At its essence, a script consists of two things: dialogue and scene description (or "action").
The writer scripts what the characters say; and describes what they're doing and what the audience would see -- at least the important stuff.
Because too much detail can be laborious to read and should be left to the production.
Inherent in those basic guidelines are the keys to good scene description:
1. It clearly indicates what the audience would see (and nothing more).
2. It avoids making the reader work hard. Meaning it's easy and even fun to read.
It sounds simple but like so much about writing, it's harder to do really well than it seems.
Let's start with Barbie's world building.
Whenever a movie or series has a fantastical premise, with elements that don't exist in our life on earth, we can say it's building its own "world," with certain "rules" to how everything works.
In such stories it's imperative the audience is able to understand and buy into those rules, and suspend disbelief enough to be able to engage with and relate to the story on a human level.
That's where I think Barbie is most challenged.
It owes an obvious debt to movies where innocents from another land come to earth, such as Enchanted and Elf -- or where toys have lives and agency beyond their real-life "object" status, like Pixar's Toy Story and its sequels, or The Lego Movie.
In all of these, there are relatively simple explanations for how the fantastical elements work -- how these characters end up involved in what they're doing. And the audience gets caught up in a fairly straightforward overall story goal that's easy to buy into and root for, once you take that leap of accepting the world's "rules."
With Barbie, I think it's not quite so simple.
For me, it all begins when "Weird Barbie" explains that the main character's sudden thoughts about death and flat feet must mean that someone in the real world who is playing with her is having some problems that caused all this.
This is the first big "rule" and I think it's a tough one to wrap your head around. The concept is that while the characters seem to have autonomous lives and even a government in "Barbieland," they are also mere toys played with by humans they've never met in the "real world."
We never see this going on and it's something Barbie wasn't aware of. No one seems to be.
It's a lot less simple and easy to grasp than the situation Woody, Buzz and the others have in Toy Story. They are clearly owned and played with by humans they feel a bond with. The only "rule" is that when the humans aren't around, the toys come to life and have their own mini-society, of sorts. Not governments or a special land or parallel reality, just personalities and relationships with each others, with Woody as a de facto leader.
In scripts, simple is usually better. A simple premise to buy into, and a simple story goal that's easy to care about on a primal level. It gets complicated to solve, but its basic nature and the reason we should care is usually simple. I'd argue that's the case in the four movies I mentioned.
Barbie has elements of some of these when she travels to the real world, where she's going to be shocked by what it's like. She does so through a fanciful series of transportation devices. It's funny and fun to watch, but I'm not sure it's easy to grasp or buy into how this physical journey between two kind of parallel realities is as simple as that.
In any event, when she and Ken get to real world L.A., it's not really the fish out of water tale we see in Enchanted or Elf -- which hinge on the unlikeliness of a seeming "fool" succeeding in the big bad real world at something important to them.
Now you might say such a situation is too familiar so it's good to do something different here, and I wouldn't necessarily argue that point.
However, I do question how easy it is to buy into and care about what she is trying to do. She wants to find the person who apparently caused her to have an existential crisis, but I'm not sure that goal is as primal, understandable and compelling to audiences (who haven't really seen that side of things and come to care strongly about that character). And almost as soon as she's done so, she's faced with a different kind of problem, which is that the Mattel executives take her.
While on one hand it's good to "punish" your main character with a variety of challenges, I think it tends to be more effective when there's one big problem that takes the whole movie to solve, like these other movies have, as opposed to shifting sands like we have here.
It's not really that Barbie can't fit in on earth, or that she has to help the mother and daughter, or that she has to escape the Mattel people, or stop Ken from changing Barbieland. It's kind of all of these things, each of which gets some screen time, but no one of which is really central.
I also think the supporting dramatic material behind each of these is a little flimsy. The Mattel executives especially were depicted as so ineffectual that they don't seem to be a real ongoing threat to her, and the rules about how dolls can come into the real world and what must be done seem a bit hazy, with so much played for broad comedy that I think it's hard to really buy into.
For me, it's ideal in a script if there's one major outcome the audience is meant to root for starting early on, that the main character is continually focused on. And that's grounded in an identifiable reality the audience starts to see themselves in.
I think that's a little hard to ever do here.
Do we want Barbie to change out of the naive person she was, as in Legally Blonde, while keeping some of her essential goodness? I suppose we kind of do, but it doesn't seem to be primarily about that, either -- with some challenge in a strange land to rise up and face, that will help her to eventually do that.
It's about so many different things, each of which has a possibly shaky or underdeveloped set of world building rules, that if you look at it on a script/story level, beyond the sheen of the finished film, it plays more like a series of fun set pieces strung together, rather than an evolving story that it's easy to get emotionally invested in.
But maybe that's enough! At least for a finished film with a lot going for it, of a kind that audiences might be hankering for.
But if this was a spec script from an original idea? I have my doubts.
The other big element of the story is Ken. Arguably he has a more relatable problem early on, a simple objective anyone can understand. He wants Barbie's love. While she arguably seems more like a doll than a human, he at least has that one attribute that everyone's experienced.
Then when he gets to the real world and sees men are in charge there, it gives him an interesting new perspective. But rather than continuing with his sympathetic desire to be something more to Barbie, he turns into something of a villain character for how he later changes Barbieland. And the third act becomes about defeating him, in a feminists-vs.-the-patriarchy way that definitely has some satisfying and funny moments. But his character comes in and out of the story as a kind of device to create plot for her, in the second half, and I think it's hard to ever see him as a truly difficult adversary, and to understand how the men are able to truly take over. (The rules of how Barbieland handles elections and has a government aren't given much convincing focus.)
Perhaps this would be worthy of a whole movie instead of just a climax -- a story where Barbie has to save Barbieland from toxic men led by her main Ken. To me, picking one main goal and really taking the time to make it believable and emotional for the audience might be stronger than stringing together so many various story challenges and elements.
But maybe I'm being a little tough on the film. In some ways it's great that they pulled off what they did. Rather than add my voice to the celebrations of what they achieved, though, I wanted to focus on what the lessons are here for writers.
And if you felt as I did that the story and characters were less engaging emotionally, less substantial than those other titles mentioned above, I would suggest that these are the reasons.
And they may be good things to think about in whatever you're writing...
Very astute comments as usual. I was surprised you didn’t mention the ending. Barbie ending the movie by saying she wanted to go to a gynecologist was cringy and disappointing. The film opens by reminding us that usually very young girls play with Barbies, yet we never see them again. Rather than ending with Barbie’s selfish motivation (and who the hell wants to go to a gynecologist?!) it would have been far more impactful to see how she’s added value to the human world. How did she inspire those little girls to become doctors, lawyers, teachers, astronauts? The movie was whimsical and creative and for me it was worth it to see Ryan Gosling’s song, but I agree that all in all, the story was a mess and has turned off quite a few male viewers. The last thing we need is more divisiveness in our world.
I didn’t see the film because my country is in a big economical crisis but I’m planning to see it later. Thank you very much for this valuable article.
Thank you for always pointing out the elements necessary for a compelling story.
Interesting analysis, Eric! I haven’t seen it yet either but couldn’t help thinking while reading it that it seems to apply to a lot of Gerwig/Baumbach films I’ve seen. They all have charm but the “quirkiness” often flounders all over the map.
A very black and white social political agenda has developed that has become more important to a specific group of people who believe themselves oppressed than art, entertainment or quality. Or a disingenuous and misleading marketing campaign was used to front load sales for opening weekend and deliver its message via a Trojan horse. Either way, I will not watch the film because I sense it’s intention beneath has a malevolent quality that encourages divisiveness, resentment and victimhood. I would not be able to sleep at night if I had participated in its making. How could you be too hard on a film that is intentionally accusing and attacking your identity as a male? That’s like feeling guilty for making a tough assessment of someone who’s punching you in the face. You were very objective. And very helpful
I agree with your observations, all of them. The problem is, the problems in Barbie, are typical. Barbie is the new normal and has been for a while. Virtually none of the major blockbuster films have anything resembling logical coherence or story synergy. The new normal is a string of bizzarro ideas that make little or no sense. Rather than complex, nuanced, characters, we have excruciatingly complicated stories that break every single rule in your book, “The Idea”. It’s not just features, it’s limited series on Amazon Prime and Netflix (with wonderful exceptions like “Stranger Things” and “Ozark”). There’s a philosophical word that describes and undergirds the pervasive chaos and incoherence. That word is “Nihilism”. The nihilism in film and tv content is a reflection of a world that has descended into madness and become increasingly nihilistic. They are mirror images of each other. Think Picasso cubist paintings. That’s the thread that ties so much of content together now. Some, like cubist art, I prefer stories that take chaos seriously but, in the end, bring order and meaning out of it. That’s what your book, “The Idea” is all about. Apparently, people in La La Land, haven’t read your book or gotten the memo. Forgive the “saltiness” of this comment, Eric, but I feel very strongly about these issues. It’s about more than just stories. It’s about reality, which is up for grabs at the moment. David
Agreed! Totally. Still, in Hollywood there is no such thing as a bad movie that makes money. Let us see what they do with Barbie 2.
I felt like they committed to an overarching thematic subject of ‘matriarchy vs patriarchy’ without having a clear thematic POV stemming from that main idea. As a random potential example they could have used: “Neither a matriarchy nor a patriarchy is sustainable for the happiness of all mankind.” That’s not perfect, but better than nothing. Without a clear thematic POV, there’s no way to have a clearly defined climax. The movie had a solid thesis (matriarchy/BarbieWorld) and anti-thesis (patriachy/RealWorld) but failed to offer a satisfying SYNTHESIS. After proving that the opposite sex was equally invalidated in each ‘world,’ there was a real opportunity to show how only true equality for all is the answer. The existential crisis could have remained the catalyst, but the real-world mom would have had her existential crisis more rooted in the suppression of the patriarchy (being overlooked for promotion by a lesser male colleague, etc… I mean, it was all there, just not committed to) — but that might have felt maybe 10-years too late to resonate with a younger generation… not sure, but Act three definitely felt messy and like a missed opportunity for a really tight story. The whole ‘your enough’ subplot message also felt unrelated to the overarching theme. But the numbers don’t lie. People are loving it! I would definitely see it again. But mostly to figure out how I would have [slightly] rewritten it if given the chance 😉
Hi Erik!
No, You cannot be too tough on a film that’s been made–even a blockbuster. Haven’t seen the Barbie movie but your arguments sound viable. Wandering all over, not anchored etc. remind me of many films which have been made during the last two decades. Most of them will be forgotten forever. Why? Because they weren’t well scripted & well made in the first place.
Keep pushing your writers to: Think & Then Write!
Grant
I haven’t seen the movie. But this seems like how girls play with Barbie. We never have the same story or goal each time we dragged them from their cases. The world, the friends, and the story. Ah but I played with Barbie in the 60s. So I’m a little behind on all the different Barbies now. Barbie was Barbie and she lived through our imaginations.
I admit when I was a kid I made Ken and Barbie have sex! This movie could be much darker with a plot like Barbie the doll was being used in a porn film and she goes to LA to fight being treated like a sex object… just some kind of dark plot but then they wouldn’t be able to make gazillions off of the kid audience.
I read it has a trans theme — it sounds stupid to me honestly and annoying. The only reason I would see it is for Ryan Goslin. And Margot Robbie keeps saying in interviews that Barbie isn’t sexy because she has no sex organs yet she’s dressed up like a tart – so I don’t buy the innocent babe in the woods thing.