Since its unveiling in
1959, the “Barbie doll”, has been a brand name, a role model, and a source of
toxic female body messages. It has shaped our cultural understanding of
femininity; giving girls something to aspire to. Originally, this aspiration
was outside of the traditional gender roles dominated by the time period which
encircled around the transformation of girls into wives and mothers.
Simultaneously, Barbie also became the focal point for unhealthy beauty ideals on
which body shaming tactics were predicated. Still, the good will and
questionable products Barbie has been associated with, is less about having a
particular feminist stance and more about Barbie (as a product, and a brand)
riding the wave of the cultural zeitgeist in search for higher short-term
profits (Zeisler 2016). This is the backdrop of the newest iteration of
Mattel’s flagship product: The Barbie (2023) movie directed by
Greta Gerwig. In this analytical review of
the film, the second paper in the planned “Barbenheimer” duology, I will be
looking at the history of Barbie through the various feminist movement waves,
the relationship between Barbie as a product of its Parent company, Mattel, and
the way that the film highlights, accentuates and complicates its own feminist
message through its unexpected populism and commodification.
PLOT
When
“Stereotypical Barbie” (Margot Robbie) the centerpiece of the fantasy world
“Barbieland”, created by Mattel, starts to have “irrepressible thoughts of
death”, she is tasked by “Weird Barbie” (Kate MacKinnon) to repair the rift
between their world, and the real one. But when Stow-a-way, Ken (Ryan Gosling)
learns about Patriarchy, he transforms “Barbieland” into “Kendom”. By film’s
end, it will take A human (America Ferrera) her daughter (Ariana Greenblatt)
and all of the Barbies to reverse what Ken did, while dodging Mattel’s CEO
(Will Ferrel) and his corporate cronies looking to put a lid on the whole
thing.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The History of Mattel and Barbie
The
history of the relationship
between Mattel
and Barbie
has been well
documented. Therefore, allow me to be terse. The
Barbie doll was created by Ruth Handler (played in
the film by Rita Perlman) after vacationing in Europe in 1956 (the doll
debuting in 1959). The image of Barbie was based on a German Sex doll, was named
after Ruth’s children: Barbara and Kenneth, (which is a bit incestuous given
the dolls biographical history) and designed to give girls a role model. Originally,
these aspirations were wrapped up in the body image of the 1960’s, complete
with post-war ideas of femininity that only encircled appearance and silence. The company has since pivoted to one of superficial
inclusion and diversity that is not only still exclusive (not
including all body types) and problematic, but it always had
to be fought for. Barbie got a variety of jobs, not due to the progressive
nature and intentionality of its CEO (as implied by Will Ferrell’s portrayal in
the film) but because “feminists pressured Mattel back in the seventies and eighties”
(Baumgardner and Richards 2000:196).
This fight for
representation is a common refrain in the constant battle of grassroots
movements vs corporations, but especially Mattel. Since the beginning of
Barbie’s history, Mattel has been a roadblock to any kind of change, while at
the same time, vigorously defending its brand with veracious venom. When
co-founder Ruth Handler brought her idea for Barbie to Mattel’s board of
directors, she was rejected by the all-male executives. They, like her
co-founders: Husband Elliott Handler, and Harold Matson, believed that the
common “baby dolls” were what girls really wanted; and the thought of a female
doll as an adult, was ludicrous. But with a redesign by Jack Ryan, the first
Barbie graced the stage at the American International Toy Fair in 1959. After putting the doll into production, Mattel
defended the brand by buying the rights to the likeness of its inspiration, and
defrauding
the German company in 1964. Mattel
would go on to continuously maintain their brand with some of the most
cutthroat legal tactics; “using copyright and trademark law to control the
meaning of Barbie.” (Tushnet 2013: 1).
According to Tushnet
(2013) some examples include:
·
Mattel v. Pitt:
Where a resident of the UK posted altered Barbie photos she called “Dungeon
Dolls” on the internet; Mattel filed in the US in order to subject Pitt to hundreds
of thousands of dollars in damages at the outset.
·
Mattel v. MCA:
Mattel sued MCA records over Aqua’s song “Barbie Girl” for trademark
infringement. Mattel submitted a 556-person survey to support their claim. This
was a tactic to scare the defendant into compliance.
·
Mattel v.
Walking Mountain: Mattel sued artist Thomas Forsythe for 78 “Food Chain
Barbie” photos. The two tactics described above were used in tandem in this
case.
Additional cases include:
·
Mattel vs. MGA: Mattel
sued the creator of Bratz dolls for copyright infringement through
corporate espionage claiming that the defendant came up with the idea while
working at Mattel. Being in an out of court has cost both companies millions.
Which, one can infer, is part of the point.
·
Mattel
v.
Rap Snacks:
In 2022, Rap Snacks launched their Niki Manaj branded “Barbie-Que Honey Truffle
Potato chips- Mattel sued them for copyright infringement.
Mattel has also sued
these companies over Barbie “representation”:
·
Producers of In Living Color
·
Producers of Saturday Night Live SNL
·
Greenpeace
·
The Tonight Show
·
The Producers of The Simpsons
·
The Barbie liberation Organization
Baumgardner and
Richards (2000) point out that in the pursuit of maintaining the (seemingly)
holy image of Barbie, the company, Mattel used exploitative labor in China, and
contributed to climate change through the dolls being non-biodegradable. Inevitably,
whether by trademark or trash, Barbie certainly has shaped the cultural
zeitgeist over the last near 70 years.
Barbie as a Cultural Icon
Barbie
was so profitable for Mattel that she became the flagship for the entire
industry. With the power of hundreds of million dollars of advertising behind
her, Barbie soon became a cultural icon.
Whether you think that Barbie is salacious or saintly, there is no
denying that she is everywhere. From playsets to vehicles, tv shows and video
games, Barbie penetrated and dominated the girl identified child market and was
foundational in the creation of the “Princess Culture”.
The
Princess Culture can be defined as the commercialization of the fantasy
princess narrative identifying the feminized ideas of beauty standards,
physical perfection, and passivity, often as the source of young girl
empowerment (Orenstein 2011). Barbie slid into the Princess culture like a
glass slipper on Cinderella. While Handler wanted Barbie to be an inspiration, providing
girls with careers (and bodies) they could aspire to, all of this was filtered
through the prism of profit. Barbie was then exalted as the amalgamated paragon
of gender and capitalism, a planned perfect hybrid of commodified consumer
driven girlhood.
With a Pepto-Bismol puke
pink aesthetic, Barbie became the foundation of “girl culture” for a generation
(and then some). Dubbed “Barbiecore” for the uninitiated, this style based upon
the long-limbed plastic idol is a fuchsia fueled femme fashion that has
taken over the industry since the early 2000’s.
Beginning with celebrity fashion figures (many of whom had their own reality show
at the time) and continuing with films like Legally Blonde, Clueless, and
Mean Girls, the foundation was being laid for a carcinogenic carnation
culture. But, in 2015, when known fashion designers started looking to the doll
for inspiration, including the “signature Barbie look” for their seasonal lines,
“Barbiecore” erupted into pop culture on the fingertips of social media
influencers. While the trend slowed a few years later, the recent resurgence is
a regressive response to the bleak blight of COVID-19, and the practice of “dopamine
dressing”. This is defined as wearing specific bright and
vibrant colors to improve a person’s mood.
This psychological effect can also include clothes not just with bright
colors but
those of symbolic, social or personal significance to the wearer.
Thus, Barbie, and the “Barbie style”, is now being viewed as a form of escapism
from global strife, climate crises, loss of human rights and body autonomy that
is our daily reality; oblivious to the soft power (gentle) push of popular
culture to influence behaviors.
Barbie was one of the
first dolls to attempt to be a “total girl”. This is not to be conflated with
being “well rounded” or “holistic”. Instead, Barbie being one of the first
dolls to be a “total girl” meant that she was the first doll to be completely
adorned, head to toe, with accessories and used as a proxy for child consumers to
learn about commercialized and reductive traditional gender stereotypes; particularly
those most vacuous traits that supports vapid spending as a form of gender
expression (Lamb and Brown 2006). From Spa days and Mani-Pedicures to clothes
and a variety of accessories, Barbie became one of the first “role model dolls”
girls could emulate. And while that
emulation came at an emotional and cultural cost (body image and beauty
standards), it was an economic boon, culminating in 2 billion dollars of profit
annually for Mattel.
The Barbie and her likeness became so omnipresent, it not only was subject to infringement but satire and parody. Every image of a doll in popular culture is typically a Barbie. Therefore, any criticism would also invoke the same image. Whether that be Malibu Stacy facing the ire of Lisa Simpson, or Angelica’s best friend Cynthia, to Debbie’s Ballerina Barbie villain monologue in Adams Family Values, they are all recreating and reproducing the same image regardless of the commentary. Barbie is the sun around which all other dolls orbit. The homeostasis of Barbie in our culture, has allowed it to be both revered and reviled by various feminist movements throughout history.
Barbie and the Feminist Movements
The ubiquity of “Barbie”
as a concept, product, image, and ideal is understated. Barbie has been both
the heroine and the villain of many people’s collective conscience. Born into a
reforming reality for women, Barbie was both collectively lauded and liable for
its representation(s) of women, depending on which feminist wave women rode
into the continuously patriarchal shoreline.
Barbie revolutionized the
toy market by not being a “baby”. She is a woman. She is unmarried. She lives
in Malibu, Ca (which means that she has spendable income), and she has held a
variety of occupations which implies education and versatility. This was an interesting
role model for the coming Second wave feminist movement. Barbie represents both the goals of, and
antithesis for white women of the ‘second wave”. Independence from men, with
career aspirations was the embodiment of what Betty Friedan (1963) called “the
problem that has no name”; the perpetual state of unfulfillment that (usually)
white women find themselves in when they only participate in the assigned roles
of wives and mothers. Socialization at the time, and a variety of other
cultural messages, did not support what Barbie was, even initially. Yet, this validation of a feminist identity did
not go very far. Not only did Barbie reinforce stereotypes of beauty and body
norms based around the necessity of dresses, make-up, and the importance of
body weight management, but Barbie’s looks were often co-opted into the
traditional gender norms of the revered 1950’s aesthetic, without moving beyond
this rich white perspective.
By the time third wave
feminism began in 1990, the unrealistic beauty standards of Barbie were well
known. If Barbie were real, her body proportions are so incongruous that she
would instantly die. She would be 5’9 mostly made up of her stick thin legs
that have a heel cord problem (so that she can always be put in heels). Her waist
to bust ratio (at the time[1]) was so disproportional
that she wouldn’t be able to hold herself up (not enough muscle definition to
protect her spine). During this time, Mattel complicated their messaging by
doubling down on some blatantly misogynistic rhetoric with an Exercise Barbie
coming with a diet book that just said, “Eat less.” on the back, and when
Barbie was finally given the ability to speak, her first words were: “Math is
Hard.” Also, Barbie dolls have limited range of motion and an inability to hold
anything. Therefore, even if she could have all of the jobs in the world[2], it is not like she could
effectively perform any of them without a cavernous suspension of disbelief
that rivals the Grand Canyon.[3] Barbie had become more of
a problem than a paragon for feminists. Sadly, the third wave movement’s out in
out rejection of the doll, caused many young women to be closeted about their affinity
for it. They were convinced that loving Barbie would exclude them from Feminism
(Baumgardner and Richards 2000: 197). This would change with the rise of “Lipstick
Feminism” in the fourth wave.
Emerging
out of the Third wave and embraced by fourth wave feminism that focuses on the
valuation of individual choice and identity, “Lipstick Feminism” is a type of
feminist expression that sees traditional expressions of femininity as empowering.
Also referred to as “girlie feminism”, this type of feminism embraces (some)
female stereotypes as valid forms of expression through the justification of
women having the agency and autonomy to make the decisions for themselves about
their own identity (Valenti: 2007). Debate has raged about the validity of
self-exploitation in feminist circles. The fundamental question this debate is
pondering is how much autonomy individuals can have in any society that shapes their
understanding of the world through a particular cultural lens. People only
express themselves through the tools that their society gives them. Therefore,
how much autonomy is there? Is there just the illusion of agency? Are these
questions moot given the social construction of reality itself? These are philosophical
questions that keep this debate going into the Fourth wave.
Considering that the
fourth wave feminism is all about “net feminism” and born out of the feminist
discourse online, it makes since that “Lipstick Feminism” would find its
footing riding this particular wave. Independence, identity, and the internet
allow for feminism and all ideologies to be superficially performative through
social media. Posts, likes, and reposts cultivate an individual’s digital
identity, allowing them to craft a persona that harvests the “best” [read as
most publicly consumable/desirable] parts of themselves to be put on display,
fully aware, ignorant, or ambivalent to the cyclical nature of gender
socialization in which we are both product and producer of healthy and toxic
gender messages simultaneously. Multiple things can exist at the same time, and
this is the landscape under which Greta Gerwig (and Mattel)’s Barbie (2023) was
produced.
Production
The road to a Barbie movie was winding.
Beginning in the 1980’s there were several fits, starts and spurts forward before
ultimately petering out. This current
attempt began in 2016 when Amy Schumer was in negotiations to play the titular
role. But after she left due to creative differences [read as corporate
control], a laundry list of actors was cycled through to replace her. Anne
Hathaway was attached in 2018 when the film rights reverted to Mattel after
Sony’s option expired. At the time, Mattel was amidst a corporate restructuring
of their media division, rebranding as Mattel Films in September of that year.
Once
the rights reverted, Mattel Films’ chief priority was the development and
release of a Barbie live action feature. Robbie Brenner, head of the division,
and Ynon Kreiz would serve as executive producers to promote Mattel’s interests
during production. On Jan 7th
2019, they announced the Barbie movie with Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling
attached to play Barbie and Ken; both initially landing the roles because of
their “natural” likeness to the characters. After they were signed, Robbie’s
production company, “Lucky Chap”, came on as additional producers. It was
Robbie herself who pitched to Warner Bros to handle distribution, jokingly
suggesting that the film would gross over a billion dollars.[4]
With
Warner’s distribution secured, Robbie brought on Greta Gerwig to both direct
the film and co-write the script with partner Noah Baumbach in July 2021. Gerwig’s
influences on the film were wide and varied: Reviving Ophelia by Mary
Pipher and the musical films: The Red Shoes and The Umbrellas of
Cherborg were seemingly incongruous as the thematic push for the film. Yet,
Gerwig was confident that the authentic and sincere artificiality of the movie
musical would incorporate nicely with the effects of the social pressures on
teen girls outlined in Pipher’s book. Gerwig
and several producers were initially skeptical the first draft would be
approved given the heavy amounts of criticism leveled against Mattel; not
understanding that corporations will lean into satire and self-parody if it
improves their bottom line (more on this later).
The all-encompassing nature of the Barbie brand also allowed the producers, and other creators involved, to draw upon their own experiences with the doll while making the film. From a key grip and the boom mic operator to the cinematographer and principal cast, everyone had an experience with Barbie. Gerwig and the producers seized upon that shared dream/nightmare and wove this collective cultural consciousness into the tapestry and visual language of the film. Culling stories and experiences from the crew added to the scripts deconstructive and ontological outlook; interrogating not only what Barbie is, but what Barbie means to culture; again, without realizing they are inevitably shaping the culture with the film’s production and distribution.
Barbenheimer
The “Barbenheimer” phenomenon came
about due to scheduling the release of both Barbie (2023) and
Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer.
What initially was a film culture middle finger to the British filmmaker, for
the way their relationship ended with Warner Bros. over the HBOMAX deal in
2021, blossomed into a flash in the pan cultural moment, memed and marketed
throughout the entire social media sphere. This cinematic portmanteau was
created in the same vein of celebrity couples and their juxtaposition was
initially set to create competition. Which were audiences going to see, dark
and broody Oppenheimer or brightly effervescent Barbie; often framing
these decisions along traditionally gendered lines. Yet, as the culture
embraced and formed around these two films, it became less about which one a
person was going to go see, but which one first. The common ignorant assumption
was that audiences should take the heaviest film first, Oppenheimer, and
then “chase” that heaviness with a fun fuchsia filled frolic to “Barbieland”.
While Oppenheimer was the expected slog of drudgery through the worst of
masculinity, and more broadly, humanity; Barbie’s existential crisis
plot and feminist overtones surprised many moviegoers as being far more deep
than anyone in the public expected. Yet, with each screening, for the first
time in decades Barbie was once again, associated positively with Feminism.
SOCIAL ANALYSIS
“I’m not a
Fascist. I don’t control the railways, or the means of production.” Stereotypical
Barbie
The Feminism of Barbie: A Dolls Dilemma
When Barbie was created it broke the glass
ceiling of the toy industry. Suddenly, girls could start to see a life past the
roles of mothers; and while she revolutionized the understandings of the Second
Wave Feminists, being beyond what a White Heterosexist Patriarchy told women
they could be, they also fell into a lot of sexist traps and reinforced toxic
ideas of beauty and body identity.
The
Barbie doll itself was culturally valued and traded on Erotic
Capital. This is defined as the value of an individual based on their ability to subscribe to, and
achieve, socio-historic and cultural beauty and body norms in the eyes of
others. Women have been taught to use their erotic capital as a tactic to
access resources and power which are usually barred from them (primarily by
white men). Women are taught to establish confidence only through their erotic
capital, and from that erotic capital, more access and power shall flow.[5]
Barbie, for generations, has been a focal point in the traditional gendered
terrorism that is body shaming. The resulting poor body image may lead to
dangerous body practices in order to achieve this mythologized ideal. Such
practices include: unhealthy eating habits, eating disorders, unnecessary
surgeries, depression, and attempted suicide.
According
to Naomi Wolf (1991), beauty does not objectively or universally exist. What is considered beautiful in one culture
(look at Hawaiians) is not the same in another (the
Valeria Lukyanova a Russian Model and influencer, has been
dubbed “the Human Barbie” in the media, as being of the body shape and style
that “most closely resembles” Barbie. Yet, this was a look that was not
naturally obtained as critics of the Barbie doll have been repeating for
decades. Lukyanova wears colored contacts, has had breast augmentation surgery,
goes to the gym daily, lives on a raw vegan liquid diet and believes in breatharianism: the idea that a person does
not need food or water to live[6].
This is a body that is only possible
under the conditions of wealth, status, privilege, and a devotion to dangerous
ideologies. Thanks, Barbie.
Additionally, beauty and body image has not been the only controversy
that has had Barbie at its center. There have been several dolls that have been
discontinued due to their cultural and social insensitivity. The 2023 film
mentions some of the more innocuous discontinued dolls, like the Pregnant
Midge, Grown-up Skipper, Media Barbie, and Sugar Daddy Ken. What they strategically
left out was the truly offensive dolls, such as: black-faced Oreo Barbie Tie
in, and “Share a Smile Becky”, the toy line’s first attempt at a Doll in a
wheelchair. They were all discontinued and quietly swept under the rug, never
to be mentioned again. But the overall impact is farther than their placement
on store shelves.
The Feminism of Barbie (2023): A
Misunderstanding of Power
Whereas the feminism of Barbie,
the doll, has always vacillated between problematic ally and “part of the
problem”; the film adaptation wears its feminism on its chorally colored
diamond encrusted sleeve. Fully embracing the “Lipstick Feminism” of the third
wave, Stereotypical Barbie (Margot Robbie) and the rest of the Barbie’s of “Barbieland”,
exposit a fem-fueled synergy between gender and power; an imagining of this
confluence without the influence of the patriarchy, either as a shield or riposte.
This is difficult to consider because there has been a plethora of examples of the
Patriarchy/Feminism dichotomy in both reality and popular culture, but usually
positioned to be in response to each other, especially around the understanding
of power.
The conception of power
is typically gendered male and seen as a masculine trait. Because a majority of
examples of how to wield power has been exclusively masculine for generations,
when women exercise power, their understanding of it is still through a masculine
lens, ultimately reproducing power as something masculine even if women are the
couriers. We see this happen when single mothers reinforce toxic and harmful forms
of masculinity in their sons, or when women in positions of power, imitate the
posturing of men because the structure is infused with a culture of misogyny.
Therefore, women in power double down on this expression of power rather than
dispossess it (hooks 2000).
Often referred to as “The
Patriarchal Bargain” where women promote masculine
understandings of the world, in order to glean some favor, status and/or wealth
from the men that they support, has become, in several instances, a survival
tactic to exist within patriarchy. Marriage, Childbearing, Faining ignorance, to
even false laughter are all the bars on the gilded cage of women who promote
patriarchy. And yet, “women cannot gain much power on the terms set by the
existence of the social structure without undermining the struggle to end
sexist oppression” (hooks 2000:86).
Barbie as a doll, and by extension the Barbie characters themselves,[7] are still part of the patriarchal system as either a mechanism (the doll) or its proxy (the film). Because we understand power through a masculine lens, power, no matter who wields it, is still dominating or controlling others. “[Simply] obtaining power in an existing social structure will [not] necessarily advance feminist struggle to end sexist oppression” (hooks 2000:92). The irony is that even though the “realm” of “Barbieland” did not have any notion or conception of Patriarchal power (until Ken came to the real world), it was still a response to patriarchy as a fantasy feminist mirror for young girls. Therefore, their structures and dynamics are still influenced and ruled by a patriarchal understanding of power.
The Feminism of Barbie (2023): Ken’s
Journey
“I am Kenough.”- Script
on a Ken Hoodie
Because Barbie, the doll,
was a response to the existence of girls in the patriarchy (in the real world),
itself emanating with their own traditional gender messages, the “egalitarian”
feminist Utopia in “Barbieland,” in the film, does not consider men, and therefore
subjugates “the Kens.” At the beginning of the film, it is stated that every
day is a good day for Barbie, but Ken only has a good day if Barbie looks at
him. In fact, Ken doesn’t know who he is without Barbie. Here the film is
invoking general masculine socialization that teaches boys/men to forgo any
introspection and due to pejorative patriarchal power dynamics, find themselves
in a state of perpetual arrested development, outsourcing their emotional labor
to their partner or spouse. Ken, like all real men, is trapped in the cage of
toxic masculinity even before learning about patriarchy’s power. This is
illustrated in the relationship/rivalry between “Beach” Ken (Ryan Gosling) and Tourist
Ken (Simu Liu). Both men, in a series of escalating actions, vie for
Stereotypical Barbie’s attention because they do not know who they are without
her. This lack of identity mirrors the horrors of defining femininity through a
patriarchal system, much like “the problem that has no name.” (Freidan 1963). The
Kens do not have an identity outside of the ones the Barbies give to them. This
void is unfortunately filled with the toxic sludge of masculine domination. Albeit
oversimplified and misunderstood, the consequences are all too similar.
Toxic Masculinity in Barbie
(2023) is analogized as a virus, compared to the reaction native peoples
had to smallpox, the Kens having equally no defense. Almost instantly, the Kens
adopt an air of superiority, and through this newfound sense of masculine entitlement,
subjugate the Barbies through a series of micro-aggressive tactics including
gaslighting, and victim blaming. The Barbies are then swept up in its undertow
and begin to act out this sense of subservience; first as a compulsion, then as
a weaponized tactic.
Once the Barbie’s are “deprogrammed”
from the effects of this toxicity, the subterfuge that they employ to gain
their power back is through a reinforcement of gendered practices that play on
the insecurities of men under patriarchy; ultimately leading to violence. Yet,
as the Barbie’s look on as the “War of the Kens” rages in front of them, the
Barbies have an expression of both triumph and judgmental pity without a hint
of remorse. Instead, they see this as a necessary distraction to put right,
what the Ken’s broke. However, once reformed, “Barbieland” is not the image of
a fantastical female centered utopia perceived at the beginning of the film;
but a world that exists as an inverse of our own, where it’s assumed men will
slowly march toward equality with the same pace and struggle as women in the
real world.
Considering this resolution, and the structure of the film, is there any surprise that douche bag right wing commentators and Nazi sympathizers feel vindicated in their false claims of Feminism’s misandry? The ending of the film plays on all of these beta male sexist worst fears: the fear of power loss, and the fear of a lack of identity, because they only see feminine power as an affront to them. When the reality is that the acquiescence of women to men in our society is a defense mechanism born from generations of men in positions of authority, flexing that power through various forms of direct, personal, structural, and symbolic forms of violence (Bourdieu 1998). The tragic irony of course being that most of that violence is motivated by the fear instilled in men through toxic masculinity, revolving around the fear of the loss of cisgenered female attention; ultimately keeping men in a state of dependency on women. For a lot of men, that dependency moves far beyond their outsourcing of emotional labor, but to the relinquishing of basic behaviors of human survival such as: the basics of cooking and cleaning, life organization, and time management. Therefore, it is only through the oppression of and reliance on women, that many men can call themselves “independent”.
.jpg)
The Feminism of Barbie (2023): It’s Still
a Product.
“If you Love Barbie, this movie is for
you. If you Hate Barbie, this Movie is for you.”-film’s
tagline.
Because there is no
ethical consumption under capitalism, everything can be commodified, including
ideologies (Marx 1992). Regularly,
ideals about honor, love, masculinity, and political affiliation are
personified into products. Consumers believe that if they buy a certain product,
they are supporting the ideology that it represents and vice versa.[8] Unfortunately, when
you ensnare consumerism with ideological expression,
that minimizes other forms of activism because people assume that they are
doing enough through their consumer choices. Secondly, this form of consumer
activism is pro-capitalist because it does nothing to curb consumption.
Therefore, ideological marketing has now become a legitimate business tactic.
Companies routinely tout both their company’s egalitarian and eco-friendly
structure, organization and practices while promising that their products will satisfy
emotional longing or existential dread. Nostalgia marketing works because,
through the purchase of a product, consumers can relive experiences of
childhood, a time that was often simpler and easier (especially if you are
marketing to middle class white people). The same happens to political
ideologies like Feminism.
Mattel, “the Barbiecore”
and Ruth Handler herself, would have you believe that the creation of the doll,
and its impact on culture, has always been positive and that feminism was
always a core value of the Barbie brand. The current Barbie doll tagline is “We
are Barbie.” A pure pink model of feminist inclusivity. Yet, all these gains
had to be negotiated, fought for and wrestled away from the grips of the
powerful (usually rich white men) and only when said change was deemed
profitable, would the company acquiesce. This often sours the taste of these victories
and tempers the steel of social justice.
According to Andi Zeisler
(2016), Feminism, like a lot of ideologies, has become sellable. In addition to
its political activism, products posit Feminism “as a cool, fun accessible
identity…it is this feminism that trades on the simple themes of sisterhood and
support, you go-girl tweets and Instagram photos…[this] feel-good feminism pulls
focus away from deeply entrenched forms of inequality…[transforming] a
collective goal, into a consumer brand,” (xii, xv). Zeisler (2016) calls this Marketplace
Feminism: a version of the movement that is the most media friendly and
centers around heterosexual relationships, marriage, economic success and one
that doesn’t challenge existing capitalist structures (xv). Barbie (2023)
epitomizes this, its performative bubble gum form of Feminism is the marketing
tool.
Barbie (2023)
is more than a product; it is a marketing tie-in with the doll that came before
it. The existence of the film is based on the whims of those that hold its film
rights; and they only see the world in terms of economic gains, losses, and
their own branding image. This is personified in the film by the representation
of Mattel and the minimization of its own product’s criticism. When we first
see the board room at Mattel, it, like Barbieland, is ensconced in pink yet
juxtaposed with a collection of men in dark suits sitting around a table. At
the head is its nameless CEO (Will Ferrel) that gives off more of a lovable oaf,
rather than corporate shark; even when the latter is more believable given the litigiousness
of the company. This inaccuracy feels like a studio note. As if some executive said:
“It is ok to take light jabs at how many women at Mattel have been CEO, but we shouldn’t
portray ourselves as immorally avarice.” The film does play with the tone of
this representation, having the character discuss getting into the business to
help girls achieve their dreams, but folds to capitalism the minute an idea he dismisses
becomes profitable. Like Marketplace Feminism, this buffoonery softens the
edges of the capitalistic corporate culture making it more palatable and less likely
to change.[9]
Another decision that
deflates the feminist message into a more digestible and popular form is the
choice to minimize the criticism of the Barbie doll itself. Rather than spend
some time interrogating the legitimate criticisms surrounding the Barbie doll:
deconstructing the issues of body shame, body dysmorphia, and its contribution
to eating disorders, the film decides to synthesize that into a single angst
filled monologue, given by a teenager. The source of this cogent rant, and its
recipient, in the context of the story, undermines the criticism’s viability.
Firstly, Stereotypical Barbie is our likable protagonist, we are designed to be
on her side. Therefore, when her naivete is obliterated by Sasha, and she
begins to cry, we cast Sasha as the one with the problem. Secondly, having the
criticism of Barbie be presented by a child ultimately casts their opinions a
sophomoric, and thus unreliable. This is supported, and later confirmed in the film,
when Sasha tells Gloria (America Ferrera) she thinks that Barbie is “Cool”. Again, this film is allowed to be Feminist,
but only in ways that don’t disrupt the brand.
The Feminism of Barbie (2023) A
Problematic Epiphany
“By giving voice to the cognitive dissonance of being
a woman under the patriarchy, you’ve robbed it of its power.”- Stereotypical
Barbie
While Barbie (2023)
does wear its (feminist) heart on its sleeve, being a gloriously and
unapologetically pro-pink “girly girl culture” form of feminism, it also falls
short to carry the nuances of and struggles for women’s rights and its
diversity of voices and interests. Granted, this is partly due to the delivery
system of these messages. As noted above, Feminism, filtered through the
pro-capitalist corporate structure, is a diluted facsimile of itself. Even if
it is one of the most popular, mainstream, corporate approved piece of feminist
pop culture, there is always a cost.
For Barbie (2023), that cost comes in its delivery
of its central messaging and its own self-criticism. The above quote is the
synthesis of Gloria’s intense monologue of what it is like being a woman under patriarchy.
Which, while pointed and true, does not acknowledge some of the systemic
problems of masculine domination and its effects on individual women’s lives,
even if the film constantly invokes “patriarchy”. The film fails to acknowledge
that it is potentially lethal to not teach girls and women strategies to
navigate the dangers of masculine rule under patriarchy in the way that Gloria
describes; given the long history of male violence against women. Sure, when
Stereotypical Barbie goes into our world, she gives voice to the “undertone of
violence” that comes with female sexualization and objectification, but it goes
nowhere. Instead, it is presented as just an eerily salient joke. Thus, the way
that patriarchy is used here, is as a catch all, a generalized anti-feminist boogeyman,
rather than something that needs to be truly feared.
Additionally, the film also peddles in mixed
messaging regarding body rights and body autonomy for women. On the one hand,
Stereotypical Barbie punches a man for sexually assaulting her. But at the same
time, Stereotypical Barbie is also the only Barbie that gets to become human.
This reinforces the sexist propaganda that girls can achieve the body ideal and
be the fantasy, because human Stereotypical Barbie looks the same as she did when
she was a doll…still played by Margot Robbie. This point is even called out
earlier in the film when Stereotypical Barbie, in the thralls of her
existential crisis, says that she is not good enough or pretty. The film
literally grinds to a halt (the image stops) and narrator Hellen Mirren says,
“Note to Filmmakers: Margot Robbie is the wrong person to cast if you want to
make this point.” (Gerwig 2023). The filmmakers are obviously aware of this
mixed messaging, they are just trying to have their proverbial cake and eat it
too. Furthermore, the movie also does not want to bring attention to the
abysmal reality of the current body rights for women. There is no mention of
the repeal of Roe v Wade, or its repercussions it has on women’s lives. This is a glaring omission considering that
the film ends with (the now real) Stereotypical Barbie, going to her first
gynecological appointment. It is both tonally inconsistent, and insulting.
Moreover, the film talks
about women like they are a Monolith, a singular entity under which they all
find shade. In an homage to Kubrick’s 2001 A Space Odyssey at the
beginning of the film, Margot Robbie’s Stereotypical Barbie, is literally the
obelisk all the other girls worship. This fills the film with whiteness
and the flavors of white feminism. Regardless of the diverse cast, which itself
feels like a garnish, with each character being a “token” type of Barbie, (thinly
veiled by identifying them by their occupations) this is a very white story. The
irony is that “Stereotypical Barbie” [read as: White Barbie] is either never
given a job (which speaks to the classist white privilege of the dolls origin)
or can have all the jobs (which again alludes to white supremacy) making her
even more out of touch with the audience. Yet, she is the one that goes on the adventure.
The omission of the issues that are unique to women by race, class, disability,
sexuality, and culture, reinforces the salient point that solidarity is only
for white women (Kendall 2020). Thus, this film is allowed to be feminist, as
long as a white woman is at its center.
Therefore,
Gloria’s statement about the experiences of women under the patriarchy is an
act of solidarity (under white feminism) rather than a call to action. The line
delivery is less about motivation and reads more like quiet reservation and
acceptance. Because how can you rob something of its power if you have done
nothing to change the structures and systems that fuel it? You can’t; and even
though the Barbie’s collectively decouple Ken’s version of patriarchy from the
institutions of power, that dissonance is still presented as inherit and
necessary in the real world and “Barbieland” moving forward.
CONCLUSION
Barbie
(2023)
is a well-made film with watered-down feminist rhetoric to be publicly
palatable. It is a marketing tool for the profitability of its source material
“The Barbie doll” and an example of Marketplace Feminism. It’s critique of
masculinity is strong, but it does not disentangle masculinity from the ideas
of power, nor give any feminist rally cry beyond superfluous (white) solidarity.
These shortcomings and problematic messages ultimately transform a pink infused
concentration of “Lipstick- Feminism” into the blandest mass market lemonade.
REFERENCES
Baumgardner,
Jennifer and Amy Richards 2000. Manifesta: young women, feminism and the
future New York: Farrer Strauss Giroux
Bourdieu, Pierre
1998. Masculine Domination Standford: Standford University Press
Freidan, Betty
1963. The Feminine Mystique New York: WW Norton and Company
Gerwig, Greta 2023.
Barbie Los Angeles. Warner Bros Studios
Hooks, bell 2000. Feminist
Theory: From Magin to Center 2nd edition. Cambridge, South End Press
Kendall, Mikki
2020. Hood Feminism: Notes from the Women a Movement Forgot New York:
Viking Press
Lamb, Sharon and
Lyn Mike Brown 2006. Packaging Girlhood: Rescuing Our Daughters from
Marketers’ Schemes New York: St. Martian’s Griffin Publishing
Marx, Karl 1992. Capital:
A Critique of Political Economy Vol 1 New York: Penguin Classics
Orenstein, Peggy
2011. Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches From the Front Lines of the New
Girlie-Girl Culture New York: Harper Publishing
Tushnet, Rebecca, 2013. "Make Me Walk,
Make Me Talk, Do Whatever You Please: Barbie and Exceptions" in Georgetown
Law Faculty Publications and Other Works. Retrieved on 9/29/2023 Retrieved
at https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1228/
Valenti, Jessica
2007. Full
Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman s Guide to Why Feminism Matters New York: Seal
Press
Wolf, Naomi 1991. The
Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women New York: William
Morrow and Company
Zeisler, Andi
2016. We Were Feminists Once: From Riot Girrl to Covergirl, the Buying and
Selling of a Political Movement New York: Public Affairs
[1]
Though its still not great, even today.
[2]
Lifestyle and career choices that were imposed upon her as a particular product
[3]
This could be why Barbie is still marketed to children ages 6-12, when your
imagination is both open and vast.
[4]
The movie went on to make 1.4 billion upon its initial domestic and
international release
[5] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/what-the-ideal-womans-body-looks-like-in-18-countries_us_55ccd2a6e4b064d5910ac3b0
[6]
Side not she is also Pro Russa in the war against Ukraine and does not believe
in Race Mixing
[7]
Most every female character in Barbieland is named “Barbie”
[8]
Think of the Right Wing Boycott of Bud Light because they decided to Support
Gay and Trans rights
[9] It
should also be noted that the lesson Mattel is learning from Barbie (2023)’s
success is not that more films need to be directed by women for women, while
also being nuanced and make interesting choices, But, rather A. There needs to
be a sequel, and B. More of their products can make money through film
adaptations.
