Barbie (Greta Gerwig, 2023)

[jbeall]

Surely the progressive + thought-provoking + self-deprecating prestige Ronald McDonald origin story film can’t be far around the corner (I’m not even kidding; I have no doubt the idea is being discussed in McDonald’s boardrooms at this very moment). I think this, more than anything else, will be Barbie’s main footprint on the cinematic landscape: as an opened door for other corporate behemoths to find renewed cultural relevance and clout through the magic of cinema. Because for all of the on-screen jokes at its expense and the likelihood of diminishing returns in their other output over the years to come, I have no doubt that this is a massive win for Mattel – not just to sell toys (which they undoubtedly will by the truckloads), but essentially as a major rebranding exercise.

Indeed. To wit:

[F]or the most part, unfortunately, it appears as if the lesson Hollywood is going to take from the success of “Barbie” is not to make more stories for women, but to make more movies about toys. As The New Yorker reported, 14 movies based on Mattel intellectual property have been announced, including features about the 1980s action figure He-Man and the boxing game Rock ’Em Sock ’Em Robots. Forty-five more are in development. J.J. Abrams is working on what he called an “emotional and grounded and gritty” take on Hot Wheels. At least they’ve signed up Lena Dunham to make the movie based on Polly Pocket.

[Lemmy Caution]

A 25 year quest to get a complete set of NBA Barbies, issued in 1999. The NBA had 29 teams then, each team got a Black and a White Barbie. The Dallas Mavericks were a sad sack in the 90s so had a more limited run than actual good teams. White DAL Mav Barbies are scarce; Black DAL Mav Barbies unknown to collectors. But it's all about the quest. We meet a German woman with the largest Barbie collection (18,000), a Singapore man with a mere 12K. It all put me in mind of Waylon Smithers.

I didn't know there were NBA Barbies. Or that Barbie has had hundreds of occupations, the theme of the German mega-collectors latest Barbie exhibit. Interesting that Barbie first had a black friend Chrissie in 1968, but there wasn't a black Barbie until 1981. Anyway a black Dallas Maverick Barbie has to be out there somewhere, just maybe retired and out of uniform. Check your attics ...

[Zot!]

Interesting that Barbie first had a black friend Chrissie in 1968, but there wasn't a black Barbie until 1981.

It is interesting that Mattel was so progressive in Barbie "world-building" like setting up relationships between character. Ultimately I think they just gave up and sold Barbie as a brand rather than a character with a story (thus Barbie being race and employment-agnostic) Most dolls were just dolls to do with as you pleased until the 80s when marketing toys through television programs became the norm. But Barbie seemed to persist as a vague entity who you could sort of fit into any situation or story. Even the animated Barbie movies that came out in the 90s had no continuity and she was just a blank slate in some random fantasy scenario.

Sad really, because kids are now really bound referrencing a corporate tactic for their imagination when they interact with toys. Sure, there was always a Red Ryder BB Gun or whatever, but nothing like the fucking bottomless pit of marketing that goes on today (see the evolution of Disney IP for instance)

I worked at Toys R Us in the 90s and loved watching Moms trying to explain to their kids that their kids should have the white Barbie, instead of the black one they had picked out on their own.

[kubelkind]

Mattel would probably also raise objections, but you're right that it's Richard Carpenter who's the one with the personal antipathy towards the film, and so Mattel's view is currently irrelevant. It may become relevant if Carpenter ever relents, but I don't think that's very likely.

But it's extraordinarily unlikely that there'll ever be a legal commercial release of this film - or at least not within my lifetime.

According to Glyn Davies great book on the film (that I don't have at hand right now so quoting from memory), Mattel did serve a cease and desist and accused Haynes of "associating our product with death"! However, the dolls used in Superstar were not Mattel products as the film's budget only stretched to cheap imitation Barbies, so the legal threats were not actually carried out. But I believe Haynes is very careful not to use the "B" word when talking about the film.

[knives]

Blus, you might like to know that your former schoolmate and Levinson alum has a pretty prominent role. She might have the third most lines of any Barbie after stereotypical and weird.

I liked the movie a lot. It delivered on the playful use of aesthetic and weird joke point I was most interested in while making its feminist points just a little bit more than girl power plus life for a woman is really tough. My wife, who’s been contemplating quitting her job for years now got especial satisfaction from the knocks on Mattel. While completely on the nose she also found the defense against the patriarchy bit very cathartic. I’m also finding it interesting how differently the trans versus cis communities are reacting to the gynecology closer.

[ntnon]

I’m also finding it interesting how differently the trans versus cis communities are reacting to the gynecology closer.

Any links?

[knives]

No, just conversations with people.

[therewillbeblus]

I loved this movie, which just explodes with every bit of genre and tonal idea Gerwig and Baumbach can concoct with their collaborative, vast imaginations. It's a candy-coated kids-movie-for-adults. It's a sprawling adventure between fantasy and reality that seeks to merge them, holding a mirror up to see how one informs the other, in a relationship rather than separatist islands. It's an existential piece of rhetoric that posits satisfaction as both a mirage and a possible self-constructed living-dream, which is where its best (and admirably least-defined) theme comes into play: the ambiguous value of fantasizing. The merits of escaping into illusion (whether to locate real potential to take back into crafting identity -individualized or of corporeal institutional DNA- or just to embrace a mindful space of peace) weigh against the risks of myopic isolation - funnily enough, reminding me of Oppenheimer's most interesting thematic paradox of his wary engagement with causes.

Gerwig and Baumbach touch on the allure of complacency, validating the drive for us all to veer towards an extremist polar approach to achieve impermanent simplicity to cope with all the gray chaos intruding upon our consciousness. They take a fun, long road to gently express the universal sensitivity of humans, which exacerbates sociopolitical issues due to the pain of a perceived lack of reciprocity as we bear our vulnerabilities. That of course comes from our limited perspectives and mistrust of others, as we're locked into a dual relationship of socialization where we judge ourselves and our roles by that engagement, but also need that process to occur to do the hard work to self-actualize with and against. The raw humanism of Baumbach is apparent, but the film's ethos most reminded me of Altman's cynical humanism; its satire is one of compassion, validating all experiences and providing a sense of community that "we're all in this together," along with the distinct deviations offered as vital talking points as well. Both can be true, and everything in between. So this is also a musical, and a slapstick comedy, with satire both broad and pointed. It's kinda... everything, but apparently not enough for some?

It seems like the haters want the impossible- for Gerwig to make a movie from every possible angle that she cannot possibly conceive of to appease everyone (at this point it's just a tired symptoms of Progressive handwringing these days - it amazes me that one of the most progressive films I've ever seen is getting so much flack from its own audience). It's absurd to ask for more of a movie with this much in it, and Gerwig is making her vision the only authentic way she can: from her limited but peripherally humanistic and curious vantage point. It would be problematic for her to try to do it any other way, and if she has any blind spots or fails to incorporate sociopolitical issues from a skewed place, well, duh..? This isn't a very humble movie on its surface -it's loud and expansive and goes for broke- but it does carry a humility ingrained in its worldview. There is some anger here -most obviously in the cathartic, frustrated, yet right-on and poignant feminist speech - but its overarching vibe is not angry. There's as much of anything else in it, including a gesture at unknown, abstract modes of meaning, to embody humility as a philosophy when it rests ifs focus on humanity as a whole rather than men vs women... and I think the film is primarily existing there in spirit, despite the iconography and plot machinations leading us to believe otherwise. They're vehicles to unveil that Altmanesque universality, and the artist's sympathies that lie with Gosling are crucial to help us zoom out from the zone one may otherwise misperceive this film is statically inhabiting. As arguably the more complex character, Gerwig perversely chooses to split her attention towards a counter-programmatic exploration of the burdens of modern-age men (currently very topical in therapeutic settings) for being societally-conditioned away from outlets for self-expression and validation, burying emotional sensitivities they have on par with other genders. Empathizing with this as mutually exclusive from her patriarchal roasting without apology is just another respectable feather in the cap, and not an easy feat to pull off this well, in such full-measures.

This is an incredibly surreal movie, uneven by design in how it eclectically blends alternative and mainstream and classical influences, labile mood key changes, etc. without flinching - and will hopefully go down in history as one of the weirdest and most inspired blockbusters ever. I can't believe this thing actually exists, let alone that it's such a crowdpleaser. Well, I can believe that like 60% of it is accessing the masses, but the overwhelming response is restoring my faith in humanity - not just because the movie does that, but because people are biting at diverse, arrhythmic wit and style and Russian-doll'd jubilance. A lot of this is superficial, of course, and on-the-nose, but a lot is implicit and crafty and understated, and I don't think the film is getting enough credit for those prevalent layers. It's a film about community, drawing in a community, and yet it's also about how each of our experiences is inherently unique, lonesome, and inaccessible. Why should Gerwig's side of that coin be oppressed for not subscribing to another's? I'm grateful she shared it with the world. What a mind, heart, and attitude to behold.

[flyonthewall2983]

Just saw this last night. Reasons why are obvious but I like that it’s getting this extended life in theaters. It just seemed for the longest time the shelf life of even blockbusters was shortened by essentially how much product the studios were throwing out.

Mixed but mostly positive feelings towards this. As pure cinema it’s exciting to say that I haven’t seen this much specific craft in a comedy not made by Wes Anderson, in a far more commercial setting then even his own tv commercials were.

• Surely the progressive + thought-provoking + self-deprecating prestige Ronald McDonald origin story film can’t be far around the corner (I’m not even kidding; I have no doubt the idea is being discussed in McDonald’s boardrooms at this very moment). I think this, more than anything else, will be Barbie’s main footprint on the cinematic landscape: as an opened door for other corporate behemoths to find renewed cultural relevance and clout through the magic of cinema. Because for all of the on-screen jokes at its expense and the likelihood of diminishing returns in their other output over the years to come, I have no doubt that this is a massive win for Mattel – not just to sell toys (which they undoubtedly will by the truckloads), but essentially as a major rebranding exercise.

If going forward from here, the movies that follow this trend display at least some of much of the same understanding the hollowness that is stereotypical of films with brand name logos, then take my money. The absurdity in the reaction to this by MAGA-types is worth it, let alone the kind of mixture of creativity specific to our generation and cynicism towards corporate culture that could result in a name like furbicide.

[therewillbeblus]

The absurdity in the reaction to this by MAGA-types is worth it

It’s not unexpected given that even the most progressive and film-literate audiences (understandably, to a degree) latch onto the pronounced text vs subtext, but it’s still ironic that -despite clear feminist rhetoric, i.e. that speech- Gosling is arguably the most complex character here. The film isn’t shy about having empathy for men who, regardless of contributing to ‘the patriarchy’, are victims of the system as well, and Gerwig makes a point to acknowledge the part we all play in non-reciprocal dynamics and the universal pathos for the reactive effects this has on our society. She even addresses the burden of men in western cultures, conditioned away from allowing their sensitive parts to consciously exist. Someone could write a paper about how the film validates the perspective of either men or a more generalized human experience for half its runtime and there’d still be voices only focused on that other half they felt attacked by, which is a bit funny considering these voices often argue for the “gray” reality countering the WhatAboutMe professions of individuality they feel coerced into recognizing!

[hearthesilence]

Some of my initial thoughts, having finally seen the film this afternoon:

• If I hadn’t already known about Mattel’s central role in its creation, I might have assumed that the film was an unauthorised satire. I think there definitely are telltale signs that they were onboard (the Mattel offices and characters are such an absurd caricature as to cushion the company from any genuine critique; and some elements of the corporate PR narrative certainly shine through – for instance, it’s just taken for granted that plus-sized dolls are part of Barbieland even though they were only put on the market like five years ago), but it’s at least somewhat interesting that they were willing to become the butt of the joke to this extent. Maybe we’ve reached a new epoch in corporate PR and companies are playing more 5D chess than ever? (The Steak-umm Twitter feed seems relatively staid and old-fashioned in comparison.)
• Barbieland’s production design and toyworld physics are the most fun part of the film, but I still couldn’t help but wish they’d done that whole part of the story with actual stop-motion Barbies and Kens, a la Todd Haynes’ above-mentioned masterpiece – and yes, I mean without facial movements or anything. I feel like that would have been even more hilarious and trippy somehow and also no doubt a terrible idea for a film seeking to be commercially successful.
• Some in-jokes and fourth-wall breaks landed; others came across as smug and self-satisfied. Can’t say I loved the Helen Mirren narration, and 2001: A Space Odyssey has surely long since been driven into the ground as a cultural reference.
• I enjoyed the absurd climactic Ken beach fight and dance sequence. Enlivened what I otherwise found a somewhat listless ending.
• Maybe this is just me, but I confess I found it hard not to root for the macho Ken revolution, and felt a little sad when comparatively dull order is restored. At the same time, I get the unarticulated point (Barbieland as a fantasy escape for girls from real-life structural sexism), but if we’re to emotionally identify with Ken – as the film tries to in its denouement, perhaps a little too hard? – then it’s hard to see subordinate self-actualisation as a suitable replacement for justice, which the Kens explicitly still lack.
• Still, I can’t agree with those who are saying the film’s politics are confused or incoherent – I think it mounts a (for a Hollywood film) relatively sophisticated middle-class US liberal feminist argument, for better and for worse. Leftists and right-wingers alike will find the politics of this film hard to swallow, but that’s no slight on Gerwig: it seems fair to assume by now that her worldview is more or less what’s reflected here, and she’s entitled to make the case for it in the way she does, which is effective and compelling as far as it goes.

SpoilerShow

• The Pinocchio / Wings of Desire-style ending feels kind of weird and overwrought, even if it makes sense narratively. I agree with those who feel the ending is a bit preachy and tonally off-kilter. The final line is in some ways perfectly funny and poignant, but I could also understand if some were to see it as a bit unfortunate in its implications of being the one defining symbol of Barbie’s newfound womanhood, if you know what I mean?

• Surely the progressive + thought-provoking + self-deprecating prestige Ronald McDonald origin story film can’t be far around the corner (I’m not even kidding; I have no doubt the idea is being discussed in McDonald’s boardrooms at this very moment). I think this, more than anything else, will be Barbie’s main footprint on the cinematic landscape: as an opened door for other corporate behemoths to find renewed cultural relevance and clout through the magic of cinema. Because for all of the on-screen jokes at its expense and the likelihood of diminishing returns in their other output over the years to come, I have no doubt that this is a massive win for Mattel – not just to sell toys (which they undoubtedly will by the truckloads), but essentially as a major rebranding exercise.

I finally saw this after a long delay and I have to agree with most of these points, though I couldn’t root for the Ken revolution myself - even without f-ing Matchbox Twenty inflicted on us, they’d still be insufferable. Overall, it added up to a massive disappointment for me, and as well-intentioned as Gerwig may be, her way of spelling out all her ideas as if she was writing a college application essay doesn’t really come off as good filmmaking to me. It’s not a new development with her work either - as much as I supported what she wanted to say at the end of Little Women, how the film did it seemed too blunt and self-consciously clever. But this is kind of the approach I’m seeing with any “important” studio film, whether it’s this or The Big Short or last year’s Best Picture winner where every point is sledgehammered on the nose and every detail is painted in broad, black & white strokes.

[HinkyDinkyTruesmith]

It’s worth noting that structurally the entire film is modeled off of 2001 — from the opening to the gambit of moving into another part of the universe, to a friend who goes haywire, to the ultimate transformation into a different (higher?) being. It justifies what seems otherwise to be a lot of casual throwaway stuff.

[brundlefly]

Gerwig's director's commentary (which doesn't seem to be on the UHD/blu-ray releases?) is now streaming with the film on Max.

"When I first wrote this, I thought, 'Oh, no. Am I actually going to do this? Am I actually going to do a 2001 parody?' But then I pitched it to my therapist, who thought it was hilarious. So here we are. Thanks, therapist."

[Drucker]

Count me among the admirers of the film, which my wife and I watched on this New Year's Eve. Most of the points I'd like to make have been covered. The visuals in the film, the surreal set-pieces and flow in and out of Barbie-world were fantastic. The movie (almost) never takes itself too seriously and allows for the fantasyland to exist as a fantasy.

I also thought the film was extremely well-made. The pacing was fantastic. I expected the plot to get going once we got to the real world, so I was taken aback when they went back to Barbie-world and the plot really kicked in at that point. Additionally, the writing was spectacular. And a lot of the tossed-off self-referential moments were done with the second the comment or joke landed. I found myself laughing constantly, so as much as I wanted to having a scathing critique of this movie, I really don't.

With that said, while I have no objection to (and am personally quite aligned with!) the film's politics, I roll my eyes at its existence. "What does being a woman mean to me in 2023?" Does that need to be a movie? Kinda feels like what I'm inundated with every day on Instagram. The soul of the movie, and the message, has kind of become a meme. And to me it's too all that personal, it's a message that is sort of trying to cater to everyone. Hey, maybe that works. My wife uttered "it's so true" a dozen times during this movie. And with us being new parents, some of the scenes with mom/child really moved both of us. But when I actually sit back and think about it, the politics are so broad as to be basically meaningless.

[therewillbeblus]

I think it needs to be a movie in as far as Gerwig (and most of us) recognize that “Instagram inundation” as isolating and eroding a morality and connective tissue that isn’t going properly addressed. I don’t think everything in the movie works - and as much as I thought the Big Feminist Speech was okay, my sister and others I’m close with who are more entrenched in progressive communities felt it was “trying to tie a bow” on issues you can’t tie bows on, and that’s to its credit for not doing that elsewhere. When its reach stops broad, it’s choosing to focus on validating that we’re so overwhelmed, consumed, and reacting out of fear and loneliness, collectively, instead of distracting us with specifics that might actually alienate us further. Even the nod to Ken’s vulnerability driving his harmful behavior is deep and powerful because it doesn’t attempt to simplify his psychology or provide an easy answer to his problems. That would be disrespectful and false - and so it barely grazes the topical therapeutic empathy pitched at consoling the pressures on men in a heteronormative patriarchal culture. Instead the movie seeks to bridge experience through the approach of a feminine active listener (with provocative sass falling in tow) rather than a male ‘fixer’. I think it’s this holistic and creative spin on a familiar form of storytelling intervention that makes the movie work so well.

[domino harvey]

I more or less agree with this film’s politics, but I felt like this is just what a Stanley Kramer movie looks like now, and I would place bets that the overwhelming effusive praise this movie has received here and elsewhere will age as well as the accolades of Kramer. I was reading recently (maybe here?) that big studios now design their movies and television shows that account for the Distraction Factor: you don’t need to keep your eyes on the screen, you can scroll your feeds, text, go to the bathroom without pausing, whatever while the entertainment plays, because everything that you have to know will be repeated multiple times without needing to follow too closely (maybe the new scriptwriting maxim is the Rule of 23s…). Well, I kept my eyes on the screen the whole time and I was fully over the preaching to the choir almost immediately, but the film kept hammering the same Lee’s Press-On Nail over and over and over again.

I don’t think I laughed at all, but there were a few gags here and there that worked (I particularly liked that the patriarchy is just associated with horses throughout the film), but to no more weight than a funny tweet you smile at and instantly forget about. The film feels like a collection of Instagram Reels, hitting the easiest targets in the most obvious way despite the admirable attempts at weirdness. There is no narrative drive or heft, no actual world building of any depth, and not even a consistent commitment to the “Hey, just go with it” approach often employed. I found individual elements pleasant to look at in isolation but meaningless within this structure of repeating itself with the minimum amount of subtlety possible within a two hour commercial for the self-aggrandized Social Importance of Mattel’s intellectual property

[Constable]

Finally got around to watching this film. I had to stop it after the speech.

I'm a little surprised at how positive the reactions are here. Didn't you guys find it just waaay too on the nose? I mean, I get that it's supposed to be a blockbuster so it doesn't need to be uber subtle, but isn't this just waaay too much? Just constantly getting hit with the message over and over and over again...

[nicolas]

Finally got around to watching this film. I had to stop it after the speech.

I'm a little surprised at how positive the reactions are here. Didn't you guys find it just waaay too on the nose? I mean, I get that it's supposed to be a blockbuster so it doesn't need to be uber subtle, but isn't this just waaay too much? Just constantly getting hit with the message over and over and over again...

You’re not alone here. It’s a dreadful film. Poor Things is the best possible antidote to Barbie.

[therewillbeblus]

I'm a little surprised at how positive the reactions are here. Didn't you guys find it just waaay too on the nose? I mean, I get that it's supposed to be a blockbuster so it doesn't need to be uber subtle, but isn't this just waaay too much? Just constantly getting hit with the message over and over and over again...

I think I explained pretty thoroughly why I felt it was both aggressively on-the-nose and admirably restrained in its messaging, but, unless I missed something across the recent slew of takedowns, I have yet to hear anyone respond specifically to a post praising the film. Just saying nah doesn’t help explain what people aren’t seeing as nuance that others are. I mean, even the praisers who loved the film aren’t praising that speech here! So most of us probably agree about where the film is on-the-nose. I’ll be curious if someone wishes to respond to a reading of nuance (e.g. the sly recognition of a patriarchal burden in several ways) with an alternative perspective

[The Narrator Returns]

I did not like the speech at all on first viewing, rewatches have made me more generous (it then being used as a comedic device helps a lot) but even then I more see nuance around the speech than within its content, like the unspoken truth that the Barbies have no conception of almost all of what's being said (even within the Ken society) but can still feel its meaning despite that. But I've been incredibly frustrated since Barbie came out that the speech is all anybody can talk about with it, rather than the ending and its much less didactic take on the neverending frustrations of womanhood. Like Jo's spiel about "Women!" in Little Women, Gerwig's ultimate point is that while it can be cathartic to name and shame the external patriarchal forces that keep women down, it's little comfort when you have to think about yourself as more than just Every Woman. Finding a sense of self that's both connected to and separate from every woman around you is the hardest thing in the world, and seeing this expressed at the end of a big, colorful, broad comedy has annihilated me all three times I've seen it (I often forget how much fun I have with the rest of it because I can't think about it without getting misty). I wouldn't expect or even want anybody who isn't me to feel the way about the ending that I do, it devastates me as a trans metaphor and then even moreso because Gerwig is the reason above all others I figured out I was trans. But even on its own merits, I think it provides more than enough depth, maybe even profundity, to make up for the speech's honest platitudes. The speech now works for me because it's a first half to those final thoughts, which makes it galling when it's treated as the whole thing by every discussion of the movie; I get why one stuck in people's heads more like I get why America Ferrera (who's very fun in the rest of it) got nominated and Margot Robbie didn't, but I don't like it at all.

And I'm sorry to nicolas but I despise Poor Things a little more each time I see it brought up as the thinking (wo)man's Barbie. Gerwig finds debilitating worry and insecurity in her cartoon battle of the sexes while Lanthimos and Tony McNamara reduce their issues of misogyny and sex and socialism to a one-dimensional "you go, girl!" cheer from men who don't realize they're part of the problem (what I hear about the novel confirms this). Barbie really has to flail and fail on her quest for personhood, Bella's journey is consistently coming to all the right answers with surprising ease.

[therewillbeblus]

I dunno, Bella's journey goes that way because they're fitting every core developmental stage and formative experience into two hours, so yeah, introductory existentialism is quickly whittled down to nihilism, which leads to an exposure to extremist empathy and awareness of injustice, etc. I think a lot of people are responding negatively to a film that appears to demand a response of #notallwomen (e.g. arepoly) but that subsequent interviews have revealed to be anything but. Lanthimos has gone on record critiquing Bella's character as not indicative of all women, and fantastical to a point, as has Stone, and I'm beginning to think detractors haven't bothered to dig deeper beyond an associated echo chamber. I'm not going to tell anyone how to experience the film for themselves, but I wish they wouldn't do that to me either. There's a conflation between seeing the film's strategy as inherently problematic in delivering rich details of each meaningful event, and the effects it has on a feminist satire. That is entirely subjective, and shouldn't be used as objective rhetoric to shame people for liking a widely-beloved movie

I also believe it's been explained that Bella takes things 'with ease' due to a pragmatic, scientific brain and upbringing, specifically that she was raised on the trust of information given. It makes total sense within the film's clear internal logic of the character, if capable of being seen as idiosyncratic (how not?) rather than universal. I suppose it can get complicated if a unique character is going through universal experiences for humans, partially modeled off of "female experiences" making waves in the zeitgeist, but it's not as monolithic as it seems

[Black Hat]

The fact that people took this movie seriously on any level is the most baffling cultural happening of my lifetime.

[therewillbeblus]

After a request to tighten the current pattern of condescendingly broad posts to engage in actual discourse on the film, it's almost admirably bold that you went even broader and more condescending!

[tolbs1010]

I enjoyed this more than expected. It has enough laughs to carry it. Gosling kind of steals the movie, which is funny in the context of all the strong woman message talk. The cultural points weren't made in an eye-rolling or angry way for the most part, even if they are 'on-the-nose'. I wasn't expecting subtlety and nuance. The film has a tone and attitude that reminds me of its Director's screen persona--a kind of gentle, unassuming strength that wins you over.

It was worth watching just for the hilarious appropriation of that horrible Matchbox 20 song. Good on Rob Thomas for not taking himself too seriously and allowing its use in that scene's context.

[Black Hat]

After a request to tighten the current pattern of condescendingly broad posts to engage in actual discourse on the film, it's almost admirably bold that you went even broader and more condescending!

Sorry, I hadn't read anything. Why do you want to discourse on this anyway? If someone over the age of 12 was entertained by it, bizarre as that is, people do even stranger things all the time, but what is it about Barbie that makes people want to will it into the realm of seriousness? It's a dumb branding exercise of cotton candy sludge designed to elevate people with oatmeal coming out their ears to pick their noses believing every booger is gold. There's a 10 minute car commercial right in the middle of it, and yet it is demanded we take it seriously? For what? It is absolute garbage, an embarrassment to the profession. A depraved, amoral affront to art, Gerwig is like the Oppenheimer of artists, and for the cherry on top, a humiliation, thanks largely to Richard Brody, to the profession of film criticism.