tonosov-51238
Joined Apr 2016
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see ratings breakdowns and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings2.6K
tonosov-51238's rating
Reviews177
tonosov-51238's rating
On the surface, there are numerous variations of this movie out there. God knows there are so many films depicting 20th-century coups in Latin America that have become a staple of the region's cinema. This one focuses on the kid from the upper-class family, who is distinctly of European origin. However, just like well-off families in these stories do. They do not care about each other, and their family dynamic is a facade, characterized by infidelity. This is why young Gonzalo gravitates towards his "friends" from the slums, because they at least have 'souls' or at least something to that effect.
You can prematurely conclude that there is a left-leaning bias in these portrayals, but that would be a misjudgment. The socialists from the slums are not depicted as pure souls who are just saving up for a loaf of bread, nor are the wealthy snobs obnoxious simply because they are rich. At least most of them I do not think the boyfriend of Gonzalo's sister's boyfriend seems to harbor anything but aversion towards the lower class, people like Silvana and the titular Machuca. Together with Gonzalo, forms a very bizarre but authentic love triangle. Where they trade condensed milk for tongue kissing. And really, Silvana does come off as the story's Jezebel, inadvertently driving a wedge between Machuca and Gonzalo. She exploits the fact that Gonzalo, by all accounts, hails from a completely different world, suggesting that their friendship will not last past school. It lasts even less than that, since if you know even a sliver of Chilean history, you immediately know what's coming straight from the opening. What the movie does well is showcasing the mood of the populace through demonstrations and, crucially, the economic side. The artificial shortages that lead to these protests, where Gonzalo and his father exploit their status and get products that the store claims they are out of, while queues of people wait outside.
When Pinochet finally arrives, he seemingly sucks out all of the remaining color from the film. The tragedies unfold one after another, including the exile of the college director, the explosion of the "wrong kids" from the schools, and so on. Culminating in the sobering destruction of the makeshift ghetto, during which all three children reveal their true colors and effectively show that class barriers can be insurmountable and that no amount of understanding or empathy can compel one to abandon the familiar and safe.
You can prematurely conclude that there is a left-leaning bias in these portrayals, but that would be a misjudgment. The socialists from the slums are not depicted as pure souls who are just saving up for a loaf of bread, nor are the wealthy snobs obnoxious simply because they are rich. At least most of them I do not think the boyfriend of Gonzalo's sister's boyfriend seems to harbor anything but aversion towards the lower class, people like Silvana and the titular Machuca. Together with Gonzalo, forms a very bizarre but authentic love triangle. Where they trade condensed milk for tongue kissing. And really, Silvana does come off as the story's Jezebel, inadvertently driving a wedge between Machuca and Gonzalo. She exploits the fact that Gonzalo, by all accounts, hails from a completely different world, suggesting that their friendship will not last past school. It lasts even less than that, since if you know even a sliver of Chilean history, you immediately know what's coming straight from the opening. What the movie does well is showcasing the mood of the populace through demonstrations and, crucially, the economic side. The artificial shortages that lead to these protests, where Gonzalo and his father exploit their status and get products that the store claims they are out of, while queues of people wait outside.
When Pinochet finally arrives, he seemingly sucks out all of the remaining color from the film. The tragedies unfold one after another, including the exile of the college director, the explosion of the "wrong kids" from the schools, and so on. Culminating in the sobering destruction of the makeshift ghetto, during which all three children reveal their true colors and effectively show that class barriers can be insurmountable and that no amount of understanding or empathy can compel one to abandon the familiar and safe.
If anything, the film is entertaining to watch. The first act is set entirely in Barbieland, a beautifully crafted yet authentically fake plastic world, complete with bizarre dollhouse rules, preparing you for a routine Pinocchio story. It is great. Too bad it slippery slides into a dressing-down of the horrors of modern society so fast, but even then it stays quite entertaining if you just roll your eyes at the movie's notions.
When it comes to the themes and emotional apogees that the movie tries to convey, it all feels hollow to me. In fact, it all comes off more factitious than that one impromptu Chevrolet commercial in the middle of the movie. These gesticulations ranged from embarrassingly preachy to reinforcing the self-immolation of women who are unjustly forced to navigate a cruel and oppressive world where they are not celebrated for simply existing. Instead, they must be socially wary, practice general equilibrium, and actually strive for things to get them. Whaaat?! The patriarchy is truly out of control.
In truth, I do not think this movie aims to convince anyone of anything. It is clearly preaching to those who already agree with everything it so valiantly proclaims. It is way too simplistic and reductive, as it cannot focus on any single angle for longer than one scene. It constantly bounces around, hoping that viewers will infer the bigger picture from the opening alone. Its blanket-sweeping sentences are deliberately contrasted by a thick layer of posturing satire, whose creativity begins and ends at beating carcasses of century-old tropes about genders. The underwritten preaching, of course, also extends to the portrayal of men's "problems." Since, in view of the writers, many men's activities are aimed at attracting female attention and being seen as desirable for them, hence effectively converging all of their life's efforts to finding a partner. Noah and Greta's solution is very simple: just choose not to do it, dummy. It's that easy. The film's incredibly tone-deaf take on that is tallied up by what the movie supposedly presents as positive male role models of men. Allan and the husband of America Ferrera. One is just a reference to a Barbie product, portrayed as a "Ken" who doesn't fit in anywhere, he is an ally of Barbies but seeks nothing in return and is seemingly content to be the butt of a joke. The other is a complaint about a dumb husband whom Gloria has clearly settled for. That's all you get. And then people wonder why so many are drawn to Ryan Gosling.
Speaking of which, it has been pointed out by nearly everyone that he steals every scene he appears in, and you will inadvertently side with his quest for respect. The movie's demented gotcha moment where it tries to pretend and points out multiple times that Barbie World mirrors our own, but with reversed roles: Barbies are men wielding all the power, while Kens are women who literally have no homes and are treated as living men's accessories. So if you support Ken's journey toward realizing his potential, you must, by proxy, support feminism. As I mentioned earlier, this is a classic case of martyrdom 101. Do not even entertain this with a rumination. It's for people who already agree with this, for them to nod and smugly chuckle or internally applaud, much like one might during an "it's so hard to be a woman" sermon at the one-hour mark. I initially thought this was a setup for a joke about the absurdity of such sermons, but I ended up tittering because of how insanely poignant the movie pretended it was.
The dialogue is genuinely appalling. Upon reflection, when it's not filled with exposition and pop culture references, it lapses into self-deprecation that supposedly indicates the film's self-awareness. How brave of the movie to have the narrator break the 4th wall to assert that Margot Robbie does not represent women who may struggle with body image issues. Where was the narrator to point out the thing separating Barbie from becoming human was watching a patent menstrual ad montage depicting "girls doing happy things in life"? This montage bears no difference from her initial experiences in Barbieland, where she also engaged in joyful activities worthy of a montage while frolicking about. Why a menstrual ad? Because it immediately transitions into a gynecologist joke. What else could it have been?
When it comes to the themes and emotional apogees that the movie tries to convey, it all feels hollow to me. In fact, it all comes off more factitious than that one impromptu Chevrolet commercial in the middle of the movie. These gesticulations ranged from embarrassingly preachy to reinforcing the self-immolation of women who are unjustly forced to navigate a cruel and oppressive world where they are not celebrated for simply existing. Instead, they must be socially wary, practice general equilibrium, and actually strive for things to get them. Whaaat?! The patriarchy is truly out of control.
In truth, I do not think this movie aims to convince anyone of anything. It is clearly preaching to those who already agree with everything it so valiantly proclaims. It is way too simplistic and reductive, as it cannot focus on any single angle for longer than one scene. It constantly bounces around, hoping that viewers will infer the bigger picture from the opening alone. Its blanket-sweeping sentences are deliberately contrasted by a thick layer of posturing satire, whose creativity begins and ends at beating carcasses of century-old tropes about genders. The underwritten preaching, of course, also extends to the portrayal of men's "problems." Since, in view of the writers, many men's activities are aimed at attracting female attention and being seen as desirable for them, hence effectively converging all of their life's efforts to finding a partner. Noah and Greta's solution is very simple: just choose not to do it, dummy. It's that easy. The film's incredibly tone-deaf take on that is tallied up by what the movie supposedly presents as positive male role models of men. Allan and the husband of America Ferrera. One is just a reference to a Barbie product, portrayed as a "Ken" who doesn't fit in anywhere, he is an ally of Barbies but seeks nothing in return and is seemingly content to be the butt of a joke. The other is a complaint about a dumb husband whom Gloria has clearly settled for. That's all you get. And then people wonder why so many are drawn to Ryan Gosling.
Speaking of which, it has been pointed out by nearly everyone that he steals every scene he appears in, and you will inadvertently side with his quest for respect. The movie's demented gotcha moment where it tries to pretend and points out multiple times that Barbie World mirrors our own, but with reversed roles: Barbies are men wielding all the power, while Kens are women who literally have no homes and are treated as living men's accessories. So if you support Ken's journey toward realizing his potential, you must, by proxy, support feminism. As I mentioned earlier, this is a classic case of martyrdom 101. Do not even entertain this with a rumination. It's for people who already agree with this, for them to nod and smugly chuckle or internally applaud, much like one might during an "it's so hard to be a woman" sermon at the one-hour mark. I initially thought this was a setup for a joke about the absurdity of such sermons, but I ended up tittering because of how insanely poignant the movie pretended it was.
The dialogue is genuinely appalling. Upon reflection, when it's not filled with exposition and pop culture references, it lapses into self-deprecation that supposedly indicates the film's self-awareness. How brave of the movie to have the narrator break the 4th wall to assert that Margot Robbie does not represent women who may struggle with body image issues. Where was the narrator to point out the thing separating Barbie from becoming human was watching a patent menstrual ad montage depicting "girls doing happy things in life"? This montage bears no difference from her initial experiences in Barbieland, where she also engaged in joyful activities worthy of a montage while frolicking about. Why a menstrual ad? Because it immediately transitions into a gynecologist joke. What else could it have been?