I looked at Barbie, and you can too.
So, while Oppenheimer is a decent film that is worth watching, and paying to watch it in the original language and in the Lounge, Barbie doesn't deserve much, so I limited myself to pirate it ignobly, since… you wouldn't think of pay for a children's movie? (unless you have children, in which case you will).
Actually, it doesn't really suck. It's simply a children's film, the kind they made in Denmark in the 70s, with a pre-printed moral and a didactic plot. Making controversy about the alleged sexualisation of the doll is a bit funny for the generation that loved Pippi Longstocking's porn-like suspenders.
If we look at it for what it is, its banality is ultimately fine: it's a film about a doll used between the ages of 6 and 10, and therefore it's very good for those aged between six and 10. . Perhaps it addresses some themes that are too strong for that age group, but if we consider that it infantilizes them, trivializes them and makes them digestible for children, we say that it can work.
Let's say it's Pippi Longstocking level.
And it is made for the same audience: let's not forget that it is about Barbie, that is, a commercial product, and that the film serves to make it sell: therefore it is aimed at those who want to buy a Barbie doll. It's a question, as marketing says, of target.
If we look at it for what it is, it is a decent film for children, even if the commercial aspect is too strong in my opinion. I mean, it's too bold that this movie is an ad for a doll. Actually, two (but in the end, Ken was sold as a Barbie accessory, like Barbie's car, Barbie's camper, and Barbie's house. Ken was never a character in that universe, but just a accessory).
Being a film made by a company that sells products, the protagonists are the products. So there are a dozen different Barbies, led by an alpha Barbie who is the most Barbie of all. The world they live in is the Barbie world, inhabited only by Barbies, run by Barbies, and all the inhabitants do the things that the Barbie dolls you find on sale do, the way the Barbies you find on sale do them. sale. The classic Barbie set that every little girl will ask you for as a gift over the years, complete with accessories. Ken included.
But this is obvious: it's like in a Pokemon movie: there are Pokemon and people spend their lives doing things they do with Pokemon, how Pokemon do them, etc. If a film is based on a product that is bought, and is used to sell it, obviously this is how things are.
After all, the matter is there for all to see, so there would be no need to write it. It's not like Mattel is doing anything to hide it. Knowing that Mattel is behind the film isn't uncovering a dark plot, or revealing a well-kept secret.
Let's move on to the Kens. Another Mattel product, which has a characteristic: girls buy it after buying a certain number of Barbies. Why'? Because in little girls' minds, you need a boyfriend. I don't know if you've ever seen children play when we were children and there were no computers.
None of us thought of buying a girlfriend for toy soldiers, or dinosaurs, or Daisuke, or Captain Harlock, or Superman, or Batman. Even when there were female counterparts, like wonder woman or bat-girl, they were two different series in two different universes. It's not like at some point you had Superman and his girlfriend defending the world. He takes care of it himself. In short, males see themselves as adults on their own. Females see themselves as engaged.
So, ken is needed. That being Barbie's ideal boyfriend, in the little girl's eyes, is nothing that would cross a child's mind, in the sense that identifying with that idiot is not an option. In fact, it's not that girls buy Barbies, boys buy Ken, and then play together. The fuck: little girls buy Barbies, and Ken too, unless in some monstrous family Ken is given to the brother and Barbie is given to the little girl.
Discovering that they will never play together, because even in the incredible case in which the child plays with Ken, first of all he makes him become a soldier or a warrior and goes about his own business on his adventures in the garden, leaving the girls to brush the barbie.
So, in summary, there are TWO dolls for girls: one represents Barbie, and one represents the boyfriend who, according to the little girl who owns Barbie, Barbie deserves. The perfect boyfriend by the standards of a girl aged six to 10.
And he's the perfect boyfriend because this is what little girls think a boyfriend is:
Ken, as a product, is a Barbie "accessory".(*)
That's the commercial standard, at least.
By anyone else's standards, the Ken in the movie is "a dick." But the genius is to have him dressed like a stunt double from a gay porn film from the 80s. Which makes it comical: in the film, then, there's a guy who looks like a closeted gay, but all the Kens are dressed in such a way that in the end, he's just one of the many Kens dressed as a YMCA.
Children, as we know, see things schematically, and from only one point of view: me. Little girls do the same, and the result is that Barbie is a schematic toy, where you have Doctor Barbie who is a doctor and only has one doctor's outfit. It's not like she has two, so she's a doctor and then she also has a dress to go out with. Doctor Barbie is a doctor and only has ONE dress, because children's minds are schematic. Ken, on the other hand, arrives (goes) with many clothes, in order to satisfy all the possible fetishisms of his girlfriend. In short, if Ken gets engaged to doctor Barbie, it's not like he fucks at a certain point: he's her patient all the time. (Wedding night? Enema! Joy!)
I was saying, children's minds are schematic and have only one point of view: me. And this is what children do. Thus, the plot of the film has an “I”, Barbie Alpha, and sees everything from the eyes of the little girl who owns the doll. I'll give you an example (which isn't literal in the film)
If Barbie goes to get a job and is asked if she wants to have children, the “I” explanation says that since having children will take up her time, then the company fears that she is not the number one priority. So the little girl identifies herself with the “I” who cannot have a job because she is a woman. Injustice! Calimero!
But if you are an adult you ALWAYS have more than one interpretation, and you could say “males aren't asked why the company takes it for granted that it has bought ALL their time. If the woman can at least be a mother, paternity is denied because it is not even discussed during the interview. Paternity reset, by default. What if he wanted to be present in his children's lives? It's so obvious that he doesn't have this right, that it can't even be discussed.
Once we understand what it means to have two points of view, we can say one thing: like in any children's film, there are two points of view. There is an “I” and everything ends there. And that's right, because they are children.
So, when they go into the real world, Barbie does everything that happens (for better or worse, children understand these two concepts), to her doll in a little girl's fantasy story, that is, "I", while Ken does everything that happens to an accessory on her doll. It's not "how boys' lives work according to girls", it's simply how this Barbie accessory works, that is, this "I" accessory, in the fantastic story of this little girl who plays.
Since the little girl who plays with the doll, "I" experiences (sometimes fears) the (future) difficulties of being a woman, and her Barbie (who, by transference, is the little girl herself) will have to face them, with a cathartic effect. Likewise, since Ken is not "I", but only "an accessory of the Barbie", Ken's world is the world of males according to "I", the owner of the doll. We get jobs because we're male and all. But this is obvious, the little girl must become an adult woman, not an adult male, it is obvious that everything is easy for them. The stories that the little girl tells when she plays are the future of the little girl herself. This is what gaming is for. Ken is just an accessory.
It is stupid to be scandalized, or feel offended as men, because Ken is not a "male", in that world he is simply an accessory for Barbie. It's like Indians: who the hell ever hated Indians? But he had to be shot, and that was it. They were a cowboy accessory.
And in the end everything works as you expect it to work when in a film made to sell the Barbie and all its accessories, including Ken: it talks about the adventures of Barbie and her accessories, that is, the Kens.
And from the child's point of view, it is a correct vision, but above all, age-appropriate. For little girls, a boyfriend is something women have, it's an accessory.
They will learn later that it is a person, over time(**). But we cannot feel offended by this representation. Maybe we could argue about his outfit that looks like something out of the YMCA video, but the way I see the world, I find it funny. Still better than TieJacket.
My opinion, therefore, is that it is a commercial film, like Transformers, or Pokemon, made to sell gadgets, and in this case one of the best-selling gadgets in the world.
The plot is perfectly consistent with the audience it is aimed at, i.e. the typical Barbie customer, i.e. girls aged between six and 10, and the plot could be one of those fantastic stories that boys and girls find they create, to play.
As long as you consider it for what it is, that is, a plot for girls, the plot of the film is also pleasant, in some ways enjoyable, the Ken accessory walking around looking like a character from some gay porn film from the 90s it also makes us understand how naive the imagination of these girls is, in some ways, and how comical the overall effect is. The Ken in the film seems to have been drawn by Tom of Finland himself, and this gives him a comical effect due to the dispersion of the context.
Overall opinion: once seen for what it is, i.e. a film for girls made to sell dolls, it's enjoyable and also has some pretty funny comedic implications. I wouldn't pay to see it, but with popcorn it's fine.
I know there's all the controversy in the world, but if you can't watch a children's film without getting political, I think you're screwed in the head.
(*) it's a fact, Ken is sold as a Barbie accessory. I'm not arguing that.
(**) Ok, some don't.
Uriel Fanelli
The blog is visible from Fediverso by following:
Contacts:
- Fediverse: @ uriel@fedi.keinpfusch.net
- MATRIX: @uriel:mtrx.keinpfusch.net
- GNU JAMI: Ufanelli