What the film does do well is framing the place of the doll in the psychology and development of 20^th century American women

To expect a single, two hour Hollywood movie, or indeed a review of said single Hollywood movie, to solve the war between binary genders is of course ridiculous. What the film does do well is framing the place of the doll in the psychology and development of 20^th century American women. It acknowledges both the goals and limitations of Barbie. The arc of Robbie’s Stereotypical Barbie is the arc of any developing young human having to come to terms with complicated and messy differences between the real world and make believe. The film builds well to America’s monologue and Stereo Barbie’s final decision. Those moments seem insightful and meaningful and made me cheer.

And then there’s Ken. I think the flaws in the film come in it’s handling of Ken. And despite what the internet may think, I think we can criticize the movie’s handling of Ken without being raving patriarch-ists in fear of being castrated. In fact, I think the problems inherent in the screenplay (who’s second to third acts do seem less thought out, more sloppy) are actually reflective of the inherent problems in Ken and Barbie’s relationship. The film does try to acknowledge this, but really makes a muddle of it. Gosling’s tortured performance at the moment of resolution almost seems like the actor knows this and is trying overly hard to sell a plot point that just doesn’t work.

Barbie in it’s more recent incarnations is supposedly about allowing girls to picture themselves as doctors, lawyers and astronauts when they play. If you can play it, you can be it. Great message, absolutely, and I have no doubt this has been effective for empowering the women these girls become. But in this world building, the focus is 100% Barbie. Ken is created as an accessory to her, like the shoes or handbag with which she is packaged. Ken isn’t being used to tell girls they can be anything they want to be. In fact it is the opposite. Barbie became necessary because girls were being raised to believe that a husband was the answer to all of their problems. So in the Barbie world, Ken is definitely not supposed to be “The Answer.”

Barbieland, like Wonder Woman’s Paradise Island is an escapist fiction. Both provide respite from oppression, but they don’t serve as a model for solving the problems in the real world.

So where the movie falls apart is also where Barbie as a world falls apart. You cannot establish an identity in isolation from other people, and you can’t do it with simply a profession and a wardrobe. All humans regardless of gender need more than that. While a relationship is not the solution to any individual’s identity, that doesn’t mean you have to live without one. And you aren’t ever going to have a successful one if you never see your partner as an equal. As much as one might love a Gucci bag or a Manolo Blahnik mule they won’t make you feel less alone. To quote Babs Streisand as Dolly Levi, “And on those cold winter nights, Horace, you can snuggle up to your cash register. It’s a little lumpy, but it rings!” Feminism has focused so long on empowerment, but power isn’t everything. Gender and gender roles are about identity, but they also exist in a dynamic. Barbieland, like Wonder Woman’s Paradise Island is an escapist fiction. Both provide respite from oppression, but they don’t serve as a model for solving the problems in the real world. And my fear is they instead teach young people to ignore the problem. Is it really so anti-woman to think that Dr. Barbie and Dr. Ken could open up a pediatric practice together, and that Barbie might feel a little less anxious with a partner who is her equal, instead of an enemy who is out to get her? Are we expected to believe that a successful lawyer, doctor or astronaut is going to be interested in spending time with a himbo who’s only skills are “beach?” Barbie the movie clearly says no. She definitely is not fulfilled by the beach. It reminds me of one of my favorite lines from the movie BROADCAST NEWS where Jane’s boss says (sarcastically) “It must be nice to always believe you know better. To always think you’re the smartest person in the room” And Holly Hunter’s character replies “No. It’s awful.” (Yes, there are many ways to read that line. All of them relevant.)

Midge and Weird Barbie could have been perfectly happy raising Midge’s baby together, given the opportunity.

The film also doubles down pretty heavily on the binary aspects of gender. We are given Kate McKinnon as “Weird Barbie.” I am always glad to see her and have been a fan of her work since THE BIG GAY SKETCH SHOW. But the movie is tacitly equating “weird” with lesbian. And while I personally DO believe we are often smarter about these gender and sexuality issues than the straights in the room, it is still problematic to present our otherness as only being valuable because of our usefulness to, in this case, binary gender. Ear-ring Ken and Sugar Daddy Ken while funny, serve no purpose in the structure of the film. The place to explore these issues usefully might have been with the character of Allan, or between two Kens. But all we get is typical gay-baiting between Gosling and Liu. Can’t kiss him, so I gotta beat him up. Sorry, “beach” him up. I complained about this tired trope in THE LIGHTHOUSE a couple of years ago. But we’ve also got the assumption some how that perfect, plastic men must be gay, right? Ear-ring Ken and Sugar Daddy Ken were both imperfect, sexless and impotent. Midge and Weird Barbie could have been perfectly happy raising Midge’s baby together, given the opportunity.

So what does it add up to? Straight men and women are still at war with each other, but they seem more interested in prolonging the battle than actually solving the problems. And as usual those of us who don’t identify as cis, hetero or binary are stuck in the middle. Nice try. Could have been worse. But could have been better. Seriously, just send the script through ChatGPT one more time…