ok let's go (spoilers ahead)
the problems with this script start and end with "written by greta gerwig and noah baumbach."
first of all, noah b has no business having his little paws anywhere near a barbie movie.
i actually think gerwig is fine as a director, but there can sometimes be problems when a director directs their own script. often the director is blind to the problems in their own script and how to direct out of them or through them. a lot of filmmakers want to be "auteurs" and crave that kind of creative freedom, but this is one of the instances (making a 2 hour barbie commercial) where there needed to be a critical voice in the writing process.
honestly, this script was giving "first draft" and i am a little confused how it made it into production.
(now, the production design is GREAT. acting is great. a lot of good things in there. unfortunately it's all built on a shaky foundation!)
so, here's the main problem with the script. it's muddy. the first 20 minutes are pretty good, establishing that there's a barbie-land that is a matriarchal utopia. who is barbie? she's barbie! (tautology) what is her problem? she's thinking about death!
well, what is that problem, exactly? this is a very vague internal conflict set up, and her stakes are never clearly defined. does she want to go back to being a barbie? she seems ambivalent about that from the jump. what does death mean to a barbie? what does change mean to a barbie?
i dunno! does gerwig know?
the script brushes past that, leaving us with no clear stakes for barbie beyond "experiencing vague unease."
there's another problem here, which is ken. ken is more clearly defined as a character, with more clear internal conflict, external conflict, and stakes. who is he? a second banana who wants to be more of a main player. what does he want? barbie. who is against him? other kens, and also barbie.
so ken's storyline is actually very compelling, which is a problem when it's supposed to be a feminist movie. we never actually know what barbie is fighting for, what she could or should "win." whereas ken wants something very clear -- respect. and the movie makes you feel for him; yes, he should have respect!
by making ken more defined and barbie less defined, it's ironically actually kind of illustrating a "problem" with mainstream feminism, in favor of men. (w/o actually addressing any of the other problems within mainstream feminism!)
there's another major major problem here, which is the powers-that-be and the antagonists.
who are the powers-that-be? is it helen mirren, the narrator (who is only present at the beginning then sporadically near the end)? is it the CEO of mattel? is it america ferrera and her daughter? or is it ruth handler, creator of barbie? or the vague all-encompassing "patriarchy" of both the real world and kendom? they are all different all-powerful forces in barbie's life. very difficult to make an argument in favor of "female agency" when it's hard to outline what exactly is controlling her agency.
who is the antagonist? is it... mattel? not really... they try to put barbie back in barbie land but the attempt is very half-assed and basically just an excuse to have action sequences. why do they care that barbie is in the real world? what does it affect? what are their stakes?
is the antagonist... ken? no, except yes? except no. he's sort of like a trickster character, except with no intent to trick. the best read i've seen of his situation is that it's similar to a man lacking self-awareness falling into an incel rabbithole. but the movie still doesn't make him a flat-out villain. it makes you root for him! which is weird!
is the antagonist....... the patriarchy? what exactly is "the patriarchy"? the movie doesn't attempt to explain or illustrate it beyond a few cartoonish examples in the real world, the cartoonish kendom, and the monologues that characters are forced to make.*
if i wrote this script, i would have gotten out all these characters / forces in the first draft, then pared back until the conflict became very clear. there's no need for a narrator -- the narration was mostly superfluous. there's no need for any of the C-plot stuff at the mattel HQ! no need for a ruth handler cameo, in terms of the plot -- that totally could have popped up at the very very end as an epilogue. i would have had the entire plot revolve around barbie and the mom/daughter and the three of them trying to figure out how to navigate the patriarchy (if that's where i wanted to focus the antagonistic force in this story).
man. this movie would have been soooo solid if they just fleshed out barbie and the mom/daughter duo more! the most we get to flesh them out is... montages!!! and guys, honestly, the montages made me cry! but that was a cheap shot! you can't just show me 5-10 second clips of little girls growing up! yes that tugs at my emotions but it's cheap! it's cheap!!!
like, remember when i mentioned that barbie "thinking about death" is not clearly defined stakes? this appears to be more defined when we find out that it's actually america ferrera's character who's been thinking about death and aging, and that's been popping out in barbie. but what does death and aging mean to america's character?!* i got a fleeting hope that it may have to do with the absence of the husband/dad figure but then we cut to the husband/dad and no they're still happily married. so then...? what are her stakes? who is she? what does she care about? what does her kid care about? i still don't know!
** apparently america's character's name is "gloria"! we hear her name like what, once? who is she???? the secret protagonist...? maybe???
those are the macro problems. micro problems:
the cross-promotion product placement was extremely ham-fisted and they could have been more suave with it. or at least made more jokes about it.
the dialogue was not consistent; sometimes in order to throw in a joke about "female agency" or "patriarchy" a character would talk out-of-character. which would be funny if it was a running joke about one character... having it pop up all over the place was weird. broke the world-building a few times for me, personally.
a lot of the feminist jokes i have already seen in reductress :X
* i mentioned up there that the characters are "forced" to make monologues. because there wasn't any internal logic in the script as to why the characters would launch into these monologues. whenever you write a monologue, there has to be a strong compelling reason why the person is talking and talking, and the other people in the scene have to have a good reason to sit and listen. the actors do a very good job with these monologues, because they put in the work to rationalize them to make them work. but the actors are doing a lot of heavy lifting, because those monologues are wooden and forced.
line-by-line, they gloss over things that need to be explained, and draw out things that don't need to be explained.
here's another way i would have fixed the movie: gerwig says she was inspired by musicals. dude, this should have been a full-on musical. the movie, in its execution, is a family? comedy? with a couple of musical numbers.
i went to go see this movie yesterday in north san diego, and i had the feeling that the majority of the audience was confused for the majority of the movie. but they ate up the musical numbers!!!
gerwig! you dropped the ball on this one! you should have kicked your boyfriend out of the writing process and made it a busby berkeley dream!!!!! mattel would have been happy, the moms and their daughters would have been happy, the gays would have been happy, mama, you could have made a new corporate hit!
what we have is, well, yknow, it's poppy and fun, but overall inconsistent and falls apart with inspection. it's like a taylor sw*ft song, making a gesture towards self-reflection w/o genuine self-reflection. but great gowns, beautiful gowns.
dailybridgerton
tangentwithtanner
germansingergirl
romaincrisis
janainaart
snowghoul
baratheonpilled
