I wonder when people will put aside meta-commentary in reviews and just focus on the thing being critiqued. Pretend Mattel had nothing to do with funding it, pretend that it isn't designed to sell...
I wonder when people will put aside meta-commentary in reviews and just focus on the thing being critiqued.
Pretend Mattel had nothing to do with funding it, pretend that it isn't designed to sell toys, pretend that it's a movie that exists in a vacuum and review that. I think on those merits the movie is complete, practically flawless success and most (if not all) of the critiques against it disappear.
This kind of reminds me of the hand-wavyness you get in math or physics sometimes. "Pretend the cow is a frictionless oblate spheroid, then the math becomes clear and straightforward..."
This kind of reminds me of the hand-wavyness you get in math or physics sometimes. "Pretend the cow is a frictionless oblate spheroid, then the math becomes clear and straightforward..."
It also reduces discussion to basic concepts. It's meant as a stepping stone to more complex concepts and thus, more complex discussions of those topics. To limit the discussion of any art to its...
It also reduces discussion to basic concepts. It's meant as a stepping stone to more complex concepts and thus, more complex discussions of those topics. To limit the discussion of any art to its face value is reductive, narrow, and not representative of the real world.
What's the global geopolitical context for the Harry Potter films? It doesn't matter. People pick their pet causes and apply their worldview to it. And they do it inconsistently. And because of...
What's the global geopolitical context for the Harry Potter films?
It doesn't matter. People pick their pet causes and apply their worldview to it. And they do it inconsistently. And because of that they shortchange the work.
Except discussion of things like this is great, for understanding both the in-universe issues of HP and what the author thinks are "good things". Here is a /short/ video exploring this:...
Except discussion of things like this is great, for understanding both the in-universe issues of HP and what the author thinks are "good things". Here is a /short/ video exploring this: https://youtu.be/N2WDCD_tRnE
At the same time, some people do simply want to talk about the movie, and not the controversy behind its actors, the cynicism behind what it is trying to sell, nor the suspected philosophies of...
To limit the discussion of any art to its face value is reductive, narrow, and not representative of the real world.
At the same time, some people do simply want to talk about the movie, and not the controversy behind its actors, the cynicism behind what it is trying to sell, nor the suspected philosophies of who people think saw the movie. There's a lot of artistic, technical, and narrative aspects to discuss simply within the world they sought out to create.
I don't see anything wrong with it. That's why we call it a different lens, not a higher order of thinking.
There is no advanced physics topic where the cow is cow shaped either though. It's unsolvable numerically and a bit pointless to do if you could. Good physics just spends a little time justifying...
There is no advanced physics topic where the cow is cow shaped either though. It's unsolvable numerically and a bit pointless to do if you could. Good physics just spends a little time justifying that the spherical assumption and knowing where it will fall apart.
I think that's far to limiting a scope imo and would make for some very out of touch and dry reviews. An important ingredient in why so many people are excited and like the movie is because of the...
Pretend Mattel had nothing to do with funding it, pretend that it isn't designed to sell toys, pretend that it's a movie that exists in a vacuum and review that.
I think that's far to limiting a scope imo and would make for some very out of touch and dry reviews. An important ingredient in why so many people are excited and like the movie is because of the cultural context. Just to use an incredibly inappropriate example, try reviewing Triumph of the Will without mentioning who made and funded it.
Seems like the point is to be out of touch in that one aspect. It's just a lens to use to approach the work. There's all kinds and they don't all look at the same stuff. I don't think anything in...
Seems like the point is to be out of touch in that one aspect. It's just a lens to use to approach the work. There's all kinds and they don't all look at the same stuff.
I don't think anything in Barbie necessitates such a lens anywhere near where Triumph or the Will calls for. It's possible to analyze this one in a cultural vacuum a bit more safely.
That's sort of like the whole "objective video games review." All art is political because all art has it's biases and focus and perspective. The movie invites the meta-discussion because it...
That's sort of like the whole "objective video games review." All art is political because all art has it's biases and focus and perspective. The movie invites the meta-discussion because it involves the "real world" and the Mattel Corporation and Ruth Handler, so the subtext is part of the text.
you could review the technical aspects of the movie and how well they were executed, but to ignore all that you suggested to me like ignoring the civil war when reviewing the Gettysburg Address -...
you could review the technical aspects of the movie and how well they were executed, but to ignore all that you suggested to me like ignoring the civil war when reviewing the Gettysburg Address - much of the point of the movie was social commentary, and to ignore what it was commenting on seems silly and pointless
Reviews can be, and often are, largely about two things: context and form. Context is about release strategy, place in film history, financing, production history, the talent involved, etc. Form...
Reviews can be, and often are, largely about two things: context and form.
Context is about release strategy, place in film history, financing, production history, the talent involved, etc.
Form is about the formal aspects of a movie: cinematography, music, acting, writing, editing, etc
Strictly formal analyses can be revealing, and are usually found in books and academia.
Online reviews are usually a mix of both aspects. On a movie-advertisement about a children's toy made by a global corporation, a comprehensive review has no option but to talk a lot about its financing. That would be a glaring omission.
I don't think you can reasonably critique a movie like Barbie, in which Mattel the corporation is an actual group of characters with agency and agenda, without acknowledging the fact that it is...
I don't think you can reasonably critique a movie like Barbie, in which Mattel the corporation is an actual group of characters with agency and agenda, without acknowledging the fact that it is funded and supported by Mattel
I am not trying to sound like an expert but after taking one film history class but I think meta-commentary will never not exist/ should be something that exists. I think what a lot of people...
I am not trying to sound like an expert but after taking one film history class but I think meta-commentary will never not exist/ should be something that exists. I think what a lot of people don't get is there is a lot of history surrounding movies that dramatically impacts how they are made, their reception, and how films after are made and received too. To strip that away that context makes for a incomplete picture.
I like another commenter's mention of "objective" game reviews too. It seems like most people who complain about this either don't get art or don't like all the context being presented. Either way it's very lame at best or disingenuous at its worst when people hold those types of views.
That's not really a reasonable thing to expect. Nobody goes into a movie about an existing IP without some kind of connotations, so you'd be reviewing a version of the movie that doesn't actually...
That's not really a reasonable thing to expect. Nobody goes into a movie about an existing IP without some kind of connotations, so you'd be reviewing a version of the movie that doesn't actually exist.
On the contrary, you can't understand a work without considering it's real-world context. Barbie in particular is in direct conversation with its own real-world context and corporate ownership.
On the contrary, you can't understand a work without considering it's real-world context. Barbie in particular is in direct conversation with its own real-world context and corporate ownership.
I guess it begs the question: do you need to understand a work to enjoy (or hate) something? I feel like Elemental last month got blasted for similar reasons, but people were much less willing to...
On the contrary, you can't understand a work without considering it's real-world context
I guess it begs the question: do you need to understand a work to enjoy (or hate) something? I feel like Elemental last month got blasted for similar reasons, but people were much less willing to consider its meta-narrative with the director. They just thought the movie was bland and generic.
Oh, definitely not. To enjoy or hate it accurately? Probably. I hate plenty of stuff I don't understand. Sometimes I hate it because I don't understand it. And there are even a few things I enjoy...
do you need to understand a work to enjoy (or hate) something?
Oh, definitely not. To enjoy or hate it accurately? Probably.
I hate plenty of stuff I don't understand. Sometimes I hate it because I don't understand it. And there are even a few things I enjoy even while fully aware that I don't "get" it.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but it's a bit interesting to me the difference in reception between this movie and The Lego movie. I remember a large number of Lego movie reviews saying exactly...
I haven't seen the movie yet, but it's a bit interesting to me the difference in reception between this movie and The Lego movie. I remember a large number of Lego movie reviews saying exactly what you are here: "Damn, this was just a good movie, it's hard to remember it's designed to sell me toys." But literally no one is talking about Barbie out of context of the product.
I think it might have something to do with the way we see the two companies? Or maybe the marketing? I'm not sure, but it's interesting to me, and something I'd like to see compared more. (Or maybe I'm wrong, and I was just not paying attention as much when The Lego Movie came out.)
Barbie as a product is a far more inherent part of this movie's themes and plot than Lego as a product is to the Lego Movie. It's actually the central conceit. The movie has a lot to say about...
Barbie as a product is a far more inherent part of this movie's themes and plot than Lego as a product is to the Lego Movie. It's actually the central conceit. The movie has a lot to say about Barbie as a product over the decades.
I'd say so, it actually does make Barbie pretty unique among all the movies based on toys. And it uses it to tackle some big real-world questions too. It's to the point that I'd say I'm not even...
I'd say so, it actually does make Barbie pretty unique among all the movies based on toys. And it uses it to tackle some big real-world questions too.
It's to the point that I'd say I'm not even sure this movie is for children. It seems like its aimed for pre-teens and up.
Also I'm 100% sure that they could have made this exact same movie but with a Barbie analogue like Malibu Stacy and it would have been just fine. If anything, a lot of the movie's themes and ideas would be clearer to people who had yet to see it and would not cloud expectations by the (relatively) low-hanging fruit of "but this is all owned by a corporation" that is taking up a lot of focus right now.
The movie is rated PG-13. And I understand the logic, but thinking an actually widely popular Barbie movie wouldn’t end up with a higher rating as it does the work to tackle ideas and themes that...
It's to the point that I'd say I'm not even sure this movie is for children. It seems like its aimed for pre-teens and up
The movie is rated PG-13. And I understand the logic, but thinking an actually widely popular Barbie movie wouldn’t end up with a higher rating as it does the work to tackle ideas and themes that are engaging to adults doesn’t make much sense. There are G- and PG-rated Barbie movies, and they’re cheaply animated, because they can still make money appealing to children.
It's certainly distinct. I'm not sure if that's in a good or bad way, though. I think it really comes down to the viewer and their personal experiences with what the movie tackles (which is...
Is it in an interesting way?
It's certainly distinct. I'm not sure if that's in a good or bad way, though. I think it really comes down to the viewer and their personal experiences with what the movie tackles (which is surprisingly wide for such a movie).
This review does a pretty good job of capturing my feelings about what I think is a great movie that made for one of the more fun theater experiences that I can remember! The writing was sharp,...
This review does a pretty good job of capturing my feelings about what I think is a great movie that made for one of the more fun theater experiences that I can remember! The writing was sharp, the visuals were gorgeous, and the performances were incredible. I appreciated many of the film references, but I'm sure others along with references to Barbie history flew over my head.
And while I think that Gerwig made the most of the situation given the participation and controls of Matel, this line from the review stands out to me:
critique can only mean so much when the entity under the microscope also happens to be the one writing (and cashing) the checks.
Still, this movie has so much going for it, and according to Variety, its opening day box office (combined with previews the night before in some theaters) was the biggest of the year at $70.5 million, so it seems like many others agree!
I was fairly surprised by how anti-Mattel the movie was. For a piece of advertisement they certainly let themselves look like sexist, avaricious, out of touch fools. Though I suppose they did...
I was fairly surprised by how anti-Mattel the movie was. For a piece of advertisement they certainly let themselves look like sexist, avaricious, out of touch fools. Though I suppose they did leave themselves the opening that they meant well, even if they went about their goals in a strange way.
But then again, I suppose that’s the concept of Barbie in a nutshell.
That may have been intentional/the desired outcome. Barbie's challenge as a product is that it has been historically pretty sexist and was out of touch for awhile. By Mattel as an org taking some...
That may have been intentional/the desired outcome. Barbie's challenge as a product is that it has been historically pretty sexist and was out of touch for awhile. By Mattel as an org taking some punches publicly like this, they can reposition the product to drop/move on from that history to a degree.
I'm not some Barbie fanatic or anything but it seems to me like Barbie has been intensely inclusive (almost to an obnoxious degree) for a number of years now. It's more common to see overweight...
I'm not some Barbie fanatic or anything but it seems to me like Barbie has been intensely inclusive (almost to an obnoxious degree) for a number of years now. It's more common to see overweight Barbies, amputee Barbies, Barbies who are non-white and more than the traditional white as hell blonde as hell tall as hell Barbie.
Barbie certainly had a somewhat dubiously sexist history but I don't know if I'd say they have been "out of touch". Maybe in the 2000s.
There were plenty of jokes at Mattel's expense but the thing that seemed discordant to me is that Will Ferrell's character seemed genuine about his desires to inspire young girls (while still...
There were plenty of jokes at Mattel's expense but the thing that seemed discordant to me is that Will Ferrell's character seemed genuine about his desires to inspire young girls (while still pretending like it's fine to not have any women executives). Even when Ken merch is selling beyond reasonable expectations, he continues the journey to Barbieland to make things "right". I think a more cynical (and maybe realistic) depiction would show him capitalizing on Ken.
He's fine with Gloria's ordinary Barbie because it will sell -- it's not just toys he wants to sell, but toys that will attract female consumers. That seems at odds with the depiction of the board room, but I don't know.
There's a phenomenon of people who outwardly support certain things but also seem strangely blind to systemic versions of those issues. It's not just feminism like what's in this movie, but also...
There's a phenomenon of people who outwardly support certain things but also seem strangely blind to systemic versions of those issues. It's not just feminism like what's in this movie, but also racism and sexism.
Some examples
The key is in his speech near the end, the one that he proudly concludes with "I have Jewish friends!" (and after some other familiarly trite lines like "I support women, I'm a woman's son and a woman's husband!") He also literally tries to put Barbie in a box earlier without any realization of the implications.
His entire character is basically that lazy ally type who outwardly supports initiatives but doesn't seek to understand what they really are about, or to change anything. Even that gag at the end is him making an assumption about what women want and then quickly finding out its the other way and he changes his position immediately.
I believe this type of lazy ally is quite known to many in professional industries. I know I've seen plenty of DEI champions who seem to enjoy talking about supporting DEI more than actually supporting it.
You know, that's a good read on the character I didn't consider. I think I had just primed myself to expect the typical out of touch executive character, especially with Will Ferrel playing him,...
You know, that's a good read on the character I didn't consider. I think I had just primed myself to expect the typical out of touch executive character, especially with Will Ferrel playing him, that I didn't see the other nuances.
I'm curious to actually go see it and bring my 5 year old daughter to it, is it something that a young kid would actually enjoy, or is it more tongue-in-cheek adult humor that will just completely...
I'm curious to actually go see it and bring my 5 year old daughter to it, is it something that a young kid would actually enjoy, or is it more tongue-in-cheek adult humor that will just completely fly over kids' heads?
It’s honestly a bit hard to say. A kid might appreciate the bright visual language and physical comedy, but they certainly won’t get a lot of the ideas the film is trying to get across. It’s also...
It’s honestly a bit hard to say. A kid might appreciate the bright visual language and physical comedy, but they certainly won’t get a lot of the ideas the film is trying to get across. It’s also got a fairly complex plot that requires a lot of talking through by its characters, so I don’t know if they would have understood it by the end. I wouldn’t say this movie was made for young kids, but if they wanted to see it I don’t think there is anything too objectionable.
I took my 8 and 10 year olds and I think it was kinda way over their heads (one liked it though). There are quite a few sex refeneeces (some sexual harassment of barbie in the real world, the kens...
I took my 8 and 10 year olds and I think it was kinda way over their heads (one liked it though). There are quite a few sex refeneeces (some sexual harassment of barbie in the real world, the kens spend awhile talking about how they're going to "beach off" each other and there's even a bleeped "motherfucker" line) that made my parent senses a bit nervous but just flew over heads I guess.
The plot is all over crazy but I don't think mine minded that.
I enjoyed it. The meta commentary about Mattel and what not was, in my idiot internet opinion, well done. It was funny without really trying to hit you on the head with comedy. I think it was well...
I enjoyed it. The meta commentary about Mattel and what not was, in my idiot internet opinion, well done. It was funny without really trying to hit you on the head with comedy. I think it was well shot, the characters were well played. The visuals were great and I look forward to all of the Barbie themed costumes this year.
One thing that really blew my mind - this past Friday, my wife and I were out for dinner and walking back to our car. When a bright pink limo pulls up, a bunch of moms and their kids (all dressed in some variation of hot pink dresses) roll out to the ice cream shop on the street. I asked them what the deal was and they all screamed "The Barbie movie!".
My wife and I saw it this morning at 9:30 in the morning, the theatre was PACKED and I think everyone attending had some pink color on. Myself and my wife included.
I don't know if I can recall a time when a film, outside of a big franchise, generated this level of excitement and investment.
I don’t disagree with a lot of the messaging (women deserve more attention and power in society) but it became so blatant and heavy-handed I thought I was watching a politician speak. And then at...
I don’t disagree with a lot of the messaging (women deserve more attention and power in society) but it became so blatant and heavy-handed I thought I was watching a politician speak. And then at the end of it all,
(spoilers)
Ken is told to be grateful for his non-existent lot in life and a more egalitarian form of government is laughed off.
To be fair, this is coming from a man but it did feel pretty inflammatory.
I initially thought that too, but I think that was kind of the point. It was to essentially give the Kens the same treatment that women have been getting for thousands of years as a way of showing...
I initially thought that too, but I think that was kind of the point. It was to essentially give the Kens the same treatment that women have been getting for thousands of years as a way of showing the male audience who is more likely to sympathize or identify with the Kens just how shit and patronizing it feels to be told "just be happy that we've given you this much".
Actually, I think Ken is encouraged to be content with his non-existence in Barbie's life, which goes right along with the theme of the film. He is not entitled to a relationship with anyone. Are...
Actually, I think Ken is encouraged to be content with his non-existence in Barbie's life, which goes right along with the theme of the film. He is not entitled to a relationship with anyone.
Are you really suggesting the gov't the Kens wanted to enact was egalitarian?
I think you're right about the film's voice being super loud, but I'm totally in favor of art having strong opinions. I think that beats pretending its unbiased. Some people are more comfortable with conflict or inflammatory statements than others.
I really liked that his redemption was learning to think of himself outside of the context of his relationship with Barbie. I’ve seen a lot of people - not just men - crumble because they can only...
I really liked that his redemption was learning to think of himself outside of the context of his relationship with Barbie. I’ve seen a lot of people - not just men - crumble because they can only think about themselves in the context of their relationship.
Absolutely not. It was obvious they had no intention of that initially. I see that the filmmakers were trying to show how women feel in today’s society but the message kind of comes across as “see...
Are you really suggesting the gov't the Kens wanted to enact was egalitarian?
Absolutely not. It was obvious they had no intention of that initially. I see that the filmmakers were trying to show how women feel in today’s society but the message kind of comes across as “see how you like it” rather then “let’s see how we can improve it”.
I saw the movie today and initially had the same reaction of wishing they had shown more of a "let's see how we can improve it" type view, especially considering how both Ken and Baribie are each...
I saw the movie today and initially had the same reaction of wishing they had shown more of a "let's see how we can improve it" type view, especially considering how both Ken and Baribie are each dealing with a "I don't know who I actually am" crisis.
I'm a woman, and my main thought was "this will be something that men watching will have an issue with, they'll use this to not take feminist issues seriously." When I realized that, I also realized that maybe it was the point, not to get men to care as much as making the movie more for women.
One part stuck with me:
Spoilers
When the Kens ask for a supreme court representative and the Barbie president says she can't do that, but can give them a lower court position, the voiceover says something along the lines of "Maybe if the Kens work hard enough, they'll have the same representation as women in the real world."
I don't know if I've ever watched a movie before and had a thought of "Does this make me feel different about men?" because so many movies are centered around men, it's kind of the default? That's why the Bechdel Test is talked about because it's so easy to show examples of movies where there aren't 2 female characters who talk to each other about anything other than a man (even without the stipulation that they're named characters).
You and I both felt the "let's see how you like it" vibe, and I think speaks to this whole mindset, that we can see the roles are just being flipped, but instead of "oh this is how you feel normally" we're immediately saying "you should've taken the higher road and shown us being equal" while we're not even questioning the framing of other movies because they're based in "reality".
I guess I'm not sure I follow your argument. I had the same reaction (and fwiw, I'm a dude and largely enjoyed the movie). What's the value in simply flipping the roles and winking at the audience...
I guess I'm not sure I follow your argument. I had the same reaction (and fwiw, I'm a dude and largely enjoyed the movie). What's the value in simply flipping the roles and winking at the audience to make sure they're in on the joke? I think that feels a little too easy, and is one of big false criticisms that guys like Ben Shapiro throw out about feminism, that women just want all the power and to "get back at men". It just seems a bit weird to me for the movie to give that kind of softball ammo to critics. Is it going to win over anyone who felt differently? Maybe it's not trying to, but when the press everywhere about it is that it's "the most subversive movie" of the 21st century, I think that aspect fell flat for me.
I don't think I put it clearly enough, but I believe part of the point is that it's not trying to win anyone over. We don't watch other movies with the idea that it should be making a point in a...
I don't think I put it clearly enough, but I believe part of the point is that it's not trying to win anyone over. We don't watch other movies with the idea that it should be making a point in a way that magically fixes people or makes them agree to the message. It was over the top "woke" to anyone like Ben Shapiro who was going to criticize it anyway.
Instead of trying to make something palatable to people who already hate it without seeing it, they went with more of "I see you" for the women in the audience. Not that women want to just "get back at men" but in a "this is what you've seen happening to women your whole life so we'll show the opposite" - it's not a call to action, it's a funny movie that's commenting on how society is by flipping it.
I think it's subversive in that it puts women on top and doesn't take the "nevermind we should be equal" type ending that people expect to see.
Saw the movie this weekend with my wife. Our take was the same that this movie was an inversion of the power dynamics seen in the "real world." Barbieland is dominated by Barbies, where the Kens...
Saw the movie this weekend with my wife. Our take was the same that this movie was an inversion of the power dynamics seen in the "real world."
Barbieland is dominated by Barbies, where the Kens only purpose to accent and supplement Barbies. We found it interesting as well that every Ken character in this beginning state of Barbieland would fail an inverted Bechdal test. The Kens literally have no inspiration to try and achieve more in this society.
It isn't until Ken travels with Barbie to the real world that he see his first examples are male role models. Further reinforcing the concept from the first scene of the movie that representation matters.
From here the movie continues to reinforce the destructive nature of unequal societal structures by having Ken bring "Patriarchy" back to Barbieland.
Anyone that simply claims the movie is anti-men missed the point. It is plainly anti-inequallity.
There are literally so many more aspects to this movie that we loved. We cannot stop discussing with each other. Will most likely be seeing it again.
I think it was less about going back to the Kens and more about how a suggestion for the Kens and Barbies to be represented equally being laughed off (metaphorically. Maybe literally too) by the...
Are you really suggesting the gov't the Kens wanted to enact was egalitarian?
I think it was less about going back to the Kens and more about how a suggestion for the Kens and Barbies to be represented equally being laughed off (metaphorically. Maybe literally too) by the Barbies.
It is what it is. I just took it as commentary to go out and vote for what you think is right, instead of beaching off and throwing down a hit K-pop music video with the bros. Time and place.
If you want to hide spoilers in comments, you can use the details/summary elements to accomplish that: Spoilers (click to see) Spoiler text. Created like this: <details> <summary>Spoilers (click...
If you want to hide spoilers in comments, you can use the details/summary elements to accomplish that:
Spoilers (click to see)
Spoiler text.
Created like this:
<details>
<summary>Spoilers (click to see)</summary>
Spoiler text.
</details>
Agreed it was heavy handed but I've never quite understood "lack of subtilty" (my phrasing, not yours) that as an art critique. Since when is art required to be subtle? I'm running through...
Agreed it was heavy handed but I've never quite understood "lack of subtilty" (my phrasing, not yours) that as an art critique. Since when is art required to be subtle? I'm running through examples of well regarded artists in my head and it isn't an adjective that comes up. I think one of two things are going on when someone says this. Either they are not in the target audience or the statement lacks substance.
What I really appreciated about the movie is that as a straight male with some stereotypical interests, I found parts of it mildly uncomfortable. I value that feeling in art. It means that I am being presented with a challenging perspective of reality and it means that I have work to do in processing my own principles.
Some pointed thoughts:
Spoilers
The argument between Ken and Barbie when she returns after the Ken's take over. I felt that this argument explains one of a couple major themes. Both characters are at an impasse between a matriarchy and a patriarchy. Ken understands the struggle of being the other in a gender defined society. He is in a fight-or-flight response and wants to have the life Barbie has led. Barbie grasps the same struggle by having connected to The Real World. But Barbie does not want to lose her grip on power. Both are fighting the same battle. This conflict is left unresolved. I don't know if that is an artistic choice or a political choice.
I think leaving this unresolved conflict ultimately works artistically. The point being that this movie cannot change The Real World. If Ken has The Real World why can't Barbie have her world? Unsatisfying but it leads to the thought "why is the lack of an egalitarian society in Barbie world unsatisfying." Ken vis-à-vis Men would have accomplished a 'win' without any impact in The Real World. It would be undeserved and pollyannaish.
I liked Michael Cera's Allan. Aside from a good Michael Cera performance (I doubt he has to work hard to play this character), he was a nice touch to indicate how the conflicting factions are still leaving behind individuals who do not conform to the prevailing type structures. Pregnant Barbie was also fell in this demographic. Would have appreciated more fleshing out in this area.
The comical treatment of stereotypical masculinity was searing. I absolutely loved the motif that many toxic masculine traits stem from the entrenched societal pressures. This creates an uneasy tension between masculine and feminine expectations.
In all, I will probably rewatch Barbie before I even consider rewatching Oppenheimer. Both excellent films. My prevailing impression after Barbie was confusions. Clearly it is corporate propaganda and I don't like being manipulated. But Gerwig seems to have been given enough latitude to make a earnest critique. I guess Mattel made the smart bet that making a resonant film would pay dividends in goodwill.
I asked my partner later in the evening how her perceptions of Barbie were impacted. She said that before the film she would have been apprehensive/against children play with Barbies. After the film she is more favorable to children playing with Barbies. The cynic in me is displeased. The business person in me is intrigued.
There's a third: the reader does not want to consider the line of thought or argumentation at all and is dismissing it from the start. I've seen it used this way a lot, much in the same vein as...
Agreed it was heavy handed but I've never quite understood "lack of subtilty" (my phrasing, not yours) that as an art critique. Since when is art required to be subtle? I'm running through examples of well regarded artists in my head and it isn't an adjective that comes up. I think one of two things are going on when someone says this. Either they are not in the target audience or the statement lacks substance.
There's a third: the reader does not want to consider the line of thought or argumentation at all and is dismissing it from the start. I've seen it used this way a lot, much in the same vein as I've seen people criticize an artwork as "pretentious".
Not many works purposefully aiming to be heavy-handed are worse for it and those that are worse for it are much clearer examples of not-good works than a movie like this. Nobody summarizes Fight Club or Rage Against the Machine or Rage Against the Machine or Nineteen Eight-Four as simply being heavy-handed, for example. Clarity and intensity of messaging and themes is not inherently a bad thing, just as pretense in an artwork is not actually something to avoid. As long as the messaging is clear and it actually comes with interesting or salient points or explorations, that's good. This Barbie movie is very heavy-handed but it was obviously aiming to be, and it used it as an avenue to explore a lot of things I've never seen a mainstream work tackle and over a real-world IP that has had a long and storied history with its place and goals in society.
An example of something that's heavy-handed to the point of counterinuitively working against the work is Crash, which was so overboard that people walked away with other messages entirely and did not follow the movie's themes as intended.
This movie was a lot more than just fun. It was also really heartfelt. I actually cried twice during it. Once was the ending, and the other time was when Barbie was sitting down at the bus stop...
This movie was a lot more than just fun. It was also really heartfelt. I actually cried twice during it. Once was the ending, and the other time was when Barbie was sitting down at the bus stop looking at people in their situations in life and telling the woman sitting on the other bench that she was beautiful. It was like experiencing all of life condensed into one moment.
I also love that the heroes of this film are really a mother and her preteen daughter. They add a lot of context.
The music is also really en pointe. I particularly liked Lizzo’s two songs towards the beginning and how it was built to match what was happening. And the Billie Eilish song was as touching and heartfelt as you would expect. And the other one I won’t mention because it’s spoilerish. I may end up buying the soundtrack.
It’s definitely my movie of the summer, if not the year.
Haven't seen it, almost definitely won't see it in the theater, but I plan on catching it at some point. I can't help thinking about this line from Lyz Lenz' Men Yell at Me: Sunday Reads...
Haven't seen it, almost definitely won't see it in the theater, but I plan on catching it at some point. I can't help thinking about this line from Lyz Lenz' Men Yell at Me: Sunday Reads newsletter this morning:
This Barbie is capable of thinking both that centering cis white women in a new brand of materialistic feminism is problematic but also it’s a movie and not a new brand of feminism. Instead, it’s a commentary on the ways in which gendered expectations trap us in a box of LIES.
I gotta say that the self-aware Mattel influence didn’t bother me nearly as much as the totally out of place Chevy ads. The chase scene in the office was funny and creative, but the car chase...
I gotta say that the self-aware Mattel influence didn’t bother me nearly as much as the totally out of place Chevy ads. The chase scene in the office was funny and creative, but the car chase loaded with close ups of all the car’s features just took me so far out of what was an otherwise great movie.
Was it really necessary for a movie that’s already branded to force in a car sponsorship as well?
Felt like insincere purple-washing to me (the movie even tells you so at the end ; it's all about selling shit). And I found it quite boring as well. Barbie character progression didn't made much...
Felt like insincere purple-washing to me (the movie even tells you so at the end ; it's all about selling shit). And I found it quite boring as well. Barbie character progression didn't made much sense (just sit on bench 10 seconds with your eyes closed ?), the mother-daughter relation went nowhere, and Ken was just too dumb & cliché to care about. Given the success of the operation I can't wait for an avatar style movie by ExxonMobil or a Babe sequel by the American Meat Institute.
I wonder when people will put aside meta-commentary in reviews and just focus on the thing being critiqued.
Pretend Mattel had nothing to do with funding it, pretend that it isn't designed to sell toys, pretend that it's a movie that exists in a vacuum and review that. I think on those merits the movie is complete, practically flawless success and most (if not all) of the critiques against it disappear.
This kind of reminds me of the hand-wavyness you get in math or physics sometimes. "Pretend the cow is a frictionless oblate spheroid, then the math becomes clear and straightforward..."
That's also a necessary simplification. Otherwise you'd never be able to teach/understand basic concepts.
It also reduces discussion to basic concepts. It's meant as a stepping stone to more complex concepts and thus, more complex discussions of those topics. To limit the discussion of any art to its face value is reductive, narrow, and not representative of the real world.
What's the global geopolitical context for the Harry Potter films?
It doesn't matter. People pick their pet causes and apply their worldview to it. And they do it inconsistently. And because of that they shortchange the work.
Except discussion of things like this is great, for understanding both the in-universe issues of HP and what the author thinks are "good things". Here is a /short/ video exploring this: https://youtu.be/N2WDCD_tRnE
A shorter video discussing similar issues
At the same time, some people do simply want to talk about the movie, and not the controversy behind its actors, the cynicism behind what it is trying to sell, nor the suspected philosophies of who people think saw the movie. There's a lot of artistic, technical, and narrative aspects to discuss simply within the world they sought out to create.
I don't see anything wrong with it. That's why we call it a different lens, not a higher order of thinking.
Agreed, it's also a cognitive distortion. Nothing exists in a vacuum.
There is no advanced physics topic where the cow is cow shaped either though. It's unsolvable numerically and a bit pointless to do if you could. Good physics just spends a little time justifying that the spherical assumption and knowing where it will fall apart.
In one of my high school math classes my teacher would say in grad school they'd call it "dark magic."
I think that's far to limiting a scope imo and would make for some very out of touch and dry reviews. An important ingredient in why so many people are excited and like the movie is because of the cultural context. Just to use an incredibly inappropriate example, try reviewing Triumph of the Will without mentioning who made and funded it.
Seems like the point is to be out of touch in that one aspect. It's just a lens to use to approach the work. There's all kinds and they don't all look at the same stuff.
I don't think anything in Barbie necessitates such a lens anywhere near where Triumph or the Will calls for. It's possible to analyze this one in a cultural vacuum a bit more safely.
That's sort of like the whole "objective video games review." All art is political because all art has it's biases and focus and perspective. The movie invites the meta-discussion because it involves the "real world" and the Mattel Corporation and Ruth Handler, so the subtext is part of the text.
you could review the technical aspects of the movie and how well they were executed, but to ignore all that you suggested to me like ignoring the civil war when reviewing the Gettysburg Address - much of the point of the movie was social commentary, and to ignore what it was commenting on seems silly and pointless
Reviews can be, and often are, largely about two things: context and form.
Context is about release strategy, place in film history, financing, production history, the talent involved, etc.
Form is about the formal aspects of a movie: cinematography, music, acting, writing, editing, etc
Strictly formal analyses can be revealing, and are usually found in books and academia.
Online reviews are usually a mix of both aspects. On a movie-advertisement about a children's toy made by a global corporation, a comprehensive review has no option but to talk a lot about its financing. That would be a glaring omission.
I don't think you can reasonably critique a movie like Barbie, in which Mattel the corporation is an actual group of characters with agency and agenda, without acknowledging the fact that it is funded and supported by Mattel
I am not trying to sound like an expert but after taking one film history class but I think meta-commentary will never not exist/ should be something that exists. I think what a lot of people don't get is there is a lot of history surrounding movies that dramatically impacts how they are made, their reception, and how films after are made and received too. To strip that away that context makes for a incomplete picture.
I like another commenter's mention of "objective" game reviews too. It seems like most people who complain about this either don't get art or don't like all the context being presented. Either way it's very lame at best or disingenuous at its worst when people hold those types of views.
That's not really a reasonable thing to expect. Nobody goes into a movie about an existing IP without some kind of connotations, so you'd be reviewing a version of the movie that doesn't actually exist.
On the contrary, you can't understand a work without considering it's real-world context. Barbie in particular is in direct conversation with its own real-world context and corporate ownership.
I guess it begs the question: do you need to understand a work to enjoy (or hate) something? I feel like Elemental last month got blasted for similar reasons, but people were much less willing to consider its meta-narrative with the director. They just thought the movie was bland and generic.
Oh, definitely not. To enjoy or hate it accurately? Probably.
I hate plenty of stuff I don't understand. Sometimes I hate it because I don't understand it. And there are even a few things I enjoy even while fully aware that I don't "get" it.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but it's a bit interesting to me the difference in reception between this movie and The Lego movie. I remember a large number of Lego movie reviews saying exactly what you are here: "Damn, this was just a good movie, it's hard to remember it's designed to sell me toys." But literally no one is talking about Barbie out of context of the product.
I think it might have something to do with the way we see the two companies? Or maybe the marketing? I'm not sure, but it's interesting to me, and something I'd like to see compared more. (Or maybe I'm wrong, and I was just not paying attention as much when The Lego Movie came out.)
Barbie as a product is a far more inherent part of this movie's themes and plot than Lego as a product is to the Lego Movie. It's actually the central conceit. The movie has a lot to say about Barbie as a product over the decades.
Ahh this makes sense, thanks for the context!
Is it in an interesting way? I'm not sure if this makes me more or less intrigued haha
I'd say so, it actually does make Barbie pretty unique among all the movies based on toys. And it uses it to tackle some big real-world questions too.
It's to the point that I'd say I'm not even sure this movie is for children. It seems like its aimed for pre-teens and up.
Also I'm 100% sure that they could have made this exact same movie but with a Barbie analogue like Malibu Stacy and it would have been just fine. If anything, a lot of the movie's themes and ideas would be clearer to people who had yet to see it and would not cloud expectations by the (relatively) low-hanging fruit of "but this is all owned by a corporation" that is taking up a lot of focus right now.
The movie is rated PG-13. And I understand the logic, but thinking an actually widely popular Barbie movie wouldn’t end up with a higher rating as it does the work to tackle ideas and themes that are engaging to adults doesn’t make much sense. There are G- and PG-rated Barbie movies, and they’re cheaply animated, because they can still make money appealing to children.
Honestly, I haven't thought about MPAA ratings in so long, I genuinely forgot about them as a concept when I had that thought.
It's certainly distinct. I'm not sure if that's in a good or bad way, though. I think it really comes down to the viewer and their personal experiences with what the movie tackles (which is surprisingly wide for such a movie).
I don't know about that
Let's hear it then!
This review does a pretty good job of capturing my feelings about what I think is a great movie that made for one of the more fun theater experiences that I can remember! The writing was sharp, the visuals were gorgeous, and the performances were incredible. I appreciated many of the film references, but I'm sure others along with references to Barbie history flew over my head.
And while I think that Gerwig made the most of the situation given the participation and controls of Matel, this line from the review stands out to me:
Still, this movie has so much going for it, and according to Variety, its opening day box office (combined with previews the night before in some theaters) was the biggest of the year at $70.5 million, so it seems like many others agree!
I was fairly surprised by how anti-Mattel the movie was. For a piece of advertisement they certainly let themselves look like sexist, avaricious, out of touch fools. Though I suppose they did leave themselves the opening that they meant well, even if they went about their goals in a strange way.
But then again, I suppose that’s the concept of Barbie in a nutshell.
That may have been intentional/the desired outcome. Barbie's challenge as a product is that it has been historically pretty sexist and was out of touch for awhile. By Mattel as an org taking some punches publicly like this, they can reposition the product to drop/move on from that history to a degree.
I'm not some Barbie fanatic or anything but it seems to me like Barbie has been intensely inclusive (almost to an obnoxious degree) for a number of years now. It's more common to see overweight Barbies, amputee Barbies, Barbies who are non-white and more than the traditional white as hell blonde as hell tall as hell Barbie.
Barbie certainly had a somewhat dubiously sexist history but I don't know if I'd say they have been "out of touch". Maybe in the 2000s.
To me, it just looks a lot like the "Elvis sucks" strategy. Money is still money, even if it drags their own name(s) through the mud.
There were plenty of jokes at Mattel's expense but the thing that seemed discordant to me is that Will Ferrell's character seemed genuine about his desires to inspire young girls (while still pretending like it's fine to not have any women executives). Even when Ken merch is selling beyond reasonable expectations, he continues the journey to Barbieland to make things "right". I think a more cynical (and maybe realistic) depiction would show him capitalizing on Ken.
He's fine with Gloria's ordinary Barbie because it will sell -- it's not just toys he wants to sell, but toys that will attract female consumers. That seems at odds with the depiction of the board room, but I don't know.
There's a phenomenon of people who outwardly support certain things but also seem strangely blind to systemic versions of those issues. It's not just feminism like what's in this movie, but also racism and sexism.
Some examples
The key is in his speech near the end, the one that he proudly concludes with "I have Jewish friends!" (and after some other familiarly trite lines like "I support women, I'm a woman's son and a woman's husband!") He also literally tries to put Barbie in a box earlier without any realization of the implications.
His entire character is basically that lazy ally type who outwardly supports initiatives but doesn't seek to understand what they really are about, or to change anything. Even that gag at the end is him making an assumption about what women want and then quickly finding out its the other way and he changes his position immediately.
I believe this type of lazy ally is quite known to many in professional industries. I know I've seen plenty of DEI champions who seem to enjoy talking about supporting DEI more than actually supporting it.
You know, that's a good read on the character I didn't consider. I think I had just primed myself to expect the typical out of touch executive character, especially with Will Ferrel playing him, that I didn't see the other nuances.
I'm curious to actually go see it and bring my 5 year old daughter to it, is it something that a young kid would actually enjoy, or is it more tongue-in-cheek adult humor that will just completely fly over kids' heads?
It’s honestly a bit hard to say. A kid might appreciate the bright visual language and physical comedy, but they certainly won’t get a lot of the ideas the film is trying to get across. It’s also got a fairly complex plot that requires a lot of talking through by its characters, so I don’t know if they would have understood it by the end. I wouldn’t say this movie was made for young kids, but if they wanted to see it I don’t think there is anything too objectionable.
I took my 8 and 10 year olds and I think it was kinda way over their heads (one liked it though). There are quite a few sex refeneeces (some sexual harassment of barbie in the real world, the kens spend awhile talking about how they're going to "beach off" each other and there's even a bleeped "motherfucker" line) that made my parent senses a bit nervous but just flew over heads I guess.
The plot is all over crazy but I don't think mine minded that.
Be prepared to answer the question "What's a gynecologist?"
I enjoyed it. The meta commentary about Mattel and what not was, in my idiot internet opinion, well done. It was funny without really trying to hit you on the head with comedy. I think it was well shot, the characters were well played. The visuals were great and I look forward to all of the Barbie themed costumes this year.
One thing that really blew my mind - this past Friday, my wife and I were out for dinner and walking back to our car. When a bright pink limo pulls up, a bunch of moms and their kids (all dressed in some variation of hot pink dresses) roll out to the ice cream shop on the street. I asked them what the deal was and they all screamed "The Barbie movie!".
My wife and I saw it this morning at 9:30 in the morning, the theatre was PACKED and I think everyone attending had some pink color on. Myself and my wife included.
I don't know if I can recall a time when a film, outside of a big franchise, generated this level of excitement and investment.
I don’t disagree with a lot of the messaging (women deserve more attention and power in society) but it became so blatant and heavy-handed I thought I was watching a politician speak. And then at the end of it all,
(spoilers)
Ken is told to be grateful for his non-existent lot in life and a more egalitarian form of government is laughed off.
I initially thought that too, but I think that was kind of the point. It was to essentially give the Kens the same treatment that women have been getting for thousands of years as a way of showing the male audience who is more likely to sympathize or identify with the Kens just how shit and patronizing it feels to be told "just be happy that we've given you this much".
Actually, I think Ken is encouraged to be content with his non-existence in Barbie's life, which goes right along with the theme of the film. He is not entitled to a relationship with anyone.
Are you really suggesting the gov't the Kens wanted to enact was egalitarian?
I think you're right about the film's voice being super loud, but I'm totally in favor of art having strong opinions. I think that beats pretending its unbiased. Some people are more comfortable with conflict or inflammatory statements than others.
(I am also a guy (for context).)
I really liked that his redemption was learning to think of himself outside of the context of his relationship with Barbie. I’ve seen a lot of people - not just men - crumble because they can only think about themselves in the context of their relationship.
Absolutely not. It was obvious they had no intention of that initially. I see that the filmmakers were trying to show how women feel in today’s society but the message kind of comes across as “see how you like it” rather then “let’s see how we can improve it”.
I agree with your other points.
I saw the movie today and initially had the same reaction of wishing they had shown more of a "let's see how we can improve it" type view, especially considering how both Ken and Baribie are each dealing with a "I don't know who I actually am" crisis.
I'm a woman, and my main thought was "this will be something that men watching will have an issue with, they'll use this to not take feminist issues seriously." When I realized that, I also realized that maybe it was the point, not to get men to care as much as making the movie more for women.
One part stuck with me:
Spoilers
When the Kens ask for a supreme court representative and the Barbie president says she can't do that, but can give them a lower court position, the voiceover says something along the lines of "Maybe if the Kens work hard enough, they'll have the same representation as women in the real world."
I don't know if I've ever watched a movie before and had a thought of "Does this make me feel different about men?" because so many movies are centered around men, it's kind of the default? That's why the Bechdel Test is talked about because it's so easy to show examples of movies where there aren't 2 female characters who talk to each other about anything other than a man (even without the stipulation that they're named characters).
You and I both felt the "let's see how you like it" vibe, and I think speaks to this whole mindset, that we can see the roles are just being flipped, but instead of "oh this is how you feel normally" we're immediately saying "you should've taken the higher road and shown us being equal" while we're not even questioning the framing of other movies because they're based in "reality".
I guess I'm not sure I follow your argument. I had the same reaction (and fwiw, I'm a dude and largely enjoyed the movie). What's the value in simply flipping the roles and winking at the audience to make sure they're in on the joke? I think that feels a little too easy, and is one of big false criticisms that guys like Ben Shapiro throw out about feminism, that women just want all the power and to "get back at men". It just seems a bit weird to me for the movie to give that kind of softball ammo to critics. Is it going to win over anyone who felt differently? Maybe it's not trying to, but when the press everywhere about it is that it's "the most subversive movie" of the 21st century, I think that aspect fell flat for me.
I don't think I put it clearly enough, but I believe part of the point is that it's not trying to win anyone over. We don't watch other movies with the idea that it should be making a point in a way that magically fixes people or makes them agree to the message. It was over the top "woke" to anyone like Ben Shapiro who was going to criticize it anyway.
Instead of trying to make something palatable to people who already hate it without seeing it, they went with more of "I see you" for the women in the audience. Not that women want to just "get back at men" but in a "this is what you've seen happening to women your whole life so we'll show the opposite" - it's not a call to action, it's a funny movie that's commenting on how society is by flipping it.
I think it's subversive in that it puts women on top and doesn't take the "nevermind we should be equal" type ending that people expect to see.
Saw the movie this weekend with my wife. Our take was the same that this movie was an inversion of the power dynamics seen in the "real world."
Barbieland is dominated by Barbies, where the Kens only purpose to accent and supplement Barbies. We found it interesting as well that every Ken character in this beginning state of Barbieland would fail an inverted Bechdal test. The Kens literally have no inspiration to try and achieve more in this society.
It isn't until Ken travels with Barbie to the real world that he see his first examples are male role models. Further reinforcing the concept from the first scene of the movie that representation matters.
From here the movie continues to reinforce the destructive nature of unequal societal structures by having Ken bring "Patriarchy" back to Barbieland.
Anyone that simply claims the movie is anti-men missed the point. It is plainly anti-inequallity.
There are literally so many more aspects to this movie that we loved. We cannot stop discussing with each other. Will most likely be seeing it again.
I think it was less about going back to the Kens and more about how a suggestion for the Kens and Barbies to be represented equally being laughed off (metaphorically. Maybe literally too) by the Barbies.
It is what it is. I just took it as commentary to go out and vote for what you think is right, instead of beaching off and throwing down a hit K-pop music video with the bros. Time and place.
If you want to hide spoilers in comments, you can use the details/summary elements to accomplish that:
Spoilers (click to see)
Spoiler text.
Created like this:
Thanks, edited!
Agreed it was heavy handed but I've never quite understood "lack of subtilty" (my phrasing, not yours) that as an art critique. Since when is art required to be subtle? I'm running through examples of well regarded artists in my head and it isn't an adjective that comes up. I think one of two things are going on when someone says this. Either they are not in the target audience or the statement lacks substance.
What I really appreciated about the movie is that as a straight male with some stereotypical interests, I found parts of it mildly uncomfortable. I value that feeling in art. It means that I am being presented with a challenging perspective of reality and it means that I have work to do in processing my own principles.
Some pointed thoughts:
Spoilers
The argument between Ken and Barbie when she returns after the Ken's take over. I felt that this argument explains one of a couple major themes. Both characters are at an impasse between a matriarchy and a patriarchy. Ken understands the struggle of being the other in a gender defined society. He is in a fight-or-flight response and wants to have the life Barbie has led. Barbie grasps the same struggle by having connected to The Real World. But Barbie does not want to lose her grip on power. Both are fighting the same battle. This conflict is left unresolved. I don't know if that is an artistic choice or a political choice.
I think leaving this unresolved conflict ultimately works artistically. The point being that this movie cannot change The Real World. If Ken has The Real World why can't Barbie have her world? Unsatisfying but it leads to the thought "why is the lack of an egalitarian society in Barbie world unsatisfying." Ken vis-à-vis Men would have accomplished a 'win' without any impact in The Real World. It would be undeserved and pollyannaish.
I liked Michael Cera's Allan. Aside from a good Michael Cera performance (I doubt he has to work hard to play this character), he was a nice touch to indicate how the conflicting factions are still leaving behind individuals who do not conform to the prevailing type structures. Pregnant Barbie was also fell in this demographic. Would have appreciated more fleshing out in this area.
The comical treatment of stereotypical masculinity was searing. I absolutely loved the motif that many toxic masculine traits stem from the entrenched societal pressures. This creates an uneasy tension between masculine and feminine expectations.
In all, I will probably rewatch Barbie before I even consider rewatching Oppenheimer. Both excellent films. My prevailing impression after Barbie was confusions. Clearly it is corporate propaganda and I don't like being manipulated. But Gerwig seems to have been given enough latitude to make a earnest critique. I guess Mattel made the smart bet that making a resonant film would pay dividends in goodwill.
I asked my partner later in the evening how her perceptions of Barbie were impacted. She said that before the film she would have been apprehensive/against children play with Barbies. After the film she is more favorable to children playing with Barbies. The cynic in me is displeased. The business person in me is intrigued.
There's a third: the reader does not want to consider the line of thought or argumentation at all and is dismissing it from the start. I've seen it used this way a lot, much in the same vein as I've seen people criticize an artwork as "pretentious".
Not many works purposefully aiming to be heavy-handed are worse for it and those that are worse for it are much clearer examples of not-good works than a movie like this. Nobody summarizes Fight Club or Rage Against the Machine or Rage Against the Machine or Nineteen Eight-Four as simply being heavy-handed, for example. Clarity and intensity of messaging and themes is not inherently a bad thing, just as pretense in an artwork is not actually something to avoid. As long as the messaging is clear and it actually comes with interesting or salient points or explorations, that's good. This Barbie movie is very heavy-handed but it was obviously aiming to be, and it used it as an avenue to explore a lot of things I've never seen a mainstream work tackle and over a real-world IP that has had a long and storied history with its place and goals in society.
An example of something that's heavy-handed to the point of counterinuitively working against the work is Crash, which was so overboard that people walked away with other messages entirely and did not follow the movie's themes as intended.
This movie was a lot more than just fun. It was also really heartfelt. I actually cried twice during it. Once was the ending, and the other time was when Barbie was sitting down at the bus stop looking at people in their situations in life and telling the woman sitting on the other bench that she was beautiful. It was like experiencing all of life condensed into one moment.
I also love that the heroes of this film are really a mother and her preteen daughter. They add a lot of context.
The music is also really en pointe. I particularly liked Lizzo’s two songs towards the beginning and how it was built to match what was happening. And the Billie Eilish song was as touching and heartfelt as you would expect. And the other one I won’t mention because it’s spoilerish. I may end up buying the soundtrack.
It’s definitely my movie of the summer, if not the year.
Haven't seen it, almost definitely won't see it in the theater, but I plan on catching it at some point. I can't help thinking about this line from Lyz Lenz' Men Yell at Me: Sunday Reads newsletter this morning:
I gotta say that the self-aware Mattel influence didn’t bother me nearly as much as the totally out of place Chevy ads. The chase scene in the office was funny and creative, but the car chase loaded with close ups of all the car’s features just took me so far out of what was an otherwise great movie.
Was it really necessary for a movie that’s already branded to force in a car sponsorship as well?
Did you notice the Gray Chevy Bolt EUV in the background of a bunch of the chase scenes as well? It made me laugh because that's the car we drive.
Felt like insincere purple-washing to me (the movie even tells you so at the end ; it's all about selling shit). And I found it quite boring as well. Barbie character progression didn't made much sense (just sit on bench 10 seconds with your eyes closed ?), the mother-daughter relation went nowhere, and Ken was just too dumb & cliché to care about. Given the success of the operation I can't wait for an avatar style movie by ExxonMobil or a Babe sequel by the American Meat Institute.
This makes me want to see it for more than just the meme!