Stanfield 1

Barbie and the Magic of Democracy:

An Analysis of Cultural Messaging in Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus

“It's only hopeless if you give up,” proclaims Annika in Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus

as she attempts the near-impossible feat of saving her village from the grasp of the tyrant

Wenlock. The hope-filled film was the second original tale produced in the Barbie movie series.

It was released in September of 2005, shortly following the spring release of the first Barbie

movie to rely on an original plot rather than creative reinterpretations of common fairy tales. The

Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus aired originally on the children’s network Nickelodeon

preceding its release on DVD and found its way into millions of homes, particularly those with

female children. It is essential, then, to ask what message the film portrayed to the children,

particularly young girls, who viewed it. Though there is no single or right answer, the premise of

the film being a hostile takeover of a kingdom by a foreign, tyrannical power leads one to

question whether there are themes of authoritarianism in Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus, and,

if so, what is implied by these themes. Research suggests that, through the film, Annika

positively portrays democratic traits and Wenlock negatively portrays autocratic traits.

The purpose of this research is to examine moral messages to children in contemporary

media. Given that the film was so widely received and it established the pattern of Barbie movies

being used to express original storylines rather than reinvent familiar fairy tales, the originality

of the plot and its moral message becomes essential to analyze. Monique Wonderly, an Associate

Professor of Philosophy at the University of California San Diego, argues in her research article

“Children’s Film as an Instrument of Moral Education” that movies are successful in relaying

moral meaning. Children can see the actions of others and how their choices impact other

characters. This is a critical tool, argues Wonderly, because it demonstrates empathy while
 Stanfield 2

sparing children from the pain or trauma of having to learn how actions can negatively affect

others through their own lived experiences (7). Therefore, movies demonstrate empathy to

children, which leads to the development of their moral reasoning. Films do not indoctrinate

children but rather encourage children to use such moral reasoning when faced with real-life

situations. Thus, the cultural implications of a movie can show children who to feel empathy for

and develop their morals accordingly, shaping future preferences and behaviors. When

considering Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus, the protagonist Annika and antagonist Wenlock

portray certain messages regarding what outlooks and mannerisms one should model.

Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus begins with protagonist and princess Annika

ice-skating in her village alongside her subjects when she is interrupted by the antagonist and

warlock Wenlock who demands her hand in marriage. Following her adamant refusal, Wenlock

transforms her family and villagers into statues and tells her that she has three days to accept his

proposal or they will never be human again. Annika is miraculously saved by a pegasus named

Brietta who is actually her older sister who had been turned into a pegasus sixteen years ago by

Wenlock after she too refused his proposal. The two then embark on a journey to create a Wand

of Light that would overpower Wenlock. Along the way, they work with the Cloud Queen, a

gambler, a polar bear, and a thief and face challenges like a malicious, bloodthirsty ogre. Finally,

Annika returns to Wenlock and overpowers him with the Wand of Light, not only freeing her

parents and villagers but also restoring her sister’s and Wenlock’s ex-wives' true forms. It is

revealed that Wenlock is not, in fact, a powerful sorcerer but rather a feeble old man who had

stolen the power he claimed to be his own to abuse others. This storyline can be examined

through different media lenses to derive meaning that may inspire children’s moral reasoning.
 Stanfield 3

There are several theoretical perspectives to consider when culturally analyzing the film,

including Propp’s Narrative Theory, cultural criticism, and othering. First, Propp’s Narrative

Theory argues that all narratives, or stories, contain a lack. This lack drives the storyline as the

protagonist attempts to fulfill something that is missing or restore something to equilibrium.

Propp’s lack is often accompanied by the villainy, which is a person or thing preventing the hero

from fulfilling the lack. The hero and villain directly oppose one another in this sense. The

story’s resolution then comes from the fulfillment of the lack by the hero, and the story goes

from disequilibrium to restored equilibrium. Using a basic understanding of narrative theory, one

can then apply cultural criticism to the narrative. When using cultural criticism, it is important to

understand the principle of polysemy, or the idea that every narrative has multiple interpretations

and there is no right or wrong interpreted meaning of the text. It is subject to every independent

viewer. However, ideologies are still inherent in media. Every narrative can be interpreted to

represent an ideology, a belief or a principle, in a certain way. Hails often accompany ideology,

meaning that a viewer is persuaded to respond to an ideology in a certain way. Yet, to respond to

the ideology and how it is presented, a viewer must realize that they are being hailed and be

given a signal that they are the intended audience and what specific action to take regarding the

ideology. Lastly, cultural criticism argues that media contains codes that signal meaning through

appearance, behavior, and speech that often tie into the ideology and hail. Codes can also signal

or promote othering. The concept of othering, perhaps best known as an “us versus them”

mentality, means that a character is alienated from others or promotes the alienation of

individuals in real life on the basis of identity through their portrayal. This can include racial

minority groups, overweight individuals, transgender individuals, and other marginalized

identities that may face oppression. Each theoretical lens supplements the other in terms of
 Stanfield 4

interpreting a text as their concepts are often interrelated. By applying these theoretical lenses,

one can examine meanings derived from Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus.

Annika, as the protagonist and hero of the film, demonstrates to children the kinds of

traits that are valued by society and models what is argued to be morally righteous behavior.

Close analysis of her portrayal reveals that her behavior closely resembles what scholars have

suggested being traits of a democratic citizen. During the opening scene of the film, Annika

befriends a polar bear named Shiver. Shiver is rejected by Annika’s parents on the premise of

being an animal in spite of Shiver’s lack of typical bear tendencies. Then, Annika leaves the

castle to skate with her subjects and openly engages with them as equals. When she embarks on

her journey to free her loved ones, she befriends her pegasus sister, gambler Aidan, the Cloud

Queen Rayla, and works alongside a thief. These actions resemble the advice of Dr. Timothy

Snyder in his book On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century. Within this reading,

Snyder provides advice backed by historical context to an audience wanting to preserve

democracy in the face of a potential tyrannical regime. Snyder argues in chapter twelve, “Make

Eye Contact and Small Talk,” that making new friends is the first step a citizen can take toward

changing tyrannical regimes (40). Though very optimistic, Snyder’s intended message is that

befriending those different from us who are likely othered by society is the first step in opposing

a regime that wishes to enforce social norms. Annika accomplishes this by not accepting the

norms laid before her and openly seeking relationships with those different from her in order to

promote change.

Not only does Annika make friends, but she also seeks alliances with other leaders.

Although Annika and Rayla reign over different areas of the land (though, not much context of

the world’s domains is provided in the film,) and possess varying levels of involvement in
 Stanfield 5

overthrowing Wenlock, Annika still aligns herself with Rayla in spite of their differences.

Political scholars Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt argue in their book How Democracies Die,

a compilation of historical accounts and current political situations that outlines how to prevent

the loss of democracy, that political leaders must oppose tyrannical regimes by establishing

connections with fellow politicians who they disagree with. They call this principle mutual

toleration, defining it as the “understanding that competing parties accept one another as

legitimate rivals” (Levitsky and Ziblatt 10). This affirmation means that leaders respect the

authority of one another and the legitimacy of their opinions enough to work alongside them,

strengthening the principles of democracy. Annika exemplifies this trait through her alliances

with those who her character significantly contrasts from. This trait is also exemplified through

her attainment of the measure of courage, a piece needed for the Wand of Light she must

construct, through wits rather than force. When faced with the ogre, Annika chooses to outsmart

him rather than harm him. She demonstrates that being clever is better than being forceful, but

she also demonstrates that not using all of one’s power they have at their disposal is wise and she

is ultimately rewarded for it. While this demonstrates mutual tolerance as she respects the ogre

enough to not harm him to achieve her own ends, this also exemplifies Levitsky and Ziblatt’s

principle of forbearance. Forbearance is described as the “idea that politicians should exercise

restraint in deploying their institutional prerogatives,” or the idea that those with political power

should not use it all at once or abuse it (Levitsky and Ziblatt 10). Annika is rewarded for

exercising restraint over an opponent, earning the title of courageous, demonstrating to viewers

that forbearance is a positive trait to possess. This idea is reinforced by the Wand of Light, or the

force for good, and its components.

 Stanfield 6

The Wand of Light, Annika’s source of power that defeats Wenlock, can only be attained

by someone who possesses democratic traits. Annika first attains the measure of courage by

defeating the ogre, which characterizes forbearance. However, the requirement of courage also

resembles Snyder’s advice to be as courageous as one can be when faced with tyranny, arguing

that one must be prepared to die for freedom or die under tyranny (57). Though a bit bleak,

Snyder’s advice is well taken. To be democratic in the face of an authoritarian takeover, one must

possess an unimaginable amount of courage. Annika then attains the ring of love, the second

component required to create a Wand of Light, when her sister offers her crown to be fashioned

into a ring. Annika’s act of loving someone different from her and being loved in return is

rewarded and brings her more power. It also closely aligns with Dr. Jason Stanley’s advice to

defeat fascist tyrants in How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them, a book that describes

fascist political tactics and how to withstand fascists. Stanley argues that fascists use institutional

hierarchies in order to “preserve the comforting illusion of superiority” (53). By refuting the

hierarchy Wenlock establishes when he degrades Brietta into an animal, Annika shatters the

illusion of superiority and is rewarded for openly embracing those different than her. Lastly,

Annika attains the third component, a gem lit by hope’s eternal flame, by traveling to a mountain

peak. She is warned to not take more than she needs, presumably only one gem to make the

wand, or she would be punished. The Wand of Light again rewards Annika for embracing

forbearance and not using more power than she needs. This idea is reinforced when Shiver

attempts to steal gems out of greed and the cave collapses. After collecting all of the pieces,

Annika forges the Wand of Light with the help of Aidan. When confronted with Wenlock,

Annika reacts angrily and tells the wand to “destroy him” (Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus).

The wand refuses to work, and she later learns it cannot be used out of anger. Once again, the
 Stanfield 7

message of forbearance, or restraint of power, is reinforced to the audience. Contrastingly,

Wenlock does not exhibit restraint.

Wenlock embraces many autocratic traits, particularly the enforcement of hierarchy to

maintain his status and power. At the beginning of the film, Wenlock turns the villagers and

Annika’s parents into statues. He had also turned her sister into a pegasus and his ex-wives into

trolls to exercise his power over them. Purposefully, Wenlock makes others perceive people who

disagree with him as non-human, othering them in the most literal sense. This demonstrates

Stanley’s fascist principle of hierarchy as means of reinforcing superiority (53). Wenlock also

uses this technique as he disrupts the bonding across the social classes between Annika and her

villagers when he approaches her initially. Further, during this approach, Wenlock reinforces a

patriarchal hierarchy by demanding Annika accept his marriage proposal as he is a man with

power. As shown by the treatment of his past wives and Brietta, Wenlock has a history of

subjecting women who he has physical power over to traditional gender roles. Stanley cites Kate

Manne, author of Down Girl, and describes patriarchal hierarchy as an “ideology that engenders

the unreasonable expectations of high status” and forces women to be subject to misogyny when

the unreasonable roles are unfulfilled (58). With his high status due to his power, he enforces his

expectation of other powerful women becoming his wives and literally others them when they

refuse or no longer meet his expectations for a good wife. In doing so, he maintains his status as

the most powerful force in the cinematic universe and retains his power through patriarchal

hierarchy. This power, though, is unrestrained and is not rightfully his.

Through the portrayal of the Cloud Queen Rayla, one finds that Wenlock subverts the

norms of the domains in Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus and misuses power. Rayla is unable to

use her power to overthrow Wenlock, which is why Annika must construct the wand herself. Yet,
 Stanfield 8

Rayla can use her power against those other than Wenlock and chooses not to. She does not

attempt to overthrow Annika’s parents for their domain, though she easily could, and chooses to

reside in the clouds and limit her responsibility to only making sure the sun rises and sets.

Therefore, Wenlock subverts the norms traditionally held by those with power in the cinematic

universe. Levitsky and Ziblatt define norms as “shared codes of conduct that become common

knowledge within a particular community or society– accepted, respected, and enforced by

members” (60). Without norms, democracy falls into the hands of those with authoritarian traits.

Because Wenlock defies these norms by interfering with the domains of others, he aligns himself

closely with authoritarianism. Wenlock also subverts the power of others, forgoing the rules of

the game by stealing his power from another sorcerer and making himself invincible to all other

powers. Though this plot point is only briefly touched upon, the act of stealing power itself

resembles Levitsky and Ziblatt’s noted tendency of authoritarians to subvert the institutions

established by a democratic state (47). It is not expressly stated how Rayla attained her own

power, but one can presume that it is rightfully hers. Therefore, by comparing Rayla and

Wenlock, one can conclude that Wenlock is on the authoritarian side of the spectrum when

considering rulers in Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus. His defeat also highlights his

authoritarian traits.

Wenlock is overcome by Annika and her ragtag team of misfits, demonstrating the defeat

of an authoritarian figure through unlikely alliances. Through the collaboration of individuals of

diverse backgrounds, enough power is formed from the Wand of Light that Wenlock’s spells are

reversed and his power is altogether destroyed. While this team demonstrates the mutual

toleration that Levitsky and Ziblatt proclaim can prevent authoritarians from gaining more

power, the team also demonstrates Stanley’s principle of refusing to be bewitched. Annika in
 Stanfield 9

particular, unlike Wenlock, is not persuaded to see others as less than human because of their

physical differences and beliefs. By refusing to be bewitched by fascist politics and the

hierarchies Wenlock perpetuates, Annika demonstrates Stanley’s last piece of advice, which is to

refrain from falling victim to fascist ideology so that we remain free to engage with one another

(102). Her refusal to accept his ideology, bringing about his downfall, demonstrates further

Wenlock’s authoritarianism. When Annika does break his spells, it is revealed that Wenlock is

actually an old, balding man and his griffin sidekick is really a mangy cat. As the villain, this

portrayal of a false front demonstrates to the viewer through code that only sad, desperate people

abuse others as Wenlock did, showing children that they should not act in the same way. Further,

his true form as a sad, old man shows Stanley’s fascist principle of victimhood. He describes this

fascist political tactic as using a sense of loss to manipulate the unoppressed to feel “aggrieved

victimhood and exploited to justify past, continuing, or new forms of oppression” (57). Though

not much is known about the world in which Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus takes place, one

can assume that a white, heterosexual, male still holds authority. Being unoppressed, Wenlock

still views himself as the victim. When he attains power, he makes himself out to be stronger and

more attractive than he is, but in spite of then having the privilege of his identity and a culturally

aesthetically pleasing physical appearance, he still oppresses women and those with less power.

This is the true form of an authoritarian; Wenlock has more power than necessary, yet sees

himself as the victim and uses his victimhood as justification to inflict harm on others to satiate

his own desires. Ultimately, Wenlock is coded as an authoritarian figure through and through, as

demonstrated by his own traits and how he was defeated.

Though one can conclude that Annika positively portrays democratic traits through her

role as the protagonist and hero and Wenlock negatively portrays autocratic traits as the
 Stanfield 10

antagonist and villain, there are limitations to this conclusion. Cultural criticism argues the

principle of polysemy, or that anyone can have any interpretation of the same text. While

evidence can be compiled for one derived meaning, a thousand other meanings can arise from

the same source. The conclusion drawn is not the only possible response to the research question.

The intended meaning also is reliant on the success of the hails within the media. If an audience

member does not realize they are being hailed or what action they are being called to take if they

are hailed, they will not respond. The limited representation in the film limits the effectiveness of

the hail. While Annika defies gender norms by subverting the traditional princess behavior and

appearance, she is still a white woman who falls in love with the attractive male lead Aidan.

Though she is powerful and resilient, her representation is limited to white, female, heterosexual

audiences. Further, the film limits itself in representation as a whole. There are two women of

color in the film, including one of Wenlock’s ex-wives and Rayla, but it is difficult to discern any

distinguishing characteristics other than that they are non-white. Women of color may find some

relation to these characters as Rayla does have a larger role, but the representation does not

connect with a specific audience. As a whole, though, all viewers, especially children, may not

respond to the hail of the film to view autocratic traits negatively and democratic traits positively.

Wonderly argues that films are limited in moral education when educators or guardians do not

prime children to pick up on moral themes and do not discuss them following the film (7). That

is not to say that the concluded portrayals are not valid, but that the meaning derived from the

film in this research is likely not the same as the one derived from the intended audience.

Further, the derived meaning is likely not intentional by the creators of the film.

The interpretation of autocratic and democratic traits within the film is likely just the

result of American culture as a whole and not a purposefully intended theme. When analyzing
 Stanfield 11

American children’s films, it is common to find that villains are autocratic in character and the

hero is democratic in character. In their article “Moral Foundations Theory, Political Identity, and

the Depiction of Morality in Children’s Movies,” Rachel Gehman, Steve Guglielmo, and David

C. Schwebel looked at the contrast between heroes and villains and found that heroes fight for

the rights of others, demonstrating compassion and empathy, whereas villains often submit to

authority and are submissive in nature (13-14). As a whole, it seems that American children’s

films code heroes as democratic figures and villains as autocratic or autocratic-sympathizing

figures, suggesting that the country’s values are pro-democratic to the point where democratic

traits are unintentionally shown favorably in films intended to demonstrate moral values to

children. For that reason, this conclusion is also weakened by its biased assumption that there is

only the potential for democracy and autocracy. Democracy and autocracy are two polar ends of

an entire spectrum, and it is Americentrist to assume that there are only democratic and

autocratic figures with no grey area. It can also be argued that the conclusion that Annika

positively portrays democratic traits through her role as the protagonist and hero and Wenlock

negatively portrays autocratic traits is the result of Americentric biases against autocracy and is

substantiated by the biased arguments of American political philosophers. This argument is valid

and results in the limitation of the strength of the argument for the representation of autocracy

and democracy in the film.

Cultural criticism lends itself to the idea that many meanings can be derived from a text,

meaning that any and all interpretations are valid from a viewer. Though likely the result of

Americentrism within the film and from the discernment of the viewer and the sources used to

construct the argument, this cultural analysis concludes that there are themes of authoritarianism

in Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus and that Annika positively portrays democratic traits and
 Stanfield 12

Wenlock negatively portrays autocratic traits. That is not to say that democracy is positive and

autocracy is negative, but that these portrayals represent the ideologies as such. This argument is

derived from the coding of the hero, the villainy, the source of power, and the fulfillment of the

lack caused by the villainy. Mainly, Annika is willing to collaborate with others and cede her

power whereas Wenlock is the sole bearer of power who inflicts harm on others for his own gain.

When all hope seems to be lost, Annika relies on hope and friendship to free those who she cares

about. Regardless of its understood meanings, the film is centered around demonstrating the

power of friendship and perseverance, offering hope to a young audience that has yet to face the

challenges of the world.

 Stanfield 13

Works Cited

Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus. Directed by Greg Richardson, performances by Kelly

Sheridan, Lalainia Lindbjerg, and Mark Hildreth, Lionsgate Home Entertainment, 2005.

Gehman, Rachel, et al. “Moral Foundations Theory, Political Identity, and the Depiction of

Morality in Children’s Movies.” PLoS ONE, vol. 16, no. 3, Mar. 2021, pp. 1–19.

EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248928.

Levitsky, Steven and Daniel Ziblatt. How Democracies Die. Crown Publishing Group, 2018.

Snyder, Timothy. On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century. Tim Duggan Books,

2017.

Stanley, Jason. How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them. Random House, 2018.

Wonderly, Monique. “Children’s Film as an Instrument of Moral Education.” Journal of Moral

Education, vol. 38, no. 1, Mar. 2009, pp. 1–15. EBSCOhost,

https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240802601466. Accessed 27 November 2022.