Right after the “Barbie” movie’s wildly packed opening night, I saw the film with my parents. It was loved by all three of us, and if that isn’t a testament to the universal appeal of “Barbie,” I don’t know what is.
After the movie, we chatted about the many criticisms of “Barbie.” Namely that it was a man-hating, misandrist — something that is prejudiced against men — film. As Kyle Smith wrote for The Wall Street Journal, “As bubbly as the film appears, its script is like a grumpier-than-average women’s studies seminar.”
Writing for The National Review, Armond White said that the movie was for “a later vengeful generation that resents the toy’s suggestion of outdated femininity.” Ben Shapiro called the movie a “flaming garbage heap of a film.”
On the other hand, “Barbie” has broken box office records this year — it made $155 million on its opening weekend and had the biggest debut of the year, according to Variety. It’s also had a myriad of positive reviews. So clearly, it’s a movie that’s resonating with people.
My mom said she agreed with the film’s critics — not that the movie was bad, but that “Barbie” was misandrist. But my dad countered: “I don’t think ‘Barbie’ hates men. I think it just hates the patriarchy.”
The “patriarchy” my dad is referring to is the traditional definition of the word. The Cambridge Dictionary defines patriarchy as “a society controlled by men in which they use their power to their own advantage.” Men and the patriarchy are two entirely different things — and “Barbie” clearly knows the difference between the two.
‘Barbie’ is surprisingly rooted in real life
(Warning: Spoilers ahead!)
For a movie about Barbie leaving the bubble-gum pink Barbieland and stepping foot into the real world, it is a film that is surprisingly rooted in the facts — specifically, Barbie’s history and culture. For all its fantasy and whimsy, “Barbie” plays within the rules of Mattel’s Barbie-verse.
Barbie was created in 1959. Ken was then created in 1961, according to History, to solely be Barbie’s boyfriend. This is something that Greta Gerwig, director of “Barbie,” was very much aware of, according to an interview she had with Vogue.
Over the years, Barbie had a myriad of careers (which “Barbie” is quick to point out): president, a doctor, an astronaut, a scientist and much more. Ken, on the other hand, has held no career. As “Barbie” points out, his job has always been “just beach.”
Based on this, it stands to reason that a fantastical Barbieland would be ruled by the Barbies. Barbie has a lot of career experience under her belt. What can Ken do? As it turns out, just beach.
“Barbie” is quick to exaggerate, and poke fun at, the creation myth-like beginnings of Barbie. At the beginning of the movie, the narrator (Helen Mirren) says that the Barbies foolishly believe that they have solved all gender problems. They believe that women in the real world are empowered. They did it, guys! They solved gender inequality!
As both Barbie (Margot Robbie) and Ken (Ryan Gosling) quickly learn after their naive journey into the real world, this is very much not the case. Because for better or for worse, many people believe that we live in a patriarchal society. “Barbie” thinks so, too — and believes that it is for the worse.
On the other hand, “Barbie” makes it clear that a matriarchal society is not the solution. The Ken uprising proves this — the Kens, after realizing that the real world is a patriarchy, try to take over Barbieland and turn it into a Kendom (a simply delightful play on words).
Part of this is for comedic effect, sure, but it reveals a deeper truth: the Kens are tired of having no purpose.
Gerwig mentioned this in an interview with Rolling Stone. “But this movie is also dealing with (the idea that) any kind of hierarchical power structure that moves in any direction isn’t so great.”
If “Barbie” were a lesser movie, and if it truly hated men (or even just Ken), the Barbies would’ve thrown the Kens in some sort of Ken jail after they took Barbieland back. Or, at the very least, things would’ve returned to how they were before.
But both “Barbie” and Gerwig are incredibly sympathetic to the Kens. After the order of Barbieland is restored, the president of Mattel (Will Ferrell) says that finally, things can go back to normal. Barbies can go back to ruling Barbieland. But President Barbie (Issa Rae) says that no, she doesn’t think that things should go back to how they were.
After all this, Gosling’s Ken tearily tells Barbie that his whole existence revolves around her — that he was created to bask in the warm glow of her smile. Barbie then gently tells him that she’s sorry for taking him for granted, but she thinks that it’s time that he figures out who Ken is.
“Barbie” exaggerates, and even questions, Ken’s purpose. Should Ken just exist to be Barbie’s boyfriend? The film makes it clear that it doesn’t think he should.
“Barbie” doesn’t hate men. It doesn’t even hate Ken, who one could argue isn’t a representation of all men, just as many are quick to say that Barbie isn’t (nor should she be) a representation of all women. “Barbie” is just critical of the confines of the worlds that both Barbie and real women live in.
If “Barbie” was criticizing men, then much of the criticism could have fallen on Mattel’s all-male executive board and male CEO (which is true to real life — Mattel is led by a male CEO today).
But “Barbie” doesn’t criticize the all-male Mattel leadership itself. It simply points out the absurdity of it. It is ironic that a company that took off on the tiny shoulders of Barbie (literally — Mattel was founded in 1945 by Ruth Handler, the creator of Barbie, and her husband Elliot Handler, and was propelled into success due to Barbie’s creation) — a toy created for girls — is helmed by mostly men.
‘Barbie’ criticizes the patriarchy, but finds hope and celebration in womanhood
For all its musings, all its existential crises and questions of purpose, “Barbie” gives no solutions. Instead, it opts to bring nuance to and sheds light on contrary expectations for womanhood.
Gloria (America Ferrera) says it best toward the climax of the movie. In a moving (and as Hannah Seariac pointed out in her review for the Deseret News, often heavy-handed) monologue, Gloria says that to be a woman in today’s society is precarious. Women are expected to be perfect and extraordinary, but agreeably and pleasantly so.
One could argue that this sentiment also applies to the “Barbie” movie or any work created by a woman. “Barbie” is by no means a perfect movie, but many might find it extraordinary. And, based on the criticism, it is definitely not an agreeable movie.
But should it be? For all its pink dressings and sparkly costumes, “Barbie” reveals some ugly truths. When Barbie realizes that she and the other Barbies actually didn’t empower young girls, she falls into a deep identity crisis. She begins to question: what she was made for?
I suspect that this is a question that many women ask themselves. Are we only defined by who we are in relation to others? What are we made for?
Again, “Barbie” gives no answers. It instead chooses to lovingly shed light on the joy of womanhood through a beautiful and touching montage of real-life women, all freely reveling in humanhood. “Barbie” believes that, even in a patriarchal society, there is love and happiness to be found in being a woman.
And even though Barbie realizes that the real world is messier and more painful than she initially believed, she chooses to become human. Barbie’s choice sends a powerful message: that being a woman in this messy, real, and maybe patriarchal, world is entirely worth it.
This could even be an answer in itself. What are we made for? As “Barbie” sees it, we’re made to find joy and love and value, just as we are, in womanhood — and in ourselves.