Barbie

Following on from my previous piece about Post feminism and Anora, I have decided to write about a modern classic that has been brought back to the fore after a 2 year hiatus. While Baker’s movie humanised sex workers, avoiding a clear-cut critique of post feminism through its detached filmography, Greta Gerwig explicitly challenges complacency within contemporary feminism by confronting a symbolic figure of ignorance with the ‘Real World’. Given the recent uproar over the likes of Bonnie Blue and other influencers that have used their platforms to promote destructive ideologies, maybe Barbie is just the watch we need to be grounded in reality again.

Gerwig’s masterpiece was released during a social zeitgeist shaped by late stage consumerism and a renewed reckoning with gender identity. In 2023, neoliberal feminism was becoming popularized again, and scholars debated whether the ‘girl boss’ archetype paved a new path for feminists to empower themselves, or rather limited them further by reinforcing patriarchy. Tia Billinger (or Bonnie Blue as she is widely known) had not yet rose to stardom, but was already growing a large following on Only Fans after her transition from Cams and stirring controversy provided her tendency to target ‘barely legal’ teens for her content. Other women in a similar position were Lily Phillips, who became famous a year later for allegedly sleeping with 100 men in a night, and Annie Knight. Billinger herself has argued that she believes individuals like her are combatting patriarchy by ‘playing the game’: maintaining autonomy over their bodies and financial independence in response to a corrupt system^[1]. But many people equally believe her material disregards female welfare and only upholds commercialism.

Barbie comments on the relationship between capitalism and patriarchy through its depiction of Mattel as a company dominated by males, even though the product (Barbie) was originally manufactured with young girls as the desired clientele. In this respect, Zillah Eisenstein’s theory of ‘Capitalist Patriarchy’ can be used as a lens to watch the film, given its aversion to asking feminine people to thrive in a masculine-oriented economic and political setting^[2]. When we are first introduced to the head office of the corporation, we view them as a collective legion from a wide shot showing them all sat at a round table; staring resolutely at the worker from ‘down below’. This sets up their authoritative presence in the Real World. The CEO then goes on to say (caught mid conversation by Aaron): ‘And when you think of sparkle, what do you think of after that? Female agency’, drawing an immediate parallel to the commodification of feminism under the façade of glamour and prosperity. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (Howard Hawks, 1953) poses a comparable question as to affluent women, using satire as a tool that enables viewers to recognise the ludicrous nature of a woman that values material things. It is unequivocal that Gerwig is trying to communicate her own opinions of current industrialisation here, however – much like Hawks – she does so in an accessible format, sugar coating complex ideas with comedy and pink bedazzle. This also reminded me of Anora because both Baker and Gerwig have made pictures that have been essential in educating the public on overlooked topics, but are disguised through their marketing as ‘feel-good’ films. It could be argued that this paints the directors in a bad light, as they are feasibly abusing convenience at the expense of innovation. And yet, they have undeniably inspired critical thinking, manipulating our emotions in a cunning fashion.

Another critique of the sister movies is that they both appear at times to endorse a false sense of power reclamation for women, either through misandry or sexual servitude. ‘To stay in power, the plutocracy needs to use divide and rule to prevent ordinary people from developing solidarity with each other: men with women, blacks with whites and Hispanics, Americans with people of other nations’^[3]. Throughout the Barbie movie, the Barbies are the ones in the driving seat. The opening sequence cements that the introduction of Mattel’s well-loved toy was an amazing milestone for feminism, reinforced by the reference to 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968) which was also transformative for its time. As the plot progresses, it is revealed that the Barbies are living in a literal dream world where gender roles are reversed and every Barbie has an established part to play in society while ‘Ken is just Ken’. This turns Capitalist Patriarchy on its head, enabling females to engage with the public sphere, and males with the private. Ken is not allowed to stay over Barbie’s house for the night because it is ‘always girls night’ there, and all of his devotion, although not dismissed, is taken as Barbie’s due without any reciprocity. This eventually leads to an explosion of anger from Ken, triggered by his discovery that the Real World puts men on a pedestal, which should surely represent how inequality between the sexes in both universes only furthers the opportunity for conflict. It also highlights the existence of a contemporary extinction burst, demonstrated through the introduction of ‘trad wives’ and movements like Men Go There Own Way that fight for the survival of patriarchy.

But Gerwig decides to end the film on more of a bitter note, the narrator suggesting that ‘One day, kens will have as much power in Barbie Land as women have in the Real World’. In my opinion, this sentiment encourages the women in the audience to take the easy way out by pitying themselves in honour of the generations of trauma they have experienced at the hands of men, rather than to make the necessary changes to improve equality in our society. Therefore, despite the interesting turnabout within the film that potentially provides men an imperative comprehension of female struggle, I feel the piece ultimately misses the point of what it would mean to have an egalitarian utopia. Saying this, Charlotte Perkins Gilman makes a compelling point that an achievement of this sort would require sustained effort and resilience, and things may need to get worse before they can get better^[4].

From a more positive perspective, the characters Barbie and Anora both take journeys back to themselves, motivating women to release themselves from the chains of patriarchy and carve out separate identities based on a newfound idea of femininity. There are a lot of unambiguous emblems in Gerwig’s movie. The protagonist – ‘stereotypical Barbie’ – physically and mentally experiences a metamorphosis and finds that she would rather be a real, feeling human being, just like Anora secretly envies Igor who is unashamedly himself and subverts her own alienation when she breaks down. ‘I want to do the imagining, I don’t want to be the idea’ Barbie realises, presenting the significance of creativity and emotion to women and celebrating these traits. Furthermore, the resolution of the filmmakers to allow a diverse range of people to claim space in their work (such as transgender actress Hari Neff and Ashley Young who has a disability)emphasises intersectional feminism, making it progressive although, again, in some respects cliché.

The video that sparked this essay, created on TikTok and including a speech by writer Chimamanda Ngozi Adiche, raises an important question in today’s culture. ‘Bottom power is an expression which I suppose means something like a woman who uses her sexuality to get favours from men. Bottom power means that a woman simply has a good route to tap in to from time to time of somebody else’s power’^[5]. This poignant quote demonstrates the naivety of female empowerment by the means of entrepreneurship and, considering Barbie, makes us wonder whether we are much more than dolls being brainwashed into glorified conformists. Gerwig’s film doesn’t fail to entertain, though, embodying the perfect sweet spot between social commentary and spectacle.