Hey! My name is Trash Skeleton (TS for short) and I’ve had the pleasure of working with Cyborg Girlfriend (CG for short) before so when she told me that she was working on an article all about Barbie I just had to jump on the project! I’m super happy to be invited onto her substack to share my thoughts and highly recommend people check out her sort of part 1 where she really goes deep into the discourse surrounding the movie. I’m more interested in analyzing certain scenes and characters which is why these two essays back to back don’t really step on each other’s toes in my opinion.
When I called CG about the movie we had so much to say honestly. The movie itself had a lot to say! As two English majors we were obsessed with the kind of postmodern campiness delivered by Barbie and her many minions but the political aspects of the movie couldn’t be ignored either. This movie really tried to have its cake and eat too. But like in the way where babies just shove a massive piece of cake in their mouth and get messy cake bits everywhere. So after we talked about how the movie wanted camp and concrete political criticisms without sacrificing its capitalist appeal the word that kept coming to our discussion was: messy. This movie is so messy y’all and I think we should just jump right into why!
Where’s the intersectionality?
I’d argue that the only real message of the movie is to buy Barbie shit. Plastered across every outfit, every reference and character, the one thing you can notice above all else is that this is an ad for Barbie. I’m not complaining about that to be honest. It’s exactly what you expect when you go see a movie called Barbie. I would’ve actually preferred it if they were able to embrace that more, like they did in the Lego Movie, instead of trying to make a whole political deal about it to compensate for the icky ad feeling. Because a secondary point, since everything is secondary to making money, is that patriarchy bad (which it is). Then the movie tries to attach its constant criticisms of the patriarchy with other forms of systemic oppression but fails to do so in any meaningful way.
Let’s start off with C A P I T A L I S M. While the movie barely mentions any other form of oppression as clearly as it does the patriarchy, there are a handful of criticisms pointed towards our capitalist society. One of the few true villains of the movie is Mattel, with an intersectional depiction of white cis men at the head of the company who are clearly not out for women’s best interests. The way the movie makes fun of Mattel is actually pretty good in my opinion. Sure, you could argue that the movie makes it a bit too obvious. Instead of letting the boardroom speak for itself they have the characters spell it out in such an obnoxious way. But apart from that, Mattel’s villainy is campy and ridiculous in a way that makes you think “oh wow, cool that they were able to get away with that”. Until you see the success of Ken’s Mojo Dojo Casa House being ignored by the head of Mattel because he secretly cares about the empowerment of women. Obviously that’s not how it works right? Otherwise why would Mattel endlessly exploit the women who work in their sweatshops.
The Mattel baddies are clearly being made fun of and depicted as completely incompetent, obsessed with money and full of fake proclamations for the rights of women (except for the Mojo Dojo scene of course). Meanwhile the creator of Barbie (Ruth Handler) is laughed off as some charming wholesome lady despite her rubbing in our face the many convictions she’s had for tax evasion. This article gives a quick rundown of her life, written by Jennifer Zhan, and has a breakdown of Ruth’s involvement with the company Mattel. Ruth was actually the president of Mattel and her tax evasion was an intense effort to make the company’s stock look like it wasn’t actively hemorrhaging money (which it was). Jennifer uses the expression “she girlbossed too close to the sun” when talking about Ruth literally trying to funnel more money into her pocket, which is an expression that just resonates with the fake political wokeness of the movie so well.
Ruth gets to be this jokey-jokey character full of whimsy and wisdom despite being another ruth-less capitalist like the baddies from Mattel because the movie is physically incapable of being consistent with its messaging. Just like how they love to rail on the ridiculousness of conspicuous consumption despite constantly flaunting their Barbie products. A big reason why I think the Lego movie does a better job of toeing the line stems from the fact that the advertisements in Lego aren’t masked by a need to fight the power. The Lego movie isn’t constantly trying to prove itself as a radical movie to make up for the fact that it’s an ad, it just revels in the opportunity afforded by having hundreds of millions of dollars dumped into a dumb fun movie. And that’s totally ok actually! We live in a capitalist society where capitalists will hire people to make movies about loving capitalism and directors shouldn’t feel bad about cashing in a quick check as long as they deliver a fun product.
So patriarchy and capitalism get mentioned by name (well, almost mentioned when it comes to capitalism) but are there any other systems of oppression that get called out in the movie? Einh, kind of? Like the Barbies around stereotypical Barbie are clearly stand-ins for different identities. You have a plus sized barbie, a black barbie, a trans barbie, a neuro-divergent barbie, a disabled barbie, Kens with black and yellow skin and different body types everywhere. But that’s not enough!
If this movie was so dead set on criticizing society then criticize it! Don’t just put a bunch of different identities in the background to make it seem like you care. You’re literally making it seem like these issues are secondary to the patriarchy or capitalism which they’re not! The issues that would be faced by these different Barbies and Kens are intersectional because they are all equally important to understand. Intersectionality allows us to join forces, name and dissolve the many issues we face today. It’s also crazy to depict all of the Kens as though they benefited from the patriarchy in the exact same way. While black or yellow Ken can be privileged through the patriarchy there’s still the oppression they might face from a racist society!
(footnote: For those that might have an issue with the term yellow. While it’s completely understandable to be triggered by a word that is used against asians, I’m using it to make it clear that there is a racialized identity that exists in association with a certain group of people. The asian identity exists within a diaspora, but just as there is a black ken, the term yellow has historically only meant a very specific type of asian. So the term yellow is, for now, the closest we have to really getting at the racialization of asian people that look like yellow Ken.)
It also really hurts to see my fellow t girl just nodding along the whole time. She could’ve been a great vehicle to showcase the absurdity of the Ken/Barbie gendered dichotomy and there could’ve been a bunch of jokes that poke fun in the self-aware way they’re desperately trying to do. But that would mean openly acknowledging her trans-ness. Instead you’re legit forced into clocking her in order to realize that she’s trans. She could’ve been a great character to have the whole gendered divide fall apart but noooo, we gotta respect the markets that make representations of people like me illegal so the easier it is to ignore our existence the better! Which is just another thing that makes me see this movie as ultimately spineless. And I didn’t expect it to stand for anything but the fact that it wants to means that it has to deal with the criticisms that come from engaging with politics in such a shitty way.
Intersectionality isn’t just about having a bunch of different types of people perform for you in the background. If you want to address these issues and show that you care then try to actually engage with these issues. If you’re going to sacrifice so much of what makes this movie campy and entertaining to deliver long tirades then have those tirades be about more than just the most basic definition of respectability politics. Personally I would’ve made sure to have the campiness stand out the most. Lines like “honestly when I learned that the Patriarchy wasn’t just about horses I kind of lost interest” can exist in this campy space but still have the audience be aware of systemic issues. If people go into a Barbie movie, leave entertained, and the conversation around it sounds like “I can’t believe they got away with this” then you’ve done your job and so much more.
Ken and camp aesthetics
One thing I’ve been hearing the most about after watching the Barbie movie is Ken. Everyone I’ve talked to is saying that he stole the show. His song is the one I blast in the car with my family. Kens’ scenes and the character they get to perform are incredibly entertaining and do such a good job of mixing political commentary, camp, and comedy.
I really respect Margot Robbie for acting the crap out of her role. But man was it such a terrible role to be stuck with. She’s the one that has to cry her eyes out, she’s the one that has to deal with the insufferable cellulite running joke that almost instantly made me run out of patience with the comedy she was associated with. She was the one that had to be there for all the political speeches and heartfelt realizations that fell so flat. And yet Margot Robbie managed to deliver all that while moving like a doll that was barely given the autonomy of a human body.
There seems to be a constant conflict between the producers of the movie wanting to make money and the director wanting to seem like she’s still able to make this movie without compromising her values as a feminist. So Margot Robbie seems like she’s there to be that living contradiction of which both sides are just not that great to think about.
But who cares? This movie is about buying Barbie shit remember? So in order to forgive the movie for shoving endless amounts of ads in our face we expect the director to deliver something fun and self aware. Camp aesthetics, as I see it, where the intense magnification of image over text allows for a level of dissociation from authenticity for both the audience and director, can be like a wink shot straight from the screen as we all laugh at the ridiculousness of what we’re witnessing. No better is this delivered than through the character of Ken. The snapshots of glorified masculinity as Ken starts to act out the powerful men he witnesses or the interpretive dance battle between the army of Kens as Ryan Gosling bursts into song are so over the top that they become these incredibly fun extravagant displays that become seared into your mind.
So no wonder everyone’s talking about Ken! It’s not like Ryan Gosling was better at acting, he did an amazing job don’t get me wrong, but Margot Robbie was clearly bringing her all too. And it wasn’t just Ryan Gosling’s Ken that people are going to remember. The movie people wanted to see when they bought their Barbie tickets was delivered almost exclusively by the Kens. Barbie gets cut out of that world the moment she has thoughts of death at her party.
But you’re a fascist?!
There’s a moment of genuine criticism embodied by the daughter character Sasha who goes “all out” to tell off Barbie and everything she stands for. She touches on beauty standards, consumerism and whiteness in a rant that sounds like it came straight out of a video essay you’ve been putting off watching. The speech ends with the classic “you’re a fascist!” comment that is often used to stereotype anarchists or radically left people in general. This already undercuts the seriousness of her criticisms by making Sasha seem ignorant and caring more about being angry than being right. The kind of outlandish statement that would make most of the audience react by saying: How could a toy be a literal fascist? But think about stereotypical Barbie for a second. Look at her. Doesn’t she look like a nazi’s wet dream?
While she’s nothing more than a toy, not an actual fascist, there’s something about the ideal image Barbie embodies that is at least reminiscent of fascism. A comment like “you’re a fascist” still taps into the rage that Sasha might feel when faced by Barbie. But of course it’s not supposed to be that complicated. One of her friends says that she actually likes Barbie and Sasha immediately silences her and forces her to conform to her hatred, undercutting the final comment by making it seem like Sasha’s the actual fascist. The whole scene even frames her as this terrifying, unquestionable source of power. Barbie gets warned that you don’t talk to Sasha, you answer to her. Further reinforcing the child’s fascist vibes.
The movie then makes it its mission to change Sasha’s character. They want her to be less of a cynical overbearing lefty and to just lighten up a little! Instead of making this about Sasha not needing to give up her girliness the movie tries to frame it as: don’t give up on Barbie. Obviously to remind the audience to never stop buying Barbie products. This is first done by having the little girl discover Barbieland. A supposed paradise for empowered women. Why is it empowering? Because the women are in charge of course! So our little radical starts loosening up and gets excited to see this promised land. This is where I can tell the movie REALLY doesn’t understand radical politics and would rather engage with instagram girlboss feminism.
No anarcho-feminist would in good conscience support a version of the world where everything is basically the same except the roles are switched. Jineolojists are a group of radical feminists originating from the work of freedom fighters in Rojava. Their text, “Killing and Transforming the Dominant Man” argues that the state is inherently patriarchal. The state has been created to maintain domination through an uneven controlling force that oozes patriarchal power. And it’s not because those in power are male that the state is patriarchal by the way! It doesn’t matter if the president is a black Barbie or if the entire supreme court is staffed with women, the positions of power in of themselves are the problem. The alternative proposed by Jineolojists is also female governance but one based on nurturing each other, not domination! Instead of a state the people in Rojava organize horizontally so as to be equal. I highly recommend their text for those curious about what true female governance could look like!
Meanwhile, the girlboss mentality of the Barbie movie is actually super messy. They make it seem like it’s the right thing but also clearly caused a rift between the Barbies and Kens. The biggest issue the movie seems to find with its own internal form of governance boils down to who gets more praise in the attention economy. Ken and Allen are key figures in the story and only rebel because they feel like they are perpetual second-class citizens. Barbieland prioritizes the Barbies to such an extent that Kens don’t even have their own homes or at least no one is really sure where they sleep at night. When the Kens take over, Barbieland is a sanctuary for jerking off the male ego. The Kens just have to say the word and a Barbie will come over to bring them a beer.
Stereotypical Barbie breaks this apart by apologizing to Ken for how she treated him, making a point to say that “not every night has to be girl’s night”. Meanwhile the Barbies also take back the institutional power of Barbieland by voting themselves into the roles of president and supreme court justices making it very clear that they will not be sharing any of that power to the Kens. The movie’s conclusion seems to be that if you hand some scraps over to those who are perpetually undervalued then you can make up for being at the top. And that the real problem was that the Kens refused to share even a smidgen of their privileges to the Barbies. This is the kind of trickle down economics bullshit that neo-liberal politicians would cream themselves over!
And it’s such a shame too! Because the movie actually shows us a moment of radical organizing! The Barbies in Barbieland engage in campy guerilla warfare as they pit the Kens against each other only to rush to get their power back. It’s really cool to see the Barbies realize that they have to work together regardless of what job they have, a form of organizing reminiscent of the Industrial Workers of the World. The fact that they force those in power to attack each other is fascinating to me though. Because it’s like the movie is depicting the patriarchy as something that exclusively benefits and is reinforced by men. When in reality the patriarchy also creates difficulties for men when it comes to their emotions and ability to nurture each other while many women play an active role in reinforcing these barriers for men. I mean just look at the movie you know? What do the Barbies do the minute their revolution works? They just seize all the patriarchal tools they were being left out of! This was never about “all power to all the people” as the Black Panthers used to put it but about “all power to the Barbies but let’s not forget to help out the Kens!”
From Sasha’s radical rants to the Barbies’ fake alternatives to the patriarchy the movie seems to be messy but will always remind you that the solution is girl bosses not true equality. The fascistic tendencies of idolizing both power and those who look like Stereotypical Barbie gets swept under the rug or made into a joke. Sasha gets blown away by how cool it is to be a woman when all the women around her are bosses and we’re supposed to see that as her becoming a better, less bitter person.
Closing Thoughts
If you made it this far, god bless! Glad you’re here! I’m always able to vent more but I think I’ve said enough of my piece to have y’all see why this movie is so messy to Cyborg Girlfriend and me. So can instead of giving a recap can I just talk about how there were some straight up bad movie choices? The biggest one to come to mind is that the Mattel baddies are completely forgotten about after they hop on their roller blades until the very end of the movie. There’s also the fact that Sasha goes to Barbieland and is supposed to be impressed at the same time as Barbie is supposed to be revolted. I’m sorry but what is Sasha supposed to be impressed by? Why does she suddenly believe everything Barbie has to say about it despite all the Kens clearly ruling the place. These two flaws to me just stem from the movie running head first into every conceivable thing Barbie. Trying to tick all the boxes and ending up with a sludge pile that sometimes sticks and other times feels so sticky you have the urge to go take a shower. Glad we got a cool album out of it though!
And thanks again to CG for letting me post my rant here. Go check out her other stuff and if you’re ever in Amsterdam you can find me ranting and raving with the collective Loose Dog Magazine.
J’ai l’honneur d’être,
Trash Skeleton