criterionforum.org

I was more taken aback by the prominence of the Calvin Klein brand. I just don’t think I can abide this kind of product placement in a movie based on Mattel toys.

Yeah, whoever came up with the idea for the underwear deserves an immediate Costume Oscar. Don't exactly have the highest hopes for this one in spite of the pedigree, but these first looks are tempting

I just noticed that the IMDB credits list a "stand-in for Olivia Colman."

She'd be great as Barbie #9

Never Cursed wrote: Wed Jun 15, 2022 9:07 pm Yeah, whoever came up with the idea for the underwear deserves an immediate Costume Oscar. Don't exactly have the highest hopes for this one in spite of the pedigree, but these first looks are tempting

I'm having a hard time imagining a good Barbie movie. Maybe I'm just short on imagination.

It's certainly an intriguing cast and crew they have.

Margot Robbie wrote:Now, can we truly honor the IP and the fan base and also surprise people? Because if we can do all that and provoke a thoughtful conversation, then we're really firing on all cylinders.

Translation: this is going to be exactly like The Lego Movie, in that it’ll be 100% safe, brand-approved “satire” with some bullshit faux-progressive social commentary thrown in to seem respectable and "with it" (despite the ultimate goal being to sell more toys, no matter how creatively Gerwig and Baumbach try to push that brief). It's going to be absolutely wretched, and I'm probably going to end up seeing it anyway for some reason.

I mean, do you expect a licensed movie to spend two hours mercilessly berating the IP? Who would be the audience for that? People who hate Barbie already hate Barbie, they don’t need a movie to feed that. What realistically could you expect for this project that is better than what you describe?

I don’t see any reason to expect the worst given the talent of all involved. I think Mattel has some self-awareness and a sense of humor— someone linked elsewhere a compilation of clips from a recent animated Barbie series and I kid you not, there were some legit funny moments that were far better than I expected.

Margot Robbie's alleged Letterboxd account was found by someone (before it got deleted) and there was a list on the profile called "Watch for Barbie":

Spoiler

There was a similar list for 'Babylon' as well:

Spoiler

Surprised Inserts wasn't included in the latter list

senseabove wrote: Wed Jun 15, 2022 6:41 pm

Spoiler

Man, that's not the Ken I remember, but then again it's been decades!

domino harvey wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 1:41 pm someone linked elsewhere a compilation of clips from a recent animated Barbie series and I kid you not, there were some legit funny moments that were far better than I expected.

As the parent of an eight year old girl, I've seen a *lot* of Life in the Dreamhouse, and yes, Mattel has no issue with poking fun at themselves, often to pretty hilarious effect.

There was this completely bonkers Barbie store that opened in Shanghai in March 2009. It was a 6 story building on the fanciest shopping avenue dedicated to the doll, lit up in pink at night.
Check out those pics and captions:
"For younger girls, the store offers a catwalk on which they can model Barbie-esque clothes and a troupe of assistants to teach them how to sing and dance to the "Barbie Girl" song"
&
"Richard Dickson, who has spearheaded the project for Mattel, said his favourite feature is the Pink Tunnel, a neon-lit escalator which hums with the pre-recorded sound of giggling girls"

There was an impressive showcase of all the Barbie dolls from the past 50 years.
It lasted for two years. Scaled back significantly after the first year, the poof ...

Too bad the SH Barbie store wasn't still around. Could have worked it into the film. In any case I hope they borrowed some ideas and set design from Shanghai Barbie World.

hearthesilence wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 2:41 pm Man, that's not the Ken I remember, but then again it's been decades!

Why, it's only the best selling Ken doll in Mattel history

Spoiler

(who is totally not wearing a cock ring for a necklace)

senseabove wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 4:08 pm

hearthesilence wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 2:41 pm Man, that's not the Ken I remember, but then again it's been decades!

Why, it's only the best selling Ken doll in Mattel history

Spoiler

(who is totally not wearing a cock ring for a necklace)

Oh wow, I never knew any of this, but then again, I wasn't exactly paying attention to the news back then and didn't know anyone who had one. I'm not sure what the distribution model is, but if it was only around for one year, it's pretty damn impressive that it became the best-selling Ken doll in history. (Maybe it's by annual sales and not total sales?)

domino harvey wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 1:41 pm I mean, do you expect a licensed movie to spend two hours mercilessly berating the IP? Who would be the audience for that? People who hate Barbie already hate Barbie, they don’t need a movie to feed that. What realistically could you expect for this project that is better than what you describe?

I don’t see any reason to expect the worst given the talent of all involved. I think Mattel has some self-awareness and a sense of humor— someone linked elsewhere a compilation of clips from a recent animated Barbie series and I kid you not, there were some legit funny moments that were far better than I expected.

To be clear, I’m not saying I’m disappointed; I think it’s fair to expect the best possible version of this project to have a low ceiling, and we all know that it is impossible for it to escape the brand-approved brief.

I do think it’s fine to feel cynical about these kinds of projects, though. It’s not like, in an imaginary copyright-free world, there wouldn’t be potential for actual satire or artistry that would both work and not meet Mattel’s approval. I think it’s a mistake to think that the only audience for anything like this is limited to "fans", too; Barbie, like Disney or McDonald’s, is a ubiquitous cultural artefact that most of us have been exposed to on some level whether we wanted to or not, so there’s really a built-in (some would say captive) audience there regardless. It’s also a cultural phenomenon that has arguably had at least some influence on the way people think about things like body image and gender roles, so it’s absolutely fair game for being made fun of or critiqued (though nobody said “mercilessly berated”; no reason why such a project couldn’t be funny, interesting or subversive in its own right).

I presume that all of us at least in some way place value on artistic independence, and recognise that adhering to someone else’s financial goals corrodes that integrity, just as it is corroded in journalism or politics when sponsors are dictating what you can say or do.

I guess the thing that bothers me most here is the way capitalism and copyright law, among other things, enable massive brands to both dominate culture and control the narrative about themselves: a brilliant film like Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story remains suppressed while a gentle self-parody that is actually doing double duty as a feature-length ad for the product gets the seal of approval. Same with the early “brick films” vs The Lego Movie. Of course I’m aware that this is all tilting at windmills and resistance is futile, but I do think that Gerwig and Baumbach ought to have considered more critically whether they would be using their talents for good within the narrow parameters offered or merely feeding the monster. Because however this film turns out, it’s hard to see it as anything other than a sell-out move.

It might be like the 90s Brady Bunch movies. Fish out of water thing. I've seen people say Gosling looks 10 years too old for this but that may be the point. He looks like he should be on Jersey Shore. which is also very 10 years ago.

furbicide wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 4:08 am I presume that all of us at least in some way place value on artistic independence, and recognise that adhering to someone else’s financial goals corrodes that integrity, just as it is corroded in journalism or politics when sponsors are dictating what you can say or do.

I don’t recognize that. Given the scale of moviemaking unless you’re doing it at the complete margins like a Brakhage or your example of very underground Haynes there will always be a lack of independence whether it be financial, state impediments as in socialist Europe, what your latest box office indicates, and so on.

One of the nice things about the original auteur theory that I wish someone besides con Trier would remember is that artistic expression can be fully realized and in some extent must be realized with the limitations of others imposed on you. In this case it’s the limitation of upsetting Mattel for Bergman it was not upsetting his financiers. The question is what you do with that. Gerwig when she independently as an adult human took this job clearly felt that for her own personal goals she could accomplish them with these limitations.

I think in this conversation a comparison between The Lego Movie and the new Rescue Rangers is quite useful as both in different ways illustrate the best case scenario, but I fell the former does well in evading the limitations so that we get an artistic statement which is unattached to the corporate byline whereas the later does not despite some audaciousness. Thematically The Lego Movie is unconcerned with legos as a larger entity and can be described without them. “It’s okay to see the world in an unstructured way and especially as relates to your parents working towards loving an authentic you is more important than fitting in.” Whereas the themes for Lonely Island, mockbusters are bad, does seem merely tied to a lazy corporate line and deserving of scrutiny. Even with that though I’d argue it’s a successful movie that happens to have a message I am out off by.

So while it’s possible that Gerwig is making an empty corporate shell I doubt and have reason to believe the film will be entertaining and use its corporate limitations well.

Working for a big production studio or seeking state funding involves compromises and financial imperatives, sure. But I trust we all acknowledge the fundamental difference between a) being a journalist doing work for a for-profit newspaper like The New York Times and b) writing stories aimed at boosting a newspaper’s sponsor’s reputation or helping them sell stuff. It is absolutely crucial to not only acknowledge but vigorously protect that difference.

I’m also not trying to say that one is always pure and that the other is always bad; plenty of directors have worked on TV ads and done interesting things with that medium. We don’t need to take a black-and-white view of that divide to acknowledge that what Gerwig and Baumbach have signed up for here is fundamentally different from what most other filmmakers – including those working on big studio films – are doing when they take a project on.

I guess you could put it another way: artworks are like weeds growing through capitalism’s footpath; the weeds might be cracking the concrete or might not be, but at least they’re not reinforcing it. You can’t look at freshly laid cement and say it’s the same thing.

I don’t give a shit about capitalism though, I just want a good movie. If it comes from Disney or a $300k indie production, it doesn’t matter. This convo is a bit too close to getting upset when your fav indie band is suddenly in a car commercial

furbicide wrote: Sat Jun 18, 2022 6:51 am Working for a big production studio or seeking state funding involves compromises and financial imperatives, sure. But I trust we all acknowledge the fundamental difference between a) being a journalist doing work for a for-profit newspaper like The New York Times and b) writing stories aimed at boosting a newspaper’s sponsor’s reputation or helping them sell stuff. It is absolutely crucial to not only acknowledge but vigorously protect that difference.

I’m also not trying to say that one is always pure and that the other is always bad; plenty of directors have worked on TV ads and done interesting things with that medium. We don’t need to take a black-and-white view of that divide to acknowledge that what Gerwig and Baumbach have signed up for here is fundamentally different from what most other filmmakers – including those working on big studio films – are doing when they take a project on.

I guess you could put it another way: artworks are like weeds growing through capitalism’s footpath; the weeds might be cracking the concrete or might not be, but at least they’re not reinforcing it. You can’t look at freshly laid cement and say it’s the same thing.

What is your actual point, tho'? All you end up saying here is that there's a difference, but give no indication of what makes this difference meaningful or interesting.

Knives' point that the conception of film as a medium of personal artistic expression arose not out of the freedom of the 70s, but as a response to the studio system's brand of institutional production, is worth more consideration. Not because there's no difference between that and what you're talking about, but because of what it suggests.

Art has always served the interests of others, whether it be production houses, capitalism, the nobility, the state--and yet that fact has never stopped it from being art. Look indeed at state propaganda. Sergei Eisenstein as an artistic phenomenon is inextricable from his role as producer of state propaganda, and films like Ivan the Terrible only work because they're supposed to be propaganda. Masterpieces like Seargent York and Went the Day Well cannot be considered outside the restrictions placed on them by war time nations. Hell, to look at the greatest artworks in history, The Aeneid and The Fairie Queen are incoherent unless you understand they are works written explicitly in support of imperialist regimes and their autocratic leaders (Caesar Augustus and Queen Elizabeth I, respectively).

Despite what is the most compromising position for an artist, to be a tool of state ideology, personal artistic expression is very much possible and sometimes even inextricable from the achievement. In fact, I think domino has even argued on here that institutionally imposed restrictions like the Hayes Code forced artists to greater heights of creative expression by giving them an obstacle to work around.

History has shown that, given real artists, there is no reason to expect they can't find self-expression within the confines of their given situation.

You guys got me thinking about Tarkovsky again.

ANDREI RUBLEV season.

The fact that she deleted her letterboxd account is hilarious.

Like, that's something that could potentially make you seem interesting, or even cool.

That said, she is the most basic white woman on the planet so, par for the course.

Black Hat wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 3:44 am The fact that she deleted her letterboxd account is hilarious.

Like, that's something that could potentially make you seem interesting, or even cool.

That said, she is the most basic white woman on the planet so, par for the course.

I mean... Margot Robbie is famous, so she's at least slightly interesting than most other basic white women.

Black Hat wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 3:44 am The fact that she deleted her letterboxd account is hilarious.

Like, that's something that could potentially make you seem interesting, or even cool.

That said, she is the most basic white woman on the planet so, par for the course.

As someone who took every every course in the Film Studies department of my alma mater, trust me, touting a Letterboxd is anything but a first-class ticket to coolness