criterionforum.org

Am I alone in finding all of these takes insufferable?

No. I think the film looks promising from what I’ve seen in the trailers and given the talent involved, but the teeth gnashing against and “yas queens” for make me equally-exhausted, particularly the tired insistence from defenders that those who are opposed to the film must be red-pilled Andrew Tate followers and that the nth iteration of girl power is somehow a revolutionary concept in this modern age

Every take must be writ large because this is an Issues Film. (One with ~70 years of baggage around its central character, no less.)

I've been trying to ignore a lot of academic criticism on this one before seeing it, but some of that is unavoidable - and yet, I feel like the predominant takeaways are that this is.. mainly just silly fun? (with a point or two edged on/embedded within)

Less "What Would Jesus Do?" and more "What Would Godard Say?"

For the moment I am just ignoring the takes and enjoying that Todd In The Shadows has done "Barbie Girl" to tie in with the release as part of his One Hit Wonders series. Which showed that Aqua were not a one hit wonder outside of the US, as their song for the Gwyneth Paltrow film Sliding Doors made it to number 1 in the UK charts as well!

Caricature this morning in a Montreal French newspaper. Most members should understand the French!

Forgive me for not getting into the “issues” around this film, but I was just delighted by the darn thing - the set design, costuming, glossy cinematography and of course the casting are just perfect. Even better, it’s just plain funny, sometimes in lighthearted silly ways and sometimes in thoughtful ironic ways, but all that matters is that I laughed. A lot. This is a comedy you can take at face value and enjoy quite a bit, and while I of course noticed the headier subjects they never felt like they were weighing the thing down. I suppose that could be an endorsement in its own right.

My favorite aspect is the attention to detail. Having grown up with a Barbie-loving sister I remember quite a few of the dolls and play sets and accessories, and hot damn does this movie nail them. The pink-blue decal on the car’s rear view mirror, the awful sparkly bed blanket, the pink plastic streetlights and the pool being nothing more than a decal on the plastic “ground”. Oh, I squealed. I also thought the method of traveling between dimensions was utterly adorable in all its cardboard cutout majesty. The outfits (which get their own funny critique at one point) are so spot on that I want to hand someone an Oscar right now.

Is that fair? Can I be the average moviegoing fanboy for this one? It’s a blast.

therewillbeblus wrote: Sat Jul 22, 2023 1:36 pm I've been trying to ignore a lot of academic criticism on this one before seeing it, but some of that is unavoidable - and yet, I feel like the predominant takeaways are that this is.. mainly just silly fun? (with a point or two edged on/embedded within)

Essentially, they get the "Barbie is how the world should be - diverse, female&powerful, able to do any job" and "Barbie is evil - brainwashing children into impossible ideals" points made early on so that most of the rest of the film can be Silly Fun with a sprinkling of Important Messages on necessaey topics.

colinr0380 wrote: Sat Jul 22, 2023 1:44 pm Less "What Would Jesus Do?" and more "What Would Godard Say?"

For the moment I am just ignoring the takes and enjoying that Todd In The Shadows has done "Barbie Girl" to tie in with the release as part of his One Hit Wonders series. Which showed that Aqua were not a one hit wonder outside of the US, as their song for the Gwyneth Paltrow film Sliding Doors made it to number 1 in the UK charts as well!

Aqua did DOCTOR JONES, too! Short Round catchphrases and silliness in the Barbie Girl vein.

So that's three hits before they went out. At least.

That glissando symphonic opening of the "Cartoon Heroes" song reminded me that it was all over adverts in the UK at the time, so that was inescapable in another way.

therewillbeblus wrote: Sat Jul 22, 2023 1:36 pm I've been trying to ignore a lot of academic criticism on this one before seeing it, but some of that is unavoidable - and yet, I feel like the predominant takeaways are that this is.. mainly just silly fun? (with a point or two edged on/embedded within)

Sadly, it’s the silly fun bits that land with a thud and the points (or two) that are worth talking about. The film’s politics are…muddled, to say the least, but they’re at least gesturing at *something.* The immaculate production design and strong performances can’t save the weirdly inert comedy or Gerwig’s unusually flat direction. The typically solid Prieto may be to blame here.

Ryan Gosling just casually referencing Karel Zeman in this behind-the-scenes promo clip

Not sure the quote on the bottom right exactly scans as "furious"!

They were furiously confused!

I rather like the "pink acid trip" one.

Would this really have improved the movie?

Spoiler

"I wish they would have shown her naked: hairless and nipple- and vagina-free. Ditto Ken, who jokes about his smooth genital mound without our ever getting to regard the Cronenbergian uncanniness of an entirely castrated Ryan Gosling."

Also, the review ends suggesting that Mattel is responsible for Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story being buried, but isn't that entirely because of the Carpenter estate?

On the latter point, yes, it's absolutely Richard's doing (in part because Haynes never obtained clearance for the songs).

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.

Although Haynes is supposedly optimistic

I feel like people only bring up Walter Chaw when he makes extreme, curious claims about movies' problematic intentions. Does he bring any value elsewhere?

hearthesilence wrote: Mon Jul 24, 2023 7:19 pm Oof, Walter Chaw really hated this. (Spoilers everywhere).

This should cause the audience to stop and reflect who in the actual fuck thought that any of this was a good idea.

In my theater, it caused the audience to laugh joyfully...

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.

Spoiler

• 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.