Greta Gerwig's Barbie

I think there would be a way to do it right certainly. It's not outside the realm of possibilities.

There's the cinch, though.

BARBIE is happy without a romantic partner.

Ken wants one.

The movies would benefit from, "If a relationship doesn't work out. Don't sweat it. More fish in the sea."

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Nov 21st 2023 at 3:35:32 AM

Does he? It is quite clear from the story that he is mostly pursuing Barbie because that is what is expected of and not because he actually wants a relationship. That is why his ending works so well, its him deciding to stop being defined by what society wants and start to do stuff he wants.

Edited by Bullman on Nov 21st 2023 at 5:38:30 AM

He reaches his happiest state once he accepts that Ken is just him, and that it isn't (and doesn't have to be) "Barbie AND Ken".

The whole point of Ken's arc is about accepting who he is by himself. Immeaditely tossing him into another relationship would undercut that.

For me, the most important line in the movie for Ken was him saying, "I thought it would be our house together." Only THEN does Barbie have a (very minor) Heel Realization that Ken actually was in love with her and wanted to be with her.

Not just take all her stuff.

Ken being his own person should not preclude that his wants and needs includes a partner to share his life with.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Nov 21st 2023 at 3:51:42 AM

That is not portrayed as him being legit in love with her though. Its him trying to again confine to what is expected of him and that is why Barbie encourages him to be himself.

Ken can't be a valued romantic partner when he has nothing but loving a partner going for him.

But that's very much not the idea he doesn't love Barbie.

She just doesn't love him back or really want/need him in their life so he needs to move on.

It's a valuable Hard Truth Aesop but loses all meaning if you say you shouldn't try again.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Nov 21st 2023 at 3:53:30 AM

They weren't in a relationship though.

No the fact that the film clearly makes it clear that it is not actually love her but it is just expected of him does. That is why he says the whole "It's Barbie and Ken and not just Ken" part in his breakdown. He doesn't actually want that because he doesn't know what he wants.

It doesn't lose all meaning if you never try it again. It would only lose meaning if they tried to rush him into a new relationship after just learning that he doesn't need one to be happy.

Edited by Bullman on Nov 21st 2023 at 6:00:35 AM

The film's resolution for Barbie and Ken is radical because it refuses to conform to the heteronormative standard of "Male lead, female lead, THEY MUST KISS."

Following it up by dragging Ken off to a new heteronormative status quo played utterly straight would aggressively miss the point of his journey in the film. Like. How about this for an idea. How about we let Ken go on an emotional journey that isn't about getting the girl and is instead about finding value in himself as a person.

And if your immediate reaction to that is, "And then he gets the girl?" then you should probably take a step back and ask yourself why it is so important to you that Ken hook up with a woman? Why can't he take some time and just enjoy being Ken?

Edited by TobiasDrake on Nov 21st 2023 at 4:11:21 AM

Just do what they did with Gloria.

Give Ken a complete arc, an entire movie where he goes on some fun adventure.

Then put his new girlfriend in the last scene and make it clear they've been together the whole time.

If they're able to define Ken beyond having a romantic partner and then give him one, that would kind of be different. I agree that it's appropriate that that's not what this movie did though.

Man what?

It absolutely does not.

Ken genuinely loved Barbie and was willing to sacrifice everything for her because he thought they were together and that they would have a life together. Barbie just wasn't that into him. It's a really solid interesting take on it.

He has to learn to let it go.

But the idea he wasn't in love with her, his feelings weren't real, or that he's diminished by having them is awful.

I mean it's pretty nasty to go with the idea that someone isn't ready to have a relationship yet and then say, "And you'll never get one because you just are broken." It defines the idea of a feminine man who wants to be romantic as weak.

Which is a VERY toxic masculine idea.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Nov 21st 2023 at 5:12:25 AM

Again no he didn't and the movie makes that clear. Also by sacrifice everything do you mean steal her house and brainwash all of the women into mindless slaves? That is not really sacrificing things for her.

What? I never said he was diminished. I pointed out that the film makes it clear that he doesn't actually want that and has to find out what he really wants.

No one said that he couldn't get into one just that rushing into it after he just learned that he doesn't need to be in one would be the wrong way to go.

Doing a romance in the third film would be the way to go in my opinion.

It struck me as Ken was supposed to be his own person like Barbie was.

The advice "you have to learn to love yourself/be yourself in order to be loved" is some BS. I tell you that from experience. It never helps people who are lonely no matter how much people in relationships like to think it does, YMMV.

But in the context of Ken it works. He launched a takeover of Barbieland. He was doing it because Barbie rejected him and 'patriarchy' was his copium.

Doesn't make all the Kens being returned to barely above second-class citizens and Ken being a literal manchild when going down the slide any better, but that's this movie.

This just sounds like projecting.

"It didn't work for me, so it doesn't work."

Ken IS a manchild. In a movie for children. The filmmakers have described his patriarchy takeover as a child’s idea of what masculinity is.

Yeah and he immediately throws that out when she shows him the slightest attention because it was all designed to try and win her over.

Like I said, he didn't want her house, he wanted her to be in the house with him.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Nov 21st 2023 at 5:35:16 AM

Though he didn't throw everything out until she unbrainwashed everyone. He took her house and everything do to very justifiably feeling like he was being mistreated and not just to get her attention.

Edited by Bullman on Nov 21st 2023 at 7:54:02 AM

As someone who also has trouble connecting with women, I try not to take it personally—or remind myself not to. Ken needing more time to find himself would make sense—though again, I would hope that if it's right, it's right.

Its really not. I'm not sure why you think it is. Telling someone to learn to love themselves in order to be loved without a context like Ken's is lazy, often hurtful and unhelpful advice.

It probably works for some, and that's fine. It doesn't work for, and tends to hurt a lot of people.

Edited by FOFD on Nov 21st 2023 at 11:29:54 AM

No, it's not a problem I've ever really faced, actually.

The reason it sounds like projecting is that you're taking a fair enough conclusion, that it might not work for any one given person (in this case you), and then just extrapolating it outwards.

You can't really claim something hurts "a lot of people" without some sort of evidence or proof.

Your own personal anecdotes don't really count for a claim that large.

Edited by ArthurEld on Nov 21st 2023 at 8:30:24 AM

Ken is dependent and needy on Barbie in a way that's clearly meant to be a commentary on the patriarchy suggesting that women can be only fulfilled by their partners. Which is, of course, bullshit. But that doesn't mean his feelings for Barbie are any less real nor is his brief rebellion motivated by anything other than loneliness and a lack of appreciation by the Barbies.

Barbie just...doesn't care about Ken. They're not even friends.

But I feel a lot of Ken's emotional arc is lost if we suggest his own feelings weren't real.

I wonder which of these qualifies as an Alternate Character Interpretation for the page.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Nov 21st 2023 at 8:43:23 AM

I would be curious to know who Beach Ken's child is. That he loves a Barbie whose "child" didn't have a Ken suggests to me he belongs to a rare child who has a Ken but no accompanying Barbie. A similar quest to Barbie's would probably do him a lot of good.

I didn't think Barbie was even Beach Ken's friend. She rolls her eyes at him, doesn't want him around, and treats him like a nuisance in nearly every scene they're in. She doesn't find his antics endearing. She actively dislikes him and his presence around her.

Edited by PhiSat on Nov 21st 2023 at 9:46:58 AM

My assumption is that S-Barbie's complete lack of interest in Ken is due to Gloria not considering him anything interesting or owning a Ken. So her Barbie has no feelings towards Ken.

Depending on how Sasha played with her Barbies, Ken might have been part of S-Barbie's life until suddenly S-Barbie lost all interest in him.

This is not true. She only acts annoyed when he forces himself into joining her despite her not wanting him to. Like otherwise she is very clearly his friend.

That is not at all how the film presents it, but even if he was the fact is that going from "You don't need a romance to be happy" right to "you have a romance now and can live Happily Ever After" in the very next film is a mistake. Again a third film is the better place to do that.

Edited by Bullman on Nov 21st 2023 at 11:06:43 AM