed!
By the way, this post is tragically too long to be fully viewed in the e-mail format, so if you’re interested in reading the complete piece, it’s available on the Substack website! It’s also worth noting that I’ll generally be referring to “Stereotypical Barbie” (played by Margot Robbie) as just “Barbie” unless I’m also talking about other Barbies or I felt the clarification was necessary. Did I need to say that? I’m overthinking this one a little.
Let’s get down to brass tacks! Last week, I watched the Barbie movie for the first time and left the theater feeling…strange, which is not exactly how I expected (or wanted) to feel. So here’s a very scattered review, featuring signature rambles, a few statistics that I hope lend me a bit of credibility, and overall emotion-driven dumping!
Finding fault with Barbie (2023) is a tricky endeavor — with the rise of right-wing grifters misunderstanding its feminist messaging (which is not only rudimentary but literally spoon-fed to us!) and harping on just about every aspect of the film with misogynistic, reductive drivel, there has emerged a swath of defensive young girls and women intent on making broad generalizations about any and all critique. Statements like “if you didn’t like the Barbie movie, you’re a ‘pick me’ girl” have become all too common — essentially, the insinuation here is that any woman who dares disparage this alleged masterpiece is only doing so for male attention. It feels obvious to point out the irony of an inherently sexist claim intended to support what is meant to be a movie that overflows with the theme of women’s empowerment, but I’ll do it anyway.
Others argue that any time someone of a marginalized identity creates serious, thought-provoking art, it’s disproportionately analyzed and subsequently torn to shreds when compared to the projects put out by cis-gendered, heterosexual, white men. While that point does hold water on its own, I feel its potential implications are alarming — are we not allowed to scrutinize anything placed in front of us? Don’t we deserve to be treated with respect (as a collective audience with overwhelming spending power and social sway) from writers and filmmakers? To say that it is a groundbreaking feminist act to promote a literal piece of media that cost over $145 million dollars to create and $150 million dollars to market (it’s a tangible thing made by thousands of real people, sure, but a thing nonetheless that boisterously demands our attention and hard-earned money)…it’s simply ludicrous! This is just consumerism!!
The phrase “Just let people enjoy things!” is a feeble way to combat honest, good-faith criticism…and what’s more, I didn’t even enjoy the movie all that much! Sure, I loved the extensive Cultural Moment of Barbie in some aspects…it was delightful and exciting to watch hordes of young girls and women swarm theaters in pink, and even more so refreshing to feel a raw emotional connection while watching with my mom and little sister. I found the costume design to be especially impeccable, the sets to be perfectly whimsical, and the performances to be surprisingly solid! It is not, however, enjoyable for me to watch the same stifling, regressive rhetoric I’ve seen my whole life being rebranded for mass consumption in kitschy, pink packaging. I am less concerned with how “unapologetically feminine” the Barbie movie is, and more about its capitalistic commodification of human emotion, its sanitization of the historically problematic Mattel brand, its embarrassing ignorance of intersectional feminism, its semi-reluctant reinforcement of endemic and virtually unattainable beauty standards, and yes, its harmful oversimplification of the patriarchy that it loves to talk about so much!
(Side note: I want to make it clear that I have absolutely no issue with how “Feminism 101” the movie is. I think it’s logical for Barbie to consume simplified versions of these progressive ideas ((as someone who has literally lived her entire life as a doll in a quasi-imaginary utopia)), and it just makes more sense for the movie to remain as uncontroversial and accessible as possible by straying away from more nuanced feminist thought. I do, however, take umbrage with how messy and haphazard this movie’s supposedly radical messaging is, and I hope to adequately cover all my concerns through this piece!)
That was a lot of seemingly unnecessary big words, but I promise that I’ll try to unpack them as best as I can. Let’s start at the top!
To kick things off, I’ll start small. I’ve spoken about the ways that it can be personally damaging to water down our own mental health struggles, and I was reminded of that phenomenon as I watched the Barbie movie attempt to connect with me on a hyper-specific level. Initially, I thought that the interlude depicting “Depression Barbie” (who supposedly watches the BBC’s Pride & Prejudice ((1995)) all day) was clever and surprisingly raw…then, I experienced this strange and all-consuming hollowness in my stomach at just how thoroughly we’ve accepted the mainstream commercialization of mental illness. I will say that I harbor no judgment towards anyone who felt affirmed by this scene — it is immensely validating to feel represented and understood, whether it’s through the honeyed eyes of a loving friend or a glorified toy commercial of a blockbuster that recently surpassed the $1 billion dollar mark at the box office. When we make these kinds of sardonic, tongue-in-cheek jokes to ourselves, though, we are coping with the grim and often unpalatable throes of depression; when the Barbie movie makes them, it is capitalizing off of our pain. It’s saying “We see you, we’re here for you1, we get it! Now buy our shit!!!” (Side note: I don’t think these kinds of #relatable quips would feel so insidious if the Barbie movie’s marketing was a teeny bit more progressive and if there were some concrete statements made about mental health, but that’s not the case here. Instead, it feels like it’s reeling us in with these genuinely humorous and empathetic jokes just so it can convince us to like the rest of the movie and purchase anything with a Barbie logo on it. Make sure to read Jessica DeFino’s equal parts affirming and scathing deep-dive!!)
If I had known that Mattel Films was among the producers of Barbie (2023), I wouldn’t have entered the theatre with such high hopes.2 Since I didn’t, I felt optimistic about the way the movie challenged how male-dominated the upper management of the aforementioned corporation is (both in its satirized, movie version and in its real-life version3) despite the fact that young girls are the target audience. Not only does this mean that it is largely men who are reaping the benefits of the wildly successful Barbie brand, but that there is little upwards mobility for characters like Gloria, an unappreciated secretary who has taken to playing with old Barbie dolls to combat her woeful existentialism. During the middle of the movie, however, it’s clear that there will be no purposeful critique of gender-based discrimination in the workplace — CEO Ynon Kreiz (played by Will Ferrell) is an awkwardly bumbling bag of laughs, and his posse of similarly clueless and incompetent subordinates do not read as menacing or intentionally cruel in the slightest. By the end, Ferrell (I would say the character’s last name, but he’s a real person and I feel like that’d be a little confusing since I’ll mention him later!) even undergoes his own brief journey of self-discovery and realizes that he loves tickles! How adorable!
As such, the semblance of social commentary withers and dies, and we are expected to believe that the movie has adequately addressed this issue simply because it was mentioned. The thing is, if Gerwig actually included a scene where the title of CEO was passed onto a woman4, for instance, it would beg the question — since the company is now so focused on uplifting diversity/equity/inclusion nowadays, why isn’t the current CEO of Mattel a woman? Questions like that start conversations; those kinds of conversations breed widespread tension! (At the very least, real-life Ynon Kreiz would probably be a little uncomfortable, and we can’t have that.) Above all, this movie is singularly concerned with protecting the newly sterilized Barbie IP…and everyone who’s profiting off of it.
Are we excited to dissect the implications of Weird Barbie’s existence? Because I sure am!5 Once again, things were definitely starting off strong! Tonally and appearance-wise, Weird Barbie is a much-needed contrast to the rest of the polished, almost uncanny Barbies — her hair is not glossy and perfectly curled, her nails are not manicured, her makeup is unconventional, and her clothing is haphazard and considered traditionally “unflattering” (a word that I kind of hate nowadays since I’ve learned and recognized that it tends to be rooted in fatphobia). She is the only Barbie who seems to defy traditional beauty standards in the slightest and (this is the critical part) is perfectly content with her own “abnormal” appearance…she is also the only Barbie who is harshly criticized for her appearance at length, with Stereotypical Barbie even explicitly stating (to Weird Barbie’s face!) how much she fears the possibility of looking like her. By the end of the movie, President Barbie (played by the lovely and dynamic Issa Rae) is even compelled to apologize for all the cruel, superficial insults they’ve all flung at this shunned and disrespected pariah, but the apology seems to fall flat because it’s not acted with any degree of seriousness or sincerity. There exists no desire here to identify how our pervasive beauty culture corrupts and contorts our perception of others to the point of enabling social ostracization…but at least you can buy Weird Barbie for fifty dollars to feel as though you’re disrupting the status quo!
Here is where I get incredibly frustrated: it would’ve been easy to make a thought-provoking statement on the way we are pressured into using cosmetics to obtain social capital!! Barbie is an innocent and naïve doll, unaware of all the horrific ramifications associated with her influence in the Real World, right? So why couldn’t she have learned anything of value? Other than a virtually inconsequential verbal “take-down” administered by the movie’s version of an overdramatic feminist (Sasha), Barbie is never forced to confront just how emotionally (and fiscally!!) taxing it is to undergo various beauty rituals with the goal of receiving a morsel of respect, attention, or kindness. None of the Barbies themselves are particularly encumbered by the ordeal of maintaining flawless appearances…they have never starved themselves or spent thousands of dollars annually on skincare and cosmetics. They needn’t concern themselves with maintaining their hair, their nails, or the smoothness of their bodies. But real women do!
It would have been so refreshing to show Barbie having some kind of additional existential freakout about how she never realized what her mere existence was promoting…instead, we are presented with an arbitrary scene where she earnestly tells an old woman: “You’re beautiful”, to which the woman replies, without shame or hesitation: “I know”. Removed from context, I think the inclusion of this interaction is perfectly sweet and heartwarming…but against the backdrop of the rest of the film, it’s narratively untenable. How is it possible that this scene exists within the same movie that, just earlier, fixates on cellulite (of all things!) as an undeniable sign that things are devastatingly wrong for Barbie? My issue with this unnecessarily sensitive plot point isn’t exactly that the Barbies are horrified at the sight of cellulite — it makes sense that any change in appearance would be marked as deviant (as evidenced by their similarly histrionic reaction to Stereotypical Barbie’s newly flat feet). I just think it’s a huge misstep that this wasn’t addressed again at all. How can a so-called feminist, body-positive movie fall into such 2000s-tabloid-esque thinking without later condemning it in the slightest? Personally, I would’ve loved it if Barbie noticed that she had cellulite after her journey of self-discovery led her to desire a life in the Real World…it would be a signifier that she was no longer a hollow, plastic doll for large-scale consumption but rather an autonomous human being with a real fucking body! It truly could have been such a satisfying and fulfilling bookend and a fairly straightforward way to show the culmination of our beloved eponymous character’s feminist radicalization, but instead, she never challenges or reforms her damaging ideals of what a woman should look like (which is harmful not only to her but to every woman she supposedly uplifts)…alas!
By the conclusion of the film, Stereotypical Barbie is virtually the same person — sure, she’s taken her abridged Intro to Gender Studies course (courtesy of Gloria!) and realized she has some semblance of agency, but she looks virtually the same while waiting in line for her much-anticipated gynecologist appointment (barring her new Birkenstocks, of course). This isn’t a denouncement of anyone who participates in beauty culture — our appearance directly correlates to the quality of our casual and professional relationships, of course, but this is an idealistic movie, and this would have been a great opportunity to actually be idealistic! For example, Barbie could realize that she is subject to the same physical impositions all women experience in the real world in the Real World — that her makeup can wash off, that her hair can become tangled and frizzy, that her stomach is no longer flat after having a delicious pasta dinner…you get the point.6 In this hypothetical rewrite, she could, of course, be a little overwhelmed by these changes but ultimately reach the epiphany that it’s an enormous blessing to finally have control over her appearance…maybe we could’ve gotten a spin on a cheesy romcom scene where she tries out a bunch of different outfits and hairstyles to figure out her own personal style? It would’ve shown, at the very least, that her freedom from Mattel means something. I also would’ve loved to see a final shot of Barbie where she doesn’t look so goddamn perfect and identical to the woman I saw in every single scene! Her lack of a notable appearance transformation only serves to remind me that she has essentially the same personality and worldview as well…she never attempts to understand or dismantle the standards she’s enabled by talking to fellow Real Women who have been systemically harmed by these expectations. That would be far too messy and complicated and yes, controversial! Quite simply, labeling yourself as a champion of women’s liberation cannot merely entail spewing a few well-meaning platitudes about how everyone is beautiful…you must critically tackle your own misogynistic biases perpetuated by the cosmetic industry! Barbie cannot because she is a physical manifestation of a historically and currently standing pinnacle of beauty…to oppose that would be to eradicate everything she is.
The movie’s shaky politics on aesthetic appearances should come as no surprise, given Mattel’s unfortunate penchant for upholding and perpetuating fatal body standards to a world of young girls who have already begun crafting mental checklists of every one of their physical insecurities, as well as which workouts and diets can beat their dysmorphia into submission. (Reading that sentence aloud made me out of breath, which is how I knew it was a keeper!) I was both fascinated and horrified by this Rolling Stone piece on Barbie’s contentious past as a newly emerging role model for the masses:
Perhaps the most enduring criticism of Barbie is the unrealistic body standards that she presents to girls. With her impossibly tiny waist and ample bosom, it’s really no surprise that Handler borrowed so heavily from a sex doll. The accessories that Mattel sold in the ensuing years didn’t do much to assuage people’s concerns, either. The 1963 “Barbie Babysits” doll came with a book titled How To Lose Weight, which advised: “Don’t Eat!” The same book was sold with the 1965 “Slumber Party Barbie,” along with a scale permanently set to 110 pounds. Mattel finally began producing “plus-size” doll models in 2016, and dolls currently come in five different body types.
Though the inclusion of more diverse body types has certainly been a net positive, there is no denying the simple fact that Mattel spent fifty-seven years7 maintaining a very narrow paragon of desirability — Barbie was literally modeled after a cartoon character turned adult novelty toy. There is a reason why regardless of the brand’s rehabilitative overhaul, the titular character of the film is and always had to be someone as conventionally attractive as Margot Robbie…she’s the one everyone thinks of when they think of the word “Barbie!”, of course. It’s not as though I expected the film to confront this — once again, it’s tightly bound by corporate constraints — yet it felt bizarre to watch a piece of art that seemed insistent on highlighting diversity but which also refused to make any statements (except for the one about “white savior Barbie”, which is funny but kind of a cowardly joke since it comes from Sasha8, a character already established to be overly and unnecessarily critical) about bigotry in the real world. While Barbieland is home to a black, female president and a highly esteemed trans doctor9, the Real World is shown to be run by overwhelmingly white men — but this shocking difference is mostly played for laughs. The simple fact is, anti-black and gender-critical ideology has material consequences…and it could’ve been compelling to watch Stereotypical Barbie come to terms with her own privilege! In lieu of this, we have scenes that nervously flirt with intersectionality (i.e. Stereotypical Barbie insisting that her efforts to defeat the Kens would only be possible with the help of everyone else…huzzah for white women not taking all the credit for once?) but which ultimately left me feeling quite disappointed. To be clear, I think that conversations about the peril of marginalization should be spearheaded by marginalized people and not co-opted by their privileged counterparts…I never anticipated a movie like Barbie (directed by and starring white women) to handle these issues with a considerably high degree of nuance and thoughtfulness. It’s just…you can’t have it both ways, Mattel! You can’t reap the benefits of all your shiny, new, inclusive Barbies (which feature various skin tones, hair textures, body types, physical ability, etc.) and simultaneously quiver in fear at the mere mention of acknowledging just why it has taken so long for them to be represented and recognized as beautiful in mainstream media!!!
Now that we’ve conquered a host of mini-bosses, I will attempt to tackle the Goliath…the long-awaited discussion of our “male loneliness epidemic”. First things first, I wholeheartedly believe that this does exist to some degree. Despite the barrage of vitriol constantly flung at women who open up about their emotions (we’re all allegedly wildly hysterical or calculated liars!), I can muster up a shred of empathy for men who feel suffocated on an individual level by their lack of social skills, close friends, and romantic love. In my personal, non-evidence-backed opinion, here is a typical example of the male loneliness epidemic in action:
Say you’re an eleven-year-old boy with unfettered Internet access. Since every online algorithm is primed to feed you inflammatory but easily digestible content for your age demographic, it’s likely you’ll be subjected to videos of alpha-male conservative podcasters and fast-talking “commentators”…watching those out of curiosity will therefore plunge you headfirst into a cycle of consuming similar media and internalizing malignant messages about what masculinity entails. You will grow up believing you are owed sex and love; you will additionally foster connections with other boys based on your shared abhorrence for women. As a teenager, you’ll fall deeper and deeper into an alt-right pipeline and endorse just about every kind of discriminatory, hateful rhetoric presented to you. But then, you’ll undergo some kind of worrying shift…maybe in college, or as a young adult, you’ll realize just how fucking empty your life is. You’ll crave the rush of physical touch and the comfort of genuine, honest companionship! You’ve utilized your social privilege to assert dominance over those more oppressed than you, and it hasn’t made you feel any more fulfilled. At this point, however, you’ve driven away all the women in your life who could’ve provided a semblance of support for you (or you’ve outright refused to form connections with them in the first place)…and you’re left with an unshakable superiority complex about the seriousness of your suffering.
This kind of pain, regardless of how steeped in hostility it is, certainly stems from an understandable place. We all long for love! The thing is, though, no one is entitled to it. For hundreds of years, men just haven’t gotten the message! Male loneliness is somehow a universal burden that all women must inevitably shoulder…meanwhile, our neuroses and traumas are dismissed and belittled. Journalist Kat Tenbarge puts it better than I ever could in this succinct tweet:
A key difference in how the "male loneliness epidemic" versus the rape and domestic violence crisis is discussed: male loneliness is assumed to be a shared responsibility, a collective impediment, while the relentless and increasing sexual violence against women and girls isn't[.]
(August 10th, 2023)
If you are a violently misogynistic incel, it is not the fault of the women who you sexually harass and brazenly lust after. It is morally alright to feel depressed and hopeless on an individual level, but the problem is when this bitterness is directed at those with less social power than you and equated with the sheer terror and despair that is inherently woven into womanhood. For the record, I don’t think we should ignore men’s issues at all — not just out of basic human respect, but because their loneliness, frustration, and resentment directly threaten the immediate safety of women, who experience disproportionate rates of intimate-partner violence and sexual assault.
“Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.”
-Margaret Atwood
And the simple fact is, men are not more ontologically profound than women or more deserving of compassion…to pretend otherwise would be to make a blatantly unsubstantiated claim rooted in bio-essentialism. We are conditioned to think that way because of the inordinate forgiveness and grace offered to male offenders, whose potential “bright futures” are given far more importance than the well-being of their female victims. But it’s not true, and it’s never been true. Women’s pain matters. Women’s pain is and always has been a global crisis.
For years, we have consumed movies made by men and for men to affirm the notion that they are uniquely special, that their stories are deserving of endless time and attention, and that women exist merely as accessories to their character development. Therefore, Barbie (2023) was heralded for its unabashed focus on women months before its release, in no small part due to how beloved indie darling/director Greta Gerwig is — we were promised that our stories would take the spotlight for once, and it was exhilarating! But was most of that really true?
Let’s talk about Ken. A lovable, airheaded, jealousy-ridden boyfriend whose insecurities lead to a complete collapse of the exceptionally functional Barbieland to make way for a patriarchal alternative. Though it might not seem like it at first due to how charming and self-effacing he is, Ken is a textbook victim of the male loneliness epidemic…and he’s also the most developed character in the entire movie. Regrettably.
To understand Ken, we need to break down his central conflict. Although Barbieland isn’t a completely egalitarian society by any means (with Barbies essentially running the entire show, from the executive office to the Supreme Court), the Kens do not suffer from any kind of tangible structural oppression. In fact, they are basically carefree and euphoric literally all the time! Ken’s plight stems from the fact that Barbie doesn’t love him or spend enough time with him…but that is an emotionally charged and deeply isolated experience, not one reflective of systemic failure. After visiting the real world and witnessing the difference in how he is treated, Ken returns to Barbieland to completely transfigure the idyllic town into the monstrosity he names “Kendom” — a 1950s-style misogynistic hellscape in which the Kens usurp all sociopolitical power, while the Barbies are brainwashed into blindly adoring them while donning what looks like a bunch of skimpy Halloween costumes. It is humiliating, jarring, and nightmarish for Stereotypical Barbie (and us!) to return and witness how her intelligent, capable friends have been completely replaced by these Stepford-Wife-style sex dolls.
Some have drawn equivalencies between the two worlds, but there’s really nothing to suggest that Kens ever received this kind of dehumanizing treatment. Although Kens didn’t hold any political power in Barbieland, their autonomy and dignity were always respected. They doted on their girlfriends not because of some strange hypnotic curse, but because they genuinely wanted to. There’s no comparison here! By the end of the film, Barbie even apologizes for the heinous crime of…inadvertently neglecting Ken, but when does he apologize for objectifying all of her friends and relegating them to mindless, doting servants? None of the Kens are really even educated on the error of their ways since they are literally hoodwinked into resuming their original roles…this could’ve been a chance for the movie to make a statement about the way we coddle men and excuse their misogyny, but instead, Ken never fucking learns anything!
It’s easy to water down the effects of the patriarchy when the primary characters who engage in misogyny (the Mattel CEO and Ken) are endearing fools, but how does the movie handle the ones who aren’t? The answer: poorly.
I want to talk about a scene that I feel like no one is really discussing10, but which surprisingly was the only one that really made me break down into tears: when Barbie enters the Real World and experiences sexual harassment for the first time. The sheer innocence in her face at how new and horrifying the ordeal is, coupled with Ken’s utter disregard for her feelings — it all reminded me of the first time I was catcalled as a kid and just felt so unnerved, so numbingly awful and scared. Soon after, Barbie is literally arrested for defending herself against the “undertone of violence” she sensed — the deadpan expression she wears on her mugshot is humorously juxtaposed against Ken’s elated smile both in the movie and in about a thousand online memes, but it’s so somber with added context.11
This added plot point felt like it was on the verge of something groundbreaking…for once, the antagonists of the movie weren’t goofy caricatures, but believable and threatening figures who could’ve received a crumb of accountability for their actions or at least further recognition of the theme they introduced: fear of male violence. These men are also “victims of the patriarchy”, but the movie certainly couldn’t allow them to go on self-actualizing journeys of discovery because they are, simply put, cartoonishly bad people. But this is a movie meant to make men feel like they are good people, that they needn’t beg for forgiveness from the women they’ve hurt or make any genuine steps towards undoing years of ingrained sexism. By treating the well-meaning, likable misogynists who “simply don’t know better!” with kid gloves, the movie allows every man who watches it to identify with the fictitious, dramatized Kens…instead of the ethically corrupt men of the Real World. In real life, misogynists don’t clearly and neatly sort themselves “good” and “bad” categories after a cursory interaction…many of them are caring, intelligent, accomplished, respectful, and ignorant of their own bigotry. Even language like “Ken brought patriarchy to Barbieland” seems to wholly remove him from his massive transgression — I would say it’s more that he actively and gleefully enforced patriarchal ideas the same way that all men do. I wish that Ken was forced to realize just how similar he is to those men…I wish that Barbie got angry at him! Instead, she’s perfectly accommodating and understanding of his “identity crisis” — which is how women have acted literally since the dawn of time!12 After Ken’s unearned redemption, the movie wraps up rather hastily without adequately finishing any of the conversations it attempted to start. This overarching criticism has been levied at many films before by a host of critics (including me literally a handful of paragraphs ago), but I think it’s worth explicitly saying again: just because you present an issue, doesn’t mean you’ve addressed it meaningfully. And there’s almost nothing meaningful about the way any of these serious topics have been handled!
To wind things down a little, I wish I liked Barbie (2023). I wanted to love it so desperately! And I really can’t praise how beautiful and creative the aesthetic choices are enough…it felt like literally everything except the script was handled with deliberation and care. From the bottom of my heart, I believe Greta Gerwig is a uniquely talented filmmaker with a world of potential to make at least a dozen other movies that tear me to shreds. I don’t mean to sound like a patronizing schoolteacher, but I just felt like she could’ve done better. Except…she really couldn’t have, because the Barbie movie was never going to be the feminist masterpiece anyone hoped it would be!13 It’s worth noting, however, that Gerwig chose this project freely — she was enthused about the prospect of working on such a big-budget, film with recognizable IP, and even cheekily embraced the controversial nature of it all: “I’m doing the thing and subverting the thing”.14
Regardless of what the movie was going to be like, I knew I would start sobbing in the theater simply because it was mildly emotionally harrowing to project my own lived experiences with misogyny onto the film…and that was likely Gerwig’s intention.15 No matter how twisted the film’s version of feminism is, it was always going to feel revolutionary…no matter how undeveloped nearly all of the female characters are, they were always going to be deemed progressive icons!16 You might say that barring all these gripes, it’s still an entertaining film — you’re meant to turn your brain off and consume it uncritically! Here’s the thing: I just can’t separate my sociopolitical concerns from my enjoyment of the movie not solely because of my own (severe) morality complex, but because upon dissection, we are fundamentally left with a rather flimsy, haphazard story. Since Barbie (2023) bears such weak messaging — since it’s spread so thin and tries to please so many crowds (it just can’t be subversive and edgy and feminist and pro-Mattel and antiracist but basically ignorant of racism and challenging of beauty standards but also palatable enough so beauty brands will enthusiastically race to make collaborations), the plot suffers. It seems more like Gerwig was focused on putting out a vague feminist message and shoehorning a ton of random, poignant scenes that would go viral17 than actually developing the characters in earnest…as I said, far too much time is spent on the titular male character’s development in a movie that’s supposedly about women finding themselves.18 The end result is a project that feels half-finished, one which meanders along without clear direction or purpose or fucking grit. And we’re all still obsessed with it!
I will say this forever until the end of time: women deserve better than this. It’s not my intention to be unnecessarily harsh towards anything solely marketed for us, because yes, it’s satisfying to perform hyper-femininity and invigorating to see women’s issues brought to the forefront of the cultural climate. But Barbie (2023) is more interested in making us experience a fleeting high than it is in dismantling the patriarchal ideals that Mattel has exploited for decades. It reinforces the idea that women should bend over backward to assuage men’s emotional pain and shies away from discussing structural issues in favor of shoving a dozen faux-optimistic messages about womanhood in our faces. Most of all, it hungers for our capital. With every cutesy Barbie joke we make online and with every visually stunning Barbie product we buy, we’re under the belief that we’re fostering community, when the truth is we’re just engaging in unpaid promotion19…we are encouraged to feel as superficial and one-dimensional as the movie itself.
To put it plainly, Barbie (2023) doesn’t just want us to consume it; it wants to consume us.
(I simultaneously feel like I’ve said far too much about this film and not nearly enough at the same time. I also feel like I’ve been too gentle and too cruel…which is kind of how I feel at the end of everything I write, so maybe I shouldn’t worry about it too much. I hope it all evens out.)
As always, words can’t express how grateful I am for your readership! This is the longest post I’ve ever written and it really took everything out of me, but I’m getting a little tired of being self-deprecating so I will say that I’m actually really proud of how it turned out. I’d love to hear all your thoughts (whether or not you agree!), and wanted to reiterate that I’m eternally grateful for all the support I’ve received so far!
<3,
sonali
This image is burned into my brain so I had to leave it here. Thank you for indulging me.
Thinking back, I really just didn’t question Mattel’s involvement at all. I promise if I had thought about it for two seconds, it would have been more obvious!
I will say that the movie makes a point to show just how comical it is that there are literally no women at the top, while Mattel’s executive leadership board boasts a 7:4 white-man-to-white-woman ratio. Yay, intersectional feminism!
To make myself clear, this would still be a neoliberal, girlboss-esque type of feminism, but it would at least be a step in the right direction for a film that seems hell-bent on maintaining our the dire state of our existing conditions! I’m not asking for Angela Davis to show up in the Barbie movie, I just want it to be a little more consistent with its messaging!!!
Feels important to note here that Kate McKinnon is a lesbian icon and the primary reason why I spent so much of my high school years watching the most random SNL skits just because she was in them.
Slightly unrelated, but I feel deeply robbed of a scene I dreamed up in which all the Barbies have another big blowout party but instead of it involving a meticulously choreographed dance and lavish outfits, they all just hang out at Weird Barbie’s place and cut their hair and paint their faces and do other peculiar shit.
Barbie debuted in 1959!
Speaking of Sasha, it genuinely upset me that her critiques of Barbie were framed in such a negative manner! It all just felt like a way to shoehorn in a stereotypical Angry and Mean Feminist into a supposedly progressive movie, and Sasha seemingly out of nowhere embraces the concept of Barbie as a whole without any of her concerns getting addressed…
Hari Nef’s comedic timing was a saving grace, by the way!
This is a silly thing to say lol because everyone is talking about every aspect of this movie, but sue me for being a little dramatic!
I know it’s just a fucking movie, but I was instantly reminded of the accusations of abuse flung at Amber Heard although there was a wealth of evidence confirming she is a victim of domestic violence.
It was honestly so infuriating to see how constantly perfect Barbie was…sure she was a little melodramatic sometimes, but I wish she was given a bit of thoughtfulness and was actually depicted with real character flaws like Ken was.
Something I’ve realized (after reading a shit ton of Youtube comments) is that the awkward and confusing handling of these themes can likely be attributed to rewrites that aimed to make the script more easily digestible for Mattel and a wider audience. I’d give anything to see a version that actually has the guts to shit on Mattel!
Which…I don’t think is true. The Barbie movie loves telling us how controversial it is, but it’s maybe one of the safest and most unchallenging pieces of feminist media I’ve ever consumed.
For example, while I have no real problem with the statements made in Gloria’s (played by America Ferrera) lauded monologue (other than the fact that it didn’t move me), it felt incredibly generic and detached simply because she doesn’t really have much of a character — you could put the same words in any stock female character’s mouth and elicit similar reactions.
Instead of giving more time and attention to genuinely interesting characters like Gloria and Sasha, we receive the wildly unnecessary “I’m Just Ken” song, as well as a significant chunk of screen time dedicated to exploring his character arc.
Seriously, what’s up with that “mothers stand still so their daughters can look back to see how far they’ve come” line? It came out of nowhere and the on-screen mother-daughter relationship is heavily sidelined.
I unironically think that Barbie: Life in the Dreamhouse is a more feminist piece of media. It’s also one of my favorite TV shows!
One of my new favorite video essays — entitled “Feeling Cynical About Barbie” —brings up an excellent point: in a time when writers and actors are striking for higher pay and better working conditions, as well as pushing back against the use of AI as a potential replacement…it’s a little disheartening to watch a mass-marketed movie built off of a colossal corporation receive so much critical acclaim. The success of Barbie (2023) is already opening doors for a smorgasbord of (likely vapid) toy movies to hit theaters…it feels as though genuine artistic expression is drowning in the process.
DUDE. Sending this to all my friends right now - we’ve been talking about Barbie for weeks and haven’t quite articulated what you managed to! Genuinely best Barbie review I’ve read
oh sonali this is beautiful! i mean wow-- this piece poignantly articulated so many of the ambiguous feelings i was having about the barbie movie and also brought up some fascinating new points for me.
one thing that bothers me a ton about barbie is the way its material consequences (ie mattel's production of dolls, branded partnerships with makeup/beauty brands, other various consumer goods, etc etc) are incredibly antithetical to the feminist, pro-woman, anti-perfectionistic-beauty-culture message it claims to stand by. i mean-- the last time i checked, it wasn't possible to subvert patriarchy and capitalism (in the words of greta gerwig) by, well, DOING capitalism and patriarchy in the creation of a film which is funded by a male-led corporation who is a) motivated by profits, and b) has done loads of damage to girls' relationship with their bodies over the years by promoting unrealistic beauty standards. the movie felt like one big commercial to me; in fact, it seems to be having the same effects an advertisement would have, given the recent spike in interest surrounding barbie as a brand and all her related attributes/qualities.
i guess i was also put off by how stereotypically gender-binaried the whole film was, too. i guess barbie and ken are, intentionally, very stereotypical and idealized representations of woman and man. and, like you said, this is a pretty Feminism 101 film. however, i think the over-generalizations and exaggerations of gender roles became problematic (and convoluted) when it came to the film's whole gender-swapping of the power hierarchy in barbieland. i guess the intention was that the kens were representing women's experience of being viewed only as objects, and existing under the constant gaze of men. i noted, though, that the "oppression" the kens experienced (as you touched on) lacked any of the material elements of fear or violence that women endure in the real world. they were pretty nonchalant about their treatment, and at times felt good about it. it was their role, right?
finally, (before i ramble on too long... you and i have the same wordy tendencies, it seems. i think it is a fantastic thing! thoughts deserve to be fully fleshed out!) i took issue with the film's proposal that patriarchy and female disempowerment could be solved simply by calling them out. i mean-- the barbies literally overthrow the ken-driven patriarchy by telling the brainwashed barbies that they were being oppressed. while awareness is a great first step, the film poses it as the singular, end-all-be-all key to inciting the absolute overthrow of systemic oppression. it all felt haphazardly thrown together; it isn't (and never will be) that easy. beyond that, the "awakened" barbies then thwart the kens by making themselves into sexual objects and overplaying their alleged feminine stupidity. that whole situation made me really uncomfortable.
as always i have endlessly more thoughts, but i'll end it here... so enamored by your work as always and can't wait to see what's next for you! much love <3