It’s A Barbie World (Spoilers Ahead)
Yes. Yes, I am getting on that hype-train that is Barbie , the movie.
Though I’d argue, post-movie-release, that the Barbie phenomenon the movie precipitated is less hype, and more skilful teasing out of long-buried, simmering girlish, or ungirlish thoughts on one of the world’s most famous icons — Barbie, the doll.
I did an essay once, if memory serves me right, in a University writing class — research work on the history of Barbie. It was a quest to understand the genesis of this icon, and on hindsight, a wrestling of what makes the perfect woman.
Of course, everyone will tell you that there isn’t such a thing. That is, there is no such thing as a perfect (wo)man. That remains to be seen. If perfection is the absence of faults, there is nothing to prove that no human, whether present now or in the future, would necessarily have at least one definitive fault. Theoretically, we cannot preclude the possibility of perfection.
Even today, where imperfections abound , we hear things like— “There’s no such thing as a perfect (wo)man. But (s)he’s the perfect (wo)man for me.” “(S)he’s better than my dream girl/boy, (s)he’s real.”
If your argument lies in the definition of perfection, that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, that standards are relative— that one person’s fault, is another person’s beauty — it would seem, all the more that perfection is within reach. Somewhere out there, there’s someone whom you’d be perfect for, and who’d be perfect for you.
And, there’s no stopping men and women from the pursuit of an ideal.
Many people claim, simplistically, that that’s what Barbie is. An ideal. An unattainable ideal, for the anti-Barbieists; and an uplifting battle cry, for the diehard Barbie fans.
To be fair though, I don’t think a lot of people view(ed) Barbie as a feminist, even the Barbie fans. Not until this movie. (My opinion. Then again, I haven’t had many conversations about Barbie with adults before the movie.) People tend to be more familiar with her measurements. Perhaps it was only Mattel who saw every Barbie-released iteration as inspiration for a new generation of would-be women. Plus, I’m not sure how many actual women the dolls inspired. But I liked that the multi-occupational element of Barbie is present in the movie, and that she is positioned as someone who works for a living, someone who fights for and believes in women’s rights, nonwithstanding her real world impact.
That I believe, is the strongest possible interpretation of this female cultural icon.
I also liked that the sets were unabashedly pink. Who says you can’t work in pink? Pink hair ribbons? Check. Pink and white gingham dress with matching heels? Check, check. Pink slide to go to a pink car with pink steering handle? Check, check, and check. Writer-Director Greta Gerwig mentions in an interview that, “You will not believe the number of conversations we had about pink.” This author appreciates that.
What I didn’t like, were two things. First, that at one point in the movie, the Barbie characters take on lines that make them sound like second year Gender Studies students, rather than themselves, or regular people**. America Ferrera’s character in particular, has a monologue that sounds like it came straight out of Greta*’s head rather than from Gloria (Ferrera’s character).
The second thing — was that there was too much going on, plot-wise. Sets-wise, no problem. There was so much going on but it was good — because the movie is immersing us in this beautiful, wonderful world of Barbieland. A little like Instagram paradise for starved social media addicts.
Plot-wise, not so much. We spend some time meeting Barbieland, we travel to the Real World, spend some time there, and then back to Barbieland, only for more things to happen. (We finally end up in the Real World.) In between there’s car chases, human chases, spending time in jail, montages at a bus stop, a Highest-Floor meeting complete with long, oval meeting table. There’s also an almost-government-coup, a thinking virus, a faux mink coat and sunglasses you wear two at a time (though arguably, the last of these were personal accessories so, they can stay).
Impressive and absorbing as all of the above mentioned is, I wish there had been more development on Barbie’s “I-want-to-be-human” arc because when it came out at the end, it surprised me. And not in a good way. Where did that denouement come from? There was no Barbie distinguishing human-ness and doll-ness moment before. There was no Barbie recognising distinctly human-but-not-doll-like activity development either. Zilch from the earlier montages, conversations and tantrums. Just a drop-in on a literary essay?
Instead, we had a competing arc about Ken, Kenness and premarital home ownership***. That was gold, but should have been Episode 2, a The-Mummy level sequel plot.
What we should have gotten, as some reviewers have argued, is more Barbie development time. More focus on world discovery and self-discovery. Some pivotal event that made her realise human life was worth living. Worth living enough to forsake the doll life. And not because she got a strange helping of Toy FOMO. Didn’t she start out choosing the high heel (I didn’t get the label) over the Birkenstock? That’s our metaphor for doll life over human life isn’t it? How did she go from that to wanting cellulite? We need to be brought on that journey.
She recognises the beauty of the old lady at the bus stop in the Real World but then no further development on that except a lazy pre-montage, even though Margot Robbie was wonderful with the red-pill tear. (I teared too. Possibly the most memorable, important scene for me. But very different in character from the rest of the movie.) But was that tear a tear of happiness, having the opportunity to know what life was like and the goodness that came in spite of the bad, a tear of appreciation for the ups-and-downs of the Real World, or a tear on the loss of innocence with the new-found knowledge of how little impact her life as Stereotypical Barbie has had on the Real World?
There could have been a “I haven’t been making the impact I thought I was making”-meltdown moment there and then (rather than back in Barbieland on the grass patch after being kicked out of her own home — which was funny but chronologically didn’t make sense for the character arc). Perhaps not on a grass patch but it needed to be more than it was in the Real World bus stop. Maybe even a little more long drawn out (Depressed/Confused Barbie), with several interactions and altercations with humans, men and women, before perhaps, she realises that the only way she *can* make an impact is, to be human.
And that’s where she goes “I want to grow old too.” or “I want to know what it feels like to not know.”, or “I want to experience, birth, life and death.”
And then Ruth Handler can say “But my dear, you already are, if you know what life and loss means.” And then Barbie can have a sequel in Barbieland with her new-fangled ideas (to duke it out with Ken and *his* new-fangled ideas).
It’s serious stuff.
Barbie’s elemental ideas are there, but the movie doesn’t go the whole nine yards in the execution. Perhaps some reining in of creative licensing by the Disney and/or Mattel stakeholders? I haven’t watched Gerwig’s previous works (except for Little Women) but I feel the camp and funny-element-stuffing wasn’t entirely from her. It felt like a response to “No, we can’t have that” or “No, we can’t show that.” Then it was like, “Okay, then we’d just make it more distractingly funny — and the audience will forgive us.”
And I do. I’m even considering watching it a second time, if only to scour through all the set details. (I know of people who have. Case in point, a gaggle of girls who declared they needed to watch it a second time on the way out of the theatre.)
Not that this Barbie isn’t already a seminal piece of work. The pre-show run-up marketing, the fact that so many people are talking, breathing, and wearing Barbie — is testament enough of its success.
I see more people in pink, which is wonderful because I love colour, all of them, in general. And it’s such a pity if you can’t wear a certain colour because it’s “not smart”. It’s humans who associate meaning with colour, or associate representations to people who wear a certain outfit— colour itself could not possibly bestow properties on its wearer.**** It could possibly make you feel a certain way — or reflect your mood, but certainly not your IQ. This is Legally Blonde all over, isn’t it.
If anything, I’m glad if Barbie’s given girls (and guys) all over the world a space to be a little sparkly. Can one promotional encourage one thing without demoting another? I hope so. Be kind and have grit, is my take. Be sparkly, if you want to be. How you want to present yourself, whether as pink, green, blue, pastel, neutral, goth or mermaid — that’s up to you. But, isn’t it the strangest feminist oxymoron if we were to say that the strongest, or even just the smartest girls are the ones who act and look most like boys?
This might have been true in the past where the list of “feminine activities” was very restrictive and you had to be doing “boy stuff” if you wanted to be doing anything meaningful at all. So “working” might constitute “acting like a boy”. That’s no longer the case, and it’s high time the definition of “feminine” got an update (if it hasn’t already).
It goes, the same way the other way. Isn’t it the most damning indictment of equitable feminism if we say the weakest boys are the ones who act most like girls? You can say you are attracted to one thing or another, but you cannot attribute strength to a certain gender, or a stereotypical notion of a gender.
Everyone should be allowed to look like how they want to look like, whether feminine (perceived) or tomboy (perceived). Both are equally valid forms of being. The strongest or smartest girl/boy is the strongest or smartest girl/boy because (s)he was strongest at something or smartest at something, regardless if (s)he looks feminine, tomboy or like a lasagna.
Movie-making: 8/10, Impact: 10/10
- *Granted, these words could also have come from Noah Baumbach, who co-wrote with Gerwig.
- **Not that Gender Studies second years are regular people, but when they sound like Gender Studies second years, they are not.
- ***In Singapore one has to be above 35 in order to own new public housing without a legal partner.
- ****So it is in fact completely illogical to think that someone who dresses like Mark Zuckerberg is as successful as Mark Zuckerberg. It’s just lazy association. That too many onlookers rely on. The resembling dresser might *want* to be as successful, or they might value the same things in clotheswear. They might be emulating a certain style or icon. But no, putting on a Steve Jobs-esque turtleneck will not instantly make you a billionaire. If it serves to remind you to work hard/to do whatever you need to do to become a billionaire, sure.
- There may be some correlation between someone who wants to spend very little time dressing up or caring for clothes, and someone who is successful, e.g. the time saved can be directed to building a successful company instead. But most people don’t separate this logic from the dressing itself; leading them closed off and unable to see that other types of dressers may share/have the same principles.
- Even so, this is merely a moderate correlation, not a strict mapping. Someone in the sales or service industry, or in entertainment or fashion might well need to have the opposite inclination.
- This deserves an article by itself: “Dressing and Machismo in Tech”.
