To the Editor:
Re “‘Barbie’ Is Unhealthy. There, I Mentioned It,” by Pamela Paul (column, Jan. 26):
Ms. Paul has no humorousness. There, I stated it.
After studying her column, I get the vibe that any movie that rides on satire, humor and a plethora of pink isn’t worthy of great inventive consideration.
It’s a slight that Greta Gerwig and Margot Robbie didn’t get Oscar nominations for finest director and finest actress. The film was buoyant and amusing and poked enjoyable at everybody: the ladies who have to be stunning, the boys who have to dominate ladies, the company greed, and the management of photographs and toys.
“Barbie” isn’t a “dangerous” film, however you want a humorousness to understand it.
Let’s loosen up, Hollywood. I, for one, am getting uninterested in miserable movies. I need to be entertained and challenged in a enjoyable means. Greta Gerwig and Margot Robbie deserved to be nominated.
Felicia Carparelli
Chicago
To the Editor:
Thanks to Pamela Paul for her finely barbed Barbie breakdown, and for making it OK to not love-Love-LOVE!! the film.
I wished to love it, actually I did.
I’d sashayed into the theater sporting my pink pants and scarfing popcorn, solely to trudge out two hours later feeling like … possibly I missed one thing?
The encompassing hoopla was partly responsible for my letdown. However past the hype, the movie’s odd mélange of man-bashing and stagy hamming felt each over my head and beneath my expectations. I hit all-time low at Gloria’s much-lauded monologue, which I discovered to be cringeworthy and clichéd.
Maybe I’m the improper sort of feminist, but it surely’s good to know I’m not alone!
Julie Porcella Rolland
Quincy-sous-Senart, France
To the Editor:
I believe Pamela Paul misses the purpose of “Barbie.” It was by no means meant to be a deep mental endeavor. It was intelligent, enjoyable, raucous and rowdy. It poked enjoyable at cultural experiences many people (ladies) discovered acquainted. It was uplifting and pleased, and the packed theater viewers once I attended was completely gleeful.
Was it a youngsters’s film? No — and it in all probability shouldn’t have been marketed that means. Greatest image? No, after all not. However it was a wink and a nod to societal points that many ladies “of a sure age” and probably youthful can definitely relate to and chuckle about.
I loved it immensely. Isn’t {that a} adequate purpose to make a movie?
Jamie Grossman
Malvern, Pa.
To the Editor:
Pamela, Pamela, Pamela, how very courageous of you to step behind the cotton sweet curtain and expose the wizard! Pay attention, I believed the film was enjoyable however the message … preachy and treacly. I didn’t put on pink to the theater.
That stated, I certain did love my Nineteen Sixties Barbie, and he or she deserved a biopic eventually.
Thanks for a fantastic opinion piece. It, not like the film, was flawless.
Carla Johnson
Atlanta
To the Editor:
Simply the headline of Pamela Paul’s column — “‘Barbie’ Is Unhealthy. There, I Mentioned It” — was a aid to me. I used to be feeling that not liking this film would by some means label me as a misogynist.
I’m pro-feminist, however discovered the film to be misandrous. No man had a redeeming high quality. The Mattel board was represented as all males, when in actuality it’s half ladies. Ladies had been represented properly: The characters portrayed by America Ferrera (Gloria) and Kate McKinnon (Bizarre Barbie) offered as sturdy ladies. It was as if all of Barbie’s issues had been attributable to males, and males are past 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 Affect” (entrance web page, Jan. 26):
With Democratic and Republican senators apparently on the verge of reaching a historic bipartisan deal that will dramatically change border coverage and curtail the circulation of unlawful immigrants, and with President Biden stating his willingness to help the deal, Donald Trump is telling Republicans to scuttle the deal.
As Senator Mitt Romney said on nationwide TV, Mr. Trump is keen to torpedo a deal that will assist clear up the border downside in order that he can have a problem to assist himself within the election. If Mr. Trump succeeds on this outrage, the American public ought to be informed loudly and in unambiguous phrases who’s liable for the continued border disaster and for killing a bipartisan resolution: Donald Trump.
Democrats mustn’t go away it as much as Mr. Trump, or to his propagandists at Fox Information, to unfold lies about border coverage or the failure of a bipartisan resolution or to deceive the American individuals about so essential a problem within the election. President Biden ought to go on nationwide tv, in a proper televised tackle, informing Individuals about precisely what was proposed and Mr. Trump’s position in subverting it.
Democrats ought to instantly run adverts throughout the nation spelling out clearly and unambiguously the bipartisan deal that they had been keen to endorse and Mr. Trump’s duty for killing it.
Too many Individuals desire a resolution to the border downside. If Mr. Trump is keen to kill it, there ought to be little doubt within the minds of these voters who’s accountable.
David S. Elkind
Greenwich, Conn.
To the Editor:
The refusal by Republicans in Congress to log out on the bipartisan Ukraine and border safety deal is political gamesmanship at its worst. Donald Trump’s name to torpedo the laws, ostensibly as a result of it’s tender on deportations and asylum, amongst different issues, is a ruse.
It’s no secret that Mr. Trump actually believes that undocumented immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our nation,” however his motivation to cease the invoice extends past defending Individuals in opposition to ethnic “air pollution” or flaws within the proposed laws. It’s rooted in Mr. Trump’s disdain for Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky.
In 2019, President Trump sought to commerce navy help for political favors, however Mr. Zelensky demurred, and the tried extortion ignited an impeachment inquiry. For Mr. Trump, opposition to the Ukraine and border safety laws is greater than a political tactic; it’s private.
Jane Larkin
Tampa, Fla.
To the Editor:
That a complete political social gathering is unwilling to behave on border safety with the intention to appease a single non-public citizen who occurs to be operating for president — along with being a slap within the face to their thousands and thousands of constituents — tells you all it’s essential to find out about Republicans in the present day.
Bruce Ellerstein
New York
