“We’ll be using eenie-meenie-minie-moe to decide who will be sacrificed to the movie gods! You guys just stop volunteering, eh?!” Barbie was worried as the population of Kens in Barbieland had dropped by a third in the last month.
Recent smash hit movie Barbie (2023), a fantasy romp concerning the legendary American toy of the same name, has as its primary theme the problem of rigid societal roles, and how they can dictate unhappy lives for those who must live in them. The Barbie Doll was created in 1959, and, as my Arts Editor assures me, originally reinforced the traditional American role models for men and women, which, for young & inexperienced readers, made men the aggressive bread-winners, and women the stay at home, take care of the kids role. Not only was the latter very limiting for those not suited to it, it condemned women to a life of brutal poverty should their husband die prematurely or be otherwise inadequate. Not being a Barbie enthusiast, I shan’t pursue further assertions.
But in this movie, Barbie in her many modes fills the leadership roles of her fantasy world, leaving to the many Kens … nothing. And with nothing comes a diminutive social position. The leading Ken is thus unhappy and incomplete, especially since the lead Barbie has no romantic interest in him. While it’s dangerous, in general, to speculate on what attracts people to people, regardless of gender, especially as role fulfillment expectations change with the passing and creation of generations, I think it’s fair to say in this case that Barbie is unlikely to be attracted to any Ken because of the lack of accomplishment.
And the rules of this society, as defined in the Barbieland Constitution, ensure all the Ken’s will permanently suffer from a lack of accomplishment, even if they can’t quite focus on what’s going on here.
But, as the storytellers make clear, and just as American women have pushed for more than a century for a more equal access to leadership and other roles outside of the home, confining anyone to a role – or lack thereof – that is not compatible with temperament and beliefs is not a stable situation. When Ken is finally exposed to a society in which men have a dominant position – Hello, Mattel Corp! – he will do just about anything to convert Barbieland’s Constitution to favor men, rather than women.
Nevermind there’s a lack of genitalia to confirm anyone’s role here.
And then the war begins.
Make no mistake, there’s a lot of predictable storytelling, and some audience members will be sensitive to that. Yet, Groundhog Day’s (1993) predictability has, so far as I can tell, never damaged its long-term popularity. I quite like Groundhog Day myself. In a sense, predictable storytelling is a necessity, as utterly unpredictable characters, while possibly charming, do not represent real people, and thus inhibit the teaching facet of good storytelling, so don’t let that stop you.
I find the glossing over of Barbieland’s antecedents quite a bit more disturbing, but perhaps that’s just a problem with me. And lead Ken can be awfully annoying, but he’s on the bottom of the social totem pole and has no viable path to collecting social capital. It’s not surprising that he’s flexing and singing as an unusual, but ineffectual, way up the social ladder.
The setup is a trifle long, but once the movie gets rolling it does an OK job. I sure wish they’d elaborated on “the box,” but maybe that was just an unfortunate throwaway.
Some political types have hated this movie. But I doubt you will. Go. Eat popcorn. Relax. If you take your kids, they’ll be bored, but not shocked or ruined.
