"Weird Barbie"

Why Mattel’s new feature-length advertisement doesn’t mean what you think it does.

Ah, the trendy blockbuster. The box office smash hit. It’s almost refreshing, in 2023, to see the whole world get excited (or enraged) about the same thing at the same time. It’s nice to see a sold-out theater, even if it’s full of grown adults ready to form a highly-spirited opinion about an advertisement for a brand of children’s doll. Movies are making a comeback. First Indiana Jones, now this “Barbenheimer” stuff. The whole thing stinks of corporate greed and shameless marketing, just like the good old days. But maybe I’m getting old, because my first thought after watching ‘Barbie’ was, “did screenwriters always think their audience was this stupid?”

The thing about this movie is that no one is going to get out of it more than they put in. It’s like a Rorschach test of sorts—your thoughts about the movie say everything about your political affiliation, your thoughts on feminism, which ideology you blindly subscribe to, which one pisses you off. All films are like this to some extent, but the ‘Barbie’ movie seems to have been specifically written for this purpose. No matter your previous opinion, you will walk out of this movie utterly convinced that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Think of the feminists. The ‘woke’ crowd. The people expecting to see a movie about ‘girl power.’ They were not disappointed. The men in this movie are dumb and easily manipulated. Their ‘toxically-masculine’ ego is their downfall as they ‘mansplain’ themselves into destruction. There’s all the usual stuff about women’s lack of power and all the ‘roles’ that we need to fill and how, no matter what, we always come up short. And there’s just enough propaganda about how men still rule the world to appease the social justice warriors who’d be up in arms if a movie about a plastic doll strayed too far from alleged ‘reality.’

The problem is that upon further examination, it becomes clear that none of the ‘feminist’ assertions in the movie hold up under any amount of criticism. Take, for example, the ridiculous amount of catcalling that Barbie is subjected to within the first forty-five seconds of her existence in the so-called ‘real world.’ Surely no one is under the delusion that women—even remarkably beautiful women like ‘stereotypical Barbie’—are actually treated like this. Sure, women get catcalled. But they do not get catcalled relentlessly by every man on a busy city street, especially when they’re walking with a man wearing matching pink clothing.

This whole scene lacked any semblance of internal consistency. Ken, the stereotypical “dumb jock” (I guess it’s still okay to perpetuate harmful stereotypes of men), loves the attention, while Barbie finds it ‘violent.’ Sure, this is a cheap addition which affirms the assertion that the world is a dangerous place for women, but in this context, it doesn’t make any sense. Both of these characters came from ‘Barbieland,’ a place where women rule and men exist to dote over them. Where would Barbie get the prior knowledge to perceive these advances as ‘violent’? Wouldn’t she react to these men the same way she’s reacted to every man she’s ever met before—by assuming their wholesome adoration?

And then there’s the familiar garbage about how women have so many contradicting standards and how nothing we do is ever enough. Barbie becomes horrifically depressed when she learns about the ‘patriarchy,’ and the impossible standards that women allegedly have to live up to. This culminates in a long diatribe delivered by America Ferrara’s character in which she lists all of the contradictory standards that women ‘have’ to be or else—well, the actual consequences are never really explained. The movie asserts that women always ‘have’ to be extraordinary. Says who? Themselves?

There’s a line in the movie: “By giving voice to the cognitive dissonance required to be a woman under the patriarchy, you rob it of its power.”  If I was instructed to represent the essence of the modern feminist movement in one sentence, this would be the one. It’s a nonsensical statement, hidden behind pseudo-intellectual language like ‘cognitive dissonance,’ and made-up constructs like ‘patriarchy.’ It’s true that once you see how dumb your arbitrary standards of behavior are, you no longer feel compelled to follow them. But is this the ‘patriarchy’ exerting ‘power’ over you? Or is it just an individual decision?

It’s dumb. Stereotypical standards are not exclusive to women. Men ‘have’ to have six-pack abs (like ‘stereotypical Ken’), but they shouldn’t be obsessed with their appearance. If they don’t stand up for themselves they’re weak; if they do they’re aggressive. They ‘have’ to hide their emotions. They ‘have’ to be the breadwinner. This is not a feminist problem. It’s life. You will never live up to all the standards that ‘society’ sets for you. You can’t please everyone.

Of course, this did not stop one woman from yelling “PREACH!” in the theater during Ferrara’s monologue.

Believing that the system is rigged against you reduces accountability (something which, ironically, the film accuses anti-feminist women of doing). If you’re ‘oppressed,’ and can only reach a certain level in society because of your sex, well, what’s the point in trying? You kind of get a free pass, right? I can see why this ideology is so attractive to people.

This is all very predictable. Interestingly though, there’s another, less likely faction of people who saw themselves in the movie: young men, who grew up surrounded by radical feminist ideology and are sick of it. They’ve been told that they have it easy, that all of the injustices in the world are somehow their fault. Masculinity is in crisis. Men are feeling attacked (perhaps rightfully so). Surprisingly, the film is actually quite sensitive to their plight.

Look at the plot from Ken’s perspective. When the movie begins, he’s a second-class citizen, oppressed by the ‘Barbies.” He’s there to look good at the beach and vie for Barbie’s affection while the women are out doing the ‘real’ work. He doesn’t get his own ‘dream house,’ doesn’t have an important job. His purpose is to be Barbie’s accessory; when she’s not around he just kind of disappears. Then, he goes to the ‘real’ world, and sees the ‘patriarchy,’ and loves it. Who wouldn’t? He sees a world where he could actually be something. Think about what he’s excited about—seeing men doing ordinary jobs, being respected enough to be asked the time by a woman. Of course he’d go back to Barbieland and instate a world where he doesn’t have to be treated like garbage! It’s no surprise that so many people left the theater loving him—he’s the most sympathetic character in the film. Even to women, Ken is much more relatable than Barbie.

In reality, the movie is more about power dynamics than gender roles. Pretend for a second this wasn’t about men and women, and was just about an oppressed group of people who, after being treated like shit for years, finally mustered up the resolve to ‘take what’s theirs.’ This story would be considered inspiring. If the oppressed group were then tricked back into submission through ‘divide and conquer’ manipulation tactics,¹^⁠ the group that consistently dominated them would be considered the villains.

 Of course, since women have historically had less power, we don’t perceive it like this. I think this is the point. No group should take precedence over any other. In fact, when you really think about it, parts of the movie seems to be advocating for cooperation between the sexes. When Barbie and Ken reconcile, he admits his desire for equality, and she admits that she should have respected him a bit more before his desperate patriarchal revolution. Towards the end of the movie, Ruth, the mysterious creator character, boldly states that humans make up ideas like ‘the patriarchy’ and ‘Barbie’ in order to deal with the discomfort of being alive. It’s a good point, despite the fact that it contradicts about half of the supposedly ‘deep’ points that the film makes previously.

That’s the frustrating thing about this movie—it throws a lot of ideas at the audience but it doesn’t really follow through with any of them. It recites some feminist doctrine, but then it backs down from it, asserting that maybe we should all just get along. It explores the idea of reversal of gender roles (Barbieland is allegedly the real world, but reversed) but deviates from this formula when it is convenient (the idea that women succumbed to ‘patriarchal’ ideas because they ‘had no defense against them’ made no logical sense at all). And all these ideas are just kind of left dangling there, thrown at the audience and then abandoned, while viewers are left grasping at straws of conflicting ideas trying to make sense of it all. 

It’s all about sales—they don’t want to alienate anyone! There’s something in this movie to appease any political affiliation, any worldview. Feminist? There’s plenty of ‘party lines’ here for you to cheer at—eat those up and ignore everything else. Disgruntled male who hates feminists? You’ll love ‘revolutionary Ken.’ Nihilist? There’s plenty of shallow references to human mortality for you to feign depth for the entire runtime.

There’s something in here for everybody, and no one leaves thinking any differently than they did when they entered the theater. Sure, hearing ideas that they don’t like might be ‘triggering’ to some people (and outrage certainly sells tickets), but since the movie refuses to take any real stance on any of the ideas it mentions, no one is persuaded to actually consider these ideas. Blind hatred is fun—especially compared with the real discomfort of questioning one of your firmly-held beliefs.

The real question, though, is why we care at all. This strange adult obsession with Barbie is the perfect illustration of what I think the movie was ‘actually’ trying to say. We’re a world of adult children all looking to lose accountability. The Kens hated having power once they actually had it. The career-oriented Barbies were happy to relinquish control when they learned that they could live in a world where they didn’t have to make any decisions (a dream state for the majority of people on this planet). Even the goddamned CEO of Mattel (played by Will Ferrell) was crying at the end about how hard it was to be a leader. And the theater was packed full of people who went to see a full-length film about a children’s toy. The whole thing is laden with escapism.

Let’s not lose sight of the reality of it all, though, which is that the whole thing is an ad campaign. This movie is everywhere. Right now, when you Google the name “Barbie,” the whole screen turns pink, and a hot pink sparkly animation pops up on the screen. A grotesque amount of money was paid to promote this movie. Why?

Barbie needed a rebrand. The ‘fantasy world’ that Barbie promised where women could be anything they wanted no longer has any appeal. When Barbie was introduced, she told a generation of girls who were destined to be housewives that they could be doctors and lawyers and astronauts. They were thrilled. This was what they needed to finally be happy. Now, women are doctors and lawyers and astronauts, and it’s not all it was cracked up to be. What’s our next scapegoat?

Radical feminism is one reaction (‘It’s still men’s fault we’re unhappy—if only they didn’t have so many expectations for us, then everything would finally be perfect!). Nihilism is another (‘I guess happiness is just impossible. We’re all gonna die, anyway’).

The ‘Barbie’ movie checks all of these boxes, providing a new type of fantasy for the modern world. And, in the process, it sold a ton of movie tickets, and probably a few toys, as well. Money might not be able to buy happiness, but it can certainly buy oblivion. Isn’t that what entertainment is all about?

1. It’s kind of ironic that this is the exact type of thing that divisive ideologies like radical neo-feminism have been designed to do.