by Megan Verrill
Critical Theory
The summer of 2023 was unforgettable for cinema; the Barbenheimer double release, two films of extreme opposite aesthetics, took the world by storm. The Barbie movie directed by Greta Gerwig and starring Margot Robbie was marketed as a pink, fun summer film. The psychological thriller undertones of the trailers and marketing of the movie lead viewers to believe this film was going to be a daring, feminist commentary. While enjoyable, audiences felt shocked at the lack of depth in the film’s feminist themes and commentary. It was not groundbreaking in terms of feminist critique and plays it “safe” with surface level themes. The film serves as an example of white women speaking for all women while neglecting other demographics, such as women of color (WOC) and LGBTQ+ identities. In an article written by Faye Elder, she poses the question, “Is it right to glorify a movie for its progressive feminist themes when it fails to be intersectional?” WOC and LGBTQ+ identities have always been closely aligned with feminism because of how the groups are affected by the patriarchy, but their experiences still differ. The Barbie movie could be a good introduction to feminist ideas, but it reinforces a white-centric view on feminism and fails to authentically represent and account for intersectional identities and experiences.
The casting of Margot Robbie as the lead, “Stereotypical Barbie” is itself a reinforcement of how white women tend to speak for all women. According to Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan, “An analysis of gender that ‘ignores’ race, class, nationality, and sexuality, is one that assumes a white, middle-class, heterosexual woman inclined towards motherhood as the subject of feminism…replicating the cultural masculinist error of taking the dominant for the universal” (893). Margot Robbie is a conventionally attractive, skinny, white, blond woman. She is the “Stereotypical Barbie”, a title which claims and implies white feminism as universal. The movie seems to be aware of the irony of Margot Robbie being the lead, but it does not change the fact it reinforces a system that is built around white people. Elder comments further on this, “It seems as though any criticism they anticipated is acknowledged, but not in a manner where Mattel takes any accountability for it.” For example, Ariana Greenblatt’s character Sasha who is Latina cries out, “Hell yes, White Savior Barbie!” (Barbie 1:17:20). With this dialogue, the movie tries to hint that it is aware of how it does not explore intersectionality because of the way a “white savior” represents and leads all of the Barbies. The satire still does not bridge the racial disconnect between the film and the audience. The casting of Margot Robbie is representative of the idea that white women theorize about women in general, failing to acknowledge the intersectional experiences of women of color (Puar 53). The film had a good opportunity to make popular feminist commentary not white-centric, but does not dare to make that leap.
The film displays a variety of characters who do have intersecting identities, but does not take advantage of those characters to create more complex commentary on the social climate today. Elder elaborates that, “The disabled Barbie characters are given no lines. The plus-sized Barbies have five. Even Issa Rae’s President Barbie lacks depth and exploration”. Yes, those identities are present and represented, but they barely get any lines, let alone lines with substance. The characters serve more like accessories to push and support the white-centric view that is constructed throughout the film. While America Ferrera’s character Gloria had an iconic speech about womanhood, it is once again, very general. In an article by Jazmine Casas, she points out that, “Nowhere in Ferrera’s speech or Barbie’s awful reality checks (feeling an ‘undertone of violence’ in the male gaze in the real world, for instance) is there an acknowledgement that yes — these are the horrible implications of being a woman in our patriarchal world — but if you’re a woman of color these struggles can be, and often are, much worse”. Casas also comments that her speech felt like “feminism 101”. America Ferrera herself is Latina, but in order for her character to relate to Robbie’s “White Savior Barbie” the movie had to remain general. The speech caters to a white audience to reassure and make them comfortable, therefore alienating WOC. Issa Rae’s President Barbie could have been a great opportunity as well to address the specific struggles of WOC, but it makes no such attempt. In fact, her character is given little complexity or depth at all. Ferrera’s character arguably has development and a full arc, but none of it relates to her race. All of the “diverse” characters are under-utilized to emphasize the white main character. Not only is this a tactic to make the film comfortable for a vast white audience, but represents how systems are built around and focus on white people. This has been a common theme throughout the history of cinema and film, but the Barbie movie had the potential to oppose and challenge that tactic.
The film also represents how systems and the patriarchy are built around compulsive heterosexuality, and hesitates to fully represent LGBTQ+ characters. When making a film regarding women, it is important to include the experiences of queer people. The two have always been closely interlinked because, “the two movements seemed to share a common ground; women and gays were objects of oppression by a dominant male heterosexual group” (Rivkin and Ryan 898). Casas points out that within the film, there are “Barbies” and there are “Kens”, which leaves the question, “in Barbieland, where the gender binary is this glaring presence of Barbies and their Kens, what room is there for queer people?”. Anyone who is not a “Barbie” or “Ken” (female or male), is labeled differently and ostracized. The film also cast Hari Nef, a transgender woman, as one of the Barbies. This triggered alt-right conservatives, because they claimed she is not a “real” woman. While this casting choice was great and “daring”, the film fails to make any positive commentary about gender identity and those who fall outside the gender binary. This critique could have been seamlessly implemented, but due to the reaction of a certain group of people, the film does not dare to go further.
The film fails to outwardly represent any gay characters, and once again, tip-toes around their existence and experiences. Michael Cera’s character Allan is an awkward guy who is “Ken’s best buddy”. However, he is specifically “other” from the rest of the males not only because of his name, but he is continuously shown as an outsider. The original Allan doll was discontinued in the 1960s because of rumors that Allan and Ken were in a romantic relationship (Chapman). The film does not feature any outright queer or non-gender conforming characters, it only represents them in subtext. In Chapman’s article he writes, “Describing Allan as a ‘marginalized figure,’ it’s clear he doesn’t fit in with the Ken dolls. As Simu Liu told us, Barbie is ‘a celebration of queerness and its pureness and its spirit.’ We’d be surprised if there weren’t at least some openly LGBTQ+ characters”. Well Chapman, there were not any openly LGBTQ+ characters. Simu Liu who plays one of the Kens could have said this because of the queer-coded interactions between the Kens, but not actually representing LGBTQ+ characters is hardly a celebration. Instead of embracing the homosexual undertones behind Allan’s character, the film hesitantly hints towards his sexuality. Chapman wrote, “…making Allan the butt of the joke, Barbie could help redeem the character from his legacy as a potentially queer-coded outcast” except the film did nothing to redeem him, and just reinforced Allan as an outcast. The Kens in the movie have friendly and almost intimate relations, but there are no outwardly gay characters. The queer-coded interactions between the Kens is written as comedy, as if homosexual relationships are something to mock. This also reinforces heterosexuality as the prevailing and “dominant” lifestyle.
The Barbie movie had plenty of chances to embrace its marketing as a “feminist” movie by representing intersectional identities, but chooses to cater to a white-centric, heteronormative view. In contemporary society, it should be safe enough to explore such topics. It could be that Director Greta Gerwig was hesitant because as Rivkin and Ryan state, “Those guilty of daring to challenge this social and cultural regime…would be objects of calumny, if not of overt violence” (897). The movie covers basic feminist themes, but does not do anything to detach from a white-centric, cisgender viewpoint. It is the responsibility of white women in power to help platform and uplift voices that closely align with their cause, such as WOC and queer identities. The film could be a step in the right direction to open up the world to the possibility of more intersectional commentary in entertainment. However, it makes their attempt to represent a diverse range of people feel performative. It tries to include more identities, but fails to authentically represent their unique struggles. Sometimes it even further alienates any non-white, non-heterosexuals within the narrative, as in the cases of Ferrera’s speech and Allan. It is the responsibility of entertainment to bridge these gaps in representation because of how influential it can be to the social and political climate. While the film has prompted a dialogue about intersectionality in the entertainment industry, it could have done so much more for a variety of people.
Works Cited
Barbie. Directed by Greta Gerwig, performances by Margot Robbie, Ryan Gosling, Warner Bros Pictures, 2023.
Casas, Jazmine. “Why “Barbie” isn’t the Feminist Film I Hoped For (and Why I Still Loved It).” Medium, ZORA, 22 Jul 2023, https://zora.medium.com/why-barbie-isnt-the-feminist-film-i-hoped-for-ba07e90325be. Accessed 7 March 2024.
Chapman, Tom. “Barbie: The queer-coded coming out story of Ken’s ‘buddy’ Allan, explained.” Attitude, 19 Jul 2023, https://www.attitude.co.uk/culture/film-tv/the-coming-out-story-of-the-barbie-movies-allan-440855/. Accessed 7 March 2024.
Elder, Faye. “Why The Barbie Movie Fails To Offer A Revolutionary Take on Feminism In The 21st Century.” Strand Magazine, 22 Aug 2023, https://www.strandmagazine.co.uk/single-post/why-the-barbie-movie-fails-to-offer-a-revolutionary-take-on-feminism-in-the-21st-century. Accessed 7 March 2024.
Jabsir, Puar K. “I would rather be a cyborg than a goddess: Becoming-Intersectional in Assemblage Theory.” philoSOPHIA: A Journal of Continental Feminism, vol 2., no. 1, 2012, https://jasbirkpuar.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/JKP_Cyborg-Goddess.pdf. Accessed 7 March 2024.
Rivkin, Julie, and Michael Ryan. Literary Theory, an Anthology. Edited by Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan, Blackwell, 1998, pp. 893-900.
Sprockets and Springes 