Film rated PG-13 by the MPA

As the 98th Academy Awards (Oscars) approaches, it is the perfect time to look back on the history of some of the wins and losses. As a woman and filmmaker, it is disappointing that the Academy Awards has only ever nominated 9 women for Best Director as of 2025 (Davis). Voices of women have long been oppressed in the industry, not because the films produced are of low quality, but because they are not taken seriously. An example that immediately comes to mind is Barbie (2023), which did not receive a nomination for “Best Director.” In 2023, Barbie finds itself entangled in the whirlwind of gender politics and filmmaking skills debate, mostly due to its position as a corporate and Hollywood production. The concept of “a film about Barbie” was first introduced into Hollywood by Mattel, a toy-making transnational corporation that influenced a global community of girls. Barbie as a Hollywood blockbuster was a recipe for commercial success regardless of its quality or story depth. Hence, prior to its debut, the audience’s opinion of the film is already formed on the unconscious assumption and expectation for the film to be a “commercial success” but not an “awards-worthy” film.

However, considering Gerwig was the lead of the creative project, I believe the film possesses a more nuanced subtext. To me, Greta Gerwig is an auteur.1 If you have read or seen any of her interviews about filmmaking, it is clear how much personal input and research efforts are embedded into all of her works. According to a Letterboxd interview, Gerwig kickstarted the creative journey with 29 filmic references - many of which are soundstage musicals and comedies - with more added later on (Letterboxd). Citing Jacques Demy, Powell, Pressburger and more, Gerwig’s design for Barbie’s cinematic universe was intentionally surrealist, allowing the film to be a subversive cultural force while maintaining a sense of self-awareness. For instance, the construction of the Mattel Headquarters sequence presents a critique of corporate culture. The Mattel conference room features bright pink, blue, orange and yellow colours structured in hallucinating circles. When the sequence progresses to the office corridor, we see the space split into halves in black and white, suggesting the hypocritical nature of the company itself. The intentional use of bright and contrasting colours creates a sense of self-awareness of the film’s performative nature and, in turn, provides a critique of corporate culture. Evidently, the overall construction of the film was not child’s play. Hence, not being nominated for Best Director proves the Oscars’ inability to reward directorial efforts by women.

Another interesting criticism the film received was on the accuracy of its representation of women’s coming-of-age experience. Barbie as a character is humanised in the film, perhaps too human-like for the regular eye. One should note that Barbie is, at its core, a doll, not a human. The doll is an object, meaning that it has the possibility to be anything. In this case, Gerwig constructs Barbie’s experience in modern America from the feminine lens. Gerwig (the author) assigns meaning to the object (Barbie), which thereby allows the human-like object to embody the female coming-of-age experience. Whomever plays with the doll is allowed to explore their subconscious emotions through the doll. While it is indeed limited to a stereotypical American experience of girlhood, the film provides a medium for the global audience to relate through their imagination. The film, as Gerwig describes Fleming’s The Wizard of Oz, is “authentically artificial.” Barbie represents a close resemblance to reality, so close that many mistake it for their current reality. For that quality, I think Gerwig deserved, at least, a nomination as Best Director.

Published 9th March, 2026