Gerwig's Barbie

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

I finally saw the Barbie movie. 

I honestly don’t know what to make of it. It’s definitely very funny. Very well made. Great performances (Ryan Gosling is hilarious). I enjoyed it a lot.

Im not exactly sure what it was trying to do, if it was doing anything at all. Is it criticizing vulgar consumerism while embracing it at the same time? Is it acknowledging how relevant and irrelevant Barbie is at the same time? Does it work as dystopian sci-fi (yes). 

And, “film bros”? Really? Are we still cracking that old chestnut? What year is it again?

On the bright side, contrary to what the social media commentariat have been warning me about, my genitals are unaffected. I’m not lining up to have a bar code stamped on my forehead by my new feminist overlord. I’m still mostly heterosexual*, and I still like “football and porno and books about war”. 

Body hair too. Not a single empty follicle on Deadlines’ luxurious, hairy chest. Sadly, the same can be said of his back…

*Ryan Gosling’s abs. C’mon, people. No one’s that straight. 

[Heartofice]

On 9/21/2023 at 9:30 PM, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Im not exactly sure what it was trying to do, if it was doing anything at all.

Yeah this is my takeaway, though I think it was trying to make a statement, it’s just quite confused as to what that statement is and so it’s all kinds of muddled. Is it feminist? Anti feminist? Satirising feminism? It’s really hard to tell because it’s not very coherent. At times it’s saying one thing then directly contradicting itself moments later. 
 

I get the sense it’s movie by committee, with just enough individual vision remaining to keep the production quality high 

[mormont]

Again, we've had this discussion, but the money quote if you want to know what this film is 'about' is:
 

Quote

Ruth – “Being a human can be pretty uncomfortable.”

Barbie – “I know.”

Ruth – “Humans make things up, like patriarchy and Barbie just to deal with how uncomfortable it is.”

Barbie – “I understand that.”

Ruth – “And then you die!”

Barbie – [laughing] “…yeah.  Yeah.  I wanna 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.  Does that make sense?”

The film is feminist and rightly engages with the complicated relationship between Barbie and feminism and the ways in which that reflects the development of feminist thought in a patriarchal society. But that's the B plot, not the A plot. The A plot is existentialist, not feminist. The movie explicitly recognises that patriarchy is just a way of trying to take control of our lives, of hiding from existential discomfort. It's not meaningless, nor harmless, but it's a distraction just the same. Barbie chooses to live in an imperfect (and patriarchal) mortal world, over a utopia, because she believes doing so will give her existence true meaning.

(The same can be said of consumerism. The film engages with it through the Mattel CEO bit, but it's a sub-plot, not the plot.)

The theme of the film right from the moment Barbie blurts out 'do you guys ever think about dying?' at the party is existential dread. That's what causes her to go to the real world, kicking off the story proper. Ken's patriarchy and the Mattel stuff are just things that happen along the way. They're neither the beginning of the plot, nor the end when they're resolved. The journey of the movie is Barbie coming to terms with mortality.

And the film is IMO very successful in portraying that journey. The issue is that, understandably, a lot of folk come to the theatre with ideas about what this films is going to be about, and existential dread is not one of those things. Sometimes we see what we expect to see, and it confuses our perceptions a bit.

Edited September 23 by mormont

[IlyaP]

On 9/22/2023 at 6:30 AM, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

I still like “football and porno and books about war”. 

Is that because you're an ey, ess ess, hey oh el ee?

[Heartofice]

I think the above sums up why the movie is so confused. Mormont seems to think that the movie is clearly about existential dread and the fear of death. But the movie has so many things to say and tick off it shopping list of topics that it barely touches what he thinks is the ‘A Plot’

Barbie’s existential dread is really only bookending the movie, it’s occurs a bit in the beginning and returns to it at the end, and mostly it’s just an excuse to run around making comments on the world, feminism, relationships between the sexes, consumerism.. you can go on.

Most of the movie is spent dealing with the B plot, or patriarchy and how it’s affecting both the real world and then Barbie land. It’s hard to see how it isn’t actually the real meat of the thing given how much of the plot revolves around it. 
 

If the movie has any coherent message at all it’s that life is messy and not clear cut, and ironically the movie is just as messy. Every one of the topics it’s trying to make commentaries on is done in a mostly incoherent way, mostly contradicting itself. There’s a lot of preachy, poorly thought out ideas floating throughout the movie, almost as if a lot of people wanted to get their bit in. 
 

Again, if you want to switch your brain off and not pay attention to anything the movie is saying, it’s pretty fun. You can enjoy the performances, laugh at the jokes and look at your phone when someone is ranting about the patriarchy or the Supreme Court. But if you spend even 5 minutes thinking about the movie it might make your head explode.

[mormont]

I've spent a lot more than five minutes thinking about this movie, which has been very enjoyable and productive. You can switch your brain off when watching a film that has inspiration from Plato through to Milton and de Beauvior, I guess, but you're cutting yourself off from a lot of the best things about the film. But then, it's in the film's favour that it works on so many levels.

ps the movie was co-written and directed by Gerwig, and she was given complete creative freedom. It's very much her vision from what I can understand, with input from her co-writer, of course, and Margot Robbie as a producer. For a major movie release, it's very much not written by committee.

 

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, mormont said:

I've spent a lot more than five minutes thinking about this movie, which has been very enjoyable and productive. You can switch your brain off when watching a film that has inspiration from Plato through to Milton and de Beauvior, I guess, but you're cutting yourself off from a lot of the best things about the film. But then, it's in the film's favour that it works on so many levels.

ps the movie was co-written and directed by Gerwig, and she was given complete creative freedom. It's very much her vision from what I can understand, with input from her co-writer, of course, and Margot Robbie as a producer. For a major movie release, it's very much not written by committee.

 

Wow, how patronising. I’m glad you enjoyed it, I knew you would. But you are giving it FAAAAAAAR too much credit if you think it has anything interesting to say on the idea of Plato or Milton. It doesn’t. 
 

Also because Gerwig got some creative freedom it doesn’t mean she had free reign, if she wanted to say Mattel was run by Nazis then that wasn’t happening, in fact much of the messaging about Mattel and consumerism is incredibly light touch and only hints at being critical. You can see where others had their input. 

[Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II]

19 minutes ago, mormont said:

I've spent a lot more than five minutes thinking about this movie, which has been very enjoyable and productive. You can switch your brain off when watching a film that has inspiration from Plato through to Milton and de Beauvior, I guess, but you're cutting yourself off from a lot of the best things about the film. But then, it's in the film's favour that it works on so many levels.

ps the movie was co-written and directed by Gerwig, and she was given complete creative freedom. It's very much her vision from what I can understand, with input from her co-writer, of course, and Margot Robbie as a producer. For a major movie release, it's very much not written by committee.

 

Considering how sanitised Mattel is shown to be and how an obnoxiously large amount of screen time is devoted to the CEO storyline,along with myriads of product placement of random brands, I think it’s safe to say she decidedly wasn’t given total creative freedom. 

Edited September 23 by Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II

[Heartofice]

I’ve seen the interviews where Robbie and Gerwig discuss how they didn’t want to just do a standard toy movie and would only do it if they had freedom to do what they wanted to do. To some extent that is true, it wasn’t just a bit of fluff or like The Lego Movie. 
 

But there will always be limits. No major movie these days is completely free from studio interference, and something like Barbie will have been filtered through many different voices to get to the final version. That’s just movie making, and you can see from the limp critique of Mattel that there were obvious limits.

Either way, saying many different voices had input let’s Gerwig off the hook. Either she was very confused about what she was trying to say and personally stuffed too much in, or she was forced to add too many talking points by others. I’d guess it was the second point because that is a failing of almost all modern blockbusters these days. 

[IlyaP]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

or she was forced to add too many talking points by others

Of course, burden of proof and modern productions being what they are, without seeing the original vs shooting script, I suspect it'd be hard to know.

Which might result in, unfairly or not, suggestions that frustrated critiques are projections, or tell us more about the objector than the film.

Not saying your points are invalid, but the above quote does place the burden of proof upon you. I am tempted to research it to see what I can learn to substantiate it (or not). Just not at 2am when I should be sleeping...

(Hopefully nothing there sounded dickish. If anything came off as rude or mean or anything, you have my sincerest apologies.)

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, IlyaP said:

Of course, burden of proof and modern productions being what they are, without seeing the original vs shooting script, I suspect it'd be hard to know.

Yes it’s hard to know, I’m giving Gerwig benefit of the doubt by suggesting it’s very difficult to get a singular vision into a movie these days and the incoherence can’t be laid purely at her door. Otherwise if it’s all her then that’s not a compliment.

[Zorral]

Ooooooooooooooo yuck a film featuring woman stuff, and it makes money, and it is popular, o lord it must be destroyed because women.

Let’s linger on Douthat’s claim: The future of happiness and the human race depends on Barbie, a Mattel doll whose primary cinematic concerns include the looming specter of death, retaining ownership of her home, and gaining access to reproductive-health care … marrying Ken, a man whose interests include horses and beach and whose company — crucially — Barbie does not seem to enjoy. At all. At any point in the movie

https://www.thecut.com/article/why-is-everyone-so-eager-for-men-and-women-to-get-married.html#_ga=2.58982189.1473474669.1695495713-836676917.1695495713

Quote

 

. . . as I read perhaps the funniest iteration of this recent period of marital revivalism in New York Times columnist Ross Douthat’s review of Barbie, in which he expressed his concern for the movie’s titular heroine and her foil, Ken. Citing a July paper published by economist Sam Peltzman that explored Americans’ declining levels of happiness over the same decades in which they have married less often and at older ages, Douthat presented “the simplest possible explanation for declining happiness: For women maybe first, and for men too, eventually, less wedlock means more woe.”

In fact, Douthat continued, “nothing may matter as much to male and female happiness, and indeed, to the future of the human race,” than whether Barbie and Ken can make their connection “into something reciprocal and fertile — a bridge, a bond, a marriage.”

Let’s linger on Douthat’s claim: The future of happiness and the human race depends on Barbie, a Mattel doll whose primary cinematic concerns include the looming specter of death, retaining ownership of her home, and gaining access to reproductive-health care … marrying Ken, a man whose interests include horses and beach and whose company — crucially — Barbie does not seem to enjoy. At all. At any point in the movie. ....

 

Men. Barbie. Dolls.   Tch tch tch,

Men . . . .

Only someone who isn't a woman married to a man who is unhappy in his career could have written something this stupid.  And guess who wrote it?  The NYTimes own David Brooks, just like the above quotes are from the NYTimes own Ross Douthet..

Quote

... while the Times’ David Brooks implored readers to “please respect the truism that if you have a great career and a crappy marriage you will be unhappy, but if you have a great marriage and a crappy career you will be happy.” 

 

Edited September 23 by Zorral

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

Quote

The film is feminist and rightly engages with the complicated relationship between Barbie and feminism and the ways in which that reflects the development of feminist thought in a patriarchal society. But that's the B plot, not the A plot. The A plot is existentialist, not feminist. The movie explicitly recognises that patriarchy is just a way of trying to take control of our lives, of hiding from existential discomfort. It's not meaningless, nor harmless, but it's a distraction just the same. Barbie chooses to live in an imperfect (and patriarchal) mortal world, over a utopia, because she believes doing so will give her existence true meaning.

(The same can be said of consumerism. The film engages with it through the Mattel CEO bit, but it's a sub-plot, not the plot.)

The theme of the film right from the moment Barbie blurts out 'do you guys ever think about dying?' at the party is existential dread. That's what causes her to go to the real world, kicking off the story proper. Ken's patriarchy and the Mattel stuff are just things that happen along the way. They're neither the beginning of the plot, nor the end when they're resolved. The journey of the movie is Barbie coming to terms with mortality.

Good answer.

11 hours ago, mormont said:

And the film is IMO very successful in portraying that journey. The issue is that, understandably, a lot of folk come to the theatre with ideas about what this films is going to be about, and existential dread is not one of those things. Sometimes we see what we expect to see, and it confuses our perceptions a bit.

Hero's Journey.

[Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II]

3 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Good answer.

Hero's Journey.

The Barbie With A Thousand Faces?

[mormont]

18 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Wow, how patronising. I’m glad you enjoyed it, I knew you would. But you are giving it FAAAAAAAR too much credit if you think it has anything interesting to say on the idea of Plato or Milton. It doesn’t.

I'm sorry you didn't get that out of the movie, but you're wrong about this, and wrong about it being incoherent. Just my opinion, of course, but one that's widely shared. You can find whole essays about this, numerous critics have discussed it in their reviews, and Gerwig has talked about it in interviews.

17 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Either way, saying many different voices had input let’s Gerwig off the hook.

OK, but you're the one saying that, not me.

[Heartofice]

12 minutes ago, mormont said:

You can find whole essays about this, numerous critics have discussed it in their reviews, and Gerwig has talked about it in interviews.

Well I can easily turn around and tell you that you are wrong , there are also plenty of people who have cited the incoherence of the movie, it’s not just me. 
 

If you think the movie is about existential dread, then fine, I’d just suggest you were asleep for 85% of its run time. If it has anything to say about patriarchy or feminism or simply existing as a woman then it directly contradicts itself over and over. I’ve talked about it in more detail a few times in this thread. 

Edited September 24 by Heartofice

[IlyaP]

26 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

If you think the movie is about existential dread

I thought it was about finding my inner Kenergy! 

And about John Cena and Kate McKinnon being wonderfully loveable dorks. 

[BigFatCoward]

I'm pleased you lot aren't in advertising. Cos both sides make it sound fucking dreadful. 

 

Edited September 24 by BigFatCoward

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

Golly, for a movie that "isn't about anything", it sure is generating a hell of a lot of discussion. 

To be perfectly clear, when I said, "I honestly don’t know what to make of it... I'm not exactly sure what it was trying to do...", that may well be a limitation in me, not a fault with the film. 

I think @mormont's take is pretty good. 

[mormont]

4 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

I'm pleased you lot aren't in advertising. Cos both sides make it sound fucking dreadful.

Well, that's the thing: in addition to what I've said about it, it's also funny and sweet and charming and well made. It's a better film than it has any right to be.