 |
| We cannot wholly applaud or condemn the 'Barbie' movie. |
Feminists and Barbie have a complicated history. This iconic doll has long been criticized for perpetuating unrealistic beauty standards and promoting traditional gender roles. However, a surprising twist has occurred with the release of the latest "Barbie" movie, leaving even diehard feminists like myself reconsidering our stance.
A young friend of mine, a management graduate, offered a fresh perspective on the film. She sees it as a "clever repositioning of Barbie for contemporary values" and views it as a marketing case study. This viewpoint suggests that the film missed an opportunity to engage in a meaningful dialogue about authenticity and feminism.
It's worth asking, is the movie simply an attempt to revive Barbie's dwindling commercial fortunes, given that its main customer base was on the decline? There are indeed clever marketing strategies employed by both the filmmaker and the dollmaker, Mattel.
Mattel has created a separation between the doll and the movie while capitalizing on brand recognition. It refrains from apologizing for past biases, avoiding offending former Barbie enthusiasts. The movie presents a storyline where Gloria, a Mattel employee, grapples with her childhood attachment to the doll, which her modern-day daughter has rejected. This leads to an improbable and unconvincing reconciliation in true Hollywood fashion.
Mattel hopes that millennials will let bygones be bygones. They also wisely distance themselves from the product's most controversial aspects. The film portrays an all-male Mattel board crafting strategy while depicting directors rushing to Barbieland to prevent its inhabitants from escaping into the real world. The movie's action remains confined to these two distinct spaces, with Mattel taking responsibility solely for what occurs in the realm of the toyland. This perspective, though, overlooks the reality that companies and their leaders can influence not only their products but also the environment in which they operate. While there are occasional nods in this direction, they remain peripheral.
Mattel employs a clever strategy by shifting the blame for creating a stereotypical product, repeatedly emphasizing that Barbie was invented by a woman. This tactic effectively asserts, "We (men) are not the guilty party; you (women) are." Additionally, the film taps into the current feminist narrative of women pioneers being overlooked and forgotten by portraying the creator of Barbie in a basement room with "homely" interests.
On the surface, Barbieworld created by Mattel should be anathema to feminists. However, the film quickly immerses viewers in a world where Barbies rule, and Kens serve them. Mattel, like many men threatened by feminism, frames it as a battle of the sexes, where one gender must prevail at the expense of the other. The storyline takes Ken from Barbieland to the Real World, where he is seduced by male authority and brings back their ideas, turning Barbieland upside down with 'Kens' in charge and Barbies serving them. Predictably, conflicts are resolved through cunning and physical prowess in a series of battles and seductions. This perspective fundamentally misinterprets feminism, which is about individualism and allowing each person to pursue their own inclinations and paths in life.
The film's focus on Kens and Barbies discovering these truths is distracting when the more insidious aspect of the Barbie commercial model is its insistence on a one-size-fits-all approach to the doll. Mattel's market success relies on every girl owning a Barbie, effectively limiting women's choices. In contrast, men have a wider range of toys and stereotypes to choose from in the real world. To maintain relevance, Mattel has introduced various Barbie variations in appearance and costumes, but this approach fails to acknowledge the diverse nature of women in ideas, thoughts, preferences, inclinations, and appearances.
"Barbie" the movie lacks a cohesive approach or focus. It relies on the audience's individual priorities and preferences to determine whether they find it enjoyable or problematic. What one person enjoys may seem trivial or even objectionable to another. Personally, I resonated most with the feminist tirade in the movie, reminiscent of Shylock's famous "hath not a Jew eyes?" speech in 'The Merchant of Venice.' While it made for compelling theater, it was flawed, just as placing men under the heel in Barbieland mirrored the oppression women have faced in the real world. I disagree with the notion that it's acceptable for women to be "just mothers" as it reduces them to a function solely dictated by their bodies, devoid of choice or inclination.
The movie's ending, which primarily identifies women by their physical attributes, is another point of contention. This principle contradicts the lifelong fight against reducing women to mere physical appearances. However, my friend, who initially urged me to reconsider the commercial aspect of the Barbie narrative, views the ending as a highlight, emphasizing the importance of women's bodies.
In conclusion, the diverse viewpoints within feminism regarding the Barbie movie highlight that there is no uniform stance within the sisterhood. Instead, we should celebrate our differences and demand a variety of toys and narratives, rather than limiting ourselves to just one Barbie. Vive la difference! Give us a range of options that reflect the multitude of women's experiences and aspirations.
إرسال تعليق