BARBIE snubbed? Nah.

So, the Oscar nominations are out. And people appear disappointed that Barbie (2023)—though nominated for eight awards—was somehow “snubbed” by not having Greta Gerwig (director) or Margot Robbie (lead actress) nominated in their respective categories (Best Director and Best Actress).

Of course, if you are a fan of the film, I’m sure it’s disappointing. But to then blame the exclusion of these two due to sexism—understand Robbie was one of the producers of the film, and Best Picture typically recognizes the producers. . . so how “snubbed” is she?—is, I think, a stretch. All one has to do is look at the other nominees in the Best Actress category for one thing. I mean. . . they’re all women! And one of them (Lily Gladstone, for 2023’s Killers of the Flower Moon) is the first Native American woman ever nominated. I’m sure room can be made for her in lieu of Margot Robbie, yet another white woman in this year’s list, as the rest are.

All of that noted, my wife Sunni and I did watch Barbie recently (about three weeks ago). It was more fun than I thought it would be. Sets were interesting. A few of the musical numbers were well done. Gosling was mediocre (I don’t care for him, generally) as Ken (yes, I know he was nominated for Best Supporting Actor, but I think he wasn’t that deserving, frankly). The costumes were interesting. Most of the “meta-ness” of the toy/reality aspect was well-handled. Some of the writing was good and clever, some was cringe-inducing. America Ferrera (also nominated for Best Supporting Actress) was, I think, not a great selection, either. Her speech near the end of the movie is pretty dumb, and her overall performance was not very exciting. I did enjoy seeing Kate McKinnon as Weird Barbie (one of many sub-types in the filmic Barbie Universe), but I always like her anyway.

However, despite the hype, I’m just not convinced that the film was that well directed. It was capable. Not great. A bit long, too. And it has a pretty contrived corporatist worldview (no doubt to sell more Mattel product), as a lot of movies have become post-Star Wars. There are now several Mattel flicks in play as a result of Barbie’s success, all sure to be cashing in on the nostalgia of Boomers and Gen Xers.

All of this noted, Barbie, to me, is fluffy and non-challenging. It’s not nearly the devastating feminist critique (*yawns*) that some may believe it to be. Rewatch it. And watch it not as “Barbie” but as just a movie. Consider its execution apart from emotional reactions and appeals within the content. It doesn’t really hold together in a coherent fashion, in my view. Personally, I look at Barbie as just a “pinkified” version of a superhero film. Those are mostly from the masculine perspective. Barbie is from a feminine one, but it’s still just a glorified CGI-filled spectacle. That’s fine as far as it goes (not far, for me), but it’s not a “serious” film. Nor is it an “important” film. It is an entertainment with a bit of subtext. And that’s all it needs to be, honestly.

Of course, I personally loathe superhero movies, so from that standpoint it was better than most of them are in my estimation. Only a handful of the superhero movies have been nominated (much less won) for the “serious” Oscar categories in the past (Best Director, Best Picture, Best Actress, Best Actor, Best Original Screenplay, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing), apart from 2019’s Joker win for Joaquin Phoenix (Best Actor). They have won a few technical awards. Does that mean they were “snubbed”? Doubtful. And they brought in plenty of coin—more than Barbie by quite a bit. No one is entitled to anything (like an award), and you can’t lose something you never had to start with.

Awards and so on are nice, but hardly a metric of quality or success. In this way they are similar to college degrees, also mostly meaningless. Awards are simply peer-recognition and have no real extrinsic value in and of themselves. Most of the greatest minds, creators, and leaders throughout history received no awards, held no degrees, and saw little recognition in their own lifetimes. They simply didn’t exist to bestow upon them in the past. Does that mean their efforts are meaningless or of little value? I would say no, and they don’t add value intrinsically, either, so it’s important to keep this context in mind. Not receiving an award, nomination, or whatever has no bearing on the person or the merit of a work (or even its relative popularity). Just ask Leonardo da Vinci, Charles Beaumont, or any other great creator who never won an award.

And if we examine “snubbed” in this context, I must say—as a horror fan—people don’t even understand the term. Horror is and generally has been looked down upon, even though it is the most durable and profitable genre in the world in nearly every medium. There have been brilliant works in this genre, too. And while there are a few notable exceptions—Fredric March for Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1932, co-winner Best Actor), The Exorcist (1973, winner Best Adapted Screenplay), The Silence of the Lambs (1991, winner of the Big Five: Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Picture), and Get Out (2018, winner Best Original Screenplay)—the rule has mostly been to ignore horror. This was also true of science fiction in the past, but that barrier has gradually eased over time thanks to people like Spielberg and Lucas. So enough with the self-pity and whining over “snubs,” I say.

In the end, I feel that Barbie suffers much from its own ponderousness. It has its place, but it’s not a great film by any stretch, and is a bit of a mess upon examination. That it’s nominated for Best Picture is a little much, but it signifies the times we occupy: The political has been given too much weight in everyday discourse and in entertainment more broadly. Every movie seems cursed to deliver An Important Message of some form or other, even films that are slight or should simply stop at being fun. It gets tiresome. The political has taken on the guise of the religious in many ways as beliefs in The Righteous Cause Du Jour (increasingly viewed through the cracked lenses of Marxist rhetoric and intersectionalist dogma) divides the world not into “Good” or “Evil” but into “Victim/Oppressed” or “Tyrant/Oppressor” (you decide which aligns to the old ways of thought). Politicians are now the Prophets. As religion and its poor management of human behavior dies away (as it is and as it should), it is no better to replace it with secular versions of the same reflexive reactionism under the rubric of “social justice” or “activism.” That was also the purview of deity-centered religions of old, too. It only results in division and discontent as these institutions and individuals grab for power and influence.

And this trend, like the worldview I have with respect to all religions and religious figures—I reject utterly.