Exploitation vs Empowerment: What is the new future for feminist-coded films? (Film Review)

While the year 2023 was a great arc for movies, from action to thriller to romantic comedies, it seems there is never one sure-fire way to go about telling a story of how a woman takes control of her own narrative. With the push for more diverse storytelling in Hollywood, producers and directors in film have the opportunity to tell more stories that appeal to a wider, and ever-evolving audience. The reaction appears to be split down the middle; depending on the generation of folks that I have talked to, ones that have skewed older prefer that the vast landscape of movies does not change to adhere to cultural sensitivities, whereas in the younger generations, (Millenials, X, and Z), would rather not be exposed to harsh language and the unfortunate reality of years past -- that folks were not sensitive or understanding of others -- in fact, most films and media portrayed the harsh reality that minorities, folks of color, or disabled people faced before we, as a society, became more accepting of differing natures.

A perfect example of this is the comparison between the reactions to Mean Girls, the original movie that was made in the year 2004, starring Lindsay Lohan, Rachel McAdams, and Tina Fey, and the revival musical version of Mean Girls that came out that hit theatres this January. I recently rewatched Mean Girls in anticipation for the new film, and was earnestly shocked by how crude and... (well, it is in the title), mean, the girls were to each other. Hardly empowering or uplifting at all. Downright on the bullying scale and abusive. This doesn't even mention the ableism, racism, and pedophilia side plotline the gym teacher has with an underage character. As a young teenager, all one really can do is laugh at it, because that's what everyone else was doing. It was the humor at the time. Everything was a wild, wild west of edginess.

So, it is understandable that when the Mean Girls movie was remade, it was done so with the given cultural climate of its time. Young LGBT+ folks who wanted to see proper representation in Janus and Damian got what they wanted, as did long-term fans, and there was a more diverse cast in terms of who played iconic characters. Both movies can be good in their own right, while both can have their fair share of issues, but at the end of the day, it also is up to the viewer who watches these movies whether or not they choose to like it.

Another topical example is currently being discussed online: the difference in feminine empowerment between Greta Gerwig's Barbie and Yorgos Lanthimos' Poor Things. One could argue that both movies are the same thing and come from the same premise: a woman, trapped in her own world, realizes enlightenment and has the urge to seek adventure. One is a movie that a parent could show their kids, while the other is one that a viewer would watch through their fingers and be intrigued and disturbed by the madness of it all. I will try to explain both movies without spoiling anything, but there is a stark difference in both films as to how they start. Barbie opens and you, as the viewer, are thrusted into a world of pink and feminism and gorgeous women, and stereotypically attractive men. The music is charming and upbeat and fills you with a sense of security, and you as the viewer know that while the experience is going to be wildly fantasized, you are going to have a good time watching it. However, at the cold open of Poor Things, the colors are deeply saturated and a moody, cold blue, to match the main character's dress. She is standing on the edge of a bridge. You think, "oh god. She's going to jump". It fills you with a sense of dread right from the get-go. When she does, it's slow and antagonizing, and the moment she hits the water, the film goes into a black-and-white setting, mirroring that of an old 1930s film.

One could describe Barbie as a parody and Poor Things as a twisted fairytale. For both films by the end of it has their main female leads get what they set out to do. Though where Barbie, the character, is celebrated and cherished, Bella Baxter is mocked, ridiculed, and looked at as an experiment.

While Bella Baxter's character in Poor Things is autistic-coded, and anyone who is neurodivergent or has autism can clearly see the similarities, it is never explicitly stated that she is, only that her brain develops slower than that of a mature woman. This makes the mature relationships she has with men (and women) in the film that much more distressing, even while trying to put aside the fact that she has a child's brain operating her actions and decision-making.

So, with that knowledge, where do we go from here? Is the state of movies now a consistent debate of being either "too culturally sensitive" or perverted? Is Emma Stone's depiction of Bella Baxter truly ableist, or is she simply given a script and told to act out a character? Is Margot Robbie's Barbie the proper example for a "good" feminist film, or does it fall short of the message toward the end of it, casting a white actress as Stereotypical Barbie to portray a message of diversity and inclusivity?

At the end of the day, it is up to us, the viewer, to decide where our morals align with each of these films. Not every film can be as cut-and-dry as the classic animated Barbie movies we grew up watching as kids.