I'm not done with the video yet, but I wanted to mention that when you said the thesis of the movie is that reality is terrifying but the second half has to do with Ken and patriarchy, you mentioned that the two parts didn't go together but I'm gonna be honest, total patriarchy can be very scary for a woman, so the two do go together in my mind.
I see the film as "what is it to be a woman in a man-led world?" Barbie has no interest in sex but is chased after. The kens are treated as a mirror to women in our current world, desperately wanting to have control and power over their own government, so hungry and blind that patriarchy sounds awesome because it shows masculinity in a positive way. The end of the movie emphasizes how both Barbies and Kens need to work together but that the Barbies are afraid of how the Kens would hold power over and try to control them. And yet, life as a human, is worth it despite the pain and complexity. Bonding with others is worth it despite the potential for power dynamics. Dating the opposite sex if you're into that is still worth it (though not one of the main plots, still feels like a message). And honestly, Ken's journey out of codependency is super important and I think helps female audiences understand the motives of clingy men.
@@RayeChellI appreciate your stance, but I have to disagree. The Barbie’s are not reflective of women’s experiences in a male-led world. We already live in a male-dominated world. In Barbie, the Kens are homeless. They have no power, no influence, and no property. They are treated as less than second class citizens. It is not a 1 to 1 allegory. In the real world, women are not blindly implementing a matriarchy in which women have all the power and kick men out of their homes. The message of the film is convoluted and inconsistent. If the Barbies are supposed to represent men then the final message of the film is that actually there was nothing wrong in the real world. Men should be in charge and women can have some small roles to keep them happy, but systemic change is ultimately unnecessary. It’s a bad message imo. Barbie becoming human has nothing to do with the problems in her society or the real world. There is no reason for her or the kens to continue to live in and uphold a system that subjugates them. The kens rebelling is essentially the women’s suffrage movement and the movie says that’s a bad thing. If the genders were flipped in this movie, everyone would see the flaws.
"A movie which talks about a lot but says very little" about sums it up for me - well put! I left the movie theater feeling nicely entertained but also annoyed by the one-the-nose but still confused messaging and the ultimately nonsensical plot, to say nothing of certain scene choices in between that seemed completely out of place (the chase scene... why?).
Yeah the chase scene struck me as part of the fun comedy aspect, but the whole mattel subplot just felt wildly out of sync with the rest of the film, and I really don't think they should have included them.
OH MY GOD You put into words my problem with this movie!! It's so annoying to see 'barbie is a masterpiece with radical message' littering around on social media when it's simply WASN'T A GOOD MOVIE!! I thought I was the on crack when I saw everyone else says it's so profound, I left the cinema confused and disappointed, and I actually look forward for this movie. Anyway, instant subscribe.
Same. Just watched this on HBO with my family. We were all so happy going in because we were expecting something like a live action version of one of the cartoons. Y'know, fun. My preteen daughter HATED this movie from the very beginning when the little girls smash their baby dolls' heads in. I get that that scene references 2001, but, other than that, what's the point? My daughter didn't even want to finish watching the movie. At the end, my preteen son pointed out how all the men were either jerks or dumb, even the real-world dad. We've all been ranting for days about how bad this movie is. I was actually looking forward to seeing a girl power movie that takes some cracks at patriarchy, but this movie doesn't even actually do that - It has characters who explicitly SAY that is what is going on, but that's not really what the movie communicates through its scenes. Is their a single positive, healthy relationship between any of the characters? There aren't even any friendships between the Barbies or the people in the real world. This movie was an opportunity to show girls having fun together and could have been genuinely empowering, but that opportunity was squandered.
Yes. It's not profound in the least. Even where it tries to say something deep or beautiful or nuanced, it's very much on the nose, its touch a far cry from the subtle one needed to do justice to the complex themes the movie tries to address.
Honestly, yeah. I was actually so excited to see it, because trailers made it look like a fun adventure with deep undertones and message (yeah, like lego movie). But it was just a disjointed mess with very heavy handed messaging that at times didn't even feel relevant story-wise.
Barbie encourages projection in a similar way to Twilight. Both films present worlds where necessary answers are not provided, so the viewer fills them in on their own (or disconnects from it entirely). This fact means talking about either movie can be difficult, because after being forced to fill in the gaps on their own viewers walk away from essentially different movies. That concept is fascinating to me, because talking to someone about the film is as much a conversation about the film as it is about how that person watches movies as a whole.
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial There are the surface level things like Bella's 'empty shell' personality and lack of confidence, but that stuff pales in comparison to the conceptual pieces. Virtually every single thing the Cullens do risks exposing them and none of them are addressed, and many of them circle around Bella or her place in the story. Yes, the Cullens drinking animal blood instead of human blood makes them 'ethical vampires' but are we supposed to believe that no hunter or game warden ever questioned why this deer had no blood and a couple of pairs of tiny holes? That Edward would risk exposure by not suppressing his disgust at Bella's scent, which is simply never mentioned again? It isn't mentioned because it doesn't matter anymore - they've met, they had a meet-cute, and we got a shot of Edward with wings implanted in the audience's mind. The scene's purpose was entirely mechanical, written from the assumption that the audience is engaged and no effort is required to maintain that engagement. The way that Edward handles Bella's immunity to his powers is the same: her reply to finding out he can read minds but not hers is 'Is something wrong with me?' and his reply is to lightly mock her in a praising way, then move onto another topic. The scene has gotten everyone on the audience on the film's wavelength to think about themselves in that position, and has gotten the people who aren't engaged to risk damaging their eyes from rolling them into the back of their heads. Twilight does have a handful of 'think of it like a town in Sweeden' handwaves that fit this concept, such as how the Cullen 'kids' go to high school to fit in when all of them could easily pass for young adults. I think a lot of people would dismiss these structural elements as nitpicks, but they aren't. Something people fail to understand is that every decision in a film or TV show was made by someone. The shirt this character wears, the way they enter the scene, the placement of the camera, all of it. The purpose of most media is to cast the spell of immersion on you, and the worst thing it can do is break that spell. The minute the audience starts asking itself 'hey wait a minute...Edward can't show his powers but can leave a hand print on a truck on the school parking lot...how does that square up?' they've stopped completely engaging with the characters. The second you remember the wizard is behind the curtain you stop looking at the work in the same way. Something along a similar line that I find interesting is the choices that were made in adapting these novels to film, especially the Fifty Shades films which were inspired by Twilight. The three Fifty Shades books provide reasons for Christian's actions that the film completely omits. That's because a Christian who is concerned about safety and health as a general concept doesn't fit the film's concept of romantic, so it is thrown out to ensure the self-insert immersion continues. The director talked at one point about the last scene of the film which mirrors Ana and Christian's first meeting, and how instead of them simply repeating their names she wanted Ana to say the safe word, thus reclaiming the power from him, and the writer of the novels refused to allow it. I think this fits along the same lines: the writer doesn't want something new and interesting, and doesn't want Ana to grow and learn. She wants Ana to exist just enough that the audience can lose themselves in her, and anything that threatens that projection has to go. Geez, sorry for the novel here. Hope that answers your question!
When you look at it it becomes clear Mattel told Greta Gerwig they wanted The Lego Movie but with barbie and Greta tried her best to make it something special and she did but it wasn’t able to reach the heights she could without restriction
Exactly! And so much good/great is in the movie. But some of the added complexity ends up conflicting with the simplistic elements ane thats where the issues arise. Really excited to see her take on Narnia
When I watched it, at some of the very best moments, I felt as if it could aspire to be the Lego movie but with Barbie. But it fell flat - hard! - where the Lego movie soared.
I really felt like there were so many themes that Greta gerwig wanted to touch on that she ended up not really discussing any of them in a meaningful way.
The number of times I said "exactly" throughout this video.. it's disappointing because you can really see the potential for this movie to work beautifully but it really fell short from a character development standpoint. I wish we got to see the moments and progression that went into Barbie's transformation. Some of the moments that worked as standalone scenes (e.g., Barbie thinking the old woman was beautiful) don't jive in the story because she immediately goes back to hating her cellulite and wanting to be "perfect" again. I was also disappointed with Sasha's lack of character development - we see all of her changes through the story in her clothing, but we don't see what actually changed her mind.
Thank you!! I don't always succeed? But I try to make sure my criticism always come from as "objective" of a place as possible. Thats why it's always important for me to identify what the artists were trying to accomplish, so then that's the metric im judging things off of rather than just "I did or didn't like it". Thanks for taking the time to comment!
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial and I'm glad you did. One of my biggest complaints during everyone discussion of the barbie movie is biases. Like the scene with barbie and Ken entering the real world felt so flawed cus I understand they were trying to acknowledge men catcalling but like you said this movie leave too much space for biases. Not only is it a flawed way to show this but it leaves alot of space for the men who was saying the barbie movie hates men to scream as loud as possible 😭
Yeah discussion around barbie got really complicated when the left and the right both used it as a rallying cry. It made it almost impossible to just talk about it as a movie and not the political moment.
A major issue I had with this movie relating to your whole thesis/evidence/conclusion structure is America Ferrera's character. Of course it's Barbie's movie, but from when we met the mother and daughter duo I thought that was going to be the central theme of the movie. And yet their conflict sort of gets solved off screen? It was barely addressed, the daughter just kind of grows up from being around the Barbies and listening to the monologue. Ariana Greenblatt's character made no active choices (from what I can remember) that takes her from her initial views to where she ends up. It felt like there were three, maybe four, main characters all with very different arcs trying to get solved in a movie that was already blurring between absurdist reality and plain fantasy. And none of them had a very satisfying progression, even if they ended up in the right place.
This was a film that was not what I expected at all, and not in a good or satisfying way. It was definitely a fun watch and I enjoyed it! But I was very confused about the way they solved it when it came to the Barbies taking over again. It felt like it went against itself. Ken had a much better arc and I found him a much more likeable and interesting character. I think it might have been as he didn’t take himself too seriously, and neither did the makers of the film. The portrayal of Ken is very interesting to me because it is based on how Ken is marketed and how a lot of girls play with Ken. He is an accessory and he doesn’t have his own house. He doesn’t have a story or a personality. He is simply the boyfriend of Barbie and is pulled out when needed. That is the one thing I find that the film got the most right and it resulted in some hilarious moments.
I think they placed all the weight of "the message" on Barbie's character which really dragged her down. Ken was allowed to just be a compelling and nuanced character and the ironically allowed his arc to deliver the most clear and effective messaging.
I think it would've been better if Ken was being treated so "poorly" that HE decides to escape barbie land and bring back the patriarchy. While in barbie land, Barbie experiences glitches in the world that she knows of. and then she goes to find ken in the real world to save what was. and then she can see how barbie land is mirroring the real world, but with switched genders. But I think that would be too pro man lol
at 16:00 that totally makes sense!!! the Barbie movie would have been an absolute MASTERPIECE if they had written screenplay like that into the film. it would have really struck deep if, for eg, while Ken is talking to her her eyes glaze over and she's having intrusive thoughts about death and mortality and the routine of her daily life not leading anywhere, she snaps back to Ken in front of her trying to kiss her, has a monotonous goodbye, end scene. (as she thinks of these 'real life' things, things start to take a turn for the twisted, like flat feet, bad milk, etc) then later with the other barbies at the party (instead of that giant dance sequence), she has another scary dream about death and mortality, and _then_ maybe it makes more sense if she whispered out loud or burst out 'do you guys ever think about dying'... but even then, that line just seems too on-the-nose. there has to have been a better way to write that in - it's the very bullet that drives the plot forward!
Dude thank you for this video. I was wondering why this movie always felt unfinished to me even though I enjoyed my time watching it. Also, it explains why i related more to Ken bc his journey felt more like the journey of feminism (an oppressed person bc of their sex clinging to ideas that finally make them feel seen/heard) than Barbies journey ever did.
This movie was so disappointing. When I first heard of it, long before it started production, I thought it was going to be fun and great! But the awful directing and writing ruined the whole idea. Everything you mentioned in this video resonates with me, plus I have big issues with how they mostly talk and explain their struggles and goals rather than showing us. Nothing carries weight because we are simply told by some character talking for way too long, instead of using character-building through their actions. And the ending was literally the worst part of the movie. I hated how a movie that was supposed to send a feminist message and empower women showed the Barbies cheating in the cheapest way during the elections. Like, come on! I was expecting a way for the Barbies to prove that they are more capable in certain things than the Kens, and even the Kens realizing that yes, Barbies can and are better at many things. But no! They literally kidnapped every Ken so the poor, weak Barbies wouldn't have to go to a debate and use actual arguments. Probably one of the worst movies that ever existed. And to this day... there isn't a clear explanation of what the world really is. Is not up to interpretation either. No one in the movie cares to explain what the difference between Barbie and the real world because the directors and writer didn't know either! This movie is chaos in cinema history, and it hurts because I really loved the idea of them having the sets built like as if they were real Barbie toys and not fully cgi, but at the end of the day... it was just one of the biggest disappointments in history
@AG-fg1uk yeah it really sucks that channels like his do so much invalid critiquing based on ideology above all else. Like some of the movies or shows he hates might be bad, but he's focusing on all the wrong reasons and is really just pushing am agenda rather than truly discussing media
I think it might be easier for someone whose played with Barbies to understand. We decided Ken was Barbies boyfriend, while we were playing with them. Ken was whatever we needed him to be, whenever we wanted him to be it, but also came with a beach outfit so he's "just beach" (not much else). All those concepts are direct from how a kid played with the dolls. I had one Ken, then later got a black doll who I could have sworn was actually named Chad. He also came with a mesh top lol. Two male dolls and like 10 Barbies of all types, meant Ken ans Chad were interchangeable for them, and whatever else, while playing. The movie might have made more sense if there'd been less Kens, since most people who played with Barbies as kids, had one Ken who would be the bf of all the Barbies on any given day lol. My Ken actually did come with a basketball outfit, but the original was probably just a beach outfit and my much older sister had the matching western outfits I still have. I do agree that there are many concepts colliding, and it does dissolve the overall quite a bit, but yeah.
Ken was never portrayed as anything even close to the loser he was portrayed as in the barbie movie. Toy Story has 10/10 portrayal of Ken without all the disrespect.
@@luxart1000 Kids only using Ken as Barbies BF, doesn't make him a loser. No one perceived the doll as a "loser". But it is the reason Ken in the Barbie movie, is portrayed as someone lost, without an identity. Which, I guess to you means someone is a loser. It was a concept of playing that could translate to greater commentary on societal roles in the real world. Ken is an accessory and object to compliment Barbie. This is the role women in the real world have on them. We are reduced to prize objects, accessories to male partners, living out our "role" as a subjugate woman. Many men don't see this, because since they already see women as objects, and victimize themselves if they can't catch them as prey, they only relate to the part about Ken lacking identity due to not having Barbie. And so to remain the victim of their object, miss the part where Ken is now going to go of a be a G simply because he stops treating Barbie (woman) like something he must acquire to fulfill himself as Ken (man). It's about gender roles, gender expectations, and how Patriarchal society sets up men to dehumanize women to the point that women don't want anything to do with them, so everyone loses. This shouldn't really be something that has to be clarified, though.
@@m3ntyb I literally said that Ken was never portrayed as a loser before the Barbie movie. There's a difference between being a supporting character and being a pet. So they literally belittled to puff up the point they were trying to make, in the same way they belittle women and many of their roles to make a point about woman oppression. The points they are trying to make are very much valid, that women are not recognized as just as valuable than men are. I'm just saying that belittling is completely unnecessary. Anyway, so in this view the Barbies are the villains of the movie then? Why does the movie not even attempt to make that any clearer? Also what statement does it make that Kens are still playing the exact same role at the end? That women in real life are doomed and should just be miserable forever? Or is this some kind of 5D chess where the viewer is supposed to see that the allegory stretches so far that the whole movie is an allegory to how men describe life so you actually shouldn't trust the movie narrative just how you shouldn't trust men?
@@luxart1000 It's something to work off of and talk about, not something that draws hard conclusions. It's shedding light on a topic, through the lens of these characters. It's a play on a concept, not meant to present hard takeaways. The ultimate gist is what I said, Patriarchy Bad. I do feel there was more they could have done to show post realizations, but I assume they're hoping to try and cash in on more movies and spin offs somehow that may flesh things out more. I could see an entire Ken movie showing his aftermath in a light that redeems the initial impression, which was meant only to show a FACET of a character. Ken said he didn't even care about Patriarchy after he learned it wasn't just about horses. Meaning, Ken has an identity all his own, and copping to Patriarchy was only PART of his identity and experience, just like all of us in real life. I didn't perceive belittling. I perceived representation through the lens of a specific cultural impact. If you wanna "boil down" characters and stories to such limited conclusions, that seems like exactly what the movie was overall discouraging. Ken can be anything, and he was ALREADY worthy, same as Barbie. Ken's lack of ✨perception ✨ of his worth was the problem. He wasn't actually pathetic or a loser, his perspective was. If they'd made a movie where it was just after Ken's establishment of Patriarchy thought, y'all would still be complaining the message was Men Bad. Again, it is not Men, bad, it is social construct of Patriarchy, bad.
This put into words so many of my problems with the Barbie movie. I wanted this film to be great, but it didn’t make sense to me. She didn’t want anything the entire film. I guess she wants to wear heels, so she grew because in the end she accepted her flat feet?
Let me offer another simple way to think about her character. - She lived in a world where she was on top. Didn't think much about Ken, he was just part of the background. - Barbie got her world flipped upsidedown. - Learned to be considerate about her privileged situation and opened up to have ken being part of it. It's a simple message and this is just one way to think about it, but there are more layers to it. Which is not something I got from that video.
@@B0tch0hey thanks for responding, but I don’t think that cleared things up for me. - IMO Barbie wasn’t on top. She was kinda in the background. She wasn’t one of the people winning awards or Barbie President. She didn’t have a job or a purpose that we saw. Everyone says hi to her, but she’s not in a position of power. -The real world didn’t seem much different than Barbieland. She learned she didn’t solve female problems, but she also didn’t seem like that completely shook her world. The thing that really rattled her was patriarchy when she had to deal with it in Barbieland. -I don’t see how she opened up to having Ken in her world. She became a human which means she doesn’t even exist in the same world as Ken anymore. She left him behind. The Barbie’s didn’t understand their privilege or how they hurt the kens because as far as we know they are still unhoused second class citizens. There’s the line “they have just as many rights as women in the real world”, but that’s not acceptance. I don’t want equality by putting men or women down. I want people to be valued because all humans deserve to be treated with respect.
@@Asteroids50 totally fair, thanks for sharing as well. I think all your points work with the narrative of the movie. Perceived popularity over qualifications, real change doesn't happen overnight, throwing crumbs at the offended group of the week. The end of the movie is good enough to make kids happy but adults can dig further. Feeling unsatisfied is probably what the director intended for us to feel. There is a lot left for interpretation and I think that's what I like the most.
@@B0tch0I’m glad you liked the film and the ambiguity. There are definitely moments I enjoy a lot like the bus scene with the old woman, but I walked away from the film feeling unfulfilled. I think you’re right that the director was going for an open ended conclusion, but I didn’t think the execution worked with the conventional 3 act structure the movie used, so it felt disjointed to me.
Thank you for putting my thoughts on this movie into eloquent terms. I wanted to love this movie, and I do find enough entertainment value in it to enjoy it, but after the first watch, I didn’t like it. It felt disjointed and conflicting in a way I wasn’t used to experiencing in film, and I kept trying to explain this to people who were confused by why I couldn’t appreciate it. Presently, I can appreciate it while accepting its flaws, but as much as I can find comfort in the aesthetics and tone, it still feels broken.
I think the world-building would make more sense if they leaned more into something like Barbie's Life in the Dreamhouse. In the series (animation), Barbie is the main character because she's the blueprint, the first made, she's meant to be perfect, the kindest, the sweetest, she's nice even when Raquelle (a girl who envies her) tries to sabotage her, she's everyone best friend, she's the It Girl, etc etc. The other Barbies have their 1 singular interest and/or job, so their flaws are related to it (for example: one of them is like "sporty Barbie" and her flaw is that she has too much energy and ends up annoying people). For that reason, the main Barbie seemingly has no flaws or particular interests, which in the movie could move the story forward as a way to show how Barbie feels unfulfilled with her life, how she feels unworthy or unloved or unimportant. Her feelings about herself and her life in Barbieland could be what left her starstruck with the real world, as she notices how much she still has to experience and how much change she can inspire, eventually leading her to choose the real world. Also, this could be used as a subplot to Barbies understanding that they can be more than 1 thing in life and evolving into multifaceted beings, which would go extremely well with Barbie's brand of girls being able to be whatever they want. I think a subplot about the other Barbies would marry best with the main plot instead of Ken's arc, which takes too much time and doesn't really relate to what Barbie's going through. Also, they could've scrapped the Mattel part and put in some more time showing Barbieland and making jokes about it. In Life in the Dreamhouse, a lot of the jokes are about silly things like Ken buys a car for Barbie, but it comes in a box and he doesn't know how to assemble the parts; Midge is an older model so she's unable to bend her knees and she moves very stiff; they celebrate Barbie's birthday but no one really knows how old she is; stuff like that, poking fun at the fact that they are all plastic products, would make the movie funnier and stray less from the main plot. I liked the movie, but I think they missed the mark trying to make some commentary about the real world, feminism and patriarchy, when they could've made a simpler plot and subplot that would be even more inspiring to women, commenting on freedom, self-worth, and womanhood. I think America's monologue would be even more powerful in a story like that.
First and foremost, I love this video. I have been conflicted about the Barbie movies since seeing because I wanted to love it. I bought into the hype, and thought it was going to be an incredibly deep character driven film that provides some profound message amongst the satire of Barbieland and Mattel. I, due to a lack of intelligence, have just been saying the movie was "overwhelmingly mid" to anyone that asks what I thought. This video does a way better job at conveying how I felt about the film when I cannot find the words. That said, I do just want to point out that Barbie's fears of death are not her own. They are the fears of the women playing with the Barbie, America Ferrera. I still believe that Barbie's fears are not earned and that is what leads to the ultimate unsatisfying character arch written for her. However, they literally do just appear one day because America's character decided to play with a Barbie and starts projecting her fears of death and apathy onto stereotypical Barbie, who then begins to feel them in Barbieland. So they do try to explain where those feelings came from, albeit in a way that is quickly glossed over and convoluted. Something that could have fixed that disconnect is if they explained that every Barbie who's human starts to play with them this way eventually becomes the Crazy Barbie, which they mention but never show. Theoretically, there should be many Kate McKinnon types as Barbie's are discarded over the years and go crazy, but there is only Kate. If stereotypical Barbie is the savior that breaks that cycle and gives Barbie's autonomy to choose their feelings and reality, we have no reference of what happened to all the other Barbie's that could not break the cycle. So basically, Barbie is Neo - but her status as "The One" feels unearned because her fears of death and apathy were never her own, just those projected onto her by America's character. This still all relates to the fact that Barbie's character arch is disconnected and never fully realized due to convenient plot points that keep the story moving a long in a positive way, rather than delving deeper into the more sinister or dark sides of what women, specifically the Barbie's feel, when they are discarded by those around them. Thanks for making me think about this. I am curious what how the America's Feelings = Barbie's Feelings affects your thoughts on how those feelings were unearned or unexplained. I feel it is a bit of a cop out to just project the emotions, but still an attempt to explain why Barbie just feels them one day. That in return drives the whole plot of why she goes to reality to find the girl who is playing with her - but that all just takes a back seat to the rest of the absurdity in the movie. But it definitely looked like a hell of a fun film to make!
A) so glad this helped put word to what you were feeling B) im aware thats where they come from, but we still dont even understand what the concept of death even means to barbies. We also dont see how the thoughts of death affect america fererra, so at best we just shift who specifically is underdeveloped. Not to mention the worldbuilding implecations dont make sense since shes Americas barbie but also represents all stereotypical barbies. Im not trying to nitpick but when the movies message is based on the parallels between a made up world and the real world, but none of it actually makes sense under scrutiny or even as presented in the film, it just hamstrings the film as a whole
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial It really does, I completely agree. I think the film is cutting a corner by simply saying, America's feelings = Barbie's feelings. That is why I called the movie mid, and have just told people I thought it was, "fun." It really doesn't hold up to scrutiny. They superimpose America's feelings on to Barbie, and then barely go into depth on America's own feelings. It really feels like they tried to cram so much in, none of it is ever fully realized. Barbie is supposed to be this fully realized character, a catalyst for change, and then she is the only one that experiences change and all the other Barbie just live on, presumably to possibly experience the same existential dread of their owners? I really liked your comparison to how the movies "Real World" is still too fantastical to juxtapose the fantasy world of Barbieland, the movie doesn't establish rules and fantasy with out rules is just chaos - which is how I felt after the movie, confused. I figured you knew about the America/Barbie mind-link, but it goes to show how unimportant of corner cutter it is that it doesn't even need to be mentioned cause it does so little justify the pace and lack of motivation for some of the characters. I just wanted to bring up that they did seem to just throw something in there - it just lacked substance. I would really love to see what GG Barbie movie would like without Mattel's corporate control over the project, a lot of good ideas in this that just can't be fully executed.
At the end of the day I had opinions about things in the movie and going in I knew it was going to have some messaging I might not agree with but when I watched it none of my opinions could even be applied (whether they agreed or disagreed) to the movie cause it wasn’t cohesive enough. When people asked if I liked the movie I said no because I was confused about what they were even trying to talk about, and it had nothing to do with my standpoint just that I was severely confused when the move ended lol. Edit: so yeah everyone’s opinions kind of were frustrating to me because it was either “it was so inspirational and moving” or it was a “heaping load of hot woke garbage” and it always kept me wondering “was it really either of those things. It kinda was just bad writing”
I actually disagree with your thesis. You mention that the thesis of the Barbie movie from Barbie’s perspective is “Reality is terrifying but it’s also deeply fulfilling.” And that Ken’s journey into the real world goes against that thesis. I’d argue the thesis of the movie is “It’s impossible to play pretend forever. Sooner or later you will have to face reality.” When Barbie gets flat feet and cellulite it reminds me of puberty. Part of puberty for a woman is not only her body changing, but also facing the realities of how our society treats women. Ken’s journey is similar. He goes through a comical men’s version of puberty where he learns that men have more power in society than he previously thought. Both Ken and Barbie face the reality of our society through a comical “coming of age” type story. I liked your point about Ken’s thesis and self worth, but I think Barbie’s worked nicely. I don’t think the movie needed an analysis of why she thinks about death. Kids just seem to randomly think about death one day. And Barbie is essentially a kid. I do agree that this movie seems to be a mirror. It reflects how we grew up. Barbieland is representative of general childhood and kids usually don’t understand their own worlds, so I don’t take the lack of world building in Barbieland to be a flaw, rather a reflection of childhood. I agree, I wish there were more moments that explored the bus station scene with the old woman. Last note (I promise): Barbies starting out in government also seems to reflect how most kids tend to think of their moms as being in charge of their worlds instead of their dads. This combined with Ken’s lack of confidence could be a commentary on absent fathers, overbearing mothers, or how your relationship with your parents can change as you get older, depending on your upbringing/ mirror, but that’s just my half baked opinion.
I feel like this very video has helped me understand more so why I love the movie despite it's flaws and why much to my disappointment my Mom didn't like it and said that it was strongly anti-male. Yet, even then a part of me couldn't blame her because I always did feel like the message felt very mixed messaged. Thank you for making this video and explaining more! God bless you majorly! EEP! :)
Oh my gosh thank you!! This was really my exact goal for the video. Its one of the most fascinating cultural responses to a movie ive ever seen and i really just wanted to explore why it creates such strong yet varied opinions. Thanks for taking the time comment. This video underperformed but comments like this really boosty confidence in the work itself. So again. Thank you!
I've finally seen Barbie, this video has been sitting in my Watch Later for almost two weeks (and I've enjoyed seeing its many thumbnails), and this movie is definitely a bit all over the place. I don't know if I really get it, but what I interpreted is that it's about people just trying to make sense of life, the burdens of society and social norms, what's good, what's not, how none of it really makes sense, but life can be what you make it if we just treat each other better. The movie is more fun than it is necessarily good, but I'd hesitate to call it bad or even just okay either. The first 15-20 minutes, I couldn't stop smiling at all the visual gags and character interaction in Barbieland. I'm sure I looked absolutely stupid with how big I was smiling. This movie has merit, it's just a little messy. A weird thing though is that when I shared my thoughts about it on Discord, immediately someone who hasn't even seen the movie dismissed it because they claimed it was just a big advertising campaign for toys, which this movie really isn't doing at all. The movie absolutely celebrates the history of the brand, with numerous references to actual products that have been long discontinued, but I never really saw anything that was outright pushing new product. This definitely feels more like The LEGO Movie where someone had an idea, and then was given permission by the owners of the property to go forth with it. I have no doubt that there are toys out there that tie into the movie, but I can also see a number of them being adult collector's items. Like, I'm not seeing Ken's Mojo Dojo Casa House being a thing that would ever be made with a child in mind, but given collector's markets, I could absolutely see it being a thing. The LEGO Movie definitely had sets made, Warner worked alongside LEGO to make the movie, but as someone that's much more in the know with that property, I can tell you that those sets made up for a collective total of 30 seconds of screen time, the movie is much more concerned with sharing messages of creativity, being yourself, and sharing that with others. Barbie kind of does a similar thing where it's much more about societal concepts than selling toys. Sasha, who's outgrown Barbie, even says that Barbie as a toy has probably even greatly negatively impacted feminist movements despite being a hugely influential part of them, too. Just look at the opening scenes parodying 2001 stating that girls could live out their own fantasies over just being a homemaker, and I'm sure there are plenty of women that are now living out their dreams as children because Barbie showed they could have a career in whatever their passion was. At the same time, nobody can actually look like Barbie (not even Magrot Robbie, but she comes close), and she's attained the "impossible" because she's never actually had to put in the work like the actual girls she inspires. Things are nuanced and complicated because our real world can't be the perfect one of a child's imagination, and then the movie even shows that even in Barbieland's perfect world, it's not really perfect. I just kind of got under my skin that someone could so blatantly see the advertising for this film and brush it off as advertising. It may not be very clear at delivering its messages, but if this movie was just about selling toys, Mattel would have just made another animated direct to home movie. They also claimed that pink's just not their vibe. They said they were sure it had more going for it like I was saying, but just say you're not interested in the movie, don't come up with such lame excuses, but I can't formulate my thoughts quite so clearly on Discord because of character limits and the clip at which conversations happen there. Oh, and one final nitpick with the actual movie. No cursing throughout the whole thing except for the intentional one that was bleeped out, but then as the credits begin, a hip hop song with Barbe Girl as the backtrack plays and the lyrics about being Barbie Bitch. I don't know, feels a bit out of place. I didn't find the song itself bad, but it's a weird choice because they had this movie dealing with semi serious issues, and it was handled well without alienating anyone with a bunch of swearing, and then that happens. That's got to be some sort of interference from someone, right?
You're so right about the moving being messy but having Merit. The two times I watched it in theaters, I left unfulfilled. But editing this video, I would find myself watching 20 minute stretches of the footage and being utterly enraptured (and that's not including how many times I've rewatched I'm Just Ken). It's so hard to adequately describe to people the way that I don't like the movie as a whole, but I ADORE just about every individual piece of this film (and Greta Gerwig is legitimately an amazing Director!). The Lego Movie comparison is so apt. Yes, this will absolutely sell Barbie dolls. But that wasn't why the filmmakers made it. There is love and care put into this film and reducing it down to "just advertising" is wild. While I think the Lego Movie is more internally consistent, Barbie is also taking a much bigger swing. And it's also where I think some of the Indie sensibilities come in. Gerwig LOVES to talk about stuff, even if she doesn't have a clean cut "message". The power comes from her depictions, rather than prescriptions. I'd be really curious to know who was responsible for the more "mainstream" elements of the plot and what not. She co-wrote this with her husband (who wrote/directed Marriage Story) and while that's really not been publicized much, I'm curious what was his influence versus hers. Or for that matter what Warner Bros./Mattel pushed for. Even some of her team saw the scene of Barbie on the bench (arguably the best moment in the whole movie) and suggested she cut it, but she stood her ground thank god. Basically, anything I have a problem with is the stuff that doesn't FEEL like Greta Gerwig's influence. Also, regarding Pink "not being their vibe," how you gonna have a problem with a WHOLE wavelength of light?!?!?! Goofball behaviour if you ask me... Also Also... Glad you've been liking the thumbnails :) This video is floundering for some reason (mainly low CTR) which is surprising given how popular the topic is. But, alas, the RUclips Algorithm is a cruel and Fickle Mistress. We'll see if it picks up later down the road like the Puss in Boots video did. Also Also Also... You're right. using B**** in the lyrics at the end credits just felt wildly out of touch. Like, completely counter to the tone the movie itself ended on. If they used that for a ridiculous training montage as the Barbies were preparing to take back Barbieland, sure! But after the bittersweet transformation of Barbie becoming a mortal??? Not the right time for Nicki Minaj
The thesis is a commentary on the way that feminism has accelerated the quality of life change in women while not making the appropriate changes to facilitate the wellness and health of men too. It's a criticism of feminism and how it has left behind the boys that are also being hurt by traditionally imposed cultural expectations of men. This can be seen in the academic flip between women and men and the growing gap. It was all well-threaded together i think illustrating the way women are getting better and how men deserve compassion and assistance as much as women do under the overwhelming standards. there is a reason men are shooting up schools and beating on their women, it's not because they are evil. it's because they are suffering as much women are. The reason it pulled so many viewers is because it was made for both men and women and had a message for anyone who watched that was culturally relevant
@@syntacc8462Patriarchy is what's hurting men, which the film made a point to say a bunch of times. Feminism has always been about uplifting men and women, because the ways that Patriarchy impacts men and women, is by subjugating women, and then telling men "not to be like women" or "feminine". Feminism is about allowing men and women to be people, instead of gendered constructs. Feminism has not failed men by advancing women's liberation, while "leaving men behind", because it was always about liberating both to BE WHOEVER THEY WANNA BE. Which is what this movie says. The movie, through Ken, also pointed to how it is not up to women to help or save men from Patriarchy individually. Individually, men have to figure out how to be themselves and be human (instead of "alpha males") in a way that isn't defined by the patriarchal subjugating and objectifying of women. Does that make sense?
Thesis: stereotypes can be a source of inspiration, but they shouldn't be a metric by which you measure yourself or an ideal to follow. Barbieland: the simplified, idealistic way Barbie toys have depicted the world to children (a.k.a. Barbieland doesn't "work", it's an idealistic version of the world, working on Platonic Ideas). Barbie: she's the projection of a child growing up and accepting the real world as it is. People tend to try and interpret the movie's logic with real-world adult logic when I believe the movie is trying (and imo, succeeding) to walk the line between children imagination's logic and the shock of beginning to understand the real world as they grow up into young adults. The rest is decor: it shows the real world for want it can look like when you are confronted by it (not for what it really is) and is not trying to judge it or its protagonists, which is a honestly a breath of fresh air in an industry where movies have been trying to shove their political values in our faces for forever!
I mean this only as praise: If I ever made a video essay about my thoughts on Barbie (2023), I feel like it would have ended up hitting a lot of the same points this did. This video put into words so many of the frustrations I had with the movie, like where I felt like the potential power of its message(s) was limited, as well as touching on the confusing cause/effect relationship between Barbieland and The Real World. I think I would have to re-watch the movie in order to go more in-depth in this comment, but I just wanted to say I think this video was very well thought-out and covered a lot of things that I didn't see most critiques of the movie even acknowledging, especially since the conversation around it so quickly turned to focus on the political issues superficially depicted in the movie, rather than more fully exploring the inconsistencies within both its theme and worldbuilding. Great video! … An additional bit of nit-picking about the end of the movie, purely because I wanted to write it somewhere and this seems as good a place as any: When Barbie chooses to become human, she says something about wanting to be "part of the people that make meaning, not the thing that's made. I want to do the imagining, I don't want to be the idea." I took that to mean that in the real world, she would go on to write stories or make art, whether as a professional or, more likely in my opinion, as an amateur (to avoid having her become some sort of Artist Barbie), in addition to living out a complex, human life. I understand that the filmmakers wanted to leave the specifics of her fate more ambiguous because they likely wanted the audience members to imagine it for ourselves. That said, if they were going to show any of her life as a human at all for the sake of a joke about going to see the gynecologist, I still wish we'd gotten just a hint of what Barbie might imagine, and what meaning she would make. As it stands, she might just be slowly dying at a corporate desk job in between ob-gyn visits.
A) thank you! That's really kind B) I think you're so right about showing what she was doing with her humanity. They made it sound kind of like she wanted to be either a worker at mattell or a politician (unclear since she just said she wants to be making the change essentially), but a glimpse of that job would be easy to insert before she gets picked up and the last scene plays out as is
Sorry, but you've missed the entire point of Ken being a sympathetic villain. It's a feature, not a bug. You are SUPPOSED to empathize with Ken because the entire montage at the end of the movie is supposed to compare Ken's treatment within Barbieland to women's treatment in the "real world". The problem encountered in the first part of the movie is actually that the "Barbie paradise/matriarchy" isn't really paradise because the Kens are subservient second class citizens who don't even have a home to go to without Barbie allowing for it. The problem is also that BARBIE isn't happy in "Barbie paradise/Matriarchy". Ken in the second act tries to import Patriarchy into Barbieland which subverts the Matriarchy putting Barbies into roles that Kens were having the fill.... only this doesn't solve Ken's problems, it makes them worse. Act 3 shows that no one is happy in either set up because neither set up allows for self actualization or true individuality. The rigid framework of gender roles, dominance/subservice have both Ken and Barbie shoved into an unfulfilling and stunting life that personally restricts who THEY are as individuals. Barbieland is thus forced into a men's rights movement forcing them to give Kens representation to paralle women's suffrage which again, is very much ham-fisted. The "joke" at the end of the movie is that the Kens are still very much oppressed and under represented in this more "egalitarian" version of Barbieland, but they're making progress. It is the mirror image of what the film makers are inferring the "real world" is where women are "making progress" in patriarchy, still oppressed, still under represented but making headway. I don't think this is me inserting personal politics into this, these themes are the literal text (montage with spoken exposition dump) of the movie and very much ham fisted.
One thing I hadn't noticed before from other videos is the FBI telling Mattel "another one" has escaped. If it's happened before there's a plot or at least plot point they could've utilised right there! Have Barbie and/or Ken meet some of them and help work things out or something.
Hi! I just wanted to say thank you so much for this video essay, as it helped put into words some of the confusion I had after watching it. I left the cinema thinking that perhaps the Barbie movie was supposed to have been surrealist in some way, as - like you perfectly verbalise during your essay - so many individual elements felt great, but I still left feeling confused and not understanding the ending or why it happened in the way it did. I also felt confused about Ken's plot, as I could see visually that his inclusion was (intended to be) a comment on patriarchy from a negative lens, but I truly felt bad for his character and as though I understood all of the actions he decided to take. Seeing the movie broken down in this more 'top down' logical way, has helped me understand that at the time, I was likely sensing that the movie's main plot was disjointed while Ken's side plot was not (and therefore responded to that one more emotionally despite the subject matter). It really just goes to show how much thought, care and artistry must go into those movies which we love and respond well to, and it's very cool that there is actually language and specific reasons as to why two stories which look similar can land so differently. It was incredibly fun watching this, and I feel like I've broadened my understanding of film language a little more now. Again, thank you so much!
This film was a realistic examination of the concepts that exist within a fictional universe (a toy line). One is pre-supposed to understand Barbie toys, the fact that she doesn't do anything except "be Barbie" (she is, after all, a toy that children use to represent fantasies), and that Ken is presumably worth less, because presumably girls prefer to play with their Barbies rather than their Kens. The problem really arises in that people take their own meaning out of things whether the creator intended it or not. People do this whether they intend to or not! It's part of how our brain is very plastic and looks for meaning in apparent randomness. That was probably a vital tool for our ancestors in trying to find resources and avoid danger.
Despite my love for this movie, the real problem I have with the depiction of Gender equality is that they completely gloss over the treatment of the Kens. The Kens (and Alan) are treated like they DESCRIBE women are treated in real life. Our main Ken is literally a walking existential crisis who cannot exist outside of being attatched at Barbie's hip, and she treats him. . . Less like an object or objectified person. . . Say, like just a random household ornament you keep forgetting you have. Ken ended up being my favorite character, and hilariously, as an ostracized she/they who has dealt with harrassment on numerous occassions, even though he DID SOME SHIT WOW, I found myself relating to Ken a lot more than Barbie or ANY of the female characters' plights in this movie. Aside from the overexaggerated sexual harrassment(which IS mostly realistic but not THAT openly commonplace without reprecussions these days), a lot of the oppression is just said, instead of seen or heard. America's speech towards the end is also really interesting, but I feel like it applies to literally EVERYONE in society, not just women? Like, the entire thing feels very shallow, and even a little blind and I AM STILL PISSED THE KENS ENDED UP BACK IN THE SAME POSITION WITH BARELY ANY REPRESENTATION IN THE BARBIE SUPREME COURT WTF MOVIE- Aside from this the Beach Off musical number is my favorite moment I ever got to see in theaters, and throughout the movie the entire audience was LOSING it, and I legit popped a headache from laughing for an hour and a half straight. Worth it.
Unfortunately i feel like you're missing the point in act 1. In act 1 the message could be that what seems perfect from the class that is in power is actually not / an illusion and they have to face reality. THIS IS WHY there's the joke about the shoes. This is why Barbie's intrusive thought is about death (something that is unavoidable and everyone has to accept) That's why we focus on Barbie but also Ken's obvious rejection/ how he is treated too. That's why it's turned as "joke" or "for laugh" because that's how complains about such things by elite in power. If you just get that this is the message of act 1 the rest of the movie holds together, because act2 is Barbie realizing that she is living in an illusion and what she believes (priviledges) are not set in stone and necessary true for everyone (aka the barbie compagny analogy and the scene with the girls in high school), while Ken realizes he could be in power. The middle point is actually the shift / return to Barbie Land, where Barbie wants to returns home and gets things back to what they were but realizes it's not possible because now she knows, and the kens knows (and have power). 3rd act is a bit more blurry but i believe it meant for people to understand there's middle ground to find and lives in the reality rather than in deny of it, meet people half way and their point of views and their struggles. (with the mother and daughter reconcilying and understanding one another better, Ken understanding why he fell intro the patriarchy but accepting that Barbieland is matriarchy based and that barbie will not love him back like he wants to, and Barbie understanding she wants to be human and not be a concept anymore) it's acceptation of the other, aknowledging of the world and its systemic way to deal with change (aka trying to hold power and not change things) and the problem you live in it and making the choice that makes YOU happy to live in this world. Yes it has feminism in it, but it's not that radical, quite the contrary. Yes it plays with the stereotype that are usually done to women characters and gave it to men (and it bothers men, awwww, now maybe they'll get what we feel when we have to eat 100 of movies with the girl being reduced to LI - and even that is unfair because Ken gets his own arc, he gets treated better than those stereoptypes in many movies). Unfortunately for me your essay is wrong because it gets the message / statement of the first arc wrong ^^° and so all the analysis behind falls out as consequence ... This is why Barbie isn't "feminism" propaganda, it doesn't push people to raise and make patriarchy collapse (yes the patriarchy does collapse in barbie land, but it's because it was a matriarchy in the first place, it just comes back to its original state with slightly minor changes for Ken) it shows the matriarchy in Barbie Land was just as bad as patriarchy. And Patriarchy is still veyr much here in the real world and neither barbie or the mother and her daughter leave saying" we will fight patriarchy in our own world bc barbie land is so much better èé" they simply returns having understanding each other's struggles and relating to one another better. It doesn't push anyone to revolt just to open their eyes and see patterns from society + each other's struggles.
This is actually what I have noticed as the majority takeaway, people noticing these things and beginning to engage with and discuss them in more comprehensive and contextual ways. Which I think is most important atm. I do agree that the story falls short in standard execution, but it's not supposed to be standard, it's groundbreaking. Meaning only upon much later reflection (after processing from heightened awareness), will it seem more cohesive. I do agree that Ken's story could have and maybe should have expanded into a sequel, this is one film that could have actually worked as a trilogy series imo. But they did the best they could with the opportunity given, since nothing where profit is considered, can be guaranteed. I don't know if I'm making sense, but I see the point the video is making, but ultimately that it's not as simple as that it shouldn't be this way.
I agree but I also think that the movie doesn't quite do a good job of highlighting that message. It's there if you really look for it, but I wish the movie did more explicit things to make the Barbies face the fact that they've been treating the men like women are treated in the real world. The narrator points this out, and then they move on. I wish the Barbies had to FACE really how horrible it was for them to treat the Kens like accessories. I almost wish kens song at the end was towards barbie so she had to face the fact that this inequality she's been fighting in the real world is very prevalent in hers
I saw this movie ages after it came out, and I remember seeing that final montage scene where she decides to enter The Real World, and just thinking "Ohh, this is the part people got emotional over...yeah, I could see it, I get teary whenever I rewatch that part of Ride the Cyclone. ...Man, I wish I was watching Ride the Cyclone right now."
very thought provoking and I havent even watched the movie but folk have asked me this '' ARE YOU KEN OR BARBIE'' something like that and im like? hmm none? lol! by the sounds of things, i think theres great moments from both character arcs, you did very well in captivated the strengths and weaknesses of both
I really appreciate this analysis. My issue with the film came down to a lack of reconciliation between the Barbies' vision of their collective society and the Kens' vision of their collective society. The movie showed both visions in their extremes, allowing the Kens and the Barbies at different times to each experience what its like to feel powerless under the rule of another gender. And by the end, I felt there was a golden opportunity for the "Barbie & Ken Land" (or something more snappy) to come to fruition as a satisfying and precedential conclusion of gender harmony. But I felt the story chose instead to let the Barbies have the arc: undisputed power, minority perspective, then redemption of undisputed power, while the Kens arc was: minority perspective, disputed power, and then right back to minority perspective and no power. The Barbies reclaiming their domain and relegating the Kens back to second-class citizens was the EXACT message the Barbies were highlighting and rising up against. And it's a shame, because I felt a lot of the dialogue was apt and pointed toward societal progress. Anyway... thanks for coming to my TED talk :)
Here everyone is chatting about the political narratives of a toy movie, while over here wondering if ordinary humans can accidentally find themselves in Barbieland. And if so, how many have died from shock?
A) I think it might be about intention where you gotta think "i'm headed to barbie land" while on rollerblades in LA. So accidental travel between realms shouldn't be an issue. B) If they did accidentally show up, I think they'd be chill. The "real" world in Barbie is kinda absurd, so wouldn't be that much of a difference for them
Thank you! I try to find a good balance between clear explanations and audience retention so im glad you feel ir works. Thanks for taking the time comment!
This was an excellent analysis! I felt like they made two different stories then put them in the same movie. One is a cartoonish story about women overcoming patriarchy and obstacles in life. The other was a deep story exploring what it means to be human and what you can contribute to the world. Each are interesting, but not necessarily complementary to each other in the same movie.
This is not an original IP, the movie had to appeal to a young audience and expectations, nevertheless the director managed to pull an ace on the audience. The dichotomy of the themes is employed to make a contrast. Although I disagree with your choice of themes. Quote: theme #1 overcome patriarchy #2 become a better human? They seem rather similar, don't they? The movie Barbie is cartoonist, because she is an unrealistic boomer relic with humans acting as dolls NOT because Barbie and Ken find common ground.
My whole take has always been that Barbie (the object as a concept) is not that deep, and the movie is more or less just attempting to obfuscate the corporate criticisms, ultimately creating a movie that is actually just a 2 hour commercial to push products to line Mattel's pockets. I think the movie has really annoying and bad feminist takes, but that's all a smoke screen for the money to be made selling merch, dolls, and other Barbie-themed products.
I thought this movie was pretty good, but not great. Outside of America Ferrera's monologue in the third act, the movie wasn't especially preachy, and it was funny and thought provoking at times.
I understand that the convoluted plot might have taken away from the thematic narrative, but there is a CLEAR one that makes sense. Part 1: Barbie is content and Ken is not (matriarchal system) Part 2: Ken is content and Barbie is not (patriarchal system) Part 3: After experimenting with both patriarchal and matriarchal systems they both need to find their identities under a different system (though Ken settles for feeling "Kenough" in a matriarchal system) The reason Barbie doesn't have her motivations, emotions, and thoughts explained at the start, is because she is a doll living in a world that is perfectly designed for her. She is in this blissful state that keeps her empty-headed reliving the same "perfect" lifestyle every day(we only need to see one day in Barbie's life to know every other day is the exact same). The random death thoughts that pop into her head are just that: A momentary thought that pops up. The rest of the time her mind is most probably blank. She starts as a shell of a character and is her traveling to the human world that makes her start questioning stuff. Ken, on the other hand, has been suffering all along. He experiences negative emotions like jealousy and problems related to self-esteem because this world is not designed to keep him blissfully happy. The fact that Kens' occupations or houses are not shown is completely on purpose. He is so irrelevant in this world that we don't even get to see him doing anything other than trying to get Barbie's attention. He is supposed to be an accessory so exploring him as a character in this stage would go against the whole point of the movie. I wouldn't be surprised if he just stood still in the same spot the whole night until Barbie woke up again. His only motivation at this stage is being Barbie's accessory and only after going to the human world, he realizes he can have other personal wants. The plot about the weird symptoms Barbie experiences serves the purpose of giving Barbie a reason to get out of the loop. Barbie has NO personal motivation to change anything about her life, let alone travel to the human world because her life is perfect, and if it wasn't for the symptoms it would continue to be like that forever. You can even tell that she doesn't want to go to the human world at the start and prefers to ignore everything and go back to being blissfully ignorant. Even in the human world she needs an external plot to drive her because she is not motivated to do anything by herself at this point. It is only after experiencing the human world and human connection that Barbie starts to experience new emotions and questions her existence and her place in th world. After everything that happens, Barbie can no longer go back to being a blissfully happy doll in a "perfect" matriarchal system. She has come to have thoughts and emotions of her own like a human. And now she has enough personhood to have motivations and the experiences she had with human women throughout the movie motivate her to go explore being a human. Ken's upgrade from accessory to person though staying in a very much still matriarchal Barbieland seems to keep him content (at least for the moment) closing his arc. Although I do agree some plot points were not perfectly executed and that the runtime could have allowed more character development, I think you missed the point by treating Barbie and Ken as regular characters when they clearly start as DOLLS.
Starting as dolls doesn't change how charcter arcs work. It just changes the starting point. You can have character arcs rhat are well paced that start from a place of contentment. The problem is this movie rushes those changes rather than steadily developing them. The changes in my opinion are far too sudden and read like "oh snap we need to move the character along asap" as opposed to truly earning the moments
The thing is, is that as much as I like to be entertained and comforted, I already have that in Ghibli movies and other such films. But my favourite movies? They are always profound, filled with heart and love... I want more movies like that (like Spiderverse and Arcane)
I feel so validated by this video. After watching the movie I was absolutely confused by what the theme of this movie was supposed to be. It tackled existentialism, patriarchy, identity, entitlement, the complexities of being a woman, the disillusionment of growing up, children estranging themselves from their parents, and more, for me seemingly without a core holding all this together. I'm relieved this impression is not just me being negative. The way you described the thesis (the messiness of reality being a better option than living in the blissful ignorance of Barbie World) also very much sounds like Buddhas story to me.
I always thought Legally Blonde was a better Barbie movie than Barbie. I think Barbie would be better if it just stayed a comedy without trying to be too deep, because some of the messages were way too forced. For example, I never understood why were all the men in the real world so stupid. It made sense for the Kens and their journey, but not so much in the real world. It also didn't make sense that the weird Barbie was an outcast. If Barbieland was supposed to be the perfect place for women, it didn't make sense. I actually didn't even understand why Barbie wanted to become real
Just watched this on HBO with my family. We were all so happy going in because we were expecting something like a live action version of one of the Barbie cartoons. Y'know, fun. My preteen daughter HATED this movie from the very beginning when the little girls smash their baby dolls' heads in. I get that that scene references 2001, but, other than the reference, what's the point? My daughter didn't even want to finish watching the movie because there weren't any characters for her to like and root for. At the end, my preteen son pointed out how all the characters were either jerks or dumb, even the real-world dad. Even Barbie! We've all been ranting for days about how bad this movie is. I was actually looking forward to seeing a girl power movie that takes some cracks at patriarchy, but this movie doesn't even actually do that - It has characters who explicitly SAY that is what is going on some times, but that's not really what the movie communicates through its scenes. Is there a single positive, healthy relationship between any of the characters? There aren't even any friendships between the Barbies or the people in the real world. This movie was an opportunity to show girls having fun together, which is the only way to defeat patriarchy (😉), and could have been genuinely empowering for all people, making it a truly hilarious satire since empowerment actually contrasts nicely with the reality of a soulless plastic toy, but that opportunity was squandered.
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial I actually only watched the movie because of the song I’m just Ken, I think it’s relatable to any gender to feel like a sidekick or a secondary character.
Thank you for this video and sums up a lot of the problems (which I see others had too in the comments). It is "fun" but I just did not see it as a good movie. The fact people are trying to say this is Oscar worthy is just eye-rollingly pandering. And the video also nails one of the polarizing things about this movie from a birds eye level about the whole thing, and that is in 2023..are women, and more specifically since this is a Hollywood movie, western women, oppressed? The female audience that flocked to see it and loved it still seem to think so. But many people absolutely do not, from not only many men, but actually many other minorities who see these kind of feminist things as trying to be a victim to negate or deflect from their own "privilege". How you feel about that central issue really kind of leads to your opinion on the whole film. If you feel that women are still oppressed, this film pretty much touches on the issues feminists generally raise with body issues, having an idealized attraction goal that many cannot meet, the "patriarchy" and really the place of men in their own actualization, and the thought that the patriarchy is only a stone throws away from coming back. If you don't, then the whole thing, as the video says, comes off as progressive pandering and claptrap about women still acting like this is 1823 and not 2023, that the men should simply cede their power and the film does not want equality that the Kens craved, but equity, as this is "Barbie world"", as it is now "their time", body issues and attraction ideals exist for everyone and being an adult is accepting you maybe do not meet that ideal, and that many of the behaviors from Ken and men in the "real world" shown in the movie are unrealistic biased relics that no longer happen, and frankly did not happen nearly as often as feminist think they did, even "back in the day".
i have not watched this video yet. i dont like the barbie movie, and i have very strong feelings on it, but i believe that it was trying to be a piece on feminism but completely missed the point by moving back to the matriarchy at the end of the film, because feminism is about equality for people of all genders, and it didn't feel like there was any progress made in the barbieland society by the end of the film. there was clearly a problem, but the problem was not solved. oh yeah and what were the humans doing there. they were important for 5 minutes and then never again. i will edit once ive watched the video EDIT: im very liberal, but as i expressed above i dont agree with the message or how the message is relayed. and i agree with like 90% of what you said, this is a very good video, nice work!
What I found kinda jarring about this film was how Barbie’s final choice contradicts everything that lead up to it, including the previous scene. You get this heartfelt montage about why the world needs Barbie as a concept then our hero Barbie immediately declares she’s giving up being a Barbie. I’m sorry but huh? Isn’t that just her walking away from her responsibility? I really enjoyed most of this movie, and the moment around it, but the ending left me confused and a bit sad. What’s the message here?
Hm I'd disagree that the thesis has nothing to do with the evidence. If you state that "reality is terrifying" is the thesis, in Barbieland where it is explicitly stated that the Barbies think that sexism is fixed, the second part of the film focusing on the reality of patriarchy and living as a woman in society is actually very closely linked to the thesis of the first act. Barbie's choice to become human, then, is also choosing to face that reality. I agree that Barbie wasn't super cohesive but your main point doesn't quite work; I think the real issue is that while the themes fit together, it wasn't focused; many of the subplots and character arcs, and the ways in which the film transitioned between acts, distracted from those themes. also, Ken's arc doesn't contradict this. Barbieland and Kendomland are intentional mirrors of the real world, specifically because of the hierarchies that exist in reality.
I like ken because he sang the 2nd best song in the movie (after dance the night), he's funny and I empathise both with being manipulated by society and unrequited love. I don't know what that says about me but I'd love to know.
I would put Barbie as a centrist and the daughter in her place, maybe alongside the weird Barbie. No wait, the weird Barbie would be alongside Alan, which is weird.
You don't define who you are. You are a social being. You are what the people you love and trust believe you are. That's not necessarily reality. The people you love and trust might be selfish and self-absorbed and look down on you, or they might be naive and overestimate you. If you're lucky, the people you trust are mature and honest and capable of seeing and loving the real you. In any case: you don’t decide who you are all by yourself, whether you're human or a doll.
This exact philosophy is something I've struggled with a lot. Part of what makes existing as a person so difficult is the "you" that you think you are is only one of the many "yous" that exist. In many ways, perception IS reality. Therefore, whatever someone perceives you as is the REAL you... to THEM. You're perception of yourself is the most important -- not because it's inherently more correct, but because it's the only one you can fully control (and even then it's a tossup with the various tricks/illnesses our brain is susceptible to). You have to focus on making sure you're the person you want to see looking back at you in the mirror before you can even begin to think about how you might appear in someone else's eyes
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial The problem with the person you see in the mirror is unfortunately that since you want to feel good about yourself you might overestimate yourself. The people around you mirror and ground you, and so do you for them in return.
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial I would like to add that you can control other people: it's called manipulation and brainwashing. Some people build their entire lives and careers on that. Otherwise you can choose to filter toxic people out of your life and to only call a friend who supports you and, if they do criticize you, then for your own sake and not in order to feel better about themselves. Of course, option 2 is better, but it also requires a lot of introspection.
You forgot to mention America Ferrera’s character. She’s the reason for Barbie’s conflicted feelings. IMO, the movie missed because it doesn’t focus enough on her. She gets to say everything that’s affected her as a woman but she’s not centered in it. Barbie is. But Barbie is set up as a vessel with which Gloria (Ferrera) funnels her frustrations and emotions. Halfway through the film forgets this and Barbie becomes her own person apart from Gloria’s feelings without any real explanation.
The Little Platoon made an astute point in his own analysis of Barbie. The reason for the disparity in the analyses of Barbie is because it's Greta Gerwig's botched attempt at mixing humanist themes with feminist themes. Because these two themes run counter to each other, a third faction has risen, one that sees the Barbie movie an unintentional yet compelling anti-woke masterpiece. I wish I was kidding about that last part.
Can we just be honest and admit the only reason this made nearly as much as it did is because they doubled it up with Oppenheimer? Seriously. It's like if we don't mention it, we can pretend it isn't so. Most folks that saw Barbie did not come to see Barbie. It looked predictably surface, and too silly to address anything deeply, and guess what? It was. And the message was muddled and confused because it tried to play both sides of the fence-feminists on a mission--except guys are nice as long as they bend to female power at the expense of their own-and we can't talk about how messed up that is, and mega corporations are totally perpetuating patriarchy--except Mattel, who supports "dreams", but made barbie and designed her in the most sexist way possible. Everything about the Barbie movie was cheap plastic, pretending to be flesh and blood.
errrr, did you watch the movie? because you omitted several characterization points in characters and world building, which are very simple, and even said in the movie, you also missed the entire point by thinking the doll world should be more realistic
i really appreciate how you are actually able to critique things based on what they are. I never saw the barbie movie because i wasn't interested but much of the criticism was just from right wingers or mysoginists not liking the "patriarchy bad" part and they didn't really talk about the movie itself. That also was the reason why i almost didnt want to watch this but your Wish video handled a similiar subject so well i trusted you to actually talk about this meaningfully. Was not disappointed, great video, great Channel. Defintely subscribed
i remember being SO excited for the Barbie movie bc I kept hearing about how good it was, i walked out realizing how many people didnt know what "radicalism" was.
I consider myself a liberal, and while I agree with the points made in the movie, I find it’s a little hamfisted in how in presents them. Also, for such a feminist movie, focuses an awful lot on a man’s story lol 😂
People that are chronically online are the only people that saw that movie as anything more than a great comedy. Grown men getting mad about the Barbie movie are beyond sad
I mean plenty of people who aren't chronically online saw flaws with the movie. There's a difference between having criticisms and being actively mad about something. Not everyone who dislikes the film is automatically The Critical Drinker
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial oh for sure. Didn’t mean to come off sounding like that’s what I was saying. I’m more referring to people that lost their mind about their political perception of the movie
@laserblaster oh got it. Yeah i agree. Thats the whole reason i made this video. People seem to be talking abiut everything except the movie itself. Its a really interesting phenomenon...
It's targeted towards adults, so why shouldn't adults have opinions about it? And why specifically grown men? Men can be interested in Barbie too. It's not like we're only allowed to care about Rambo or Die Hard.
I usually have a hard time with American comedies, so maybe I'm not the one to talk, but I didn't find most of the jokes in this movie funny. They were just over the top and kind of cringy.
I got a vibe of Ken going from being an object to being treated with respect as a person, and how thats how women used to feel. But at least back then women where desired, whereas today mem are seen as a problem and a scapegoat. Toxic masculinity and toxic femininity these days is crazy, uts no wonder everyone feels they cant talk to the opposite sex without it being a battle so everyone just hides, becomes lonely, and suicide rates go up.
" But at least back then women where desired, whereas today mem are seen as a problem and a scapegoat." Sure, they were desired as, basically, an object. And that's whenever they weren't used as some kind of scapegoat for whatever problem was affecting a person or society as a whole. You can still see this reflected in "ball-and-chain-wife" boomer humor. Being "desired" in the context of objectification isn't some kind of perk. It's just a different kind of toxic treatment that only seems more positive than how disaffected men are treated, because their struggles with loneliness make *any* kind of desirability seem like an upgrade.
@@DeathEatsCurry well, I wasn't saying it was ideal or even okay. Just that Ken was completely ignored and seen as almost beneath human. I think the ideal is one of two things.. The classic man works hard and loves his wife and wife dies the same in the feminine roll (not for everyone) And the modern, your significant other is basically your best friend and you try to split responsibilities evenly.
We shall see. I'm interested to look back in a couple of years and see how the film gets reexamined. The big problem is that either praising or critiquing the film in any way comes with a lot of assumed baggage from other people. It's tough when, as a film enthusiast I want to look at the merits of the film itself, but the general discussion never seems to be about JUST the film itself
I still don't know if Gerwig ment it to be so blurred and fucked up within MAttel restrictions just to troll everyone or if she and the other writers just messed up trying to make it more ironic adding too many layers to manage correctly. At the end the irony about Ken being the best character in a feminist movie is the best thing about this film.
Honestly this movie feels like some kind of psychological operation run by some nefarious people. That's how I would describe this movie, nefarious. Evil even.
@@DeathEatsCurry It's not provoking "actual thought" it's provoking tribalism and polarization for reasons that are not very clear. This movie did actual damage to people's relationships. People are seen as evil now for not enjoying this objectively chaotic and incoherent garbage of a movie, because somehow this makes them some kind of a woman hater. On the flip side, people that enjoy this movie are seen as extreme feminists that hate men. The design of the movie literally is causing this to happen by making people "fill in the giant holes" for the incompetent or evil creators of the movie.
also, your analysis is invalid since you intentionally omitted information, because your critique about the introduction of the plot is just plain wrong, its explained why she had bad thoughts within the movie, theres no way one would point that as a mistake if they watched the movie, or in your case, doing bad critique for the sake of clicks, but looking at the number below the video, it clearly didnt work didnt it?
A) jeez that was unecesarily mean B) its explained but that doesnt mean we see it play out in an impactful way in act 1. Also that plotline is largely dropped. My critique wasnt that its unexplained my critique is that it pops up randomly in act one and isnt explored well
I think this movie deserves some level of praise for exploring feminist issues from one step beyond the most basic level typical movies get into. I know that's still pretty shallow, but exploring these issues partially through the lens of how it affects men (i.e. Ken) is actually quite a leap for Hollywood in actually tackling these themes with any level of nuance and depth. To chronically online people, the idea that the patriarchy hurts men as well might seem obvious, but your typical layperson might actually need to hear this, so they can understand these issues.
Is the Barbie movie worth the hype?
The aesthetics and Ryan Gosling are incredible, but I don’t know how it’s going to age
I'm not done with the video yet, but I wanted to mention that when you said the thesis of the movie is that reality is terrifying but the second half has to do with Ken and patriarchy, you mentioned that the two parts didn't go together but I'm gonna be honest, total patriarchy can be very scary for a woman, so the two do go together in my mind.
I see the film as "what is it to be a woman in a man-led world?" Barbie has no interest in sex but is chased after. The kens are treated as a mirror to women in our current world, desperately wanting to have control and power over their own government, so hungry and blind that patriarchy sounds awesome because it shows masculinity in a positive way. The end of the movie emphasizes how both Barbies and Kens need to work together but that the Barbies are afraid of how the Kens would hold power over and try to control them.
And yet, life as a human, is worth it despite the pain and complexity. Bonding with others is worth it despite the potential for power dynamics. Dating the opposite sex if you're into that is still worth it (though not one of the main plots, still feels like a message). And honestly, Ken's journey out of codependency is super important and I think helps female audiences understand the motives of clingy men.
@@RayeChellI appreciate your stance, but I have to disagree. The Barbie’s are not reflective of women’s experiences in a male-led world. We already live in a male-dominated world. In Barbie, the Kens are homeless. They have no power, no influence, and no property. They are treated as less than second class citizens. It is not a 1 to 1 allegory. In the real world, women are not blindly implementing a matriarchy in which women have all the power and kick men out of their homes. The message of the film is convoluted and inconsistent. If the Barbies are supposed to represent men then the final message of the film is that actually there was nothing wrong in the real world. Men should be in charge and women can have some small roles to keep them happy, but systemic change is ultimately unnecessary. It’s a bad message imo. Barbie becoming human has nothing to do with the problems in her society or the real world. There is no reason for her or the kens to continue to live in and uphold a system that subjugates them. The kens rebelling is essentially the women’s suffrage movement and the movie says that’s a bad thing. If the genders were flipped in this movie, everyone would see the flaws.
Yes. Also, everyone go watch Island Princess.
To be honest, I think "Enchanted" seems to be a better version of what "Barbie" wanted to do, at least as far as worldbuilding is concerned.
Right?! I was just thinking about that while I was watching this video!
"A movie which talks about a lot but says very little" about sums it up for me - well put! I left the movie theater feeling nicely entertained but also annoyed by the one-the-nose but still confused messaging and the ultimately nonsensical plot, to say nothing of certain scene choices in between that seemed completely out of place (the chase scene... why?).
Yeah the chase scene struck me as part of the fun comedy aspect, but the whole mattel subplot just felt wildly out of sync with the rest of the film, and I really don't think they should have included them.
OH MY GOD You put into words my problem with this movie!! It's so annoying to see 'barbie is a masterpiece with radical message' littering around on social media when it's simply WASN'T A GOOD MOVIE!! I thought I was the on crack when I saw everyone else says it's so profound, I left the cinema confused and disappointed, and I actually look forward for this movie. Anyway, instant subscribe.
Thanks !
Same. Just watched this on HBO with my family. We were all so happy going in because we were expecting something like a live action version of one of the cartoons. Y'know, fun. My preteen daughter HATED this movie from the very beginning when the little girls smash their baby dolls' heads in. I get that that scene references 2001, but, other than that, what's the point? My daughter didn't even want to finish watching the movie. At the end, my preteen son pointed out how all the men were either jerks or dumb, even the real-world dad. We've all been ranting for days about how bad this movie is. I was actually looking forward to seeing a girl power movie that takes some cracks at patriarchy, but this movie doesn't even actually do that - It has characters who explicitly SAY that is what is going on, but that's not really what the movie communicates through its scenes. Is their a single positive, healthy relationship between any of the characters? There aren't even any friendships between the Barbies or the people in the real world. This movie was an opportunity to show girls having fun together and could have been genuinely empowering, but that opportunity was squandered.
Yes. It's not profound in the least. Even where it tries to say something deep or beautiful or nuanced, it's very much on the nose, its touch a far cry from the subtle one needed to do justice to the complex themes the movie tries to address.
Honestly, yeah. I was actually so excited to see it, because trailers made it look like a fun adventure with deep undertones and message (yeah, like lego movie). But it was just a disjointed mess with very heavy handed messaging that at times didn't even feel relevant story-wise.
Barbie encourages projection in a similar way to Twilight. Both films present worlds where necessary answers are not provided, so the viewer fills them in on their own (or disconnects from it entirely). This fact means talking about either movie can be difficult, because after being forced to fill in the gaps on their own viewers walk away from essentially different movies. That concept is fascinating to me, because talking to someone about the film is as much a conversation about the film as it is about how that person watches movies as a whole.
Exactly!
Also what elements from twilight do you think encourage projection? I definitely agree but im curious whiche elements youre specifically referring to
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial There are the surface level things like Bella's 'empty shell' personality and lack of confidence, but that stuff pales in comparison to the conceptual pieces. Virtually every single thing the Cullens do risks exposing them and none of them are addressed, and many of them circle around Bella or her place in the story. Yes, the Cullens drinking animal blood instead of human blood makes them 'ethical vampires' but are we supposed to believe that no hunter or game warden ever questioned why this deer had no blood and a couple of pairs of tiny holes? That Edward would risk exposure by not suppressing his disgust at Bella's scent, which is simply never mentioned again? It isn't mentioned because it doesn't matter anymore - they've met, they had a meet-cute, and we got a shot of Edward with wings implanted in the audience's mind. The scene's purpose was entirely mechanical, written from the assumption that the audience is engaged and no effort is required to maintain that engagement. The way that Edward handles Bella's immunity to his powers is the same: her reply to finding out he can read minds but not hers is 'Is something wrong with me?' and his reply is to lightly mock her in a praising way, then move onto another topic. The scene has gotten everyone on the audience on the film's wavelength to think about themselves in that position, and has gotten the people who aren't engaged to risk damaging their eyes from rolling them into the back of their heads.
Twilight does have a handful of 'think of it like a town in Sweeden' handwaves that fit this concept, such as how the Cullen 'kids' go to high school to fit in when all of them could easily pass for young adults. I think a lot of people would dismiss these structural elements as nitpicks, but they aren't. Something people fail to understand is that every decision in a film or TV show was made by someone. The shirt this character wears, the way they enter the scene, the placement of the camera, all of it. The purpose of most media is to cast the spell of immersion on you, and the worst thing it can do is break that spell. The minute the audience starts asking itself 'hey wait a minute...Edward can't show his powers but can leave a hand print on a truck on the school parking lot...how does that square up?' they've stopped completely engaging with the characters. The second you remember the wizard is behind the curtain you stop looking at the work in the same way.
Something along a similar line that I find interesting is the choices that were made in adapting these novels to film, especially the Fifty Shades films which were inspired by Twilight. The three Fifty Shades books provide reasons for Christian's actions that the film completely omits. That's because a Christian who is concerned about safety and health as a general concept doesn't fit the film's concept of romantic, so it is thrown out to ensure the self-insert immersion continues. The director talked at one point about the last scene of the film which mirrors Ana and Christian's first meeting, and how instead of them simply repeating their names she wanted Ana to say the safe word, thus reclaiming the power from him, and the writer of the novels refused to allow it. I think this fits along the same lines: the writer doesn't want something new and interesting, and doesn't want Ana to grow and learn. She wants Ana to exist just enough that the audience can lose themselves in her, and anything that threatens that projection has to go.
Geez, sorry for the novel here. Hope that answers your question!
When you look at it it becomes clear Mattel told Greta Gerwig they wanted The Lego Movie but with barbie and Greta tried her best to make it something special and she did but it wasn’t able to reach the heights she could without restriction
Exactly! And so much good/great is in the movie. But some of the added complexity ends up conflicting with the simplistic elements ane thats where the issues arise. Really excited to see her take on Narnia
When I watched it, at some of the very best moments, I felt as if it could aspire to be the Lego movie but with Barbie. But it fell flat - hard! - where the Lego movie soared.
I really felt like there were so many themes that Greta gerwig wanted to touch on that she ended up not really discussing any of them in a meaningful way.
@reganlamoureux3607 which is ok in an indie movie but feels super weird in such a corporate feeling blockbuster.
I thought it would be The Lego Movie but Barbie and was disappointed that it wasn’t…
The number of times I said "exactly" throughout this video.. it's disappointing because you can really see the potential for this movie to work beautifully but it really fell short from a character development standpoint. I wish we got to see the moments and progression that went into Barbie's transformation. Some of the moments that worked as standalone scenes (e.g., Barbie thinking the old woman was beautiful) don't jive in the story because she immediately goes back to hating her cellulite and wanting to be "perfect" again. I was also disappointed with Sasha's lack of character development - we see all of her changes through the story in her clothing, but we don't see what actually changed her mind.
This is one of the videos that give good criticism without speaking from bias. Also explained things i never thought about. You got a New subscriber
Thank you!! I don't always succeed? But I try to make sure my criticism always come from as "objective" of a place as possible. Thats why it's always important for me to identify what the artists were trying to accomplish, so then that's the metric im judging things off of rather than just "I did or didn't like it". Thanks for taking the time to comment!
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial and I'm glad you did. One of my biggest complaints during everyone discussion of the barbie movie is biases. Like the scene with barbie and Ken entering the real world felt so flawed cus I understand they were trying to acknowledge men catcalling but like you said this movie leave too much space for biases. Not only is it a flawed way to show this but it leaves alot of space for the men who was saying the barbie movie hates men to scream as loud as possible 😭
Yeah discussion around barbie got really complicated when the left and the right both used it as a rallying cry. It made it almost impossible to just talk about it as a movie and not the political moment.
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial Exactly. Just became wayy too political. Anyway I hope you have a good day ❤️
A major issue I had with this movie relating to your whole thesis/evidence/conclusion structure is America Ferrera's character. Of course it's Barbie's movie, but from when we met the mother and daughter duo I thought that was going to be the central theme of the movie. And yet their conflict sort of gets solved off screen? It was barely addressed, the daughter just kind of grows up from being around the Barbies and listening to the monologue. Ariana Greenblatt's character made no active choices (from what I can remember) that takes her from her initial views to where she ends up.
It felt like there were three, maybe four, main characters all with very different arcs trying to get solved in a movie that was already blurring between absurdist reality and plain fantasy. And none of them had a very satisfying progression, even if they ended up in the right place.
This was a film that was not what I expected at all, and not in a good or satisfying way. It was definitely a fun watch and I enjoyed it! But I was very confused about the way they solved it when it came to the Barbies taking over again. It felt like it went against itself. Ken had a much better arc and I found him a much more likeable and interesting character. I think it might have been as he didn’t take himself too seriously, and neither did the makers of the film.
The portrayal of Ken is very interesting to me because it is based on how Ken is marketed and how a lot of girls play with Ken. He is an accessory and he doesn’t have his own house. He doesn’t have a story or a personality. He is simply the boyfriend of Barbie and is pulled out when needed. That is the one thing I find that the film got the most right and it resulted in some hilarious moments.
I think they placed all the weight of "the message" on Barbie's character which really dragged her down. Ken was allowed to just be a compelling and nuanced character and the ironically allowed his arc to deliver the most clear and effective messaging.
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial I think you’re very correct!
I think it would've been better if Ken was being treated so "poorly" that HE decides to escape barbie land and bring back the patriarchy. While in barbie land, Barbie experiences glitches in the world that she knows of. and then she goes to find ken in the real world to save what was. and then she can see how barbie land is mirroring the real world, but with switched genders. But I think that would be too pro man lol
That would actually work really well
at 16:00 that totally makes sense!!! the Barbie movie would have been an absolute MASTERPIECE if they had written screenplay like that into the film. it would have really struck deep if, for eg, while Ken is talking to her her eyes glaze over and she's having intrusive thoughts about death and mortality and the routine of her daily life not leading anywhere, she snaps back to Ken in front of her trying to kiss her, has a monotonous goodbye, end scene. (as she thinks of these 'real life' things, things start to take a turn for the twisted, like flat feet, bad milk, etc) then later with the other barbies at the party (instead of that giant dance sequence), she has another scary dream about death and mortality, and _then_ maybe it makes more sense if she whispered out loud or burst out 'do you guys ever think about dying'... but even then, that line just seems too on-the-nose. there has to have been a better way to write that in - it's the very bullet that drives the plot forward!
Dude thank you for this video. I was wondering why this movie always felt unfinished to me even though I enjoyed my time watching it. Also, it explains why i related more to Ken bc his journey felt more like the journey of feminism (an oppressed person bc of their sex clinging to ideas that finally make them feel seen/heard) than Barbies journey ever did.
I always thought that! But never maneged to put it into words. Love the video!
Thank you!
This movie was so disappointing. When I first heard of it, long before it started production, I thought it was going to be fun and great! But the awful directing and writing ruined the whole idea. Everything you mentioned in this video resonates with me, plus I have big issues with how they mostly talk and explain their struggles and goals rather than showing us. Nothing carries weight because we are simply told by some character talking for way too long, instead of using character-building through their actions.
And the ending was literally the worst part of the movie. I hated how a movie that was supposed to send a feminist message and empower women showed the Barbies cheating in the cheapest way during the elections. Like, come on! I was expecting a way for the Barbies to prove that they are more capable in certain things than the Kens, and even the Kens realizing that yes, Barbies can and are better at many things. But no! They literally kidnapped every Ken so the poor, weak Barbies wouldn't have to go to a debate and use actual arguments. Probably one of the worst movies that ever existed.
And to this day... there isn't a clear explanation of what the world really is. Is not up to interpretation either. No one in the movie cares to explain what the difference between Barbie and the real world because the directors and writer didn't know either! This movie is chaos in cinema history, and it hurts because I really loved the idea of them having the sets built like as if they were real Barbie toys and not fully cgi, but at the end of the day... it was just one of the biggest disappointments in history
I choose to believe the Barbie movie would've been taken normally before 2015+ skeptic channels were a thing.
I actually kinda agree. It's ofc filled with lots of different themes but ppl would've been more chill towards it.
Would it have been written the way it is before 2015?
Those skeptic channels were a thing even before that, but yeah, I agree. There's always a gap between social progress and the reaction to it.
Cough * Cough * Critical Drinker and his alt right drones
@AG-fg1uk yeah it really sucks that channels like his do so much invalid critiquing based on ideology above all else. Like some of the movies or shows he hates might be bad, but he's focusing on all the wrong reasons and is really just pushing am agenda rather than truly discussing media
I think it might be easier for someone whose played with Barbies to understand. We decided Ken was Barbies boyfriend, while we were playing with them. Ken was whatever we needed him to be, whenever we wanted him to be it, but also came with a beach outfit so he's "just beach" (not much else). All those concepts are direct from how a kid played with the dolls. I had one Ken, then later got a black doll who I could have sworn was actually named Chad. He also came with a mesh top lol. Two male dolls and like 10 Barbies of all types, meant Ken ans Chad were interchangeable for them, and whatever else, while playing. The movie might have made more sense if there'd been less Kens, since most people who played with Barbies as kids, had one Ken who would be the bf of all the Barbies on any given day lol. My Ken actually did come with a basketball outfit, but the original was probably just a beach outfit and my much older sister had the matching western outfits I still have.
I do agree that there are many concepts colliding, and it does dissolve the overall quite a bit, but yeah.
Ken was never portrayed as anything even close to the loser he was portrayed as in the barbie movie. Toy Story has 10/10 portrayal of Ken without all the disrespect.
@@luxart1000 Kids only using Ken as Barbies BF, doesn't make him a loser. No one perceived the doll as a "loser".
But it is the reason Ken in the Barbie movie, is portrayed as someone lost, without an identity. Which, I guess to you means someone is a loser. It was a concept of playing that could translate to greater commentary on societal roles in the real world.
Ken is an accessory and object to compliment Barbie. This is the role women in the real world have on them. We are reduced to prize objects, accessories to male partners, living out our "role" as a subjugate woman.
Many men don't see this, because since they already see women as objects, and victimize themselves if they can't catch them as prey, they only relate to the part about Ken lacking identity due to not having Barbie. And so to remain the victim of their object, miss the part where Ken is now going to go of a be a G simply because he stops treating Barbie (woman) like something he must acquire to fulfill himself as Ken (man). It's about gender roles, gender expectations, and how Patriarchal society sets up men to dehumanize women to the point that women don't want anything to do with them, so everyone loses. This shouldn't really be something that has to be clarified, though.
@@luxart1000 and if you hated this portrayal of a Ken doll, then I wonder what you'd think of Barbie: Life in the Dream House, Ken. Lol
@@m3ntyb I literally said that Ken was never portrayed as a loser before the Barbie movie. There's a difference between being a supporting character and being a pet. So they literally belittled to puff up the point they were trying to make, in the same way they belittle women and many of their roles to make a point about woman oppression.
The points they are trying to make are very much valid, that women are not recognized as just as valuable than men are. I'm just saying that belittling is completely unnecessary.
Anyway, so in this view the Barbies are the villains of the movie then? Why does the movie not even attempt to make that any clearer?
Also what statement does it make that Kens are still playing the exact same role at the end? That women in real life are doomed and should just be miserable forever?
Or is this some kind of 5D chess where the viewer is supposed to see that the allegory stretches so far that the whole movie is an allegory to how men describe life so you actually shouldn't trust the movie narrative just how you shouldn't trust men?
@@luxart1000 It's something to work off of and talk about, not something that draws hard conclusions. It's shedding light on a topic, through the lens of these characters. It's a play on a concept, not meant to present hard takeaways. The ultimate gist is what I said, Patriarchy Bad.
I do feel there was more they could have done to show post realizations, but I assume they're hoping to try and cash in on more movies and spin offs somehow that may flesh things out more. I could see an entire Ken movie showing his aftermath in a light that redeems the initial impression, which was meant only to show a FACET of a character. Ken said he didn't even care about Patriarchy after he learned it wasn't just about horses. Meaning, Ken has an identity all his own, and copping to Patriarchy was only PART of his identity and experience, just like all of us in real life. I didn't perceive belittling. I perceived representation through the lens of a specific cultural impact. If you wanna "boil down" characters and stories to such limited conclusions, that seems like exactly what the movie was overall discouraging. Ken can be anything, and he was ALREADY worthy, same as Barbie. Ken's lack of ✨perception ✨ of his worth was the problem. He wasn't actually pathetic or a loser, his perspective was. If they'd made a movie where it was just after Ken's establishment of Patriarchy thought, y'all would still be complaining the message was Men Bad. Again, it is not Men, bad, it is social construct of Patriarchy, bad.
This put into words so many of my problems with the Barbie movie. I wanted this film to be great, but it didn’t make sense to me. She didn’t want anything the entire film. I guess she wants to wear heels, so she grew because in the end she accepted her flat feet?
Let me offer another simple way to think about her character.
- She lived in a world where she was on top. Didn't think much about Ken, he was just part of the background.
- Barbie got her world flipped upsidedown.
- Learned to be considerate about her privileged situation and opened up to have ken being part of it.
It's a simple message and this is just one way to think about it, but there are more layers to it. Which is not something I got from that video.
@@B0tch0hey thanks for responding, but I don’t think that cleared things up for me.
- IMO Barbie wasn’t on top. She was kinda in the background. She wasn’t one of the people winning awards or Barbie President. She didn’t have a job or a purpose that we saw. Everyone says hi to her, but she’s not in a position of power.
-The real world didn’t seem much different than Barbieland. She learned she didn’t solve female problems, but she also didn’t seem like that completely shook her world. The thing that really rattled her was patriarchy when she had to deal with it in Barbieland.
-I don’t see how she opened up to having Ken in her world. She became a human which means she doesn’t even exist in the same world as Ken anymore. She left him behind. The Barbie’s didn’t understand their privilege or how they hurt the kens because as far as we know they are still unhoused second class citizens. There’s the line “they have just as many rights as women in the real world”, but that’s not acceptance.
I don’t want equality by putting men or women down. I want people to be valued because all humans deserve to be treated with respect.
@@Asteroids50 totally fair, thanks for sharing as well. I think all your points work with the narrative of the movie. Perceived popularity over qualifications, real change doesn't happen overnight, throwing crumbs at the offended group of the week.
The end of the movie is good enough to make kids happy but adults can dig further. Feeling unsatisfied is probably what the director intended for us to feel. There is a lot left for interpretation and I think that's what I like the most.
@@B0tch0I’m glad you liked the film and the ambiguity. There are definitely moments I enjoy a lot like the bus scene with the old woman, but I walked away from the film feeling unfulfilled. I think you’re right that the director was going for an open ended conclusion, but I didn’t think the execution worked with the conventional 3 act structure the movie used, so it felt disjointed to me.
Thank you for putting my thoughts on this movie into eloquent terms. I wanted to love this movie, and I do find enough entertainment value in it to enjoy it, but after the first watch, I didn’t like it. It felt disjointed and conflicting in a way I wasn’t used to experiencing in film, and I kept trying to explain this to people who were confused by why I couldn’t appreciate it. Presently, I can appreciate it while accepting its flaws, but as much as I can find comfort in the aesthetics and tone, it still feels broken.
I think the world-building would make more sense if they leaned more into something like Barbie's Life in the Dreamhouse. In the series (animation), Barbie is the main character because she's the blueprint, the first made, she's meant to be perfect, the kindest, the sweetest, she's nice even when Raquelle (a girl who envies her) tries to sabotage her, she's everyone best friend, she's the It Girl, etc etc. The other Barbies have their 1 singular interest and/or job, so their flaws are related to it (for example: one of them is like "sporty Barbie" and her flaw is that she has too much energy and ends up annoying people). For that reason, the main Barbie seemingly has no flaws or particular interests, which in the movie could move the story forward as a way to show how Barbie feels unfulfilled with her life, how she feels unworthy or unloved or unimportant. Her feelings about herself and her life in Barbieland could be what left her starstruck with the real world, as she notices how much she still has to experience and how much change she can inspire, eventually leading her to choose the real world. Also, this could be used as a subplot to Barbies understanding that they can be more than 1 thing in life and evolving into multifaceted beings, which would go extremely well with Barbie's brand of girls being able to be whatever they want. I think a subplot about the other Barbies would marry best with the main plot instead of Ken's arc, which takes too much time and doesn't really relate to what Barbie's going through.
Also, they could've scrapped the Mattel part and put in some more time showing Barbieland and making jokes about it. In Life in the Dreamhouse, a lot of the jokes are about silly things like Ken buys a car for Barbie, but it comes in a box and he doesn't know how to assemble the parts; Midge is an older model so she's unable to bend her knees and she moves very stiff; they celebrate Barbie's birthday but no one really knows how old she is; stuff like that, poking fun at the fact that they are all plastic products, would make the movie funnier and stray less from the main plot.
I liked the movie, but I think they missed the mark trying to make some commentary about the real world, feminism and patriarchy, when they could've made a simpler plot and subplot that would be even more inspiring to women, commenting on freedom, self-worth, and womanhood. I think America's monologue would be even more powerful in a story like that.
First and foremost, I love this video. I have been conflicted about the Barbie movies since seeing because I wanted to love it. I bought into the hype, and thought it was going to be an incredibly deep character driven film that provides some profound message amongst the satire of Barbieland and Mattel. I, due to a lack of intelligence, have just been saying the movie was "overwhelmingly mid" to anyone that asks what I thought. This video does a way better job at conveying how I felt about the film when I cannot find the words.
That said, I do just want to point out that Barbie's fears of death are not her own. They are the fears of the women playing with the Barbie, America Ferrera. I still believe that Barbie's fears are not earned and that is what leads to the ultimate unsatisfying character arch written for her. However, they literally do just appear one day because America's character decided to play with a Barbie and starts projecting her fears of death and apathy onto stereotypical Barbie, who then begins to feel them in Barbieland. So they do try to explain where those feelings came from, albeit in a way that is quickly glossed over and convoluted.
Something that could have fixed that disconnect is if they explained that every Barbie who's human starts to play with them this way eventually becomes the Crazy Barbie, which they mention but never show. Theoretically, there should be many Kate McKinnon types as Barbie's are discarded over the years and go crazy, but there is only Kate. If stereotypical Barbie is the savior that breaks that cycle and gives Barbie's autonomy to choose their feelings and reality, we have no reference of what happened to all the other Barbie's that could not break the cycle. So basically, Barbie is Neo - but her status as "The One" feels unearned because her fears of death and apathy were never her own, just those projected onto her by America's character.
This still all relates to the fact that Barbie's character arch is disconnected and never fully realized due to convenient plot points that keep the story moving a long in a positive way, rather than delving deeper into the more sinister or dark sides of what women, specifically the Barbie's feel, when they are discarded by those around them.
Thanks for making me think about this. I am curious what how the America's Feelings = Barbie's Feelings affects your thoughts on how those feelings were unearned or unexplained. I feel it is a bit of a cop out to just project the emotions, but still an attempt to explain why Barbie just feels them one day. That in return drives the whole plot of why she goes to reality to find the girl who is playing with her - but that all just takes a back seat to the rest of the absurdity in the movie. But it definitely looked like a hell of a fun film to make!
A) so glad this helped put word to what you were feeling
B) im aware thats where they come from, but we still dont even understand what the concept of death even means to barbies. We also dont see how the thoughts of death affect america fererra, so at best we just shift who specifically is underdeveloped. Not to mention the worldbuilding implecations dont make sense since shes Americas barbie but also represents all stereotypical barbies. Im not trying to nitpick but when the movies message is based on the parallels between a made up world and the real world, but none of it actually makes sense under scrutiny or even as presented in the film, it just hamstrings the film as a whole
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial It really does, I completely agree. I think the film is cutting a corner by simply saying, America's feelings = Barbie's feelings. That is why I called the movie mid, and have just told people I thought it was, "fun." It really doesn't hold up to scrutiny. They superimpose America's feelings on to Barbie, and then barely go into depth on America's own feelings. It really feels like they tried to cram so much in, none of it is ever fully realized. Barbie is supposed to be this fully realized character, a catalyst for change, and then she is the only one that experiences change and all the other Barbie just live on, presumably to possibly experience the same existential dread of their owners? I really liked your comparison to how the movies "Real World" is still too fantastical to juxtapose the fantasy world of Barbieland, the movie doesn't establish rules and fantasy with out rules is just chaos - which is how I felt after the movie, confused. I figured you knew about the America/Barbie mind-link, but it goes to show how unimportant of corner cutter it is that it doesn't even need to be mentioned cause it does so little justify the pace and lack of motivation for some of the characters. I just wanted to bring up that they did seem to just throw something in there - it just lacked substance. I would really love to see what GG Barbie movie would like without Mattel's corporate control over the project, a lot of good ideas in this that just can't be fully executed.
At the end of the day I had opinions about things in the movie and going in I knew it was going to have some messaging I might not agree with but when I watched it none of my opinions could even be applied (whether they agreed or disagreed) to the movie cause it wasn’t cohesive enough.
When people asked if I liked the movie I said no because I was confused about what they were even trying to talk about, and it had nothing to do with my standpoint just that I was severely confused when the move ended lol.
Edit: so yeah everyone’s opinions kind of were frustrating to me because it was either “it was so inspirational and moving” or it was a “heaping load of hot woke garbage” and it always kept me wondering “was it really either of those things. It kinda was just bad writing”
Exactly!
I actually disagree with your thesis. You mention that the thesis of the Barbie movie from Barbie’s perspective is “Reality is terrifying but it’s also deeply fulfilling.” And that Ken’s journey into the real world goes against that thesis. I’d argue the thesis of the movie is “It’s impossible to play pretend forever. Sooner or later you will have to face reality.”
When Barbie gets flat feet and cellulite it reminds me of puberty. Part of puberty for a woman is not only her body changing, but also facing the realities of how our society treats women. Ken’s journey is similar. He goes through a comical men’s version of puberty where he learns that men have more power in society than he previously thought. Both Ken and Barbie face the reality of our society through a comical “coming of age” type story.
I liked your point about Ken’s thesis and self worth, but I think Barbie’s worked nicely. I don’t think the movie needed an analysis of why she thinks about death. Kids just seem to randomly think about death one day. And Barbie is essentially a kid.
I do agree that this movie seems to be a mirror. It reflects how we grew up. Barbieland is representative of general childhood and kids usually don’t understand their own worlds, so I don’t take the lack of world building in Barbieland to be a flaw, rather a reflection of childhood.
I agree, I wish there were more moments that explored the bus station scene with the old woman.
Last note (I promise): Barbies starting out in government also seems to reflect how most kids tend to think of their moms as being in charge of their worlds instead of their dads. This combined with Ken’s lack of confidence could be a commentary on absent fathers, overbearing mothers, or how your relationship with your parents can change as you get older, depending on your upbringing/ mirror, but that’s just my half baked opinion.
I feel like this very video has helped me understand more so why I love the movie despite it's flaws and why much to my disappointment my Mom didn't like it and said that it was strongly anti-male.
Yet, even then a part of me couldn't blame her because I always did feel like the message felt very mixed messaged.
Thank you for making this video and explaining more!
God bless you majorly! EEP! :)
Oh my gosh thank you!! This was really my exact goal for the video. Its one of the most fascinating cultural responses to a movie ive ever seen and i really just wanted to explore why it creates such strong yet varied opinions. Thanks for taking the time comment. This video underperformed but comments like this really boosty confidence in the work itself. So again. Thank you!
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial
You’re welcome! I especially love boosting your confidence!😇
I've finally seen Barbie, this video has been sitting in my Watch Later for almost two weeks (and I've enjoyed seeing its many thumbnails), and this movie is definitely a bit all over the place. I don't know if I really get it, but what I interpreted is that it's about people just trying to make sense of life, the burdens of society and social norms, what's good, what's not, how none of it really makes sense, but life can be what you make it if we just treat each other better. The movie is more fun than it is necessarily good, but I'd hesitate to call it bad or even just okay either. The first 15-20 minutes, I couldn't stop smiling at all the visual gags and character interaction in Barbieland. I'm sure I looked absolutely stupid with how big I was smiling. This movie has merit, it's just a little messy.
A weird thing though is that when I shared my thoughts about it on Discord, immediately someone who hasn't even seen the movie dismissed it because they claimed it was just a big advertising campaign for toys, which this movie really isn't doing at all. The movie absolutely celebrates the history of the brand, with numerous references to actual products that have been long discontinued, but I never really saw anything that was outright pushing new product. This definitely feels more like The LEGO Movie where someone had an idea, and then was given permission by the owners of the property to go forth with it. I have no doubt that there are toys out there that tie into the movie, but I can also see a number of them being adult collector's items. Like, I'm not seeing Ken's Mojo Dojo Casa House being a thing that would ever be made with a child in mind, but given collector's markets, I could absolutely see it being a thing. The LEGO Movie definitely had sets made, Warner worked alongside LEGO to make the movie, but as someone that's much more in the know with that property, I can tell you that those sets made up for a collective total of 30 seconds of screen time, the movie is much more concerned with sharing messages of creativity, being yourself, and sharing that with others.
Barbie kind of does a similar thing where it's much more about societal concepts than selling toys. Sasha, who's outgrown Barbie, even says that Barbie as a toy has probably even greatly negatively impacted feminist movements despite being a hugely influential part of them, too. Just look at the opening scenes parodying 2001 stating that girls could live out their own fantasies over just being a homemaker, and I'm sure there are plenty of women that are now living out their dreams as children because Barbie showed they could have a career in whatever their passion was. At the same time, nobody can actually look like Barbie (not even Magrot Robbie, but she comes close), and she's attained the "impossible" because she's never actually had to put in the work like the actual girls she inspires. Things are nuanced and complicated because our real world can't be the perfect one of a child's imagination, and then the movie even shows that even in Barbieland's perfect world, it's not really perfect.
I just kind of got under my skin that someone could so blatantly see the advertising for this film and brush it off as advertising. It may not be very clear at delivering its messages, but if this movie was just about selling toys, Mattel would have just made another animated direct to home movie. They also claimed that pink's just not their vibe. They said they were sure it had more going for it like I was saying, but just say you're not interested in the movie, don't come up with such lame excuses, but I can't formulate my thoughts quite so clearly on Discord because of character limits and the clip at which conversations happen there.
Oh, and one final nitpick with the actual movie. No cursing throughout the whole thing except for the intentional one that was bleeped out, but then as the credits begin, a hip hop song with Barbe Girl as the backtrack plays and the lyrics about being Barbie Bitch. I don't know, feels a bit out of place. I didn't find the song itself bad, but it's a weird choice because they had this movie dealing with semi serious issues, and it was handled well without alienating anyone with a bunch of swearing, and then that happens. That's got to be some sort of interference from someone, right?
You're so right about the moving being messy but having Merit. The two times I watched it in theaters, I left unfulfilled. But editing this video, I would find myself watching 20 minute stretches of the footage and being utterly enraptured (and that's not including how many times I've rewatched I'm Just Ken). It's so hard to adequately describe to people the way that I don't like the movie as a whole, but I ADORE just about every individual piece of this film (and Greta Gerwig is legitimately an amazing Director!).
The Lego Movie comparison is so apt. Yes, this will absolutely sell Barbie dolls. But that wasn't why the filmmakers made it. There is love and care put into this film and reducing it down to "just advertising" is wild. While I think the Lego Movie is more internally consistent, Barbie is also taking a much bigger swing. And it's also where I think some of the Indie sensibilities come in.
Gerwig LOVES to talk about stuff, even if she doesn't have a clean cut "message". The power comes from her depictions, rather than prescriptions. I'd be really curious to know who was responsible for the more "mainstream" elements of the plot and what not. She co-wrote this with her husband (who wrote/directed Marriage Story) and while that's really not been publicized much, I'm curious what was his influence versus hers. Or for that matter what Warner Bros./Mattel pushed for. Even some of her team saw the scene of Barbie on the bench (arguably the best moment in the whole movie) and suggested she cut it, but she stood her ground thank god. Basically, anything I have a problem with is the stuff that doesn't FEEL like Greta Gerwig's influence.
Also, regarding Pink "not being their vibe," how you gonna have a problem with a WHOLE wavelength of light?!?!?! Goofball behaviour if you ask me...
Also Also... Glad you've been liking the thumbnails :) This video is floundering for some reason (mainly low CTR) which is surprising given how popular the topic is. But, alas, the RUclips Algorithm is a cruel and Fickle Mistress. We'll see if it picks up later down the road like the Puss in Boots video did.
Also Also Also... You're right. using B**** in the lyrics at the end credits just felt wildly out of touch. Like, completely counter to the tone the movie itself ended on. If they used that for a ridiculous training montage as the Barbies were preparing to take back Barbieland, sure! But after the bittersweet transformation of Barbie becoming a mortal??? Not the right time for Nicki Minaj
The thesis is a commentary on the way that feminism has accelerated the quality of life change in women while not making the appropriate changes to facilitate the wellness and health of men too. It's a criticism of feminism and how it has left behind the boys that are also being hurt by traditionally imposed cultural expectations of men. This can be seen in the academic flip between women and men and the growing gap. It was all well-threaded together i think illustrating the way women are getting better and how men deserve compassion and assistance as much as women do under the overwhelming standards. there is a reason men are shooting up schools and beating on their women, it's not because they are evil. it's because they are suffering as much women are.
The reason it pulled so many viewers is because it was made for both men and women and had a message for anyone who watched that was culturally relevant
@@syntacc8462Patriarchy is what's hurting men, which the film made a point to say a bunch of times. Feminism has always been about uplifting men and women, because the ways that Patriarchy impacts men and women, is by subjugating women, and then telling men "not to be like women" or "feminine". Feminism is about allowing men and women to be people, instead of gendered constructs.
Feminism has not failed men by advancing women's liberation, while "leaving men behind", because it was always about liberating both to BE WHOEVER THEY WANNA BE. Which is what this movie says. The movie, through Ken, also pointed to how it is not up to women to help or save men from Patriarchy individually. Individually, men have to figure out how to be themselves and be human (instead of "alpha males") in a way that isn't defined by the patriarchal subjugating and objectifying of women. Does that make sense?
Thesis: stereotypes can be a source of inspiration, but they shouldn't be a metric by which you measure yourself or an ideal to follow.
Barbieland: the simplified, idealistic way Barbie toys have depicted the world to children (a.k.a. Barbieland doesn't "work", it's an idealistic version of the world, working on Platonic Ideas).
Barbie: she's the projection of a child growing up and accepting the real world as it is.
People tend to try and interpret the movie's logic with real-world adult logic when I believe the movie is trying (and imo, succeeding) to walk the line between children imagination's logic and the shock of beginning to understand the real world as they grow up into young adults. The rest is decor: it shows the real world for want it can look like when you are confronted by it (not for what it really is) and is not trying to judge it or its protagonists, which is a honestly a breath of fresh air in an industry where movies have been trying to shove their political values in our faces for forever!
I mean this only as praise: If I ever made a video essay about my thoughts on Barbie (2023), I feel like it would have ended up hitting a lot of the same points this did. This video put into words so many of the frustrations I had with the movie, like where I felt like the potential power of its message(s) was limited, as well as touching on the confusing cause/effect relationship between Barbieland and The Real World.
I think I would have to re-watch the movie in order to go more in-depth in this comment, but I just wanted to say I think this video was very well thought-out and covered a lot of things that I didn't see most critiques of the movie even acknowledging, especially since the conversation around it so quickly turned to focus on the political issues superficially depicted in the movie, rather than more fully exploring the inconsistencies within both its theme and worldbuilding. Great video!
…
An additional bit of nit-picking about the end of the movie, purely because I wanted to write it somewhere and this seems as good a place as any:
When Barbie chooses to become human, she says something about wanting to be "part of the people that make meaning, not the thing that's made. I want to do the imagining, I don't want to be the idea." I took that to mean that in the real world, she would go on to write stories or make art, whether as a professional or, more likely in my opinion, as an amateur (to avoid having her become some sort of Artist Barbie), in addition to living out a complex, human life. I understand that the filmmakers wanted to leave the specifics of her fate more ambiguous because they likely wanted the audience members to imagine it for ourselves. That said, if they were going to show any of her life as a human at all for the sake of a joke about going to see the gynecologist, I still wish we'd gotten just a hint of what Barbie might imagine, and what meaning she would make. As it stands, she might just be slowly dying at a corporate desk job in between ob-gyn visits.
A) thank you! That's really kind
B) I think you're so right about showing what she was doing with her humanity. They made it sound kind of like she wanted to be either a worker at mattell or a politician (unclear since she just said she wants to be making the change essentially), but a glimpse of that job would be easy to insert before she gets picked up and the last scene plays out as is
19:05 which can also be taken as a deliberate representation of the versatility and you decide nature of Barbie dolls.
Sorry, but you've missed the entire point of Ken being a sympathetic villain. It's a feature, not a bug. You are SUPPOSED to empathize with Ken because the entire montage at the end of the movie is supposed to compare Ken's treatment within Barbieland to women's treatment in the "real world".
The problem encountered in the first part of the movie is actually that the "Barbie paradise/matriarchy" isn't really paradise because the Kens are subservient second class citizens who don't even have a home to go to without Barbie allowing for it. The problem is also that BARBIE isn't happy in "Barbie paradise/Matriarchy".
Ken in the second act tries to import Patriarchy into Barbieland which subverts the Matriarchy putting Barbies into roles that Kens were having the fill.... only this doesn't solve Ken's problems, it makes them worse.
Act 3 shows that no one is happy in either set up because neither set up allows for self actualization or true individuality. The rigid framework of gender roles, dominance/subservice have both Ken and Barbie shoved into an unfulfilling and stunting life that personally restricts who THEY are as individuals. Barbieland is thus forced into a men's rights movement forcing them to give Kens representation to paralle women's suffrage which again, is very much ham-fisted.
The "joke" at the end of the movie is that the Kens are still very much oppressed and under represented in this more "egalitarian" version of Barbieland, but they're making progress. It is the mirror image of what the film makers are inferring the "real world" is where women are "making progress" in patriarchy, still oppressed, still under represented but making headway.
I don't think this is me inserting personal politics into this, these themes are the literal text (montage with spoken exposition dump) of the movie and very much ham fisted.
@@bakoymasee
One thing I hadn't noticed before from other videos is the FBI telling Mattel "another one" has escaped. If it's happened before there's a plot or at least plot point they could've utilised right there! Have Barbie and/or Ken meet some of them and help work things out or something.
3:50
"Interesting". thats certainly one way to put it
Hi! I just wanted to say thank you so much for this video essay, as it helped put into words some of the confusion I had after watching it.
I left the cinema thinking that perhaps the Barbie movie was supposed to have been surrealist in some way, as - like you perfectly verbalise during your essay - so many individual elements felt great, but I still left feeling confused and not understanding the ending or why it happened in the way it did. I also felt confused about Ken's plot, as I could see visually that his inclusion was (intended to be) a comment on patriarchy from a negative lens, but I truly felt bad for his character and as though I understood all of the actions he decided to take.
Seeing the movie broken down in this more 'top down' logical way, has helped me understand that at the time, I was likely sensing that the movie's main plot was disjointed while Ken's side plot was not (and therefore responded to that one more emotionally despite the subject matter). It really just goes to show how much thought, care and artistry must go into those movies which we love and respond well to, and it's very cool that there is actually language and specific reasons as to why two stories which look similar can land so differently.
It was incredibly fun watching this, and I feel like I've broadened my understanding of film language a little more now. Again, thank you so much!
Great commentary on this movie! Keep it up!
Thank you! I'll do my best!
This film was a realistic examination of the concepts that exist within a fictional universe (a toy line). One is pre-supposed to understand Barbie toys, the fact that she doesn't do anything except "be Barbie" (she is, after all, a toy that children use to represent fantasies), and that Ken is presumably worth less, because presumably girls prefer to play with their Barbies rather than their Kens.
The problem really arises in that people take their own meaning out of things whether the creator intended it or not. People do this whether they intend to or not! It's part of how our brain is very plastic and looks for meaning in apparent randomness. That was probably a vital tool for our ancestors in trying to find resources and avoid danger.
Despite my love for this movie, the real problem I have with the depiction of Gender equality is that they completely gloss over the treatment of the Kens. The Kens (and Alan) are treated like they DESCRIBE women are treated in real life. Our main Ken is literally a walking existential crisis who cannot exist outside of being attatched at Barbie's hip, and she treats him. . . Less like an object or objectified person. . . Say, like just a random household ornament you keep forgetting you have. Ken ended up being my favorite character, and hilariously, as an ostracized she/they who has dealt with harrassment on numerous occassions, even though he DID SOME SHIT WOW, I found myself relating to Ken a lot more than Barbie or ANY of the female characters' plights in this movie.
Aside from the overexaggerated sexual harrassment(which IS mostly realistic but not THAT openly commonplace without reprecussions these days), a lot of the oppression is just said, instead of seen or heard. America's speech towards the end is also really interesting, but I feel like it applies to literally EVERYONE in society, not just women? Like, the entire thing feels very shallow, and even a little blind and I AM STILL PISSED THE KENS ENDED UP BACK IN THE SAME POSITION WITH BARELY ANY REPRESENTATION IN THE BARBIE SUPREME COURT WTF MOVIE-
Aside from this the Beach Off musical number is my favorite moment I ever got to see in theaters, and throughout the movie the entire audience was LOSING it, and I legit popped a headache from laughing for an hour and a half straight. Worth it.
Unfortunately i feel like you're missing the point in act 1.
In act 1 the message could be that what seems perfect from the class that is in power is actually not / an illusion and they have to face reality. THIS IS WHY there's the joke about the shoes. This is why Barbie's intrusive thought is about death (something that is unavoidable and everyone has to accept) That's why we focus on Barbie but also Ken's obvious rejection/ how he is treated too. That's why it's turned as "joke" or "for laugh" because that's how complains about such things by elite in power. If you just get that this is the message of act 1 the rest of the movie holds together, because act2 is Barbie realizing that she is living in an illusion and what she believes (priviledges) are not set in stone and necessary true for everyone (aka the barbie compagny analogy and the scene with the girls in high school), while Ken realizes he could be in power.
The middle point is actually the shift / return to Barbie Land, where Barbie wants to returns home and gets things back to what they were but realizes it's not possible because now she knows, and the kens knows (and have power).
3rd act is a bit more blurry but i believe it meant for people to understand there's middle ground to find and lives in the reality rather than in deny of it, meet people half way and their point of views and their struggles. (with the mother and daughter reconcilying and understanding one another better, Ken understanding why he fell intro the patriarchy but accepting that Barbieland is matriarchy based and that barbie will not love him back like he wants to, and Barbie understanding she wants to be human and not be a concept anymore) it's acceptation of the other, aknowledging of the world and its systemic way to deal with change (aka trying to hold power and not change things) and the problem you live in it and making the choice that makes YOU happy to live in this world. Yes it has feminism in it, but it's not that radical, quite the contrary. Yes it plays with the stereotype that are usually done to women characters and gave it to men (and it bothers men, awwww, now maybe they'll get what we feel when we have to eat 100 of movies with the girl being reduced to LI - and even that is unfair because Ken gets his own arc, he gets treated better than those stereoptypes in many movies).
Unfortunately for me your essay is wrong because it gets the message / statement of the first arc wrong ^^° and so all the analysis behind falls out as consequence ...
This is why Barbie isn't "feminism" propaganda, it doesn't push people to raise and make patriarchy collapse (yes the patriarchy does collapse in barbie land, but it's because it was a matriarchy in the first place, it just comes back to its original state with slightly minor changes for Ken) it shows the matriarchy in Barbie Land was just as bad as patriarchy. And Patriarchy is still veyr much here in the real world and neither barbie or the mother and her daughter leave saying" we will fight patriarchy in our own world bc barbie land is so much better èé" they simply returns having understanding each other's struggles and relating to one another better. It doesn't push anyone to revolt just to open their eyes and see patterns from society + each other's struggles.
This is actually what I have noticed as the majority takeaway, people noticing these things and beginning to engage with and discuss them in more comprehensive and contextual ways. Which I think is most important atm.
I do agree that the story falls short in standard execution, but it's not supposed to be standard, it's groundbreaking. Meaning only upon much later reflection (after processing from heightened awareness), will it seem more cohesive.
I do agree that Ken's story could have and maybe should have expanded into a sequel, this is one film that could have actually worked as a trilogy series imo. But they did the best they could with the opportunity given, since nothing where profit is considered, can be guaranteed.
I don't know if I'm making sense, but I see the point the video is making, but ultimately that it's not as simple as that it shouldn't be this way.
I agree but I also think that the movie doesn't quite do a good job of highlighting that message. It's there if you really look for it, but I wish the movie did more explicit things to make the Barbies face the fact that they've been treating the men like women are treated in the real world. The narrator points this out, and then they move on. I wish the Barbies had to FACE really how horrible it was for them to treat the Kens like accessories. I almost wish kens song at the end was towards barbie so she had to face the fact that this inequality she's been fighting in the real world is very prevalent in hers
I saw this movie ages after it came out, and I remember seeing that final montage scene where she decides to enter The Real World, and just thinking "Ohh, this is the part people got emotional over...yeah, I could see it, I get teary whenever I rewatch that part of Ride the Cyclone. ...Man, I wish I was watching Ride the Cyclone right now."
very thought provoking and I havent even watched the movie but folk have asked me this '' ARE YOU KEN OR BARBIE'' something like that and im like? hmm none? lol! by the sounds of things, i think theres great moments from both character arcs, you did very well in captivated the strengths and weaknesses of both
I thought Oppenheimer was crazy difficult to follow... now I'm wondering if Barbie was actually just as hard and I just ignored it lol
I really appreciate this analysis. My issue with the film came down to a lack of reconciliation between the Barbies' vision of their collective society and the Kens' vision of their collective society. The movie showed both visions in their extremes, allowing the Kens and the Barbies at different times to each experience what its like to feel powerless under the rule of another gender. And by the end, I felt there was a golden opportunity for the "Barbie & Ken Land" (or something more snappy) to come to fruition as a satisfying and precedential conclusion of gender harmony. But I felt the story chose instead to let the Barbies have the arc: undisputed power, minority perspective, then redemption of undisputed power, while the Kens arc was: minority perspective, disputed power, and then right back to minority perspective and no power. The Barbies reclaiming their domain and relegating the Kens back to second-class citizens was the EXACT message the Barbies were highlighting and rising up against. And it's a shame, because I felt a lot of the dialogue was apt and pointed toward societal progress.
Anyway... thanks for coming to my TED talk :)
Here everyone is chatting about the political narratives of a toy movie, while over here wondering if ordinary humans can accidentally find themselves in Barbieland. And if so, how many have died from shock?
A) I think it might be about intention where you gotta think "i'm headed to barbie land" while on rollerblades in LA. So accidental travel between realms shouldn't be an issue.
B) If they did accidentally show up, I think they'd be chill. The "real" world in Barbie is kinda absurd, so wouldn't be that much of a difference for them
OMG, you are so right! I couldn’t figure out what was wrong with Barbie. It was the script!
Based thumbnail. Alan will always just be Alan
I love how well structured your videos are. You are doing a great job at arguing and proofing your points, unlike this movie xD
Thank you! I try to find a good balance between clear explanations and audience retention so im glad you feel ir works. Thanks for taking the time comment!
I liked Barbie's Fight Club speech at the end. Maybe the film reached its goals in a meta way through youtube critics.
This was an excellent analysis!
I felt like they made two different stories then put them in the same movie. One is a cartoonish story about women overcoming patriarchy and obstacles in life. The other was a deep story exploring what it means to be human and what you can contribute to the world. Each are interesting, but not necessarily complementary to each other in the same movie.
Thank you!
This is not an original IP, the movie had to appeal to a young audience and expectations, nevertheless the director managed to pull an ace on the audience. The dichotomy of the themes is employed to make a contrast. Although I disagree with your choice of themes. Quote: theme #1 overcome patriarchy #2 become a better human? They seem rather similar, don't they?
The movie Barbie is cartoonist, because she is an unrealistic boomer relic with humans acting as dolls NOT because Barbie and Ken find common ground.
My whole take has always been that Barbie (the object as a concept) is not that deep, and the movie is more or less just attempting to obfuscate the corporate criticisms, ultimately creating a movie that is actually just a 2 hour commercial to push products to line Mattel's pockets. I think the movie has really annoying and bad feminist takes, but that's all a smoke screen for the money to be made selling merch, dolls, and other Barbie-themed products.
I thought this movie was pretty good, but not great. Outside of America Ferrera's monologue in the third act, the movie wasn't especially preachy, and it was funny and thought provoking at times.
Considering all preconceived ideas and the history of Barbie, being so successful and appreciated from almost everyone is quite an accomplishment.
10:10 why is there a quick flash of a "Meida offline" image
I understand that the convoluted plot might have taken away from the thematic narrative, but there is a CLEAR one that makes sense.
Part 1: Barbie is content and Ken is not (matriarchal system)
Part 2: Ken is content and Barbie is not (patriarchal system)
Part 3: After experimenting with both patriarchal and matriarchal systems they both need to find their identities under a different system (though Ken settles for feeling "Kenough" in a matriarchal system)
The reason Barbie doesn't have her motivations, emotions, and thoughts explained at the start, is because she is a doll living in a world that is perfectly designed for her. She is in this blissful state that keeps her empty-headed reliving the same "perfect" lifestyle every day(we only need to see one day in Barbie's life to know every other day is the exact same). The random death thoughts that pop into her head are just that: A momentary thought that pops up. The rest of the time her mind is most probably blank. She starts as a shell of a character and is her traveling to the human world that makes her start questioning stuff.
Ken, on the other hand, has been suffering all along. He experiences negative emotions like jealousy and problems related to self-esteem because this world is not designed to keep him blissfully happy. The fact that Kens' occupations or houses are not shown is completely on purpose. He is so irrelevant in this world that we don't even get to see him doing anything other than trying to get Barbie's attention. He is supposed to be an accessory so exploring him as a character in this stage would go against the whole point of the movie. I wouldn't be surprised if he just stood still in the same spot the whole night until Barbie woke up again. His only motivation at this stage is being Barbie's accessory and only after going to the human world, he realizes he can have other personal wants.
The plot about the weird symptoms Barbie experiences serves the purpose of giving Barbie a reason to get out of the loop. Barbie has NO personal motivation to change anything about her life, let alone travel to the human world because her life is perfect, and if it wasn't for the symptoms it would continue to be like that forever. You can even tell that she doesn't want to go to the human world at the start and prefers to ignore everything and go back to being blissfully ignorant. Even in the human world she needs an external plot to drive her because she is not motivated to do anything by herself at this point.
It is only after experiencing the human world and human connection that Barbie starts to experience new emotions and questions her existence and her place in th world. After everything that happens, Barbie can no longer go back to being a blissfully happy doll in a "perfect" matriarchal system. She has come to have thoughts and emotions of her own like a human. And now she has enough personhood to have motivations and the experiences she had with human women throughout the movie motivate her to go explore being a human.
Ken's upgrade from accessory to person though staying in a very much still matriarchal Barbieland seems to keep him content (at least for the moment) closing his arc.
Although I do agree some plot points were not perfectly executed and that the runtime could have allowed more character development, I think you missed the point by treating Barbie and Ken as regular characters when they clearly start as DOLLS.
Starting as dolls doesn't change how charcter arcs work. It just changes the starting point. You can have character arcs rhat are well paced that start from a place of contentment. The problem is this movie rushes those changes rather than steadily developing them. The changes in my opinion are far too sudden and read like "oh snap we need to move the character along asap" as opposed to truly earning the moments
@@TheWritersBlockOfficialthe key word being your opinion
The thing is, is that as much as I like to be entertained and comforted, I already have that in Ghibli movies and other such films. But my favourite movies? They are always profound, filled with heart and love... I want more movies like that (like Spiderverse and Arcane)
I feel so validated by this video. After watching the movie I was absolutely confused by what the theme of this movie was supposed to be. It tackled existentialism, patriarchy, identity, entitlement, the complexities of being a woman, the disillusionment of growing up, children estranging themselves from their parents, and more, for me seemingly without a core holding all this together. I'm relieved this impression is not just me being negative.
The way you described the thesis (the messiness of reality being a better option than living in the blissful ignorance of Barbie World) also very much sounds like Buddhas story to me.
I finally get it. This is THE BEST barbie breakdown, thank you. New subscriber now :)
I always thought Legally Blonde was a better Barbie movie than Barbie. I think Barbie would be better if it just stayed a comedy without trying to be too deep, because some of the messages were way too forced. For example, I never understood why were all the men in the real world so stupid. It made sense for the Kens and their journey, but not so much in the real world. It also didn't make sense that the weird Barbie was an outcast. If Barbieland was supposed to be the perfect place for women, it didn't make sense. I actually didn't even understand why Barbie wanted to become real
Just watched this on HBO with my family. We were all so happy going in because we were expecting something like a live action version of one of the Barbie cartoons. Y'know, fun. My preteen daughter HATED this movie from the very beginning when the little girls smash their baby dolls' heads in. I get that that scene references 2001, but, other than the reference, what's the point? My daughter didn't even want to finish watching the movie because there weren't any characters for her to like and root for. At the end, my preteen son pointed out how all the characters were either jerks or dumb, even the real-world dad. Even Barbie! We've all been ranting for days about how bad this movie is. I was actually looking forward to seeing a girl power movie that takes some cracks at patriarchy, but this movie doesn't even actually do that - It has characters who explicitly SAY that is what is going on some times, but that's not really what the movie communicates through its scenes. Is there a single positive, healthy relationship between any of the characters? There aren't even any friendships between the Barbies or the people in the real world. This movie was an opportunity to show girls having fun together, which is the only way to defeat patriarchy (😉), and could have been genuinely empowering for all people, making it a truly hilarious satire since empowerment actually contrasts nicely with the reality of a soulless plastic toy, but that opportunity was squandered.
Ken had a better story and character development and should of been the twist main character
Yeah storywise that would have made sense. In terms of reception ooh boy that would have pissed some people off
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial I actually only watched the movie because of the song I’m just Ken, I think it’s relatable to any gender to feel like a sidekick or a secondary character.
I left that film thinking ken was the best character ever and deserved more. Hes awesome
My people will talk to your people and we’re gonna get you to consult my novel. Sound good ? Good. Good lord you’re good.
Thank you for this video and sums up a lot of the problems (which I see others had too in the comments). It is "fun" but I just did not see it as a good movie. The fact people are trying to say this is Oscar worthy is just eye-rollingly pandering.
And the video also nails one of the polarizing things about this movie from a birds eye level about the whole thing, and that is in 2023..are women, and more specifically since this is a Hollywood movie, western women, oppressed? The female audience that flocked to see it and loved it still seem to think so. But many people absolutely do not, from not only many men, but actually many other minorities who see these kind of feminist things as trying to be a victim to negate or deflect from their own "privilege".
How you feel about that central issue really kind of leads to your opinion on the whole film. If you feel that women are still oppressed, this film pretty much touches on the issues feminists generally raise with body issues, having an idealized attraction goal that many cannot meet, the "patriarchy" and really the place of men in their own actualization, and the thought that the patriarchy is only a stone throws away from coming back.
If you don't, then the whole thing, as the video says, comes off as progressive pandering and claptrap about women still acting like this is 1823 and not 2023, that the men should simply cede their power and the film does not want equality that the Kens craved, but equity, as this is "Barbie world"", as it is now "their time", body issues and attraction ideals exist for everyone and being an adult is accepting you maybe do not meet that ideal, and that many of the behaviors from Ken and men in the "real world" shown in the movie are unrealistic biased relics that no longer happen, and frankly did not happen nearly as often as feminist think they did, even "back in the day".
what's that red frame popping up frequently?
i have not watched this video yet. i dont like the barbie movie, and i have very strong feelings on it, but i believe that it was trying to be a piece on feminism but completely missed the point by moving back to the matriarchy at the end of the film, because feminism is about equality for people of all genders, and it didn't feel like there was any progress made in the barbieland society by the end of the film. there was clearly a problem, but the problem was not solved. oh yeah and what were the humans doing there. they were important for 5 minutes and then never again. i will edit once ive watched the video
EDIT: im very liberal, but as i expressed above i dont agree with the message or how the message is relayed. and i agree with like 90% of what you said, this is a very good video, nice work!
What I found kinda jarring about this film was how Barbie’s final choice contradicts everything that lead up to it, including the previous scene. You get this heartfelt montage about why the world needs Barbie as a concept then our hero Barbie immediately declares she’s giving up being a Barbie. I’m sorry but huh? Isn’t that just her walking away from her responsibility?
I really enjoyed most of this movie, and the moment around it, but the ending left me confused and a bit sad. What’s the message here?
the first problem is that barbie land isn’t actually perfect! And the movie pokes funn at it, but never actually does something about it!
2:24 no
Hm I'd disagree that the thesis has nothing to do with the evidence. If you state that "reality is terrifying" is the thesis, in Barbieland where it is explicitly stated that the Barbies think that sexism is fixed, the second part of the film focusing on the reality of patriarchy and living as a woman in society is actually very closely linked to the thesis of the first act. Barbie's choice to become human, then, is also choosing to face that reality.
I agree that Barbie wasn't super cohesive but your main point doesn't quite work; I think the real issue is that while the themes fit together, it wasn't focused; many of the subplots and character arcs, and the ways in which the film transitioned between acts, distracted from those themes.
also, Ken's arc doesn't contradict this. Barbieland and Kendomland are intentional mirrors of the real world, specifically because of the hierarchies that exist in reality.
I like ken because he sang the 2nd best song in the movie (after dance the night), he's funny and I empathise both with being manipulated by society and unrequited love. I don't know what that says about me but I'd love to know.
I would put Barbie as a centrist and the daughter in her place, maybe alongside the weird Barbie. No wait, the weird Barbie would be alongside Alan, which is weird.
You don't define who you are. You are a social being. You are what the people you love and trust believe you are. That's not necessarily reality. The people you love and trust might be selfish and self-absorbed and look down on you, or they might be naive and overestimate you. If you're lucky, the people you trust are mature and honest and capable of seeing and loving the real you. In any case: you don’t decide who you are all by yourself, whether you're human or a doll.
This exact philosophy is something I've struggled with a lot. Part of what makes existing as a person so difficult is the "you" that you think you are is only one of the many "yous" that exist. In many ways, perception IS reality. Therefore, whatever someone perceives you as is the REAL you... to THEM. You're perception of yourself is the most important -- not because it's inherently more correct, but because it's the only one you can fully control (and even then it's a tossup with the various tricks/illnesses our brain is susceptible to). You have to focus on making sure you're the person you want to see looking back at you in the mirror before you can even begin to think about how you might appear in someone else's eyes
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial The problem with the person you see in the mirror is unfortunately that since you want to feel good about yourself you might overestimate yourself. The people around you mirror and ground you, and so do you for them in return.
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial I would like to add that you can control other people: it's called manipulation and brainwashing. Some people build their entire lives and careers on that.
Otherwise you can choose to filter toxic people out of your life and to only call a friend who supports you and, if they do criticize you, then for your own sake and not in order to feel better about themselves.
Of course, option 2 is better, but it also requires a lot of introspection.
You forgot to mention America Ferrera’s character. She’s the reason for Barbie’s conflicted feelings. IMO, the movie missed because it doesn’t focus enough on her. She gets to say everything that’s affected her as a woman but she’s not centered in it. Barbie is. But Barbie is set up as a vessel with which Gloria (Ferrera) funnels her frustrations and emotions. Halfway through the film forgets this and Barbie becomes her own person apart from Gloria’s feelings without any real explanation.
The Little Platoon made an astute point in his own analysis of Barbie. The reason for the disparity in the analyses of Barbie is because it's Greta Gerwig's botched attempt at mixing humanist themes with feminist themes. Because these two themes run counter to each other, a third faction has risen, one that sees the Barbie movie an unintentional yet compelling anti-woke masterpiece. I wish I was kidding about that last part.
Can we just be honest and admit the only reason this made nearly as much as it did is because they doubled it up with Oppenheimer? Seriously. It's like if we don't mention it, we can pretend it isn't so. Most folks that saw Barbie did not come to see Barbie. It looked predictably surface, and too silly to address anything deeply, and guess what? It was. And the message was muddled and confused because it tried to play both sides of the fence-feminists on a mission--except guys are nice as long as they bend to female power at the expense of their own-and we can't talk about how messed up that is, and mega corporations are totally perpetuating patriarchy--except Mattel, who supports "dreams", but made barbie and designed her in the most sexist way possible. Everything about the Barbie movie was cheap plastic, pretending to be flesh and blood.
errrr, did you watch the movie? because you omitted several characterization points in characters and world building, which are very simple, and even said in the movie, you also missed the entire point by thinking the doll world should be more realistic
1:57
0:32
Are you saying that Ken is literally me?
loved the movie
I hated Mattel ever since they got jealous of bratz
1:10
Did Matell even need to be in the film? Would it have allowed Gerwig to make the complete narrative she wanted to tell?
i really appreciate how you are actually able to critique things based on what they are. I never saw the barbie movie because i wasn't interested but much of the criticism was just from right wingers or mysoginists not liking the "patriarchy bad" part and they didn't really talk about the movie itself. That also was the reason why i almost didnt want to watch this but your Wish video handled a similiar subject so well i trusted you to actually talk about this meaningfully. Was not disappointed, great video, great Channel. Defintely subscribed
i remember being SO excited for the Barbie movie bc I kept hearing about how good it was, i walked out realizing how many people didnt know what "radicalism" was.
I feel like here Barbie is what Mattel made, Ken is what Greta did
having a stong opinion on the barbie movie is like having a strong opinion against apple pie
I consider myself a liberal, and while I agree with the points made in the movie, I find it’s a little hamfisted in how in presents them.
Also, for such a feminist movie, focuses an awful lot on a man’s story lol 😂
People that are chronically online are the only people that saw that movie as anything more than a great comedy. Grown men getting mad about the Barbie movie are beyond sad
I mean plenty of people who aren't chronically online saw flaws with the movie. There's a difference between having criticisms and being actively mad about something. Not everyone who dislikes the film is automatically The Critical Drinker
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial oh for sure. Didn’t mean to come off sounding like that’s what I was saying. I’m more referring to people that lost their mind about their political perception of the movie
@laserblaster oh got it. Yeah i agree. Thats the whole reason i made this video. People seem to be talking abiut everything except the movie itself. Its a really interesting phenomenon...
It's targeted towards adults, so why shouldn't adults have opinions about it? And why specifically grown men? Men can be interested in Barbie too. It's not like we're only allowed to care about Rambo or Die Hard.
I usually have a hard time with American comedies, so maybe I'm not the one to talk, but I didn't find most of the jokes in this movie funny. They were just over the top and kind of cringy.
I got a vibe of
Ken going from being an object to being treated with respect as a person, and how thats how women used to feel.
But at least back then women where desired, whereas today mem are seen as a problem and a scapegoat.
Toxic masculinity and toxic femininity these days is crazy, uts no wonder everyone feels they cant talk to the opposite sex without it being a battle so everyone just hides, becomes lonely, and suicide rates go up.
" But at least back then women where desired, whereas today mem are seen as a problem and a scapegoat."
Sure, they were desired as, basically, an object. And that's whenever they weren't used as some kind of scapegoat for whatever problem was affecting a person or society as a whole. You can still see this reflected in "ball-and-chain-wife" boomer humor.
Being "desired" in the context of objectification isn't some kind of perk. It's just a different kind of toxic treatment that only seems more positive than how disaffected men are treated, because their struggles with loneliness make *any* kind of desirability seem like an upgrade.
@@DeathEatsCurry well, I wasn't saying it was ideal or even okay.
Just that Ken was completely ignored and seen as almost beneath human.
I think the ideal is one of two things..
The classic man works hard and loves his wife and wife dies the same in the feminine roll (not for everyone)
And the modern, your significant other is basically your best friend and you try to split responsibilities evenly.
@@matthewboyd8689 Congrats, you walked face-first into the point, and still managed to miss it.
Hmph
I more middle in politics i see films
It seems like the Barbie movie will not age well since it is so shallow.
We shall see. I'm interested to look back in a couple of years and see how the film gets reexamined. The big problem is that either praising or critiquing the film in any way comes with a lot of assumed baggage from other people. It's tough when, as a film enthusiast I want to look at the merits of the film itself, but the general discussion never seems to be about JUST the film itself
So a bit like Barbie then?
I still don't know if Gerwig ment it to be so blurred and fucked up within MAttel restrictions just to troll everyone or if she and the other writers just messed up trying to make it more ironic adding too many layers to manage correctly.
At the end the irony about Ken being the best character in a feminist movie is the best thing about this film.
I watch videos like this and wonder if we are thinking about the same movie 😭
Honestly this movie feels like some kind of psychological operation run by some nefarious people. That's how I would describe this movie, nefarious. Evil even.
A movie provoking actual thought isn't evil, chief. It's.. Kind of what good movies do in general.
@@DeathEatsCurry It's not provoking "actual thought" it's provoking tribalism and polarization for reasons that are not very clear. This movie did actual damage to people's relationships. People are seen as evil now for not enjoying this objectively chaotic and incoherent garbage of a movie, because somehow this makes them some kind of a woman hater. On the flip side, people that enjoy this movie are seen as extreme feminists that hate men. The design of the movie literally is causing this to happen by making people "fill in the giant holes" for the incompetent or evil creators of the movie.
What I took away from the movie: it's a bunch of stuff thrown at you to see what sticks.
First everyone else sucks
I know, it’s because I’m first
💦
also, your analysis is invalid since you intentionally omitted information, because your critique about the introduction of the plot is just plain wrong, its explained why she had bad thoughts within the movie, theres no way one would point that as a mistake if they watched the movie, or in your case, doing bad critique for the sake of clicks, but looking at the number below the video, it clearly didnt work didnt it?
A) jeez that was unecesarily mean
B) its explained but that doesnt mean we see it play out in an impactful way in act 1. Also that plotline is largely dropped. My critique wasnt that its unexplained my critique is that it pops up randomly in act one and isnt explored well
I think this movie deserves some level of praise for exploring feminist issues from one step beyond the most basic level typical movies get into. I know that's still pretty shallow, but exploring these issues partially through the lens of how it affects men (i.e. Ken) is actually quite a leap for Hollywood in actually tackling these themes with any level of nuance and depth. To chronically online people, the idea that the patriarchy hurts men as well might seem obvious, but your typical layperson might actually need to hear this, so they can understand these issues.