I've been eagerly anticipating the Barbie movie ever since I saw that trailer homaging 2001: A Space Odyssey. I'm intrigued that the ad campaign pitches it as a movie for everyone who loves Barbie and everyone who hates Barbie. And I've been reading a lot of think pieces, fun behind-the-scenes tidbits, and now this Time magazine article:
https://time.com/6292203/barbie-box-office-women-movies/
I'm curious as to whether the movie will address the unspoken question: what does it mean to be feminine, or "for women" vs "for men"?
@twotone really not the main point of the article, but it seems like a massive disservice to describe Everything Everywhere All at Once as «a multiversal movie stuffed with fight scenes that happens to center a mother and daughter»
like if you can’t see how mother-daughter relationships *specifically* were central to the plot then idk what to tell you
@twotone to make this point in a less pettily pendantic way, i think the author has two good points—people want more variety than just endless action flicks (agreed), and that women (or PoC) are expected to turn out for things catering to stuff catering to (white) men while their own interests are viewed as a “niche” marketing segment (i certainly do)
But they end up conflating the two in a way which fails to recognize any difference between surface level ‘fiiine i’ll put a girl in it’ representation and like, actual women being very into sff depicting themselves in sff
@Satsuma I feel like that also reflects how Hollywood (or society in general?) tries to sell audiences on these movies, though. Like "oh no no, this isn't a movie ABOUT women, it's just a [historical epic/sff movie/action flick] that just HAPPENS to have female protagonists".
I can understand the soulless marketing reasons why that happens, but I also agree with you that anyone who watches Everything Everywhere will understand that there are some very specific experiences at the core of it.
