“Barbie”: another movie I don’t plan to see
Pity. The ads made me think that it might be something like the movie “Enchanted,” which I enjoyed. The latter was a charming film about a character from a fairy tale who’s transported to the real world and has to function there. It was made in 2007, which seems like a century ago in some ways.
“Barbie” is also about a pretend character living in a fantasy world – in this case, the doll Barbie – transported into the real world for a while. But the ads lied. It’s rather short on the charm, to say the least:
The plot of the movie is that Kens are second-class citizens in Barblieland. but then they see in the “real world” that there’s a thing called “the patriarchy,” where men are on top (and routinely sexually assault women), so they make Barbieland into a patriarchy.
The plot then becomes all about returning the Kens back to their rightful place, on the bottom of society.
The plot isn’t about making men and women equal — it’s about fixing society so that women are on top, as they should be, and men are slaves again.
And this is the Feminist view of the ideal state of the world.
Let’s not limit this to modern feminism. It’s the case with the leftist viewpoint in general, and/or postmodernism. If there is no truth except that we belong to identity groups and the only thing that matters is power, the only solution is to be a member of the group in power. Turning the tables is fair game, and in fact it’s the only game.
A nasty and reductionist point of view. But that’s the way it’s been playing out in many areas these days, as the Gramscian march keeps charging forward.
“Oppenheimer” is great. Don’t miss it. One of the 10 best movies ever.
“Barbie” is based on the old-and-dated gender binary? Wait until the transgender activists trash and/or boycott the film.
PA Cat:
You may be aware that neither Barbie nor Ken has genitals. Apparently the film ends with Barbie going to a gynecologist. I don’t know if the reason why is made explicit in the film, but my guess is that it’s perhaps to have the surgery known as a vaginoplasty. Wouldn’t that make her somewhat of a trans heroine?
Neo–
I’m like you– I have no plans to see the film, so have no idea why Barbie would consult an OB/GYN. As for Ken, I can remember when people joked that Barbie should pair off with G.I. Joe (which was introduced as an “action figure” rather than a “doll,” so that boys would be willing to play with it) rather than with fashion-model Ken. There was even a version of Ken called “Earring Magic Ken” that supposedly inspired “a toy craze among gay men (including some claims that it was the highest selling Ken doll of all time)”: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earring_Magic_Ken
Who knows what might be included in “Barbie: The Sequel”?
The Zeitgeist paired release two films like “Oppenheimer” and “Barbie” finds me enthralled with interest about both content and reaction.
Our host has, indeed, ALREADY linked to the very best roundup of views on “Barbie,” landing on Ace.
But Athena Thorne at PJMedia did a column days ago explaining how “Gen-Z bros” are adopting Ken as the movie’s Real Hero! Celebrating the male liberation against the Barbie-oppressors, spawned by Barbies “awokening” mis-adventure in the real world.
EXPEXT two things. “Ken” will be a Halloween staple character this Fall, not Barbie.
Second. Taking the half-centenarians view, the old saw about the outcome of the War Between the Sexes remains affirmative: there will be no end of it because there’s too much consorting with the enemy.
OK. We’ll agree on that. BUT WILL THE Z-Gen learn to heed this lesson and do better than the mess it’s become?
I believe the course of the Trans Mad degeneracy is the likeliest early indicator.
Of course, our real concern is with the collateral damage wreaked around us, in the meantime. And given that the Biden Oligarchy has seen fit to throttle every Federal office with Woke radicalism, we ought to expect mass casualties and devastating social living damage.
Bank Bartee, in self-exile in Bangkok, resuscitates this wise warning late in the life of Carl Sagan (early 1990s): “authoritarian science” is going to be a blast, and not in a good way! https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/watch-carl-sagan-issues-prescient-warning-authoritarian-science-grave
Hello there, Oligarchic Techno-media Fascism.
I think it would have left me with a bad test, like strange days or watchmen, they were they were pitching this, when oppenheimer was a superior product,
A movie purportedly for children but actually for the vacuous.
That said, any society dominated by women with its men thoroughly emasculated will be prey for the barbarians. ‘Kens’ run away when faced with death.
“Let’s not limit this to modern feminism. It’s the case with the leftist viewpoint in general, and/or postmodernism. If there is no truth except that we belong to identity groups and the only thing that matters is power, the only solution is to be a member of the group in power. Turning the tables is fair game, and in fact it’s the only game.” neo
At base, that is the radical leftist viewpoint, the end justifies whatever the means necessary. However, the left sells ‘compassion’ & moral ‘superiority’ as justification to its gullible liberal base. Gulags put the lie to that. Liberals excusing the treatment of the January 6th political prisoners, demonstrates their belief that some animals are more equal than others. One cannot say they support the rule of law while denying it to those who simply disagree with them. It’s an inherent contradiction and in their “heart of hearts”… they know it. Ultimately, eventually reality trumps rationalizations. They pursue a grimmer destination than they imagine. Pursuing utopia through force is an oxymoron and carries with it a terrible fate, an enslavement fashioned by their own hands.
The fascinating thing about “Barbie” is that marketing managed to conceal the film’s profound male-hating feminism in the advertising.
A few members of the cast let the cat out of the bag — of course, it’s a feminist film, like overthrow the patriarchy already, sistahs!
Most people who came to theaters this past weekend did so because they assumed it a was a fun summer blockbuster comedy. People haven’t had much fun for a long time. I understand.
The trick will be what word of mouth does to “Barbie” for next weekend’s box office. I’m not hazarding a guess.
A reader here — in Neo’s earlier post — has, I think, shared the longer book-based quote of Carl Sagan on our situation.
It’s worth reading and sharing and bookmarking
https://www.thenewneo.com/2023/07/24/sagan-on-changing-ones-mind/#comment-2690295
The Critical Drinker dispatches “Barbie” properly:
__________________________
What none of us expected was 114 minutes of spiteful bitter mean-spirited borderline unhinged hatred of men and everything even vaguely associated with them. Barbie is like the deformed mutated rage child of Captain Marvel Ghostbusters 2016 and She-Hulk.
–The Critical Drinker, “Barbie – The Greatest Lie Ever Told”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J7aJtGphVs
__________________________
One can just read the wiki page and know it’s a vile film.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbie_(film)
Geoffrey Britain on July 24, 2023 at 8:35 pm
The Kens not only run away themselves the also hate men like Daniel Penny so the punish them to prevent other men from being willing to defend anyone.
in a different genre, non stop hid the antiwar screed, buried in a liam neeson actioner, of course the moslem passengers can’t be guilty,
Barbie and Gramsci! A match made in heaven!
And this is the Feminist view of the ideal state of the world.
==
Gene Roddenberry was using his imagination
==
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR6M37EPouA
==
“Eyes down, dink”
From what I’ve read and heard around the internet (the Podcast of the Lotus Eaters channel on YouTube has a segment up about it – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MoAA4XvIJA , and it’s been discussed elsewhere), the “patriarchy” in Barbie is quite mild. The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters segment that I saw about it described it as 1950s. And the society in question was apparently depicted as much more egalitarian than the one that it supplanted, and that subsequently replaces it. Ryan Gosling’s Ken (as opposed to the other various Kens) gets a look at the real world and realizes that men don’t need to be subservient, overthrows the existing order of Barbie Land so that the Kens can be productive (they’re apparently all homeless, and not allowed to do *anything*), and then announces that in a short period of time, everyone in Barbie Land – both the Kens and the Barbies – will be allowed to vote for Barbie Land’s leadership. It’s not a “Handmaid’s Tale” situation. All of the Barbies are quite happy to go along with what he’s doing – except for the protagonist Barbie. Protagonist Barbie is, of course, able to overthrow the Kens. But the method that she uses as described in the Podcast is pretty reprehensible.
There’s a reason that many on the right are calling this an accidentally based (i.e. very non-woke) movie.
There’s really only one Barbie film…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel_Terminus:_The_Life_and_Times_of_Klaus_Barb
Well, two actually:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ2PE2da0Qo
The current production is merely a tawdry sequel…
I miss the days when not every movie was a Marvel/Super Hero/Sci Fi/Dystopian/ Racially Obsessed/Politically Correct waste of ones eyesight.
its carp that’s why they are promoting it, now oppenheimer is a quality product, I think murphy captures him much more than waterston did circa 1981, (ballpark)
around the time he did that spy caper with walter matthau and ned beatty,
re herr barbie, its striking how in part thanks to simon wiesenthal, they made mengele a big shot, marathon man, and boys from brazil, whereas barbie was the greater post war player certainly in south america, where he aided strongmen and the cartels schemes,
interesting it was on the pop culture front, the action series airwolf, that referred to a barbie like character, played by walter gotell, selling munitions in different places,
It’s amazing how much money can still be raised to create what seems to amount to blatant misandry, contempt, and bitter rage disguised as entertainment. Review site Metacritic has the Barbie movie with an audience score of 5.3 (out of 10) versus a professional critic score of 8.0. So this is another in a long line of movies & tv shows produced over the past 10 years or so where the consensus of normal consumers significantly disagree with entertainment critics.
It does make one wonder how long having so much open contempt for one’s customers can be maintained from a financial standpoint. I’ve heard that many of the largest companies in the entertainment industry have indeed lost a lot of money over the past few years, most notably Disney. And now there’s a writer’s strike and the screen actors guild strike going on as well. So it’s possible we may be seeing the fist cracks in the great decadent edifice starting to show.
I’m surprised that there wasn’t a sub-plot with Ken getting implants and bottom surgery so that he could join the elite feminist hierarchy. Or would that have deprived Barbie of a useful idiot? Or would he/she not have been truly, authentically female? Unlike Barbie……
Saw the movie. In the end, Barbie, to the disappointment of her feminist friends, decides that Ken deserves her respect if not her love.
The political aspects of the movie reflect the actual political controversy of the Mattel toy. On one hand she presents an unrealistic image of what a woman should be – slim wasted, high heeled and perfectly pretty. The image for which the feminists despise her.
On the other hand, she represents the empowered woman. She can be a lawyer, doctor, president and even construction worker.
But most of all it’s frivolous entertainment that pokes fun at Barbie stereotypes like when she removes her shoes and walks, her heals never touch the ground, and the aforementioned visit to her gynecologist.
My girlfriends and I –way back in the 50s and 60s, loved our Barbie doll, Ken doll and Midge doll. One of my friends even got the car and house OH MY!! We had hours of fun playing, imaging and of course changing our dolls’ outfits. I won’t go to the movie. I am appalled at the 21st century overlay of feminism, patriarchy and power that seems to infuse the movie. Why can’t they make a movie that captures the fun and play we all had with the dolls.
because the 50s are the dark ages for them, look how spielberg painted them in crystal skull,
by contrast,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O2GXfiiNw4
If I may dissent, the film actually suggests that neither feminism nor patriarchy can meet the challenge of Eros, mortality and natality, that is to say, the challenge of a real human life. It even seems to have doubts about expressive individualism! Barbie (spoiler alert) chooses to abandon the fantasy world for the sake of family life, in the process becoming fully human. (Hence the final visit to a gynecologist.) I think the filmmakers made a much wiser film than they intended.
Interesting column here: What is the Barbie Movie Trying to Say. It considers various possibilities, like the movie being a satire of feminism.
I do find it hard to believe that anyone wanting to make Barbie a positive character would cast Margot Robbie in the role, but I would suppose that the ambiguities of the film have more to do with the tension between the ideology and the demands of narrative and entertainment, than with ambivalence about the message.
I haven’t seen the movie, but I suspect that the final visit to the gynecologist is more about getting the sexual organs the dolls don’t have or about Barbie asserting her “reproductive freedom” than about starting a family. Were there any indications that Barbie intended to start a family or was likely to do so? I suspect the message is still “Girl Power” but a gesture had to be made in the direction of the grown-up “Real World.” That is I suppose a kind of ambivalence though.
I read the Wikipedia article and note this unusually upbeat summary of the plot’s conclusion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbie_(film)
I’ve seen this bolded idea in comments on other blogs (generally by only one or two people), but it is somewhat at odds with what I’ve read everywhere else (including those blogs and most comments).
The closest I’ve seen to this interpretation is here:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/07/barbie_is_all_emotionalism_and_appearance_but_lacks_any_rationality.html
Has anyone else seen a review that supports the Wikipedia POV?
I don’t really see how it correlates with the restoration of the Barbie-o-cracy, which isn’t in dispute.
I also don’t intend to watch the movie to find out.
(As the AT reviewer points out, there is no matriarchy OR patriarchy because there are no families and children.)
We can’t end the Barbie discussion without including this:
https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2023/07/25/watch-ai-generated-barbenheimer-trailer-is-hysterical-but-also-terrifying-n782055