The opening scene of Barbie showcases resistance by highlighting themes of feminism. Through the illustration of little girls playing with baby dolls, it depicts the stereotype implemented in the 50s and 60s that says a woman’s only role is being a housewife and a mother. By introducing the huge Barbie doll in the swimsuit it shows that women are allowed to be free and choose to not be ‘mothers’. The swimsuit also gives the message that women do not need approval from men to go swimming or what to wear since Barbie originally never had a male partner. The low angle of the huge Barbie doll shows dominance by making her features appear more powerful. The Barbie doll being a woman and not a baby break stereotypes implemented on girls and women originally. Additionally, the breaking of baby dolls by the girl also shows resistance as she breaks the sexist ideology. Barbie’s opening scene shows resistance through the theme of feminism.
i didnt have enough time to write a conclusion thats why its so bad but honestly the whole thing is bad ngl
Your opening sentence says nothing conclusive or critical. You're saying: "It shows resistance by highlighting feminism". What do you mean by resistance? Who is resisting what? How does it 'highlight it'? Through characterisation, metaphor, symbolism etc.? What are the implications of feminist themes being there, how do they relate to resistance?
In your next sentence, adding the word "illustration" doesn't change anything. There are small girls playing with dolls, and it shows a stereotype. Okay, but then you go on to extrapolate that the stereotype in question is that a woman has a sole role at the time as a housewife and mother. How did you get that from girls playing with dolls? What part of playing with doll toys has anything to do with the role of a housewife or mother?
Third sentence, you say the swimsuit sends a message. The message, in your view, is that women don't need approval and apparently this is because of Barbie's lack of a male partner. This is extremely weak logic on a good day. Just because Barbie happens to be wearing a swimsuit and also lacks a male partner doesn't at all mean they have anything to do with each other. If I'm wearing red socks and have a brain aneurysm, I would imagine you wouldn't conclude that all people who wear red socks will have an aneurysm.
You then talk about the angle of the shot. You argue it shows dominance through making her features more powerful, whatever that means. Which features are emphasised? Even if the shot's emphasis was Barbie holding a handgun to Ken's head while he sobs and begs for mercy, just observing that fact alone wouldn't even prove "dominance".
The fact that the doll is a woman and not a child breaks stereotypes? What stereotypes? Even if you identified those, how is the fact that the doll depicts an older woman even relevant? The girl breaking dolls shows resistance... to what? What sexist ideology? You didn't even bring that up or explain it previously. Your conclusion is just blanket repetition of the wet paper topic sentence and adds nothing.
Your issue is that you aren't actually saying anything at all, or proving anything. And even if your examples proved your point, it's extremely general and lacks any critical take on any sort of imaginable prompt. You can start by literally just asking the above questions when reading your own writing, and asking whether the answers to those questions make any sense. The more general an argument is, the more evidence it requires to evidence it, and the weaker it tends to be in general. You can't use one or two isolated incidents of a character using exclamation marks to establish that they're a fundamentally angry and maladjusted person, and therefore everyone is angry and we should lock them all in anger management courses until they can use their inside voices.
