Unboxing the New Barbie

Introduction “Unboxing the New Barbie” explores Barbie’s new image in Greta Gerwig’s 2023 film, Barbie, where Barbie appears initially in a perfect shape and enjoys her ideal life in Barbie Land. The film presents Barbie Land as a female-dominated space with Barbies at the centre of authority, with a utopic lifestyle of freedom and joy. However, the film immediately troubles this utopia through a set of cinematic devices. First, the stereotypical Barbie’s life appears as a series of monotonous routines within the pink plastic structures, and later, her utopic body image and Barbie Land are distorted due to the shortcomings and malfunctioning of the Real World. The Real World, with patriarchy at the core of it, contradicts Barbie Land’s female-oriented constitution. Presenting all the contradictions through Barbie Land and the Real World, hence, the film attempts to address Barbie’s entrapment, first by capturing her image within the pink plastic frames in Barbie Land, and later through her framed reputation as an ostentatious product of a consumerist culture in the Real World. In this article, I argue that Barbie unboxes a new Barbie who recognises her framed image in both Barbie Land and the Real World and breaks free from those frames to define a new and real role for herself. In so doing, I compare Barbie’s (Margot Robbie) image in Barbie Land inside the pink frames to Carol White’s (Julianne Moore) image in Californian Suburbs in Safe (1995), a melodrama by Todd Haynes where she is also trapped in the domestic spaces of her suburban house, experiencing mental and physical break down. The article, hence, concludes that Barbie relies on the aesthetics of melodrama to first refer to Barbie’s entrapped image in Barbie Land, and later to unbox her new image to the Real World. Melodrama in Barbie Land In “Tales of Sound and Fury,” Thomas Elsaesser defines melodrama: “considered as an expressive code, melodrama might … be described as a pictorial form of dramatic mise-en-scène, characterized by dynamic use of spatial and musical categories, as opposed to intellectual or literary one” (75). He further elaborates on the genre and writes that “this type of cinema depends on the ways 'Melos' is given to 'drama' utilizing lighting, montage, visual rhythm, decor, style of acting, music – that is, on the ways the mise-en-scène, translates character into action” (78). Elsaesser in his essay describes the mise-en-scène of the genre as “the middle-class home, filled with objects, which surrounds the heroine in a hierarchy of apparent order that becomes increasingly suffocating” (84). Jackie Byres refers to the rise of melodrama in the timeline of Hollywood films and writes that most of the women’s films of the 1930s and 1940s ended tragically, but in the 1950s, the (eventually unsuccessful) return to an emphasis on woman as wife-companion, exemplified by the suburban housewife, required a different ending, a “happy ending” that provided the female protagonist with a male companion, a husband, a strong and capable patriarch to whom she could submit. (112) These female-oriented melodramas, according to Jackie Byars, are “communities of women and children” in which “the absence of a patriarchal figure motivates the narratives” (106). Drawing attention to the female-centred plots, Byars also considers these films as long-awaited products of cinema where women eventually obtained space to be seen as independent entities with relative subjectivity. In this regard, she further elaborates: “the female-oriented melodrama cannot end with its female protagonist continuing a life independent and alone” (106). Douglas Sirk was one of the prominent Hollywood filmmakers whose films in the 1950s were the archetype of family melodramas where he centralised women’s images and consequently engaged the diegesis with their private and public affairs. In melodrama, there are always reflective surfaces and frames such as windows or mirrors where the characters, particularly women, are framed within these frames. Mercer and Shingler write: “in Sirk’s films we see characters looking in the mirrors when they are conforming to the society’s rules, when they are playing a role, when they are deluding themselves. Mirrors then, represent both illusion and delusion in his films and were to become such emblematic device” (54). These women are usually alone and staring at themselves or gazing out the windows, which is an additional emphasis on their loneliness and insecurities. “Mirrors then, represent both illusion and delusion in these films and were to become such emblematic device” (54). Mercer and Shingler refer to this technique as “frames within frames” where the characters are “contained within mirror frames, doorways, windows, pictures frames and decorative screens. These devices once again suggest that characters are isolated or confined in their lonely worlds, or oppressed by their environments” (54). Against this backdrop, Barbie refers to the conventions of melodrama to represent Barbie’s entrapped body inside the plastic frames of Barbie Land and her willful body that resists these frames. Barbie represents the dual – inside vs. outside – nature of melodrama through the duality in Barbie Land and the Real World. Barbie Land stands for the domestic space in melodrama and the Real World represents the emotionally and politically suppressive public. By the look of it, Barbie Land pictures a feminine utopia: women as the forerunners in politics, sports, and literary competitions; ever subjective, and never sexualised or objectified, with Kens in the background, living a peaceful life. Barbie Land hence adheres to the melodramatic style of filmmaking with communities of women, lack of patriarchal figures, and a female-dominated space. However, fifteen minutes into the film, Barbie problematises this utopia by constantly placing the stereotypical Barbie inside the pink frames of the dream houses, windows, or mirrors, performing a set of dollish routines; eating but not eating, drinking but not drinking, until she is infected with the malfunctioning and diseases of the Real World. She wakes up to the nightmare of flat feet, bad breath, a cold shower, and cellulite. The pink utopia hence stages the colorful wraps of the melodramatic suburbs with its corrupted domestic interiors. In other words, Barbie Land equals the domestic settings of the suburban houses where women appear to have a satisfying luxurious material life, whereas in truth they are overburdened with the expectations of their roles as wives and mothers. The Real World in this equation represents the patriarchal outside and its authority over women, and the temporary Kenland refers to the corruption that is the outcome of the patriarchal Real World. Similar to suburban houses with a glamorous façade and patriarchy at the centre, Barbie Land represents a marginalised female utopia in pink plastic, designed and sold by patriarchy in the Real World. “Mattel: We Sell Imagination!” Barbie hence strongly resembles Safe (1995) in form and content, with its pink utopian external image and unfulfilling conditions in the interiors. Todd Haynes’s Safe is also a family melodrama, set in the 1980s in the Californian suburbs where Carol White is a homemaker living in a spacious suburban house who develops puzzling allergies to common environmental chemicals contained in everyday-use materials. This leads her to abandon her household and live in a remote sanatorium located in a desert where she is immune from any contact with chemicals. In short, Carol’s allergy is triggered by the unnecessarily consumed products every time she is exposed to them. Her physical intimacy with her husband fades away every day due to her intolerance to all the unnatural and industrial products. Simultaneously, the disease signifies her inner desire to free her body from the suburban life and unfulfilling marriage. Safe addresses the industrial developments of the 1980s in the US through the conventions of melodrama to illustrate the emotionally and physically unhealthy environment contaminated by toxic chemicals. Carol White’s health deteriorates due to environmental toxicities and chemical attacks, and Barbie’s health is affected due to metaphorical toxicities such as toxic masculinities in the Real World. More importantly, Barbie’s notoriety for being unrealistically skinny and her responsibility for pervading eating disorders is another evident feature in Safe. Criticism around Barbie’s physical features has usually addressed her “unrealistic and unattainable bodily proportions that make women feel inadequate” (Toffoletti 59). The American Addiction Centers, in their article “Dying to Be Barbie: Eating Disorders in Pursuit of the Impossible”, hold Barbie accountable for girls’ eating disorders and write: the anxieties they experience are the product of a society and media culture that prizes a thin image for women above anything else, and devalues any woman who strays outside the false "norm" of a skinny body. In pursuit of that unattainable goal, they will literally starve themselves to death. They are dying to be like Barbie. (2013) Similar to Barbie, Carol appears with unrealistic and even unnatural physical features. First, she is presented as a skinny woman relying only on dairy (milk), and later she adopts the uncommon fruit diet. Moreover, in her regular aerobic classes, her body never sweats. By characterising Carol through her uncommon physical and mental features, Safe insists upon the female character’s resistance against the norms. “Haynes wanted Carol to evoke vulnerable, fractured nature of modern identity, an issue that American films have rarely addressed” (Levy 177). According to Glyn Davis, Haynes’s cinema “explores the tensions and discrepancies between pristine public surface and that which lies beneath: hidden emotions and passions, closeted identities and the truthful nature of relationships” (123). Both Safe and Barbie trouble the comfortable image of Barbie Land and the Suburbs and alternate it with discomfort and non-conformity. Unboxing the Real Barbie Mattel’s debut doll in 1950s America coincided with the after-war ideologies of the scared home which drove women into domesticity. “Beginning with the Second World War years of the 1940s and extending through the 1950s, 'home' stood for the utopian myth of a coherent, homogenous popular culture” (Cohen 143). Within this utopia, women were placed in domestic environments, and the interior spaces of the household where they were anchored to the bosom of the family. The bourgeois culture evolved the home as the temple of femininity. Domestic life was radically segregated from the public sphere. Although women obviously inhabited public space, they did so under the protection of a chaperon. Women who attempted to roam the metropolis freely struggled with deep male prejudices regarding sexuality and space. (Rojek and Urry 16) Therefore, Mattel’s launch of the first Barbie doll in 1959 and before the advent of second-wave feminism in the 1960s and 1970s seems like an attempt to introduce a woman at the end of a decade when women were forced back into the domestic spaces of their homes and honoured by their roles as homemakers and devoted wives. Barbie hence became “the first feminist that pointed the way out of kitchen” (Stone 7). M.G. Lord, the author of Forever Barbie, credits Barbie as an icon who “taught us independence. Barbie was her own woman. She could invent herself with a costume change: sing a solo in the spotlight one minute, pilot a starship the next. … She was all that we could be and more than we could be. And certainly more than we were” (9). Barbie is a “happily unmarried woman. Ruth refused to give Barbie the trappings of postnuptial life; the doll would be forever independent, subservient to no one” (51). Barbie’s place in the history of popular culture marks her a controversial cultural icon who rises between the decades of women’s passivity and the following feminist decades. In other words, while in the 1950s, she is a pioneer feminist figure, in the 1960s and 70s, she is recognised “as an object of fascination, conflict and rancour for a generation of second-wave feminists” (Toffoletti 60). In Marilyn Ferris Motz’s view, “Barbie is a consumer. She demands product after product, and the packaging and advertising imply that Barbie, as well as her owner, can be made happy if only she wears the right clothes and owns the right products” (128). Accordingly, all the props that followed Barbie and her diverse roles as an affluent independent woman echoed “the idea that women in capitalist culture are themselves commodities to be purchased, consumed and manipulated” (Toffoletti 60). This oscillation in Barbie’s reputation makes her an everchanging cultural product and the interpretations of her subjective. According to M.G. Lord, “to study Barbie, one sometimes has to hold seemingly contradictory ideas in one’s head at the same time ... . People project wildly dissimilar and opposing fantasies on it. Barbie is a universally recognized image, but what she represents is as personal as fingerprints” (10). Taking Barbie’s dynamic identity and reputation into account, Greta Gerwig in her 2023 film summarises sixty-plus years of an ongoing renewal in Barbie’s image and the unstoppable criticism that follows her. While Barbara Handler introduced a strong female doll in the 1950s as a protest against the decade’s imposed standards on women, in 2023 Barbie is still stigmatised and forced back into the margins by remaining in the box of Barbie Land. “Mattel: No One Rests until This Doll Is Back in a Box.” Barbie’s journey to the Real World and her straying from Mattel’s laws pose a threat to the patriarchal establishment in the Real World. Similar to melodrama where women “seem trapped in an image of themselves as dangerous women, threatening to a patriarchy that strives to maintain their willful bodies in a patriarchal, dichotomous situation as gendered bodies” (Ceuterick 42), Barbie’s unboxed figure in the Real world disturbs its marginalising structures. The unboxed new Barbie refuses to go back to the perfect pink world; instead, she allies with the Real-World women to fix the corrupted Barbie Land and decides to become a Real-World woman, accepting its imperfections. Barbie breaks free from the box to recognise herself, Ken, Barbie Land, and the Real World. The unboxed new Barbie hence is an attempt to represent New/Real Barbie’s subjectivity in the Real World and not just in Barbie Land, which is an ostentatious design of the patriarchal Real World. Gerwig chronicles Barbie’s evolving image through her journey from Barbie Land to the Real World and back, and eventually her settlement in the Real World when she breaks free from the pre-determined literal and metaphorical frames of both worlds. While in Barbie Land she is framed within pink plastic frames, in the Real World, she is framed with stigma and criticism for withholding feminism. Conclusion In this article, I argued that Greta Gerwig’s 2023 film Barbie unboxes a New Barbie who eventually becomes a Real Barbie/Woman, rejecting all the stereotypical labels that have been attached to her. Decades after her first appearance in popular culture, Barbie remains a highly controversial cultural product, facing criticism for her unrealistic affluence, independence, and physique. Addressing all these arguments and controversies, the film unveils a new Barbie who breaks free from the margins of Barbie Land to raise her awareness and resist the stereotypical stigma around her image. Facing the harsh realities of the Real World that constantly force her, first, inside the plastic frames of Barbie Land, and later into Mattel’s box, Barbie learns about her entrapment and the patriarchal control over women’s bodies. Experiencing the discrepancies in Barbie Land and the flawed Real World, the Unboxed Barbie escapes Mattel’s box to reinvent herself in Barbie Land and the Real World. Boxing and framing Barbie is a cinematic device used in melodrama where the mise-en-scène is staged with luxurious furniture, costume design, and colour palette, but it suggests a sense of entanglement with domestic affairs for women. Barbie is comparable to Todd Haynes’s Safe due to the film’s pink undertone, the frames of suburban houses that entrap the female character in domesticity, and more importantly, her deteriorating mental and physical health. Similar to Barbie, the female character in Safe resists the frames of patriarchy to free her body and define a new identity for herself. Both Barbie and Safe deploy the conventions of melodrama to depict the entrapment and resistance of the female characters to submit to these frames. References Barbie. Dir. Greta Gerwig. Perf. Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling. Warner Bros., 2023. Byars, Jackie. All That Hollywood Allows. London: Routledge, 1991. Ceuterick, Maud. Affirmative Aesthetics and Wilful Women: Gender, Space and Mobility in Contemporary Cinema. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020. Cohan, Steven. “Almost like Being at Home: Showbiz culture and Hollywood Road Trips in the 1940s and 1950s.” In The Road Movie Book. Eds. Steven Cohan and Ina Rae Hark. London: Routledge, 1997. 113–142. Davis, Glyn. Far from Heaven: American Indies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2011. “Dying to Be Barbie: Eating Disorders in Pursuit of the Impossible.” Drug Rehab Options, n.d. 12 Apr. 2024 . Elsaesser, Thomas. “Tales of Sound and Fury: Observation on Family Melodrama.” In Imitations of Life: A Reader on Film & Television Melodrama. Ed. Marcia Landy. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1991. 68–91. Levy, Emanuel. Gay Directors, Gay Films? Pedro Almodóvar, Terence Davies, Todd Haynes, Gus Van Sant, John Waters. New York: Columbia UP, 2015. Lord, M.G. Forever Barbie: The Unauthorized Biography of a Real Doll. Liveright, 1994. Mercer, John, and Martin Shingler. Melodrama: Genre, Style and Sensibility. New York: Columbia UP, 2013. Motz, Marylin Ferris. “'I Want to Be a Barbie Doll When I Grow Up': The Cultural Significance of the Barbie Doll.” In The Popular Culture Reader. 3rd ed. Eds. Christopher D. Geist et al. Ohio: Bowling Green UP, 1983. 122–136. Rojek, Chris, and John Urry. “Transformation of Travel and Theory.” In Touring Cultures: Transformations of Travel and Theory. Eds. Chris Rojek and John Urry. London: Routledge, 2002. Safe. Dir. Todd Haynes. Perf. Julianne Moore. Motion Picture Rating, 1995. Stone, Tanya Lee. The Good, the Bad, and the Barbie: A Doll’s History and Her Impact on Us. Penguin Young Readers Group, 2015. Toffoletti, Kim. Cyborgs and Barbie Dolls: Feminism, Popular Culture and the Posthuman Body. Bloomsbury, 2007.