“Barbie”: “What was I made for?” is perhaps the question asking the movie itself

A film reflected a strong awareness of modern issues

“Barbie” risked creating a live-action version of the most popular fashion dolls. The film has been a dominant topic throughout the year among recent new movies, with massive promotion even before its release and a huge hit in the US.

Directed and co-written by Greta Gerwig, starring and produced by Margot Robbie (Barbie), with Ryan Gosling (Barbie’s boyfriend, Ken) in a supporting role, the film detached the original Barbie image as a kids’ toy and landed on a bold vision: for adults in many ways.

The history of the Barbie doll dates back to 1959. The first Barbie doll, developed by Mattel co-founder Ruth Handler, was a model of a high-teen female, breaking with the conventional wisdom in the toy industry that toy dolls were supposed to resemble babies. The doll’s tall figure, blonde hair, and other characteristics that made it the “ideal American woman” were highly acclaimed as innovative toys. However, at the same time, they were often criticized as reinforcing outdated gender norms and “femininity.”

The variations of Barbie dolls, which rapidly diversified over time, challenged the old gender perspective, or so-called “domestic ideology,” which sought to bind women primarily to the private sphere (the home). In addition, the “Black Barbie,” “Hispanic Barbie,” and the “Dolls of the World” series, which featured Barbie in the folk costumes of various regions of the world, expanded the diversity of race and ethnicity. Barbie eventually became an icon that embodied the image of an autonomous modern woman in the age of globalization.

Naturally, the film “Barbie” is deeply rooted in the history of Barbie. Still, the film covers a wide range of social issues, including criticism of romantic love ideology, patriarchal structures and toxic masculinity, gender performativity, the existential crisis of modern man, mental health issues, and even bull-shit jobs.

The old-fashioned fantasy of a fairyland

The story starts in “Barbie Land,” a fairyland where Margot Robbie’s “typical Barbie” and various other Barbies (and their “sideshow” boyfriend Ken and his friends) live. One day, amidst the parties, surfing, and road trips, Barbie (Robbie) feels something wrong with her body, which she had believed was perfect until then. In order to find out the cause, Barbie and Ken (Gosling) go to the “real world,” where they discover a shocking reality.

The first thing that stands out from the film’s beginning is the Barbies’ fashion and Barbie Land’s design. The mid-century style art and fashions, with plenty of pink, reminiscent of old-fashioned dollhouses (dream houses), emphasize the image of “good old America” that has continued since the 1950s, inviting the audience into a fantasy of a “dreamland.”

Mark Ronson’s striking revitalization of nostalgic music

The music also is a deceptively deforming device for “those days,” and it is arranged in every direction. The soundtrack was co-produced by top producer Mark Ronson. His ability to blend nostalgic designs with contemporary dance music makes him uniquely suited for this film, which pays homage to the glamorous musical film tradition and the latest sounds.

The artists involved are truly remarkable. From pop music, R&B, reggaeton, to rock, Dua Lipa, Sam Smith, Lizzo, Billie Eilish, GAYLE, PinkPantheress, Ava Max, Nicki Minaj & Ice Spice, Karol G, Tame Impala, HAIM, and many more top stars participated in the film with new songs.

Each of the songs reflects the individuality of each artist. Still, it’s interesting to note the prominence of party tunes, especially disco-style songs, throughout the film. Lizzo’s “Pink” used in the opening of the film, Dua Lipa’s “Dance The Night” played during the dance party scene, and Sam Smith’s “Man I Am” are overt references to the disco sounds of the late 1970s and early 1980s. The film also pays homage to the disco masterpiece “Saturday Night Fever,” which also depicts in the movie.

The specific use of music immediately evokes an association with something else is a common technique in recent major films, including the MCU movies, as well as this film.

For example, Charli XCX’s “Speed Drive” quotes Tony Basil’s “Mickey,” and Tame Impala’s “Journey to the Real World” is similarly overtly 1980s synth-pop (Pet Shop Boys?).

The most intriguing thing is “I’m Just Ken,” sung by Ryan Gosling, who was once an “accessory” to Barbie in Barbie Land. Ronson’s brilliant revitalization of nostalgic music is dedicated to this song played after he awakens to his pride and independence as a man when seeing the patriarchal structure of human society.

Although this song seems outdated rock ballad, which presumably intended to invite a sneer at the prehistoric ridiculousness of Ken’s “awakening,” the arrangement is reminiscent of Queen. It’s a perfectly meaningful Easter egg, making us hesitate to take it as a simple ridicule of masculinity.

In addition, it seems too important to dismiss the songs excluded from the soundtrack album. Matchbox Twenty’s “Push,” released in 1997 by the leading alternative pop-rock band. The song was introduced as Ken’s favorite after his awakening to the authoritative nature of masculinity. It was also used by Ken (including Gosling) to seduce Barbie (Barbie manipulates them to do so). The song is rather derogatory, with Ken (including Gosling) playing a guitar in one hand to woo Barbie (while gazing rapturously at a bonfire) and talking in a self-absorbed manner. This actually made me, a long-time American rock fan, chuckle (another striking joke for “alterna-rock-loving male” within this sequence).

Questioning the current trend: revitalization of the past and finding meanings in context

It leads to the familiar exclamation about the effectiveness of past musical designs as a “tag” device for current blockbusters. On the other hand, a question arises: huge entertainment films like “Barbie,” which should be a socially conscious film, can play with such a small, nostalgic representation?

If someone points out that “many young and fresh artists are participating in the film,” I can only say “Yes, that’s true.” However, when one considers that PinkPantheress and GAYLE, for example, who participated in the soundtrack of this album, are often associated with Drum and bass revival and pop-punk revival, and in fact, the songs they have provided show such designs. Such designs are evident in their songs, and it would be fair to assume that “nostalgia as fantasy” is also pulsating in their music. We can analyze this as evidence that the current mainstream pop music scene, like the current trend of blockbuster movies produced by huge capitalist productions, is eager to “rehash the past.

Whether commercial film or pop music, this trend has become increasingly obvious in content produced by huge capital over the past few decades. There is probably a joy of user-participatory, convergence-culture style of reading and understanding fun . In fact, as I tried to show above, the attitude of enjoying the disturbance and re-contextualization of past music, taking into account its various meanings and accompanying contexts, is not limited to the behavior of so-called “enthusiasts,” but seems to be becoming more and more common (see the recent inflation of “consideration” and “interpretation” culture.

It is easy to see how this could be described as the deepening of a postmodern commodity economy in which all past content and new content are de-temporalized and consumed in parallel (Fredric Jameson once identified the “Star Wars” series as “nostalgia films” despite their cosmic appearance).

On the other hand, however, Barbie’s “over-polite” treatment and contortions of past cultural design, as well as its narrative style that presupposes (selectively?) an “audience that understands jokes,” are all too often seen as nostalgia films. It seems that “Barbie” is a poor symbol of the recent rise of symbolic games in blockbuster films.

The “symbol game” symbolizes even the ideas entrusted in the work

It would be a lie if I said I was not concerned about the auto-addictive attitude in the narrative. It’s fine to make a joke about the mansplaining gesture of “the movie-loving man who draws on his vast knowledge about the ‘Godfather’ series” as “a certain kind of joke,” but the fact that this joke requires the audience to take a “meta-viewpoint” from the beginning in order to accept it as a joke nullifies the joke’s critical function.

But does not this system, which requires the audience to take a meta-viewpoint to accept the joke, nullify the critical function of the joke? In short, while reading and criticizing the power structure in the “men’s knowledge lesson,” the criticism may be that membership in a circle where one can “giggle” at the depiction itself presupposes the existence of some intellectual capital. (Note that I am not taking issue with “jokes” in general, but rather with a certain point of view attached to them. Needless to say, jokes and the humor they embody would be one of the more important elements even if the film were a “social” film, or rather if it were a “social” film.)

So, to put it bluntly, what underpins the ethics of this seemingly “social” epic is, after all, nothing more than the closed logic of a symbolic/self-referential game played by subcultural elites? The question arises, “What is the logic of the subcultural elites’ symbolic/self-referential game?

In recent years, this symbolic/self-referential game structure has permeated recent major “topical” films to a considerable extent. I expect that this trend will probably grow even larger in the future with the “democratization” of “consideration” and “interpretation,” as I mentioned above. Moreover, only the filmmakers (and their financiers) are acutely aware of such game-like structures above all else, which is a characteristic of recent major films.

The game-like structure in which symbols based on such minute “cultural knowledge” are used as stakes seems to have irreversible propagating power. It is easy to understand how certain jokes, music, art, plot, etc., converge into such a structure. Still, it is horrifying that sometimes even the film’s external elements (social messages) are entangled in such a structure. The “de-ideological” tendency of symbolic manipulation itself, in turn, symbolizes even the “ideas” that are supposed to be entrusted to the work, and turns every event into a spectacle – in the sense that this is an extension of the symbolic difference game, it is the destiny of the capitalist ( This is the fate of the capitalist (realist) movement in the sense that it extends the game of symbolic difference.

Is Barbie a correct and elegant film?

As I mentioned at the beginning of this article, the high level of social consciousness in “Barbie” and its conscious focus on various social issues is remarkable. However, when we consider the reality that these attitudes ultimately function only as “tag” symbols to promote the benefits of the advanced commodity economy/content industry in which Mattel and other mega-capitalists sit at the round table, we naturally wonder if we can just say, “This movie is great because it is about social issues! The question arises, of course, whether we can simply say, “This film is great for its social issues!

In the film, there is a joke in which the CEO of Mattel, played by Will Farrell, proudly proclaims diversity and flaunts the fact that the company has had female executives in the past and has installed gender-less restrooms. The irony here is that the film itself is made to function as a political “symbol,” similar to the “expedient” of installing genderless toilets. Or the film’s structure in which the voice of one of its key characters, Sasha, cursing Barbie as a symbol of evil in a consumerist society, can become a huge “boomerang” for the film. These are the dilemmas that “social films” made by the conglomerate system of giant media/content companies are destined to face.

Again, of course, the production team, with their exceptional talent and intelligence, must be aware of this dilemma. However, that is why I sensed in this film, more than the energy of empowerment, a somewhat pessimistic look at such dilemmas (the dangerous placement of the self-referential black joke I mentioned earlier is the best example of this). ) And the viewer can feel this indescribable feeling of dilemma. The progressive adults who understand jokes who are supposed to be this film’s “good” audience should not fail to feel it.

And does not such a way of watching the Olympics share the same attitude as that of “watching the Olympics to enjoy the excitement of sports ‘purely’ (knowing that various sponsorship deals, huge interests in broadcasting rights, and political speculations and injustices are stirring)”? In a sense, isn’t that the ultimate capitalist realism? Is that okay, no, but “reality” is not the same as “ideal,” so ……. If, hypothetically, the “socialist” epic film has functioned to alleviate the fatigue of such hesitation, isn’t it too ironic?

Billie Eilish’s song “What Was I Made For?”

Nevertheless, certain moments in “Barbie” exist where the filmmakers shake off such dilemmas. The first is toward the film’s end when Barbie reunites with someone important to the girls. The ironic humor of the previous scenes has been replaced by a more cinematic perspective (which is, after all, what matters most!). It is a beautiful scene, and you can tell that the newly written music by Billie Eilish playing in the background has a tremendous effect.

The song is by far the most naive ballad of all the tracks contributed to the “Barbie” soundtrack track.

What was I made for?

‘Cause I, I
I don’t know how to feel
But I wanna try
I don’t know how to feel
But someday, I might
Someday, I might

Think I forgot how to be happy
Somethin’ I’m not, but somethin’ I can be
Somethin’ I wait for

“What Was I Made For?”

The lyrics of this song played during one of the most moving scenes in the film, will bring tears to the eyes of anyone familiar with her own life. Naturally, the song is also superimposed on Barbie’s own identity. The song is a transition from the fixed identity of “the ideal woman” to a pluralistic and idiosyncratic identity: “Somethin’ I’m not, but somethin’ I can be. By shifting from a fixed identity of “not me, but somethin’ I can be,” to a pluralistic and idiosyncratic identity = “Somethin’ I’m not, but somethin’ I can be. Perhaps, among the various “assertions” depicted in “Barbie,” the message (I dare say) in this scene (this song) is the most precious and powerful.

The vibrant life beats the hollow of the symbol game!

Why was I so fascinated by the same scene and the same song, and why (unlike other “humorous” scenes) did this impression seem to slowly spread through my mind after viewing the film? Perhaps it was because the song’s content seemed to vividly capture the hesitation of the makers of “social” entertainment blockbusters when faced with their particular dilemma.

The subject of “Made for What?” could be Irish, Barbie, or the film itself. In an interview in the press release, Greta Gerwig talks about a ballad that “brought tears to my eyes when I heard it,” and she is almost certainly referring to this song. This scene and this song seem to be inscribed with an outpouring of emotion directly connected to “life,” shooting through the emptiness of a closed communication space where the stakes are the symbolic treatment of various information and designs. It was a rare moment when Irish, Robbie, and Gerwig were electrified through their creativity, and their true auteurism was engraved.

I would probably continue to watch movies for moments like this, instead of being obsessed with the “consideration” or “interpretation” of symbolic games. I also expect pop music in films to play a role in taking a stand for such moments. Is it possible for there to be an overwhelmingly “social” epic film that nullifies the absorbing power of spectacle? My question may be a contradictory and difficult to answer from the outset. But at the very least, I do not want to give up on capturing the outpouring of dilemmas and frictions that arise in the film as a moment of “itself” that is not symbolic.

Information

“Barbie”
Roadshow nationwide from Friday, August 11, 2023
Director/Screenplay：Greta Gerwig
Cast：Margot Robbie, Ryan Gosling
Distributor：Warner Bros. Pictures
https://wwws.warnerbros.co.jp/barbie/

Postscript.

As many readers are aware, toward the end of July, an Internet meme #Barbenheimer, which crossed the visuals of the film “Barbie” with those of “Oppenheimer,” a movie released at the same time about Robert Oppenheimer, known as the “father of the atomic bomb,” caused a major problem. The meme became a major issue. The official account of “Barbie” in the U.S. tweeted an affirmation of a collage posted by a fan that imitated the “mushroom cloud of an atomic bomb” and the hot air from an explosion, causing a backlash from users mainly in Japan, resulting in a huge firestorm (on July 31, Warner Bros. (On July 31, Warner Bros. Japan, Inc. issued an apology for the incident, in which it strongly protested to the U.S. headquarters).

We assume that the uproar was probably caused by the carelessness and ignorance of the SNS operators, but still, it is a poor promotion for a major film that has been talked about from the outset for its “progressive” content. It is a case that once again exposes the long-standing problems in the mainstream American entertainment industry and in American society in general, such as indifference, ignorance, indifference, and prejudice toward Japan, Asia (and its relations with Japan), and its history, and of course, Japanese users have the right to solemnly protest against this situation.

In addition, as it pertains to this report (even taking into account the fact that the production side and certain promotional staff members do not necessarily share the same ideological stance), big movies and their accompanying marketing, no matter how “progressive” they may appear, are ultimately a form of “socialist-style tagging” by big capitalists, It is natural to be accused of being nothing more than an act of arbitrary self-labeling with a “socialist tag” by mega-capitalists, even if they may be dressed up as “progressive.