(includes spoilers)

The movie of the summer, “Barbie,” directed by Greta Gerwig, swept theaters by storm and features 95 minutes of pink scenery and dance sequences — with a side of consumer-friendly feminism. More than just a fun and lighthearted movie, many moviegoers have praised “Barbie” for its feminist message and celebration of girlhood. The criticism “Barbie” has faced as “anti-man,” shows the existing tensions within today’s political and cultural environment. “Barbie” is rightly celebrated as a heartwarming and witty movie, and further, the idea of women’s empowerment that “Barbie” preaches is valuable and starts an important conversation. 

While “Barbie” makes a good-faith effort to right the wrongs of Mattel’s rocky past and paint Barbie as a feminist icon — rather than a symbol of unrealistic beauty standards — it would be amiss to ignore the selective subversion that the film employs. While it criticizes some elements of patriarchy, it ignores some of the broader socioeconomic issues that impact women. Despite the upbeat soundtrack and message of female empowerment, I couldn’t help the sinking feeling that I was watching a pink and campy commercial for Mattel as the film attempted to cleverly rebrand Barbie as a feminist icon and move beyond its problematic past to sell countless brand deals and its up-and-coming slate of blockbusters. 

Played by Margot Robbie in the film, Barbie lives in the idyllic world of Barbieland alongside a group of diverse Barbies who collectively run politics: all the problems of feminism have been solved and everyday is perfect. In Barbieland, all the Barbies love and support each other, and all the Kens’ existence revolves around the Barbies. 

The main tension in the movie occurs when Barbie begins to experience un-Barbie-like symptoms, like flat feet (gasp!), messy hair and thoughts of death. Barbie consults “Weird Barbie,” played by Kate Mckinnon, who tells her that she must enter the Real World to return back to her perfect life. Ken, played by Ryan Gosling, is Barbie’s himbo-like sidekick who “only has a good day if Barbie looks at him.” Ken accompanies Barbie on her journey where he becomes entranced with real world patriarchy where men rule everything.

When Barbie enters the real world, she’s shocked to find out that women face constant sexism and meets the stressed Mattel employee, Gloria, played by America Ferrera, and her snarky teenage daughter, Sahsa, played by Ariana Greenblatt. Ken returns back to Barbieland where he turns the Dreamhouse into the “Mojo Dojo Casa House,” and the Kens take over Barbieland. Barbie, Gloria and Sasha later return to Barbieland and use feminist one-liners to convert the Barbies back to their normal selves, after which the Barbies take back their world as the Kens fight amongst themselves. Eventually, Ken comes to recognize that patriarchy isn’t the solution to finding himself and commits himself to finding out his identity outside of Barbie. 

Many moviegoers and online commentators have praised Barbie as a feminist movie — and for good reasons as the film is filled with a diverse cast, women in positions of power and a clear message that patriarchy is harmful to all. Critics have raved about Gerwig’s sly commentary and praised the film as “…an ernest and vulnerable take on womanhood…” by the Indepdendent’s Clarisse Loughrey. The Barbie craze has taken over popular culture with people praising the film as celebrating girlhood and spreading a positive message. Online, debates have sprung up with several critics — such as from political commentator Ben Shapiro — as they argue that the movie is “too woke.” It’s easy to see how the Barbie controversy shows the larger political and cultural battles going on surrounding women’s rights and right-wing criticism of culture that is viewed to be “woke” due to its emphasis of women’s empowerment and commitment to diversity. 

There are a lot of things “Barbie” got right in its message, and as I watched the movie in an audience mostly of women and girls who dressed up in pink, it was pretty clear that this movie was special in many ways. In the audience, there were lots of laughs as relatable moments, such as the Kens playing guitar “at” the Barbies when attempting to serenade them and mansplaining movies. The movie resonated with a multitude of women, many of whom cheered when America Ferrera delivered her now famous monologue on the double standards that women experience in society. In many ways, the film had more depth than expected from a movie about a doll, especially with touching moments of Barbie experiencing human emotion and a heartwarming montage of home videos of women and girls.

The message and cultural impact of “Barbie” is one that is important in today’s society, but it would be naive to cast “Barbie” as a feel-good movie that uplifts women without recognizing and addressing the legitimate criticisms surrounding the Barbie doll and Mattel. To this Barbie-skeptic, it seems misguided to praise “Barbie” as a subversive or progressive movie. For some people, including myself, the connotation and message that the Barbie doll carries is a challenging and problematic one as the doll arguably epitomizes the white, blonde, thin ideals of American beauty. Growing up, it was evident to me that Barbie did not represent me and served as a reinforcement that beauty was white, tall, thin and had unrealistically large breasts. 

Mattel has recently attempted to undo the harms that Barbie dolls have inflicted upon girls by distorting their body image and promoting unrealistic standards of beauty. However, to some critics of Barbie, the message seems ironic and insincere: the same company that launched a Slumber Party Barbie with books telling girls “Don’t Eat” is now attempting to rebrand as a feminist and socially-conscious. Of course, this move matches the current corporate climate in which brands use progressive slogans and latch onto social movements to sell more products. 

As I watched “Barbie,” I couldn’t help but see “girlboss feminism,” which is a specific brand of feminism that commodifies women’s empowerment to sell products and promotes women’s liberation as being productive members of society under capitalism. “Barbie” seems to be the epitome of “girlboss feminism” in which Barbieland is portrayed as a feminist utopia because women can be any profession and women’s liberation is as simple as taking back their dream houses and returning to work. 

While it’s unrealistic to expect “Barbie,” a movie about dolls, to touch on all aspects of intersectional feminism, it’s notable that aspects of inequality such as class, sexuality and race are basically absent from the feminist message under the assumption that Barbieland is a utopia because Barbies and Kens of all races and sizes coexist. “Barbie” clearly confronts some of the real-life issues and systems of oppression, mostly the notion of patriarchy, but in the most inoffensive and simplified way possible. 

According to “Barbie,” patriarchy is exemplified in montages of men making money, objectifying women and transforming Barbie’s pink world into the “Mojo Dojo Casa House,” filled with horses and cowboy decor. While objectification and the relegation of women to lower positions are certainly characteristics of patriarchy, the more noxious elements of patriarchy are barely addressed: the persistent wage gap, systemic erasure of women’s reproductive rights and the intersection of other oppressions that often impact women, such as racism, ableism and homophobia, to mention a few. 

Further, the movie’s portrayal of patriarchy fails to address the systemic and embedded nature of sexism by showing that patriarchy is “over” when Barbies take back Barbieland and the Kens, the patriarchal oppressors, were largely misguided and insecure men. This seemingly misses the mark. Patriarchy isn’t easily defeated nor is it merely misguided; it’s an intentional structure of power that cannot be toppled over the course of a few dance sequences. Mattel is clearly launching its largest marketing and rebranding campaign off of the same demographic that it used to sell dolls that promoted white, thin beauty standards. 

Throughout the movie, the film pokes fun at Barbie’s problematic past, often through the snarky teenager, Sasha, who acts as the voice of criticism. However, it seemed as if the valid critiques Sasha brings up are laughed off or largely unresolved. The movie is clever, and it makes sure to let the audience know as it slips in jokes about Mattel leadership being full of white, incompetent men who act as the antagonists who try to put Barbie in a box. The tongue-in-cheek nature of the movie prompts its audience to wonder how the stuffy Mattel suits would let these jokes slide. Viewed critically, these self-deprecating jokes can be seen as a ploy to reconstruct the viewers’ perception of Mattel as a hip and self-aware company, rather than a remote and unrelatable corporation.

Overall, “Barbie” is a great movie if you’re expecting a fun and lighthearted film, but just like the doll, its feminist message is plastic and not very deep. 

Released in late 2021, “The Tragedy of Macbeth” was a hidden gem. The film was produced by A24, the same studio responsible for films such as “Midsommar” and “Uncut Gems.” Fans of A24 know that some of their films can be hit or miss – the indie company releasing films that sometimes end up being a little too weird for the mainstream. But “Macbeth” slid under the radar, and is a film I consider to be truly a masterpiece.

The film follows the story of William Shakespeare’s play of the same name and features Denzel Washington as Lord Macbeth. The acting in the film was phenomenal, and it had to be. As a film based on a play, much of the story is dependent on the dialogue and subtle actions of the characters. There was a lot of potential for the film to get boring due to the sheerpure amount of dialogue and seemingly lack of action, but the action is in the subtleties of the film. Overall, and the actors do an amazing job of keeping your attention. 

It was also just a great film to watch because of the visual experience. “Macbeth” was minimalistic, with the whole film shot in black and white. Because of the lack of color, there was a higher emphasis on shadows and light, punctuating the film in a unique way and providing a beautiful cinematographic experience. The general aesthetic of the film was also given great attention. It didn’t feel old or difficult to watch. While it was obviously a Shakespeare play, there was a modern spin on it with the minimalistic attributes of the sets adding a crispness to the film. 

“The Tragedy of Macbeth” was extremely enjoyable – one of my favorite movies I’ve seen in a while. For those who can’t enjoy a Shakespeare play, it may be hard to get into. But for those curious about it, I definitely recommend giving it a shot.

Marvel Studios’ “WandaVision” is the first of Marvel we’ve seen since “Spiderman: Far From Home” was released in 2019, and it was certainly worth the wait. The show is Marvel’s first time including its primary characters and storylines in television shows rather than feature films. With several more Marvel shows on the way – including “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier,” “Loki” and “What If?” – “WandaVision” set the stage for the superhero power-company to usher in a new age of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

“WandaVision” rightfully shocked and impressed audiences with its uncomfortable nostalgia. The show focuses on Wanda Maximoff, or the Scarlet Witch, and the Vision. Despite both characters being Avengers in the last several Marvel films, neither had previously received extensive focus and character development. “WandaVision” explores the power and depth of both characters with more emotional force than Marvel audiences have seen in a while.

The show transforms throughout the series and harkens to sitcoms of decades past, but it does so with a level of unease. It recognizes its audiences didn’t actually watch television sitcoms of the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s so it creates a nostalgia that recognizes its own inauthenticity. “WandaVision” plays with expectations, characters and settings like only the product of blockbuster film-level funding and production can. 

Full of twists, turns and questions, “WandaVision” keeps audiences constantly figuring out what each episode means before realizing the ground is falling out from beneath them. While not everything is shocking or unpredictable, the show plays with the expectations of die-hard Marvel fans and cultivates a sense of discomfort and fleetingness. 

Elizabeth Olsen as Maximoff and Paul Bettany as Vision shine as they show range and vulnerability. Olsen specifically steals her own show with skill and depth she hasn’t previously had the opportunity to show in the Marvel Universe. Her emotional and relatable performance made the large-scale production come together.

Fan-favorite side characters – including Darcy Lewis of “Thor,” played by Kat Dennings; Jimmy Woo of “Antman,” played by Randall Park; and Monica Rambeau of “Captain Marvel,” played by Teyonah Parris – return to play central roles. However, Kathryn Hahn as Agatha Harkness gave a performance rivalling Olsen’s. She stole the hearts of audiences and facilitated the greatest surprise of the series. 

Hahn and Olsen are captivating, and I cannot wait to see them continue exploring the depth of these characters in future Marvel projects. 

“WandaVision” truly vaulted over my expectations and somehow felt exactly like a Marvel movie without feeling too comfortable or familiar. It sets an intriguing base for future Marvel TV shows and the coming phase of Marvel generally. If “WandaVision” is a good indicator, I anticipate this phase will develop a new age of Avengers with more emotional complexity, nuance and cinematic skill than audiences typically expect from superhero films.

All in all, “WandaVision” was a 10/10 and a delightful highlight in these dreadful pandemic times.

The Netflix trilogy “To All the Boys” has reached its charming end with “To All the Boys: Always and Forever.” The film opens on Laura Jean Covey and Peter Kavinky’s senior year of high school and follows the couple as they navigate changes in their post-high school plans: Peter will be going to Stanford and Laura Jean plans to join him – if only she can get accepted. 

By this third installment, Lana Condor and Noah Centineo are familiar faces as Laura Jean and Peter, respectively, but it was nice to revisit their cute love story. As always, while watching Condor and Centineo, it’s extremely easy to believe that they are just two high schoolers in love, trying to navigate the changes that come with that. Their performances are backed by more familiar faces for fans of the trilogy: Janel Parrish returns as Margot; Anna Cathcart as Kitty; Ross Butler as Trevor; Madeleine Arthur as Chris; and John Corbett as Dr. Covey. While the main focus is always Condor and Centineo, the rest of the cast backs up their love story with understanding love of their own.

The story is straightforward, if not a bit predictable. It’s not hard to guess what will happen when Laura Jean opens her Stanford portal to view her acceptance status. It’s even easier to remind yourself through the angst that they’re going to be together in the end… because it’s a romance – a teen romance at that. It was nice to follow Laura Jean and Peter as they grew up a little bit and especially as Laura Jean found herself and fought for what was right for her. 

As far as a romance goes, “To All the Boys: Always and Forever” ticks all of the boxes. Almost too cute? Check. A little cringey at times? Check. A loveable couple with lovable sidekicks? Check. A happy ending after an angsty situation? Check. The film is simple but cute, especially if you’re already invested in Laura Jean and Peter’s relationship like I was. As far as the trilogy goes as a whole, the first film, “To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before,” is arguably the best. But this one wasn’t bad either. Their love story needed a conclusion, and I’m glad that it was this. 

Overall, the film was an easy watch and a good way to let yourself relax for a couple of hours. If you’re already a fan of the trilogy it’s worth the watch. If you’re not, definitely watch the first one. Even though you could probably get away with skipping straight to this one, you wouldn’t get all of the references to the earlier films, which was a fun part of watching. No matter what your previous acquaintance is with Laura Jean and Peter, this movie was a lovable one.