We might wonder about the point of spending any time writing about or thinking about the meaning of a movie about a doll, but then when we realize that it’s the most popular movie in the world right now, well, perhaps it makes sense to pay attention for a minute or two.
You can pick out any number of themes from Barbie—and this is one of the film’s weaknesses: too many underdeveloped ideas—but this seems to me to be the crucial takeaway:
Barbie left Barbieland.
Again, in more detail:
Barbie leaves her plastic, idealized world behind and embraces the limits, fragility and inevitability of death that is real life—and so should you, dear viewer.
Let’s recap:
(This isn’t a recap of the entire plot, just those points on the particular trajectory on which I’m taking you)
The film begins with a startling scene, a clear evocation of Kubrick’s 2001: little girls of a past, monochrome era, playing on a beach with baby dolls. The little girls are surprised by the appearance of a monolith, out of which strides a huge, Margo Robbie presenting as the original, black-and-white striped suited Barbie, smiling, confident, beautiful. Awestruck, entranced, the little girls smash their baby dolls and give themselves over to Her.
Next stop: Barbieland! It’s pink and happy and fun, and the Barbies are in charge of everything! Sure, the Kens are around, but they’re just accessories, sent home after the dance, so the Barbies—president, CEO’s, doctors all—can have their girls’ nights in peace.
Has the baby-doll smashing ecstasy led to this utopia? This place where the little girls can imagine—and be—anything?
Plot, plot, plot…
What emerges is that the actual world of actual women is difficult. The hints begin when Stereotypical Barbie—Robbie—begins to experience limits and flaws, culminating in a startling admission that she’s starting to think about…dying. Off she goes, guided by the advice from Weird Barbie (the one whose chopped hair and markered-up face points to other ways Barbies are played with)—that she must find the girl who plays with her, whose angst is clearly filtering down into her up-to-now light-filled life.
Plot, plot, plot….
Barbie (and the stowaway Ken) enter the Real World (California, which fits), encounter her owner, played by America Ferrera, her daughter and the denizens of the Mattel corporation. And so, Barbie discovers that, no, Barbieland is not the real world and life as a real woman is a little different out here. The expectations, America Ferrera laments in her (too on-the-nose) soliloquy, are intense, unrelenting and unreachable. Women are expected to meet unattainable standards:
You have to never get old, never be rude, never show off, never be selfish, never fall down, never fail, never show fear, never get out of line.
It’s too hard! It’s too contradictory and nobody gives you a medal or says thank you! And it turns out in fact that not only are you doing everything wrong, but also everything is your fault.
I’m just so tired of watching myself and every single other woman tie herself into knots so that people will like us. And if all of that is also true for a doll just representing women, then I don’t even know.
One can quibble with these words, as I do with two points: First because these unrealistic, unrelenting, ultimately deadly expectations are experienced by men as well in our culture, and secondly, I think the movie pulls back in blaming Barbie—and everything the doll represents and expresses about the power of commercial culture. But in the end, if you’re listening, what you hear is indeed an expression of the dissonance between Barbieland and the real world—and implied is the fact that Barbieland doesn’t help.
Of course, the movie was produced by Mattel itself, so how hard is it going to go? Can a Barbie movie produced by Mattel acknowledge that Barbie didn’t just happen, created as some aspirational proto-feminist figure and then get co-opted by a consumerist, anti-human culture? She’s a part of it, an expression of it, a contributor. Come on Barbie, I couldn’t help but think as I sat there, take some responsibility!
Alas, she did not.
But she did make another journey. And it’s a pretty powerful one. Hence the article you’re reading about a doll.
Along the way, in her sojourn in the real world and her encounter with her creator, Barbie sees the authentic, profound beauty of actual flesh-and-blood life. And these moments are deeply moving: when Barbie encounters an older woman at a bus stop , a woman whose face is kind, wrinkled, bearing the gift of time, and Barbie says in soft surprise, “You’re beautiful.” The woman responds, “I know it.” And Barbie (for the first time?) sheds a tear.
In another spot near the end, Ruth Handler, Barbie’s creator, presents her with images of real women and girls—and it’s beautiful, simple and real. Not very pink at all, either.
After all of this, after a return to Barbieland, Barbie defeats Ken’s absurd take on “patriarchy” and order seems to be restored. But wait, what is Barbie going to do? She’s going to turn from it all. She’s going to leave.
And what does she leave? She leaves what is essentially a satirical, over-the-top representation of what 20th-century feminism left us with: Women, highly sexualized in appearance, but sexless, #Girlbossing the heck out of life, having fun, not suffering at all, always beautiful, perfect, men either accessories or enemies.
The film’s final scene might strike some as odd or inappropriate for a movie about, well, a child’s toy, but is actually perfect. Surprising, even.
Barbie’s made her choice. She’s left Barbieland, knowing what it means to go into the real world: limits, fragility and yes, death. But guess what else it means?
Life.
For a movie that begins with the sexless, over-sexualized, and impossibly perfect Barbie inspiring little girls to smash their baby dolls ends with that same Barbie—still lovely, but no longer plastic or flawless—excitedly visiting, yes, the gynecologist.
In the final scene, just when you think Barbie’s off to be a #GirlBoss, it turns out she is seeing a gynaecologist instead. In the transition to the flesh, the smooth space gets complicated. Gerwig’s nod to what makes a woman a woman is quietly subversive. Barbie herself becomes post-Barbie, post-consumerist, and while the film generally splashes about in an enjoyable ironic and semiotic soup, the message is gentle but clear: not reducible to a bunch of signs, women exist and sexual difference is real.
It’s not just that the “smooth space gets complicated.” It’s that the smooth space has become what, in a woman, it was created to be: a place where life is created and nurtured and grown.
A clear 180 from the opening image, isn’t it? Barbie might have begun her life inspiring little girls to reject real life and their unique way of being in the world, but at the end of this part of the journey, Barbie embraces that same way of being, of womanhood that is definitely not plastic, definitely not smooth and definitely not without mystery and pain—and embraces it with joy.
Intentional? Who knows. Either way, not a bad takeaway for a summer blockbuster—about a doll.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
The author asked us to pay attention for “a minute or two”.
56, 57, 58, 59, 60 – ONE MINUTE!!!.
I’m outta here.
Uncalled for and unkind. Also anti-intellectual, oafish and rude. Why bother writing such a pointless insult?
It was an inventive and thought-provoking review, by any account.
Responding to the comment above, by Terrance.
Car;
1) It’s a silly movie, no more no less.
2) Work on your spelling.
I take it thar You have not seen it .It was not just about women, it was also about a false journey men are forced to take. The patriarchy is just as damaging to men as it is too women. and for a fine example of that may we point out the clericalism that Pope Francis preaches against while the clericalists fight against him at every turn.
I had no plans to watch the film anyway but the beginning scene sounds very disturbing.
Good to know. I haven’t heard any review like this from secular television, print media, or online media. Thank you. I think entertainment (visual art, music, theater, film, dance, literature, etc.) that includes Christian messages is badly needed in the world, including the U.S. The messages need to be subtle, but definitely there for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. The medium needs to feature “A list” artists that are acceptable and loved by “the other side”. (Many of these artists ARE Christians and those who follow them discover this as they read their Tweets and Instagrams.) The arts are a good way to influence people in the direction of God’s eternal plan for mankind. “Church” and “preaching” and “tracts” and “crusades” and “youth groups” and even “Christian rock music” –all the traditional Christian evangelism techniques–just don’t seem to be working nowadays, but people watch, listen, and internalize the arts, which could lead them to a search that ends in finding the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
I am sorry to see this movie thus far raking in the cash. I have read MANY reviews of this movie. My understanding is that it is full of anti-male tropes, make men look like bullying idiots, and I think as such it is inappropriate for small children, especially girls . Women in particular who take their daughters to this are taking a hand into their anti-male indoctrination. Not so helpful as they have a male as a father and likely expect to marry a man some day. Forget the propaganda video here and take in another movie instead.
While all else might be true, I seriously doubt that Barbie is going to a gynecologist to nurture life. Given the people who made the movie, I’m sure she is going there to prevent it.
It’s a movie that is needed for today’s young women. It’s political and I like the positive spin at the end. Haven’t seen it but loved this review. Will encourage others to see it now. Very Christian.
With all due respect, how can you make this assertion without seeing it?
I give this film a Legion of Decency rating of C. That said, even many A-I films of the past ought to have been Cs.
From my observations, it appears that only extreme immodest dress could get a film to be a B. But such dress was “tame” compared to the movie reviewed in this article.
It would have taken very immodest behavior to get a film to be a C. Mostly they were films made outside of the United States.
Even the screenshot above is immodest and ought not to have been publicized.
Back in the 1920s it was recognized that so-called “art” didn’t excuse immodesty.
Yeah, well, Barbie might be a woman, but as a marketing tool pointing to the shelves by the cash register, what do we find? Transgender Barbie! Or, is it Barbarian, or whatever? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/laverne-cox-barbie-mattel-transgender-doll/
This is NOT a movie about anything good in this world.Ms Welborn is struggling really hard here to rewrite a film that is, by no other definition, a celebration of 4th wave feminism. After all that’s been revealed about this disaster, parents please ask yourselves, “Why would I take my child to see a movie that ends with a VERY adult situation like a OBGYN appointment?” Also, the actor playing the doctor is a man pretending to be a woman. Get a clue folks, this film is WOKE GARBAGE!
This was my takeaway from the movie as well. Ultimately, Barbie chooses and embraces humanity with all its complications, pain, and messiness. There is some male bashing, but I think the movie shows that if one gender has too much power, it diminishes the other. I think the makers of the film (Greta Gerwig was raised as a Catholic and Margot Robbie as a Christian) have compassion for humanity and show that life is worth living despite the hardships that we encounter. It is really a very pro life movie whether intended or not. If a doll from a supposed utopia opts to live as a human, how much more does a human conceived as part of the real world deserve to experience life. I think those who are overreacting to the movie are missing the point.
“Overreacting?” That’s your opinion. It’s grossly unfair to say that about the thoughts of others on a film that deserves scrutiny.
And one more thing. Since most girls playing with a Barbie doll are probably between the ages of 4 and 8, how do the parents plan to explain the function and meaning of a gynecologist to them? One would hope the children at this age have ZERO knowledge of what this is. Face the fact that if you are paying to see this film you are supporting the obviously woke agenda which now fills every single movie put out by Disney. What a shame so many parents are so easily duped.
Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson in today’s Daily Mail:
[photo caption]
The movie, starring Ms Robbie alongside Ryan Gosling as Ken, is a satire on the tragic plastic sterility of Barbie the doll and a great Mussolini-esque rallying cry for human fecundity
I saw that article by Boris Johnson today. He made some interesting points.
You made a point to discuss the Barbie movie but have you written about the sound of Freedom? If you have I apologize. Thank you
Yes, CWR has run an interview, a review, and several news briefs about “Sound of Freedom”.
But it did confirm that there are only 2 genders: male and female, no attempts at gender change discussed. Thank God. But the power struggle female vs male continues, including diminishing the values of males.
“…only two genders.”
I repeat from yesterday:
Yeah, well, Barbie might be a woman, but as a marketing tool pointing to the shelves by the cash register, what do we find? Transgender Barbie! Or, is it Barbarian, or whatever? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/laverne-cox-barbie-mattel-transgender-doll/
Two more Movie Review recommendations to the good traditional Catholic readers of CWR by yours truly:
Jump over to the Crisis Magazine website and check out Eric Sammons thoughtful and thought-provoking article entitled:
“A Movie Isn’t Worth Sinning Over”
https://crisismagazine.com/editors-desk/a-movie-isnt-worth-sinning-over
Sammons points out some significant problems with “Barbie” that lesser thinkers miss or gloss over, and he also points out very serious flaws in the “Oppenheimer” movie production.
As the title of his article sets forth, Sammons lays some very serious cards on the table in presenting a case why Catholics should avoid watching either of these movies.
It appears that Sammons did not even see the Barbie movie. He simply pointed to someone else’s review. To call others who liked the movie “lesser thinkers” makes no sense. Watch the movie if you want (I did and thought it was decent) or don’t. But we should all be honest in our reviews and not simply piggy-back on other’s opinions.
Mills:
You completely missed the point of my comment and the moral-theological reasoning of Eric Sammons in pointing out precisely why people should Not watch movies such as “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer.”
Of course, Sammons is only basing his views on a sound application of Catholic moral principles, so why should anybody listen to him, right? And my point about lesser thinkers is not about liking the movie. Methinks thou dost protesteth too much.
Neither Sammons nor I reviewed the movie Barbie, because, once again, that is not the point. What was that about honesty again? Mirror time for you. Good luck.
Alas, the edited/more accurate version of my previous comments did not get picked up, so let’s try again for greater clarity:
Mills:
You completely missed the point of my comment and the moral-theological reasoning of Eric Sammons in explaining precisely why people should Not watch movies such as “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer.”
Of course, Sammons is only basing his views on a sound application of Catholic moral principles, so why should anybody heed what he has to say, right? And my point about lesser thinkers is not about liking any movie. Methinks thou dost protesteth too much.
Now, Sammons did not review the movie “Barbie” in what would be considered a full blown review after watching it, because, once again, that is not the point, and watching the movie would have made Sammons a sinful hypocrite. Instead, his review of “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” is purposely limited to pointing out objectionable elements known to be in both movies that make it sinful to watch such movies.
What was that about honesty again? Mirror time for you. Good luck.
Thank you for the review. I think the Barbie phenomenon is being propelled by its coming in the aftermath of the “Karen” movement…which highlighted privilege and entitlement among white women. Essentially, the Karen movement began to position white women on the “oppressor” side of the “oppressor/victim” construct. This presented an existential crisis for a huge number of American women, whose victimhood is part and parcel to their identity. The depth and expansiveness of this victim identity is betrayed by the way many Catholic/Christian women who would otherwise rail against Hollywood’s leftist bent are willing to give this movie a free pass. All data (which show that it’s men and boys who are foundering) and all conservative rationality would lead otherwise clear-thinking women of faith to oppose this movie. But the ingrained need to be on the “hero/victim” side trumps just about everything. When all arguments fail, the fall back is “don’t take it too seriously…it’s just a movie!” (Do these women say the same about Lightyear?) On the heels of the “Karen” movement, Greta Gerwig gave women (white women, in particular) exactly what they were looking for by placing them right back on the victim side of the oppressor/victim construct. She has greatly increased her wealth in doing so, and if this was her intent she deserves every penny she makes from this movie. She’s very astute. She saw a person dying of thirst and gave her a big glass of ice water.
The way (some) women of faith embrace (or at least refrain from opposing) Barbie has some parallel to the way Christian conservative men embrace Trump. Barbie is clearly a leftist movie, but these Christian women are willing to overlook this because the movie makes them feel “heard”. In the same way, Trump is not a conservative, but (some) Christian conservative men are willing to overlook this because Trump makes them feel “seen”. Among most people, identity will trump ideology and everything else. The Barbie phenomenon and the Trump phenomenon both show this. Whether that’s good or bad is another topic. I just wish conservatives would be a little bit more honest about acknowledging this.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see if reports of “Karen” incidents ever take hold in the national conversation again. My thought is that they probably won’t…at least not anytime soon. Not because they’re no longer happening, but because the largest appetite is to keep women on the hero/victim side. I think the big losers from the Barbie phenomenon will be those who are trying to decouple the civil rights movement from the feminist movement; and the trans activists who are trying to place trans people front-and-center in the race to victimhood. In this race, it’s white women who have the numbers and the money. The Barbie phenomenon shows that.
These are my honest thoughts about the Barbie phenomenon, and of course my thoughts are shaped in part by my experiences as are everyone’s. If I’m seeing this wrong or I’m overlooking something, let me know! I’m willing to listen and be convinced.