As an Argentinian screenwriter, I totally get where you're coming from. I enjoyed "Baby Girl" but felt the second half went overboard trying to "save" the female lead, stripping away any complexity and the deep thinking—or "rumination," as you put it.
I'm currently working on a piece about "girlboss" characters that I will publish in a couple of weeks (In English and Spanish, if you ever want to check it out!). Honestly, it's frustrating. Not every woman wants to see these "girlboss" figures all the time.
Your title immediately caught my eye because I feel like there is this whole narrative of boss-like characters and instead of thinking about new plots for female leads, they just make women become bosses. It's like, can we get some variety, please?
This is probably a controversial thing to say, but this kind of reminds me of how I felt about the Barbie movie— I found all the bits about men boring and trite, and all the bits about Barbie herself very affecting.
It’s because I thought Barbie’s story – although it definitely breaks along gendered lines – is still a universally human one. She tries to become a perfect object in the eyes of other people, finds it impossible because her idea of what they’d find perfect is wrong, because she keeps thinking human thoughts about death which aren’t appropriate for an object to have. But in the end she learns that being an object to others means she has no knowledge of what she herself wants and is: it’s about becoming a subject instead of an object, a human instead of a doll. But the men in it all seemed like symbols of men within a discourse; I guess I felt Barbie herself transcended that.
I don’t think a man coming along to make a Ken movie would be more powerful to me than Barbie was: I think because Barbie already is powerful, and I already felt kind of subversive in finding her universally human? There’s maybe something constraining about being forced to only see the image of myself learn universal things; I don’t really like the image of myself. It’s more powerful to know people not in my image have similar thoughts and experiences I do, especially when they’re held to be unique to me or the kind of person I am
It's a marmite movie I think, and I am a card carrying Kubrickian so perhaps not best to judge whether other people will like it. But I love it more with every watch!
I think Babygirl sort of falls victim to the same problem as popular 'literarure' now(YA Romantasy etc. etc.). These creators assume that the subject matter that they have chosen is deep and somehow, SOMEHOW, instead of exploring the subject at hand with complexity and nuance, they fall into this pseudo-intellectual-modern-therapy-speak trap. As if Kidman being |woman| in this film, is enough to make an impact culturally or socially. Which in my opinion, just circles back to a problem this movie is supposed to fight- underdeveloped female characters.
And this type of thinking is such a disease in the modern 'western' world. I think all in all, the practice of nuanced thinking is dying and when we have such base level conversations about sexuality and feminism and womanhood in popular culture, you kind of get films like this, which I'm not making the claim that this is the first of its kind. However, the response to this film is a little confusing lol.
I think you're so so right about the underdevelopment of the character and the assumption of depth. One of the things that frustrated me most what that the film failed to actually show us any of the things it clearly wanted us to think about Romy!
well said about babygirl’s lack of acknowledgment of class and automation like at all. I like the reading that it could have been about a kind of cruelty of automation (the robotic nature of her sexuality, or the mask the characters assume), but the movie does so little with that and at times seems too much like Lean In- but kinky lol. I will have to give EWS a watch!
Despite what popular discourse might suggest, *Babygirl* is not a film for middle-aged women. It is a film for women in their 20s and 30s who (think they) already feel middle-aged, and assume (as a corollary) that middle-aged women must feel exactly like they do.
I've enjoyed reading this, and thank you for the connection to 'Eyes Wide Shut'. Food for thought, but it might be giving this film more credibility than it deserves. I found 'Babygirl' weak, and by that I mean inarticulate. It fails to get its concepts right, and in terms of the writing, well, I think it could have been better--ditto for the editing. I found the MC so unconvincing as to be nonsensical, and although I respect Nicole Kidman, I thought her roles in 'Eyes Wide Shut' and 'Little Fires Everywhere' were better, and part of a more incisive study of women conflicted by her own sexuality. I could go on here, but I'm going to post a review of this film in the near future. There's a lot to unpack here.
This is such a great article. I love your use of Eyes Wide Shut as a foil. I also like Schnitzler's Dream Play, which is Kubrick's source text. I'm going to purchase your new novel since I read your Persuasion article. Looking forward to reading more of you.
I didn't hate Babygirl, but I *love* this piece, and in particular this part: "Why are we clinging to the idea that films and books and narratives are not ‘for women’ because they aren’t told from the perspective of a female character, or because they aren’t bending over backwards to make wildly trite ‘feminist’ points.."
One of my favourite films is 'Mud' (2012), which is written and directed by a man and very much about men and boys. When I watched it with my boyfriend, he said he was surprised I liked it as much as I did, given how "male" it is and how little the female characters have to do. I had to explain that the reason I love it so much is that to me it's about men learning to be tender, learning to grapple with their feelings.
I've also come very late in life to Martin Amis and get quite impatient when people - often, it must be said, men; well-intentioned feminist men - sort of purse their lips and say "oh, his work can't have aged well" and "the women get a rough deal in his books". It just feels like the least interesting thing you could say about his work. Anyway, slight detour there, but I really really loved your piece.
Thank you for this! I feel the same and have actually gone back to reading phenomenal male writers more: the last few months I have been on a Ballard journey and have taken so much from it.
I understand that it is an almost necessary step in a feminist journey to focus on female artists—because, of course, they are still underrepresented in the canon of various forms of art—but it feels incredibly patronising when that step is over to act as if grown adult women don't have the critical faculties to apply a feminist lens when necessary, and to critique gender/power norms and expressions in all forms of art without having their hands held.
I haven't liked Eyes Wide Shut. However I'm agree with you, just few extracts from Babygirl and the general idea of the film convince me to absolutly not going see this film ever.
As an Argentinian screenwriter, I totally get where you're coming from. I enjoyed "Baby Girl" but felt the second half went overboard trying to "save" the female lead, stripping away any complexity and the deep thinking—or "rumination," as you put it.
I'm currently working on a piece about "girlboss" characters that I will publish in a couple of weeks (In English and Spanish, if you ever want to check it out!). Honestly, it's frustrating. Not every woman wants to see these "girlboss" figures all the time.
Your title immediately caught my eye because I feel like there is this whole narrative of boss-like characters and instead of thinking about new plots for female leads, they just make women become bosses. It's like, can we get some variety, please?
Cheers!
I'll be really interested to read that piece!
Might quote this essay too! Would love to see what you think!
This is probably a controversial thing to say, but this kind of reminds me of how I felt about the Barbie movie— I found all the bits about men boring and trite, and all the bits about Barbie herself very affecting.
It’s because I thought Barbie’s story – although it definitely breaks along gendered lines – is still a universally human one. She tries to become a perfect object in the eyes of other people, finds it impossible because her idea of what they’d find perfect is wrong, because she keeps thinking human thoughts about death which aren’t appropriate for an object to have. But in the end she learns that being an object to others means she has no knowledge of what she herself wants and is: it’s about becoming a subject instead of an object, a human instead of a doll. But the men in it all seemed like symbols of men within a discourse; I guess I felt Barbie herself transcended that.
I don’t think a man coming along to make a Ken movie would be more powerful to me than Barbie was: I think because Barbie already is powerful, and I already felt kind of subversive in finding her universally human? There’s maybe something constraining about being forced to only see the image of myself learn universal things; I don’t really like the image of myself. It’s more powerful to know people not in my image have similar thoughts and experiences I do, especially when they’re held to be unique to me or the kind of person I am
this is a cracking essay, makes me want to watch EWS, even though i really struggle with kubrick
It's a marmite movie I think, and I am a card carrying Kubrickian so perhaps not best to judge whether other people will like it. But I love it more with every watch!
This is how I felt about The Substance lol. I don't want "cinema for women" I just want cinema.
I didn't watch the Substance because I thought these would be my feelings!
Jumping the gun by commenting. I read 3/4th of your essay, loved it, realized I need to watch Eyes Wide Shut before finishing. So I will be back!
I think Babygirl sort of falls victim to the same problem as popular 'literarure' now(YA Romantasy etc. etc.). These creators assume that the subject matter that they have chosen is deep and somehow, SOMEHOW, instead of exploring the subject at hand with complexity and nuance, they fall into this pseudo-intellectual-modern-therapy-speak trap. As if Kidman being |woman| in this film, is enough to make an impact culturally or socially. Which in my opinion, just circles back to a problem this movie is supposed to fight- underdeveloped female characters.
And this type of thinking is such a disease in the modern 'western' world. I think all in all, the practice of nuanced thinking is dying and when we have such base level conversations about sexuality and feminism and womanhood in popular culture, you kind of get films like this, which I'm not making the claim that this is the first of its kind. However, the response to this film is a little confusing lol.
I think you're so so right about the underdevelopment of the character and the assumption of depth. One of the things that frustrated me most what that the film failed to actually show us any of the things it clearly wanted us to think about Romy!
well said about babygirl’s lack of acknowledgment of class and automation like at all. I like the reading that it could have been about a kind of cruelty of automation (the robotic nature of her sexuality, or the mask the characters assume), but the movie does so little with that and at times seems too much like Lean In- but kinky lol. I will have to give EWS a watch!
I suspected as much however I was still going to give it a go, but thanks for saving me a ticket.
Not a very sophisticated response to an excellent essay, sorry, but the OnCinema response to Babygirl made me laugh and is very relevant: https://www.instagram.com/oncinemaonline/reel/DENlAzHSiK7/?hl=en-gb
Hahahahahhaa excellent
Despite what popular discourse might suggest, *Babygirl* is not a film for middle-aged women. It is a film for women in their 20s and 30s who (think they) already feel middle-aged, and assume (as a corollary) that middle-aged women must feel exactly like they do.
I've enjoyed reading this, and thank you for the connection to 'Eyes Wide Shut'. Food for thought, but it might be giving this film more credibility than it deserves. I found 'Babygirl' weak, and by that I mean inarticulate. It fails to get its concepts right, and in terms of the writing, well, I think it could have been better--ditto for the editing. I found the MC so unconvincing as to be nonsensical, and although I respect Nicole Kidman, I thought her roles in 'Eyes Wide Shut' and 'Little Fires Everywhere' were better, and part of a more incisive study of women conflicted by her own sexuality. I could go on here, but I'm going to post a review of this film in the near future. There's a lot to unpack here.
This is such a great article. I love your use of Eyes Wide Shut as a foil. I also like Schnitzler's Dream Play, which is Kubrick's source text. I'm going to purchase your new novel since I read your Persuasion article. Looking forward to reading more of you.
I didn't hate Babygirl, but I *love* this piece, and in particular this part: "Why are we clinging to the idea that films and books and narratives are not ‘for women’ because they aren’t told from the perspective of a female character, or because they aren’t bending over backwards to make wildly trite ‘feminist’ points.."
One of my favourite films is 'Mud' (2012), which is written and directed by a man and very much about men and boys. When I watched it with my boyfriend, he said he was surprised I liked it as much as I did, given how "male" it is and how little the female characters have to do. I had to explain that the reason I love it so much is that to me it's about men learning to be tender, learning to grapple with their feelings.
I've also come very late in life to Martin Amis and get quite impatient when people - often, it must be said, men; well-intentioned feminist men - sort of purse their lips and say "oh, his work can't have aged well" and "the women get a rough deal in his books". It just feels like the least interesting thing you could say about his work. Anyway, slight detour there, but I really really loved your piece.
Thank you for this! I feel the same and have actually gone back to reading phenomenal male writers more: the last few months I have been on a Ballard journey and have taken so much from it.
I understand that it is an almost necessary step in a feminist journey to focus on female artists—because, of course, they are still underrepresented in the canon of various forms of art—but it feels incredibly patronising when that step is over to act as if grown adult women don't have the critical faculties to apply a feminist lens when necessary, and to critique gender/power norms and expressions in all forms of art without having their hands held.
OK, now I have to see Babygirl, because I've read enough about it to make it interesting to me.
I haven't liked Eyes Wide Shut. However I'm agree with you, just few extracts from Babygirl and the general idea of the film convince me to absolutly not going see this film ever.
Love this so much 💖
❤️❤️❤️