I'm a [Barbie] Thread, That You [Barbie] Read [OPEN SPOILERS]

ElJeffe

This thread is for discussing the superior half of Barbenheimer.

The OP is not much, but hopefully it's Kenough.

ElJeffe

Evil Multifarious wrote: »

Gnome-Interruptus wrote: »

tinwhiskers wrote: »

Evil Multifarious wrote: »

We watched Barbie tonight and came out of it disappointed that it was kind of shallow and its feminist/gender politics were banal and uninspiring, but on reflection I'm wondering if the movie is playing a bit of a trick and is actually much darker?

The board of men running Mattel, called out for being all men and making terrible excuses and then just... not changing, and espousing the "right" politics but ultimately making the decisions that will make them money because of those politics; the Barbies crying out that things shouldn't go back to normal and then definitely having things go right back to normal, with token changes that, again, make Mattel more money, like "Ordinary Barbie" as meaningless pablum; a constitutional coup to re-establish the matriarchy and a snide lampshade about how Kens will, eventually just have as much power as women in the real world, and Kens having a hollow revelation that doesn't seem to change their lot in life in a material way; etc etc

Meanwhile, Allan is out here being awfully queer-coded and trying to escape this framework, excluded and forgotten from any gestures of resolution, and the only one willing to do real violence to try to get away from the narrative machinery being manufactured around them.

All of this is pretty dark, kind of a nasty ending of stasis and enduring oppression, false liberation wrapped in good feelings, aesthetically and narratively framed as though it's a happy ending that resolves problems. Is this movie saying hey, movies like this aren't going to change things, but they're going to pretend like they make a difference, and you shouldn't be fooled?

Or am I giving it too much credit?

No, Gretna Gerwig wrote and directed it.

But also these things are banal to you, they are probably a bit more novel to a 13 year old.

I would say that the movie’s politics are not any more progressive than an episode of Last Week Tonight or Seth Mayers A Closer Look

But as a major motion picture, absolutely something that needed to be said to a wider audience.

I think the more aggressive, cynical reading I suggested is in direct conflict with this portrayal of feminism and communication of feminist ideals

If my feelings of dissatisfaction and unease coming out of that film are, in fact, the point of the film, then it's not about communicating milquetoast feminism to a wider audience — it's about how corporate, individualist feminism can never make real change for anyone, and will just deceive us into believing a difference was made

I'm seeing people agreeing with both and I think they're contradictory!

My read was generally hopeful. It acknowledged the easily digestible Go Gurl feminism of Barbie's history, pointed out that this was woefully insufficient to actually change things, painted the proponents of this kind of feminism as, at best, well-meaning doofuses, and made some points about what real feminist goals look like.

I don't think it meant to offer any real solutions, and I don't feel that it was promoting Regular Woman Barbie as One Weird Trick to defeating misogyny or anything. But it still seemed hopeful that we could change things, with being aware of where we're at as the first step.

It was kind of cynical, but also optimistic. I did appreciate the "we know you mean well, but you kinda suck" messaging, because I think it's both easier to digest and also an accurate description of a lot of "feminists". The knee-jerk anti-woke crowd who are actively hostile to feminism are a problem, but they're not going to be receptive to any sort of message, so fuck em, this movie isn't directed at them, nor is it trying to change them.

moniker

Mojo Dojo Hilo Thread

tinwhiskers

Evil Multifarious wrote: »

Gnome-Interruptus wrote: »

tinwhiskers wrote: »

Evil Multifarious wrote: »

We watched Barbie tonight and came out of it disappointed that it was kind of shallow and its feminist/gender politics were banal and uninspiring, but on reflection I'm wondering if the movie is playing a bit of a trick and is actually much darker?

The board of men running Mattel, called out for being all men and making terrible excuses and then just... not changing, and espousing the "right" politics but ultimately making the decisions that will make them money because of those politics; the Barbies crying out that things shouldn't go back to normal and then definitely having things go right back to normal, with token changes that, again, make Mattel more money, like "Ordinary Barbie" as meaningless pablum; a constitutional coup to re-establish the matriarchy and a snide lampshade about how Kens will, eventually just have as much power as women in the real world, and Kens having a hollow revelation that doesn't seem to change their lot in life in a material way; etc etc

Meanwhile, Allan is out here being awfully queer-coded and trying to escape this framework, excluded and forgotten from any gestures of resolution, and the only one willing to do real violence to try to get away from the narrative machinery being manufactured around them.

All of this is pretty dark, kind of a nasty ending of stasis and enduring oppression, false liberation wrapped in good feelings, aesthetically and narratively framed as though it's a happy ending that resolves problems. Is this movie saying hey, movies like this aren't going to change things, but they're going to pretend like they make a difference, and you shouldn't be fooled?

Or am I giving it too much credit?

No, Gretna Gerwig wrote and directed it.

But also these things are banal to you, they are probably a bit more novel to a 13 year old.

I would say that the movie’s politics are not any more progressive than an episode of Last Week Tonight or Seth Mayers A Closer Look

But as a major motion picture, absolutely something that needed to be said to a wider audience.

I think the more aggressive, cynical reading I suggested is in direct conflict with this portrayal of feminism and communication of feminist ideals

If my feelings of dissatisfaction and unease coming out of that film are, in fact, the point of the film, then it's not about communicating milquetoast feminism to a wider audience — it's about how corporate, individualist feminism can never make real change for anyone, and will just deceive us into believing a difference was made

I'm seeing people agreeing with both and I think they're contradictory!

@Evil Multifarious

As someone who is by no means some great knower of feminist theory, and with the caveat that this isn't hard science so there isn't some sort of provable truth, I guess I would call it a primer?

It both conveys a whole bunch of ground level ideas, and also points out their limits of those ideas at the same time.

Is there a sort of meta-level thing that it is the thing it is criticizing. Sure, but just because milquetoast feminism isn't sufficient, doesn't mean it isn't necessary.

moniker

The movie struck me as attempting to be a bridge between second, third, and fourth wave feminism. As well as addressing the overwhelming weight of the lean in, have it all, girl boss mindset in the face of all the inherent contradictions of a both structurally patriarchal and status oriented society. That you should feel that you are enough and worthy of self respect and dignity, even if you don't look like Margot Robbie and have a Nobel Prize. The scene with Ann Roth at the bus stop bench shouldn't be subversive. But how many octogenarian women are ever cast in a movie let alone ones with dialogue and self confidence? It's as much a joke as "Hollywood Accounting" the extent to which actresses in their 40's literally just disappear.

ElJeffe

I marked the thread as open spoilers so we can speak oKenly about the movie.

ElJeffe

moniker wrote: »

The movie struck me as attempting to be a bridge between second, third, and fourth wave feminism. As well as addressing the overwhelming weight of the lean in, have it all, girl boss mindset in the face of all the inherent contradictions of a both structurally patriarchal and status oriented society. That you should feel that you are enough and worthy of self respect and dignity, even if you don't look like Margot Robbie and have a Nobel Prize. The scene with Ann Roth at the bus stop bench shouldn't be subversive. But how many octogenarian women are ever cast in a movie let alone ones with dialogue and self confidence? It's as much a joke as "Hollywood Accounting" the extent to which actresses in their 40's literally just disappear.

I appreciated the "Margot Robbie is not the right person to make this point" gag.

Marathon

ElJeffe wrote: »

I marked the thread as open spoilers so we can speak oKenly about the movie.

Mods?

RT800

All I know of feminism is what I read on the back of a cereal box.

I tend to think of women as smaller versions of men who happen to bear the reproductive function of childbirth.

But I guess you could also imagine men as bigger versions of women who happen to bear the reproductive function of insemination.

Which doesn't make much sense since you'd think child-bearing would be more easily accomplished by the larger individual.

At any rate, the human reproductive system is certainly not how I would have done things.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

RT800

Hatchling cobras are capable of killing a man the moment they are born.

Human babies are weak and pathetic.

Oh, and uh... the Barbie movie was alright, I guess.

MichaelLC

Loved the movie. Couldn't tell you all the messages it was trying to convey, but taking it only at face value would be missing a lot.

Glad we went in mostly blind.

nexuscrawler

ElJeffe wrote: »

Evil Multifarious wrote: »

Gnome-Interruptus wrote: »

tinwhiskers wrote: »

Evil Multifarious wrote: »

We watched Barbie tonight and came out of it disappointed that it was kind of shallow and its feminist/gender politics were banal and uninspiring, but on reflection I'm wondering if the movie is playing a bit of a trick and is actually much darker?

The board of men running Mattel, called out for being all men and making terrible excuses and then just... not changing, and espousing the "right" politics but ultimately making the decisions that will make them money because of those politics; the Barbies crying out that things shouldn't go back to normal and then definitely having things go right back to normal, with token changes that, again, make Mattel more money, like "Ordinary Barbie" as meaningless pablum; a constitutional coup to re-establish the matriarchy and a snide lampshade about how Kens will, eventually just have as much power as women in the real world, and Kens having a hollow revelation that doesn't seem to change their lot in life in a material way; etc etc

Meanwhile, Allan is out here being awfully queer-coded and trying to escape this framework, excluded and forgotten from any gestures of resolution, and the only one willing to do real violence to try to get away from the narrative machinery being manufactured around them.

All of this is pretty dark, kind of a nasty ending of stasis and enduring oppression, false liberation wrapped in good feelings, aesthetically and narratively framed as though it's a happy ending that resolves problems. Is this movie saying hey, movies like this aren't going to change things, but they're going to pretend like they make a difference, and you shouldn't be fooled?

Or am I giving it too much credit?

No, Gretna Gerwig wrote and directed it.

But also these things are banal to you, they are probably a bit more novel to a 13 year old.

I would say that the movie’s politics are not any more progressive than an episode of Last Week Tonight or Seth Mayers A Closer Look

But as a major motion picture, absolutely something that needed to be said to a wider audience.

I think the more aggressive, cynical reading I suggested is in direct conflict with this portrayal of feminism and communication of feminist ideals

If my feelings of dissatisfaction and unease coming out of that film are, in fact, the point of the film, then it's not about communicating milquetoast feminism to a wider audience — it's about how corporate, individualist feminism can never make real change for anyone, and will just deceive us into believing a difference was made

I'm seeing people agreeing with both and I think they're contradictory!

My read was generally hopeful. It acknowledged the easily digestible Go Gurl feminism of Barbie's history, pointed out that this was woefully insufficient to actually change things, painted the proponents of this kind of feminism as, at best, well-meaning doofuses, and made some points about what real feminist goals look like.

I don't think it meant to offer any real solutions, and I don't feel that it was promoting Regular Woman Barbie as One Weird Trick to defeating misogyny or anything. But it still seemed hopeful that we could change things, with being aware of where we're at as the first step.

It was kind of cynical, but also optimistic. I did appreciate the "we know you mean well, but you kinda suck" messaging, because I think it's both easier to digest and also an accurate description of a lot of "feminists". The knee-jerk anti-woke crowd who are actively hostile to feminism are a problem, but they're not going to be receptive to any sort of message, so fuck em, this movie isn't directed at them, nor is it trying to change them.

I think a core message of the movie is these gender roles men and women carve out for themselves can be self destructive to everyone. Ken's whole arc is finding out that defining himself by other people has stunted the ability to form meaningful relationships. Be it as a doormat or a toxic dudebro

RazielMortem

While I appreciated the movie's message(s), I just watched it for Ryan Gosling's performance which was amazing. His facial expressions, body language, even the voice...that cartoon evil chuckle when he's riding back to Barbieland was hilarious. His Ken pushed this movie from 'ok I see what they are doing here' to 'good lord this movie is hilarious'.

Hardtarget

My wife and I saw Barbie last night and I don't know... it was fine? There were some funny bits, there was a good and important message, but we were both just expecting more? Especially based on the reaction it has gotten. Also for what it's trying to do it felt about 30 minutes too long tbh.
the sort of problem with the movie for me

was that at the end of the movie nothing really changes. barbieland is saved but it mostly just goes back to the way it was before and the Kens only really grow a tiny bit. and literally nothing changes in the real world at all. Also everything to do with Mattel Corporate in the real world feels like a missed opportunity. Will Farrell's CEO character is just sort of there along for the ride and doesn't really do anything, it's very odd

anyways, it wasn't bad or anything, but the reaction was just so huge I was left wanting.

ElJeffe

I think a movie in which the status quo changes just a little for the better was a good move given the message, though.

Having the movie Solve Patriarchy would completely undermine the idea that there's no quick fix. Barbieland went back to mostly how it was, but with the Kens and Barbies having a better idea of how to move forward due to some self reflection.

I liked that.

So It Goes

Ken and Barbie's individual arcs are the real point of the movie to me. Barbieland stuff is mostly the context for those arcs it's important to show what they're swimming in without realizing it.

Farrell is probably the weakest part of the movie, I agree.

Vontre

Nothing really changes, except for the two lead characters, who have been massively and irrevocably changed by the story.

Atomika

While deep discussion probably belongs in the titular thread, I’m pretty happy things didn’t end on a mealy-mouthed “both sides” argument

Cries from feckless trash humans like Bill Maher along the lines of “A matriarchy would be just as bad as a patriarchy!” fall flat because reality exists and we can look at it any time we like right outside the window

Gnome-Interruptus

Atomika wrote: »

While deep discussion probably belongs in the titular thread, I’m pretty happy things didn’t end on a mealy-mouthed “both sides” argument

Cries from feckless trash humans like Bill Maher along the lines of “A matriarchy would be just as bad as a patriarchy!” fall flat because reality exists and we can look at it any time we like right outside the window

Alternatively, in a patronizing voice “thats right Bill, thats why we promote equality and not discrimination”

Irredeemably Indecisive

Hardtarget wrote: »

Also everything to do with Mattel Corporate in the real world feels like a missed opportunity. Will Farrell's CEO character is just sort of there along for the ride and doesn't really do anything, it's very odd

I think that was kind of the point. It's a Hollywood trope to cast some big famous actress, give her a role that is on screen for a good bit of the film, but have her basically do nothing and just be there while the main man does everything.

Casual Eddy

I liked the implication that Barbie was something of a gestalt consciousness or hive mind

She is Barbie and Barbie was them

She becomes divided from herself and must embark on a quest to restore consensus with her constituent parts

Goumindong

I also liked that Barbie is canonically ace. (Among a number of other things in the movie). Main gripe is that there is a lot of Ken in the climax* and he somehow didn’t really get a resolution. He goes really fast from “yea patriarchy” to “I never liked it anyway”. Which makes sense but is also kinda weird.

*I understand why. But like. It’s the Barbie movie not the ken movie.

moniker

Goumindong wrote: »

I also liked that Barbie is canonically ace. (Among a number of other things in the movie). Main gripe is that there is a lot of Ken in the climax* and he somehow didn’t really get a resolution. He goes really fast from “yea patriarchy” to “I never liked it anyway”. Which makes sense but is also kinda weird.

*I understand why. But like. It’s the Barbie movie not the ken movie.

Though also true to life for effectively a 9-12 year old boy

Especially after learning it has nothing to do with horses

Fencingsax

So yeah, that was weird, but in a good way.

I even enjoyed Michael Cera!

Bucketman

I really enjoyed it, my initial thoughts I think we're wrong on what it was trying to convey, but ultimately I think it had things to say for everyone. The Mattel folks were an odd edition and it was funny but strange they they portrayed the office like some dark evil.
I also wish we got more from our human characters, explored them and their motivations a bit more

But overall it's the best movie I've seen this year

Jam Warrior

That was such a fun time.

I had picked up on internet buzz kinda what to expect, which is why I went to see it having initially written it off as likely fluffy comedy nonsense. But I could not stop thinking about what it must have been like in those first few days when people probably went in blind expecting fluffy comedy nonsense and got blind sided by that. What a trip that would be.

MichaelLC

Jam Warrior wrote: »

That was such a fun time.

I had picked up on internet buzz kinda what to expect, which is why I went to see it having initially written it off as likely fluffy comedy nonsense. But I could not stop thinking about what it must have been like in those first few days when people probably went in blind expecting fluffy comedy nonsense and got blind sided by that. What a trip that would be.

It was a special experience for sure. Our theater like a lot of others had people dressed up to various degrees.

Watched the trailers so didn't go in completely unaware but they did not show any of the main plot. I don't generally care about superhero/summer blockbuster type spoilers, but something about Barbie made me avoid looking into it.

LostNinja

Goumindong wrote: »

I also liked that Barbie is canonically ace. (Among a number of other things in the movie). Main gripe is that there is a lot of Ken in the climax* and he somehow didn’t really get a resolution. He goes really fast from “yea patriarchy” to “I never liked it anyway”. Which makes sense but is also kinda weird.

*I understand why. But like. It’s the Barbie movie not the ken movie.

His story didn’t feel fully resolved, but as others have said that might have been the point. The ending was a start of a journey of change and not the end. It left me a little unsatisfied, but I get it.

I think the quick change from pro-patriarchy to “I was kinda over it after realizing it wasn’t all about horses” was needed. Without it it is easy to see Ken as the antagonist rather than the harmful systems.

ElJeffe

Yeah, I liked that they showed the way that patriarchy and associated male stereotypes hurts men, too. They quickly learned that it wasn't men vs women, it was men AND women versus a terrible system (created by men, but still).

Butters

So It Goes wrote: »

Ken and Barbie's individual arcs are the real point of the movie to me. Barbieland stuff is mostly the context for those arcs it's important to show what they're swimming in without realizing it.

Farrell is probably the weakest part of the movie, I agree.

Yeah Farrell's acting isn't aging well. I feel like his roles regularly outsize what he brings to the table and his comedy has gotten stale as it hasn't evolved in over 10 years.

Spaffy

Crosspost from the movie thread, who I annoyed:

Finally saw Barbie yesterday and it was... fine? It was aggressively fine.

It certainly said a bunch of stuff I agree with more or less non-stop for 2 hours, but that didn't really elevate it to 'great movie' for me. There were several points, particularly in the middle, where despite all the colour and pizazz we were pretty bored.

At times it felt overly on-the-nose and / or hackneyed (America Ferrera's big monologue towards the end was a cringey dud for Mrs. Spaffy), and the comedy was basically two jokes repeated ad-naeseam. There was a third joke congealing but unfortunately Will Ferrell's schtick got old ten years ago.

I didn't feel it really stuck the landing with the ideal solution for Barbieland... and as a result I felt the messaging was murkier than it could have been. As we came out, one young girl asked her mom in the lobby "So is the world better with men or women in charge?" and I think that's pretty emblematic of the whiff.

I also feel like exec. meddling definitely tempered some of the more... biting commentary about Mattel that was clearly in the original script. The end result was a fairly muddled portrayal of the motivations and intentions of Ferrell's character and the corporation in general, and as a result their scenes and dialogue felt weird, uneven, and pretty much entirely superfluous in some places.

On the plus side, Robbie was absolutely brilliant, Weird Barbie was also a stand-out, and the smaller observational comedic moments were spot-on. The production design and costuming was incredible. The imagination on display in some of the set-pieces was wonderful. The end-line was a triumph.

However, I'm pretty puzzled by the effusive praise for Gosling. I felt his performance felt pretty flat and bored, and for me the whole movie would have popped more with a different actor in that spot. Both his and Barbie's existential crises were played for laughs, but Robbie's performance came with a nuance that felt adult, layered and weirdly relatable. His came over like a deleted plotline from Old School. The Oscar talk is insane to me.

KoopahTroopah

Could we rewind the thread to the OP and talk over it the entire time?

We saw it opening weekend, and I wanna watch it again.

Blarghy

Spaffy wrote: »

Crosspost from the movie thread, who I annoyed:

Finally saw Barbie yesterday and it was... fine? It was aggressively fine.

It certainly said a bunch of stuff I agree with more or less non-stop for 2 hours, but that didn't really elevate it to 'great movie' for me. There were several points, particularly in the middle, where despite all the colour and pizazz we were pretty bored.

At times it felt overly on-the-nose and / or hackneyed (America Ferrera's big monologue towards the end was a cringey dud for Mrs. Spaffy), and the comedy was basically two jokes repeated ad-naeseam. There was a third joke congealing but unfortunately Will Ferrell's schtick got old ten years ago.

I didn't feel it really stuck the landing with the ideal solution for Barbieland... and as a result I felt the messaging was murkier than it could have been. As we came out, one young girl asked her mom in the lobby "So is the world better with men or women in charge?" and I think that's pretty emblematic of the whiff.

I agree that the movie was basically "fine", though I think the point was that the world isn't better with either men or women in charge, both the real world and Barbie-land both were kind of shitty, just in different ways. I'm also pretty sure that the long cringy rant was supposed to be cringy.

Butters

I think Gosling was great, but if there is Oscar talk that's overblown.

ElJeffe

Nah, I think Oscar talk is legit. The academy tends to ignore comedic performances and comedy in general, even though good comedy is harder to do than good drama. Gosling did an excellent job at being exactly what the movie needed for that role, and it wouldn't have been the same with any other actor. That's basically the definition of "Best Actor".

Instead, the award typically goes to whoever yelled the loudest or cried the hardest or wore the most convincing makeup. Gosling is masterful at emoting with just a look or a gesture, and he brought all that here along with perfect line deliveries. Give the dude an Oscar.

moniker

Given everything, the most representative result would be that Ryan Gosling is actually the only person involved in Barbie that wins an award.

tzeentchling

America Ferrara's speech didn't read as cringe to me, it read as pent up frustration that finally had an outlet. It felt meaningful to me. I can see how others would have different takes though.

Butters

tzeentchling wrote: »

America Ferrara's speech didn't read as cringe to me, it read as pent up frustration that finally had an outlet. It felt meaningful to me. I can see how others would have different takes though.

For me it was too long of a diatribe to be believable as dialogue. I didn't "cringe" and hate how that word is used these days, but it came off as a out of place speech inserted into what I remember being conversation.

ElJeffe

I felt the movie was detached from reality enough that the speech worked for me. It wasn't naturalistic, but nothing about the move was naturalistic.

Fencingsax

Yeah, it was stylized and artificial in a completely different way than, say, Wes Anderson