Interesting, my zoomer sister says the message seemed obvious to her: she thinks it was a clear and intentional criticism of the useless “thoughts and prayers” mentality of lots of liberals. Acknowledging a problem does diddly squat without the next step of actually taking steps to fix it. That corporate DE&I initiatives are just a cash grab camouflaged by rainbows.
That didn’t happen in the movie though, there was no next step taken. America pitches the idea and the man in charge is about to say no until another man says it will make a lot of money. There’s no implication of her being promoted or anything. The Mattel leadership doesn’t change, the patriarchy doesn’t change, and Barbieland didn’t fundamentally change either. A couple characters changed their outlooks on themselves, which isn’t a bad thing but it’s also not that profound. The movie identifies some bigger problems but ends up just accepting them and moving on. And I think reading intention into that is probably giving the studio too much credit. Especially when you could replace the board with a literal roadblock and it wouldn’t change anything about the rest of the plot. To be clear, I thought it was a fun movie, I just don’t think it’s as groundbreaking as many make it out to be.
Uh, yeah. That’s what I said. It acknowledged issues and did nothing about them, or only did a thing when it was also pointed out it would make money. My sister believes it did this intentionally as a critique about modern, ineffective liberals.
In which case I would point to this part of my comment.
And I think reading intention into that is probably giving the studio too much credit. Especially when you could replace the board with a literal roadblock and it wouldn’t change anything about the rest of the plot.
That and (speculation) I’m pretty sure most of the people making this movie are liberals themselves.
Interesting, my zoomer sister says the message seemed obvious to her: she thinks it was a clear and intentional criticism of the useless “thoughts and prayers” mentality of lots of liberals. Acknowledging a problem does diddly squat without the next step of actually taking steps to fix it. That corporate DE&I initiatives are just a cash grab camouflaged by rainbows.
That didn’t happen in the movie though, there was no next step taken. America pitches the idea and the man in charge is about to say no until another man says it will make a lot of money. There’s no implication of her being promoted or anything. The Mattel leadership doesn’t change, the patriarchy doesn’t change, and Barbieland didn’t fundamentally change either. A couple characters changed their outlooks on themselves, which isn’t a bad thing but it’s also not that profound. The movie identifies some bigger problems but ends up just accepting them and moving on. And I think reading intention into that is probably giving the studio too much credit. Especially when you could replace the board with a literal roadblock and it wouldn’t change anything about the rest of the plot. To be clear, I thought it was a fun movie, I just don’t think it’s as groundbreaking as many make it out to be.
Uh, yeah. That’s what I said. It acknowledged issues and did nothing about them, or only did a thing when it was also pointed out it would make money. My sister believes it did this intentionally as a critique about modern, ineffective liberals.
In which case I would point to this part of my comment.
That and (speculation) I’m pretty sure most of the people making this movie are liberals themselves.