Barbie’s World(view)
Barbie was just released and there are plenty of lovers and haters of the movie to speak to its cinematic and storytelling qualities. But at Worldviewish, of course, we are interested more about what worldview any given narrative promotes. In the Greta Gerwig universe of the beloved Mattel doll, we see that the world comes down to: identity. In the largely postmodern perspective of 2023, it would seem there is a bit of irony here.
On one hand, there is no commitment to the modern ideology of a genderless world. There is a clear sex binary in Barbie and Ken. We are even shown in a both brilliantly hilarious, but disturbing, homage to 2001: A Space Odyssey opening, that all little girls love dolls. These little carriers of the XX chromosome immediately are seen smashing their little dolls to bits in a preemptive revolution of female expectation. A quick side note here about the theme of motherhood: it was great to see Gloria (America Ferreira) embrace her relationship with her daughter, Sasha (Ariana Greenblatt)–the good, the bad, and the ugly. On the other hand, it was disturbing to watch a bunch of little girls raging against their innate desire to become mothers. We also get a few scenes with Midge (Emerald Fennell), Barbie’s pregnant friend, who, as the movie points out (somewhat critically), was discontinued. The mixed messaging of motherhood is appropriate for a postmodern age: it’s valuable to be a mother only if you want to be a mother, otherwise, we are free to choose not to be a mother at the cost of violently murdering babies.
Today, we are presented with the fluidity of sex in terms of how one feels at any given moment. An audience may be able to make sense of this through a relativistic lens (we do this all the time with stories and the suspension of disbelief), however, the problem for Christians is that we have no way to coherently understand the dismissal of a sex binary when looking through a Biblical lens. The Barbie movie also seems to agree: women exist as a distinct sex apart from men.
"Stereotypical Barbie," played by the nearly-flawless Margot Robbie herself, is blonde, beautiful, stylish, fit, and high-heeled—the classic version of the doll someone may initially think of at the mention of “Barbie.” She lives in a world of other Barbies, and a handful of other less-popular and discontinued dolls like the pregnant Midge. She has a perfect day every day that always has the perfect “every night is girls’ night” with the other Barbies. The world is run by women and these dolls are under the impression that they made the Real World a better place by inspiring young girls to be empowered. No surprise that when Barbie enters into the Real World, it is not as she pictured it and needs fixing. But one might wonder what needs to be fixed.
Certainly, the Real World as depicted in the movie is an exaggerated version of the sexism that definitely still exists. Unfairly lacking, though, was the sexism that also exists towards men. What statement is the movie making when the Real Word is saturated with misogynism, most egregiously depicted in the catcalls Barbie experiences upon entering our world as well as in the boardroom of Mattel, led by Head-of-Suits Will Ferrell? Looking at the current Executive Team, though, does show 3 of 10 listed members as women. No doubt Mattel allowed Gerwig some license to poke fun at themselves. But, if we are to draw from the movie that the Real World is just too binary, too male-centric, and too unbearable (completely opposite from the fantasy Barbie World), then one has to wonder why Barbie wants to go back to it.
In Barbie, we meet her creator, Ruth (Rhea Perlman) and she explains to Barbie that she was created to inspire little girls in the Real World to be anything they want. Ruth had a vision for her daughter, Barbara (where Barbie got her name), to succeed further than herself. Ruth tells Barbie, “Mothers stand still so their daughters can see how far they have come.” It’s a beautiful if sentimental line, poetic even. However, thinking about this more on the drive home, my husband and I were reflecting on our own mothers and how they certainly are not now nor have they ever been standing still. Yet, the sentiment is valid that girls can exceed their mothers all the more because of the many mothers before them paving the way. We can see it as a firm foundation being laid for children to grow, standing still in the surety of what it means to be a woman, and the sturdiness of who she is in society (that is, mothers and nurturers helping children grow into their own strong people making their own path).
It is all good and fun in the world of Barbie where women rule the world and own the dream homes, and it is the men (the Kens) that play the accessories to them. Until it isn’t. Ryan Gosling’s Ken, fresh from his adventure with Barbie in the Real World, leads the revolution to bring Patriarchy into Barbie’s World. When Barbie comes back to a Ken-centric world, it is no longer “perfect.” What does this say about the status quo of that world? That Barbie-centriciam is what should be deemed perfect (a.k.a. hyper-feminism–if there is such a thing as feminine)? The Barbies band together to win back their agency and their power, even though they outnumber the Kens to begin with and somehow fall into the trap of the Patriarchy with a sudden lack of any critical thinking skills of their own. By the end of the movie, Ken is miserable again until Barbie makes him realize that they can be their own people–it doesn’t have to be Barbie and Ken. “It’s Barbie and it’s Ken.” We are left with the idea that men and women don’t need each other. At all.
Yes, both the Barbie World and the Real World are meant to be caricatures of reality. Nonetheless, what it claims about reality is clear: there are men, there are women, and only one has power. There's no shared space, no equity, much less equality. But also, women should rule because that is when true peace can be achieved (at the emasculation and oppression of men)--Genesis 3:16 manifested in a non-biblical theistic world (because Ruth is the creator/god of this world where woman was created first). We see a weepy, whiny Ryan Gosling, robbed of his masculinity, and there is no sense of what good masculinity should look like, even in establishing that a binary must exist for Barbie’s World to exist. We briefly see Gloria’s white husband (Ryan Piers Williams) in only two scenes, which show him trying (and failing) to learn Spanish and then, in one of the scenes, their daughter accusing him of cultural appropriation. Men-bashing is apparently totally ok in both worlds. Further, he is only listed in the credits as “El Esposo de Gloria.” The message seems to be that men are not really worth valuing. They are just dumb and clueless and desperately dependent on women/Barbie. All Ken wants is to be seen, and once Barbie does that, we still don’t feel a resolution to the binary. Can they live in a world together and yet be equal? The movie doesn’t let us see if that happens because we see Barbie leaving that world.
The movie pushes the idea that since women have been oppressed for so long, it’s men’s turn. This is critical theory, pitting the oppressed against the oppressor. It’s not enough to value women: society should be anti-men. There is no grace or forgiveness or harmony, nor does there seem to be a notion of equal worth, or even equal outcomes (the Barbies are still ruling their world). What’s interesting is the blatant rejection of who Barbie is by the movie’s end when she flees the fantasy world for the Real World while at the same time enforcing a biological reality of who women are by literally ending the movie with the line “I’m here to see my gynecologist.” The Pinocchio-esque ending of her turning into a real girl suggests that this Real World, after all, is worth being in, and that the girls of the world need inspiration…to take over?
The Barbie World didn’t seem to have any meaning for Barbie once she had a taste of the Real World. The movie could have been truly inspiring if Barbie had been able to recognize Ken for his worth, and both had chosen to exist together as friends and equals. They could have shared the world and the fantasy of that world could have been ideal, working alongside one another in cooperation and compromise, recognizing complementary telos as the Lord intended. But that is not so in a feminist framework. Rather, we see a rebellion against creation order and purpose, denying the Imago Dei, and ultimately, a denial of true harmony that can only come out of acknowledging the differences between male and female. We can sing different lines of music, and we can sing them together. An all-pink world might as well have no color at all.