To the Editor:
Re “‘Barbie’ Is Bad. There, I Said It,” by Pamela Paul (column, Jan. 26):
Ms. Paul has no sense of humor. There, I said it.
After reading her column, I am getting the vibe that any film that rides on satire, humor and a plethora of pink is not worthy of serious artistic consideration.
It is a slight that Greta Gerwig and Margot Robbie did not get Oscar nominations for best director and best actress. The movie was buoyant and amusing and poked fun at everyone: the women who need to be beautiful, the men who need to dominate women, the corporate greed, and the control of images and toys.
“Barbie” is not a “bad” movie, but you need a sense of humor to appreciate it.
Let’s lighten up, Hollywood. I, for one, am getting tired of depressing films. I want to be entertained and challenged in a fun way. Greta Gerwig and Margot Robbie deserved to be nominated.
Felicia Carparelli
Chicago
To the Editor:
Thank you to Pamela Paul for her finely barbed Barbie breakdown, and for making it OK not to love-Love-LOVE!! the movie.
I wanted to like it, really I did.
I’d sashayed into the theater sporting my pink pants and scarfing popcorn, only to trudge out two hours later feeling like … maybe I missed something?
The surrounding hoopla was partly to blame for my letdown. But beyond the hype, the film’s odd mélange of man-bashing and stagy hamming felt both over my head and below my expectations. I hit rock bottom at Gloria’s much-lauded monologue, which I found to be cringeworthy and clichéd.
Perhaps I’m the wrong kind of feminist, but it’s nice to know I’m not alone!
Julie Porcella Rolland
Quincy-sous-Senart, France
To the Editor:
I think Pamela Paul misses the point of “Barbie.” It was never meant to be a deep intellectual endeavor. It was clever, fun, raucous and rowdy. It poked fun at cultural experiences many of us (women) found familiar. It was uplifting and happy, and the packed theater audience when I attended was absolutely gleeful.
Was it a children’s movie? No — and it probably shouldn’t have been marketed that way. Best picture? No, of course not. But it was a wink and a nod to societal issues that many women “of a certain age” and possibly younger can certainly relate to and laugh about.
I enjoyed it immensely. Isn’t that a good enough reason to make a film?
Jamie Grossman
Malvern, Pa.
To the Editor:
Pamela, Pamela, Pamela, how very brave of you to step behind the cotton candy curtain and expose the wizard! Listen, I thought the movie was fun but the message … preachy and treacly. I did not wear pink to the theater.
That said, I sure did love my 1960s Barbie, and she deserved a biopic at last.
Thanks for a great opinion piece. It, unlike the movie, was flawless.
Carla Johnson
Atlanta
To the Editor:
Just the headline of Pamela Paul’s column — “‘Barbie’ Is Bad. There, I Said It” — was a relief to me. I was feeling that not liking this movie would somehow label me as a misogynist.
I am pro-feminist, but found the movie to be misandrous. No man had a redeeming quality. The Mattel board was represented as all men, when in reality it is half women. Women were represented well: The characters portrayed by America Ferrera (Gloria) and Kate McKinnon (Weird Barbie) presented as strong women. It was as though all of Barbie’s problems were caused by men, and men are beyond redemption.
David J. Melvin
Chester, N.J.
Trump’s Effort to Scuttle a Border Deal
To the Editor:
Re “Deal on Border in Peril as Trump Wields Influence” (front page, Jan. 26):
With Democratic and Republican senators apparently on the verge of reaching a historic bipartisan deal that would dramatically change border policy and curtail the flow of illegal immigrants, and with President Biden stating his willingness to support the deal, Donald Trump is telling Republicans to scuttle the deal.
As Senator Mitt Romney stated on national TV, Mr. Trump is willing to torpedo a deal that would help solve the border problem so that he will have an issue to help himself in the election. If Mr. Trump succeeds in this outrage, the American public should be told loudly and in unambiguous terms who is responsible for the continued border crisis and for killing a bipartisan solution: Donald Trump.
Democrats should not leave it up to Mr. Trump, or to his propagandists at Fox News, to spread lies about border policy or the failure of a bipartisan solution or to deceive the American people about so crucial an issue in the election. President Biden should go on national television, in a formal televised address, informing Americans about exactly what was proposed and Mr. Trump’s role in subverting it.
Democrats should immediately run ads across the nation spelling out clearly and unambiguously the bipartisan deal that they were willing to endorse and Mr. Trump’s responsibility for killing it.
Too many Americans want a solution to the border problem. If Mr. Trump is willing to kill it, there should be no doubt in the minds of those voters who is responsible.
David S. Elkind
Greenwich, Conn.
To the Editor:
The refusal by Republicans in Congress to sign off on the bipartisan Ukraine and border security deal is political gamesmanship at its worst. Donald Trump’s call to torpedo the legislation, ostensibly because it is soft on deportations and asylum, among other things, is a ruse.
It is no secret that Mr. Trump truly believes that undocumented immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country,” but his motivation to stop the bill extends beyond protecting Americans against ethnic “pollution” or flaws in the proposed legislation. It is rooted in Mr. Trump’s disdain for Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky.
In 2019, President Trump sought to trade military assistance for political favors, but Mr. Zelensky demurred, and the attempted extortion ignited an impeachment inquiry. For Mr. Trump, opposition to the Ukraine and border security legislation is more than a political tactic; it’s personal.
Jane Larkin
Tampa, Fla.
To the Editor:
That an entire political party is unwilling to act on border security in order to appease a single private citizen who happens to be running for president — in addition to being a slap in the face to their millions of constituents — tells you all you need to know about Republicans today.
Bruce Ellerstein
New York
An Israel-Hamas Cease-Fire?
To the Editor:
The people of Gaza cannot wait for Israel and Hamas to negotiate a cease-fire agreement. The Nobel Peace Prize-winning U.N. World Food Program has expressed concern that a famine is impending, and there is a high risk of the spread of disease.
To protect surviving civilians and those needing medical care, the U.S. must insist that Israel announce a unilateral, extended and unconditional humanitarian cease-fire, and permit the sustained distribution of expanded food, fuel and water supplies to meet basic survival needs during this winter season.
A more formal cease-fire agreement will require negotiations, which would likely be facilitated by such a unilateral step on Israel’s part.
Michael A. Dover
Cleveland
