⏰ TIMESTAMPS⏰ 00:00:00 - Introduction to the perspective of the review 00:03:16 - Expansion of identity: from motherhood to womanhood 00:07:36 - The crisis of Barbie as the deconstruction of “the perfect woman” 00:29:11 - The reconstruction of Barbie as “pure human potential” 00:33:42 - War of the sexes: Patriarchy or Matriarchy? 00:46:50 - Where do we go from here? Beyond feminism 00:55:28 - A word to my right-wing friends and Ben Shapiro’s critique of the movie 01:17:51 - Social media, leave your suggestion, upcoming events, next episode
my problem with 'Barbie giving Ken his freedom' is..exactly that. It's 'given' to him by HER, as if it's hers to give when it was the hegemony of the barbies that was denying him his personhood - reinforcing the idea he really is an accessory and his personhood is optional. And it was 'given' only b/c Barbie herself lost interest in the matriarchal world by that point. It's like if the owner of a slave plantation decided he didn't want to sell cotton anymore and instead wanted to leave on a ship to 'find himself', and at that point chose to free his slaves saying 'go..this is MY gift to you, b/c I'm such a good person'. It fet patronising to a nauseating degree. Also it's not really clear how the Barbie world can be patriarchal OR matriarchal since sex and reproduction don't exist in it - and Barbie is aware of that when she tells construction workers in the real world she and Ken aren't sexual beings and don't have genitals (also, Greta Gerwig has never spoken to a manual laborer in her life). Also the gender stuff just seems at odds with the rote existential story of Barbie choosing an authentic existence of death and..cellulite, over a false plastic world where it's party 24/7 and thoughts of death are taboo. Considering that WITH the gender themes it wants to say..matriarchy is plastic and false? Patriarchy is real and authentic? I don't think that's what the film WANTS to say, just that its thematic threads aren't woven together in a very cohesive way and if you try and read it that way that you would read a substantive piece of narrative art, it's rendered kind of silly
Hey Mate! Thanks for the thoughtful comment! I will take the time to interact with your points since I don't get the vibe you are trolling. I am assuming you have listened to the entire review ( I will make references and omissions based on that assumption). Your points are thought-provoking and insightful. That is the beauty of dialogue. 1. Barbie giving Ken his freedom: it seems to me that the Barbie world is an inversion of the real world. In it, women have the protagonism and it is a form of matriarchy. Men have only value in relation to women. Now, this should not be taken as the Barbie world being plastic or fake and the real world authentic. Barbie world is a fictional place where the asymmetry of power is the opposite to the "real world" (our world), to our patriarchal society. The "oppression" men experience in barbie world is fictional, whereas the oppression women experience in the "real world" is true, hence the adjective "real" to refer to the realism of the movie in that aspect. Barbie experiences a moral progression where every night was "girl's night" with no regard for men to a person who wants to treat Ken as her equal. That is why, in one scene, Barbie apologizes to Ken. So there has been a moral transformation. And I think this is hinting to the idea that true feminism is also seeking the good for men in society. So this is showing how it should be in our real world. It is setting a precedent. So you are right in pointing out that it was Barbie and the Barbie system that was denying his personhood, but there is remorse and change about that in the scene where she apologizes and changes her ways. Also remember that in the movie there is a lot of "absurdism" and "hyperbole" as a way of conveying the message. Perhaps that is why I did not feel that scene to be patronizing. 2. Matriarchy versus Patriarchy: Here I think it depends about what features of the movie are interpreted as part of the "overarching theme". I think that the matriarchy and patriarchy tension is throughout the movie even if they don't have genitals. I think the later is just secondary, because the movie is highlighting all the time the tensions and conflicts between the sexes (the clearest example is the plot in barbie world where the women are voting on their own while the men are fighting). But the movie in the end moves beyond the defense of a matriarchy. It shows a different path as you can see from what I discussed in my video. And regarding the Barbie and the thoughts of death, I think that is is better contextualized as the moral progression of Barbie (first and second naivete). Regarding your interpretation of my review about "matriarchy is plastic and false? Patriarchy is real and authentic?". No that is that what I meant. I meant what I have already indicated in the first point: Barbie world is a fictional place where the asymmetry of power is the opposite to the "real world" (our world), to our patriarchal society. The "oppression" men experience in barbie world is fictional, whereas the oppression women experience in the "real world" is true, hence the adjective "real" to refer to the realism of the movie in that aspect. 3. Regarding your comment about "what the movie WANTS to say", I respectfully disagree there with you because it presupposes that the movie on its own has an intrinsic meaning (or univocal meaning) that is dependent on the director or the person wrote the script. This is the "fallacy of the intention of the artist". You could read "the death of the author" by Roland Barthes for more on where I am coming from. A piece of art scapes the original intention of the artist, and there can be multiple interpretations that can frame the movie in many ways. That is why, for instance, Jesus and his teachings are read from a libertarian perspective and communist perspective, to name a few. Another example: I can interpret the Barbie movie as a parody of the feminist utopia to show how absurd it is what they want to do. Or I can interpret the movie as representing women's rights. Maybe a useful parallelism can be that of the show Mad Men: some people hate the show because of how "sexist" it is, thinking that the portrayal of sexist power dynamics is an endorsement of such ideals. But you can read it in a different way: as showing how messed up the 60s were and by seeing that, creating a cathartic effect in our psyche to avoid embodying those sexist manifestations. I hope this clarifies some of my points from my review. Thanks again for taking the time to leave a comment!
I am so glad this was recommended on my feed. This is the best analysis of exactly how I interpreted the movie, as well as your replies to other comments. I'm only 10min in but I look forward to watching the whole thing. I walked out of this movie and thought this is closer to an essay than a traditional movie, so this philosophy response is exactly what the movie demands.
⏰ TIMESTAMPS⏰
00:00:00 - Introduction to the perspective of the review
00:03:16 - Expansion of identity: from motherhood to womanhood
00:07:36 - The crisis of Barbie as the deconstruction of “the perfect woman”
00:29:11 - The reconstruction of Barbie as “pure human potential”
00:33:42 - War of the sexes: Patriarchy or Matriarchy?
00:46:50 - Where do we go from here? Beyond feminism
00:55:28 - A word to my right-wing friends and Ben Shapiro’s critique of the movie
01:17:51 - Social media, leave your suggestion, upcoming events, next episode
my problem with 'Barbie giving Ken his freedom' is..exactly that. It's 'given' to him by HER, as if it's hers to give when it was the hegemony of the barbies that was denying him his personhood - reinforcing the idea he really is an accessory and his personhood is optional. And it was 'given' only b/c Barbie herself lost interest in the matriarchal world by that point. It's like if the owner of a slave plantation decided he didn't want to sell cotton anymore and instead wanted to leave on a ship to 'find himself', and at that point chose to free his slaves saying 'go..this is MY gift to you, b/c I'm such a good person'. It fet patronising to a nauseating degree.
Also it's not really clear how the Barbie world can be patriarchal OR matriarchal since sex and reproduction don't exist in it - and Barbie is aware of that when she tells construction workers in the real world she and Ken aren't sexual beings and don't have genitals (also, Greta Gerwig has never spoken to a manual laborer in her life). Also the gender stuff just seems at odds with the rote existential story of Barbie choosing an authentic existence of death and..cellulite, over a false plastic world where it's party 24/7 and thoughts of death are taboo. Considering that WITH the gender themes it wants to say..matriarchy is plastic and false? Patriarchy is real and authentic? I don't think that's what the film WANTS to say, just that its thematic threads aren't woven together in a very cohesive way and if you try and read it that way that you would read a substantive piece of narrative art, it's rendered kind of silly
Hey Mate! Thanks for the thoughtful comment! I will take the time to interact with your points since I don't get the vibe you are trolling. I am assuming you have listened to the entire review ( I will make references and omissions based on that assumption). Your points are thought-provoking and insightful. That is the beauty of dialogue.
1. Barbie giving Ken his freedom: it seems to me that the Barbie world is an inversion of the real world. In it, women have the protagonism and it is a form of matriarchy. Men have only value in relation to women. Now, this should not be taken as the Barbie world being plastic or fake and the real world authentic. Barbie world is a fictional place where the asymmetry of power is the opposite to the "real world" (our world), to our patriarchal society. The "oppression" men experience in barbie world is fictional, whereas the oppression women experience in the "real world" is true, hence the adjective "real" to refer to the realism of the movie in that aspect. Barbie experiences a moral progression where every night was "girl's night" with no regard for men to a person who wants to treat Ken as her equal. That is why, in one scene, Barbie apologizes to Ken. So there has been a moral transformation. And I think this is hinting to the idea that true feminism is also seeking the good for men in society. So this is showing how it should be in our real world. It is setting a precedent. So you are right in pointing out that it was Barbie and the Barbie system that was denying his personhood, but there is remorse and change about that in the scene where she apologizes and changes her ways. Also remember that in the movie there is a lot of "absurdism" and "hyperbole" as a way of conveying the message. Perhaps that is why I did not feel that scene to be patronizing.
2. Matriarchy versus Patriarchy: Here I think it depends about what features of the movie are interpreted as part of the "overarching theme". I think that the matriarchy and patriarchy tension is throughout the movie even if they don't have genitals. I think the later is just secondary, because the movie is highlighting all the time the tensions and conflicts between the sexes (the clearest example is the plot in barbie world where the women are voting on their own while the men are fighting). But the movie in the end moves beyond the defense of a matriarchy. It shows a different path as you can see from what I discussed in my video. And regarding the Barbie and the thoughts of death, I think that is is better contextualized as the moral progression of Barbie (first and second naivete). Regarding your interpretation of my review about "matriarchy is plastic and false? Patriarchy is real and authentic?". No that is that what I meant. I meant what I have already indicated in the first point: Barbie world is a fictional place where the asymmetry of power is the opposite to the "real world" (our world), to our patriarchal society. The "oppression" men experience in barbie world is fictional, whereas the oppression women experience in the "real world" is true, hence the adjective "real" to refer to the realism of the movie in that aspect.
3. Regarding your comment about "what the movie WANTS to say", I respectfully disagree there with you because it presupposes that the movie on its own has an intrinsic meaning (or univocal meaning) that is dependent on the director or the person wrote the script. This is the "fallacy of the intention of the artist". You could read "the death of the author" by Roland Barthes for more on where I am coming from. A piece of art scapes the original intention of the artist, and there can be multiple interpretations that can frame the movie in many ways. That is why, for instance, Jesus and his teachings are read from a libertarian perspective and communist perspective, to name a few. Another example: I can interpret the Barbie movie as a parody of the feminist utopia to show how absurd it is what they want to do. Or I can interpret the movie as representing women's rights. Maybe a useful parallelism can be that of the show Mad Men: some people hate the show because of how "sexist" it is, thinking that the portrayal of sexist power dynamics is an endorsement of such ideals. But you can read it in a different way: as showing how messed up the 60s were and by seeing that, creating a cathartic effect in our psyche to avoid embodying those sexist manifestations.
I hope this clarifies some of my points from my review. Thanks again for taking the time to leave a comment!
I am so glad this was recommended on my feed. This is the best analysis of exactly how I interpreted the movie, as well as your replies to other comments. I'm only 10min in but I look forward to watching the whole thing. I walked out of this movie and thought this is closer to an essay than a traditional movie, so this philosophy response is exactly what the movie demands.
Wow, thank you for your kind words! Spread the love please by sharing it with your friends!