Steve writes: I noted this morning that “Barbie” seems to be dividing everyone, and not all readers agreed with my suggestion that some conservative critics are overdoing it in the same way the left would never tolerate “Blazing Saddles” today. (Of course, I’m the guy who thinks “Cloud Atlas” is a *conservative* work of great genius—both the novel and the film, so as I say, your mileage may vary.) Emina Melonic, who filed several fine guest columns last summer while I was galavanting in the Scottish highlands, returns today with a review of Barbie that takes the film seriously rather than ideologically:
Greta Gerwig’s new film, “Barbie” (2023) is causing quite a commotion. There are plenty of opinions and rants, particularly from the conservative gallery. While some of the angry commentary is at least offered by people who have actually seen “Barbie,” others are based solely on hearsay, film trailers, and generalized anger that runs the engine of so-called culture today.
Of course, to give an opinion about something a person hasn’t seen or read has become an activity du jour, and it shouldn’t surprise anybody that it’s contributing to a further erosion of intelligent analysis and evaluation. In addition, evaluating film on purely aesthetic grounds appears to be an impossibility in today’s ideologically charged America. One can have some sympathy for this given that so many films today have either a component of ideology or are flat out preaching an ideology, presumably trying to gain converts. Gerwig’s “Barbie,” however, is an undeserving target for this kind of knee-jerk reaction because the film is much deeper and much more delightful than the Right or the Left would lead you to believe.
The premise of the film is simple: Margot Robbie plays the part of ”Stereotypical Barbie,” living in Barbieland (a stand-in for the land of a child’s imagination) and doing Barbie things. She spends most of her time with other Barbies, and occasionally sees Ken (Ryan Gosling) who depends on Barbie’s recognition and attention for his entire sense of well-being and worth. All is well in Barbieland. There is never anything to worry about, and everyone labors under the assumption that their existence has made the Real World a better place. But something breaks in the world of pink joy when Barbie asks others in Barbieland one seemingly innocent, if piercing, question: “Do you guys ever think about dying?”
The awareness of death is the first step for Barbie in her journey to becoming a fully embodied, enfleshed woman. She must go into the Real World in order to repair a rift her questioning has created in Barbieland. Joining her as a stowaway on this journey is Ken, who wants more out of life than just being an accessory to Barbie.
As they enter the Real World, Barbie begins to experience something the film calls “patriarchy,” but which is simply the reality that everyone does not automatically bow down to her wishes and opinions. While Barbie hates it, Ken is enjoying the fact that men in the real world are more than just accessories and can assert themselves in ways he had assumed were only open to Barbie. In order to fix the rift between the worlds, Barbie must find the girl in the real world who is playing with her and causing all this trouble, but it turns out that it’s a grown woman (America Ferrera) who has been transferring her existential crisis onto a Barbie she and her daughter had played with when her daughter was small.
In the meantime, the CEO of Mattel (Will Ferrell) is trying to put Barbie back in the box because this whole event could be disastrous for our world. It’s not clear why he thinks that but it really doesn’t matter as it mainly serves as a plot device and comic relief. Barbie is surprised to see that all of Mattel’s executives are men—in other words, people who don’t readily understand femininity. She has been used to a form of playful matriarchy in Barbieland, and this earthly patriarchy is very much alien to her. As the film progresses, it’s clear that Barbie must make a choice: to which world should she belong? Who is she indeed? These are questions only Barbie herself can answer.
The simple-minded criticism that Gerwig’s film has garnered has been entirely unfair and frankly, supremely dumb. The hatred that’s been on display is out of proportion with the alleged crimes of the film, and one wonders why men who can rant about “Barbie” so much even bother with a film they insist is stupid and meaningless?
“Barbie” has several acts. Gerwig does a brilliant job at situating the existence of this doll into a larger universe. The opening shot alone makes seeing the film worthwhile: evoking Stanley Kubrick’s 1968 “2001: A Space Odyssey,” we see the barren land, the beginning of the world. Little girls, dressed in tattered clothes, are playing with baby dolls. Then, suddenly, a giant Barbie emerges. The girls, like hominins in Kubrick’s film, carefully touch the giant Barbie. In anger, they destroy the tea cups, beating them into a pulp with old baby dolls, as the sounds of Richard Strauss’ Also sprach Zarathustra echo through the barren land. Gerwig never mocks Kubrick’s serious themes but she is playful, and in this playfulness she situates Barbie as an object of seeking wisdom.
In the film, we first witness the aesthetic superficiality of Barbieland. Everything is pink and girly and fun and beachy, and obviously mindless. Second comes the awareness of death. Then Barbie and Ken’s entrance into the Real World, and their subsequent return to Barbieland. But the return to innocence is impossible, since both have eaten from the Tree of Knowledge. Their return commences another act, namely the significance of power.
Both Barbie and Ken learn that society appears to be governed through the modes of power. Everyone uses it, and according to Gerwig’s vision, patriarchy rules society. This can be taken literally or figuratively. However I think that Gerwig is not so much interested in showing the nitty gritty reality of the power structures but rather the archetypes that are intertwined in those structures.
The return to Barbieland spells chaos. Ken is sick of being Barbie’s accessory and wants the other Kens to join him in taking over. Barbies rebel and instead of using physical power, they manipulate Kens in order to regain their mastery of the Barbieland constitution. (The Kens are angry too, and there are some pretty amazing dance sequences evoking 1978’s “Grease” and 1961’s “West Side Story.”) Throughout this struggle, however, Barbie is not satisfied with reclaiming this pink matriarchy. Although she doesn’t want to be involved with Ken romantically, she still genuinely cares for him. She is actually a kind woman who does not hate men.
The final act of the film is the one that assumes the primacy of free will. Barbie meets her creator, Ruth Handler (Rhea Perlman), and asks her permission to exist, but Ruth tells her that it is all up to her. She ultimately chooses the yes of life, and enters the real world, wearing pink Birkenstocks, and ready for her first gynecological exam.
Although there are a few implicit and explicit commentaries on what Gerwig perceives as patriarchy, it never really enters into the realm of ideology. The fast-paced dialogue (co-written by Gerwig and her husband, Noah Baumbach) is tight, and the double meanings are never clumsy. In a rather new and refreshing way, Gerwig explores not only the playfulness of Barbie the doll, but also the meanings we attach to such objects. In addition, Barbie is a good vehicle through which Gerwig meditates on the idea of masculinity and femininity. Ultimately, however, Barbie wants to be a “human person”—a phrase Barbie utters on a few occasions. Gerwig’s film is delightful but it’s not just about Barbie. It’s about existential authenticity, and the choice to rid ourselves of plastic exterior.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.