This July, Warner-Brothers released the highly-anticipated “Barbie” movie to overwhelming admiration from critics and fans. The strong cast and energetic soundtrack have received praise, and the movie itself manages to maintain a fun atmosphere while tackling serious issues. It examines gender roles and society’s expectations of women, but also toxic masculinity, the challenges of growing up and existential dread. But one issue this movie puts under a microscope becomes somewhat ironic when you consider the wider context of “Barbie:” its criticism of corporate greed and hyper-capitalism.
One of the major antagonists of the film is a fictional version of the CEO of Mattel, the company responsible for the Barbie brand that inspired the “Barbie” movie. He is played by Will Ferrel, acting as a comically inept and greedy boss whose performative care for women’s issues ultimately boils down to how much money it can make him. In one scene, Ferrell’s character and his Mattel team literally try to put Margot Robbie’s Barbie in a toy package, demonstrating the ways capitalism can entrap women and the ways Mattel itself has put their representation of women in a box.
Younger audiences were drawn to Mattel’s self-deprecating critiques by their own mascot. Many young adults naturally distrust brands and corporations but liked the way “Barbie” seems self-aware of the parent company’s flaws and the anti-capitalist messages it advertises. There is even a scene early in the film where a lawyer Barbie brings up the issue of corporations humanizing themselves in the court system, a real-life way companies can gain legal freedoms usually only afforded to individuals.
“Barbie” examines some constructive criticisms about capitalism and corporate America, which makes it strange to think about the fact that Mattel, a corporate entity, is making enormous amounts of money off of the movie. Despite the ways the film critiques the company, Mattel itself was heavily involved in the entire production process. While carefully crafted, the film was also carefully constructed by a corporation trying to make money. By using self-criticism in their favor, Mattel succeeded on a massive scale.
This situation is similar to a shift that occurred on Twitter back in the 2010’s. Many people will remember when Wendy’s twitter account began acting a little off brand, making edgy posts and roasting their competitors, which appealed to younger audiences. These acts of immaturity may poke fun at the brand itself, but ultimately serve to endear the brand to an audience they were having difficulty engaging with. It’s another act of self-deprecation that served to heighten Wendy’s popularity and soon, they weren’t alone in utilizing this strategy. What we know today as “Brand Twitter,” a collection of online personas used by brands to appear relatable, is all a result of a successful marketing strategy that proved effective in making money.
Nowadays “Brand Twitter” is more maligned than amusing, since many people caught on to the off-putting insincerity present in these marketing appeals. The uncanny way this strategy humanized brands is partly what led to arguments against corporations being treated like individuals. So, brands had to adapt.
The “Barbie” movie is an incredibly successful version of this self-deprecatory marketing strategy, and the international popularity it has achieved is proof that this method of relating to audiences still works for large corporations. The movie is by no means evil or malicious in its intentions. It’s a wonderful film that handles its subject matter well. But no amount of work from the filmmakers can escape the corporate influence that allowed the movie to exist in the first place., Ultimately, the movie stays pretty surface-level on its critiques of Mattel. It mainly criticizes their past scandals and misdeeds while ignoring the more recent issues they’ve had with financial dishonesty and data privacy.
It’s frustrating to know that, despite the movie’s efficacy as a critique of capitalism, it is a powerful tool Mattel has used to their advantage. But acknowledging this fact is important when it comes to analyzing the movie and the themes it explores.
Considering the context of the movie’s value for Mattel, you can see another level of meaning in its plot. At the end of the film, Will Ferrel’s character isn’t dethroned from his position as terrible CEO, nor is he thwarted in any way. Rather, he sees a way to monetize the freedom Margot Robbie’s Barbie asks for and agrees to the idea of a more realistically flawed Barbie only because one of his assistants informs him it will make money. This could be seen as the filmmakers representing the way progress is often made with concessions to traditionalist parties, and even a direct metaphor for how Mattel regarded the making of the movie. Sure, it goes against some of their previous ideals and positions, but it will still make them money, which is what corporations care about at the end of the day. While some may interpret the “Barbie” movie as a corporation’s attempt to use performative self-awareness to cash in with young audiences, it could also be seen as progressive filmmakers taking advantage of corporate greed to send a message they care about.
At the end of the day, “Barbie” is a powerful film that conveys empowering messages for women and critiques the corporate world. Yes, Mattel will profit off of their own self-deprecation, but that doesn’t take away from the movie’s strong messages and the motivations. In a society where capitalism can control so much of what art is produced and reaches the public, it’s an impressive feat to release anything that doesn’t pass through a corporate filter. But once you see how the filter works, it’s possible to find the messages filmmakers sneak through the cracks.
