Cars II

Though a lot of children's movies and TV shows are too insipid for words, I have always liked Pixar films, which seem more intelligent and thought-provoking than most movies made for adults: truth is, I like them so much that I even wrote a book about using Monsters Inc, Nemo, and A Bug's Life to teach philosophy to kids.  And even though I didn't think Cars was the best Pixar film, I was excited to watch its sequel with Helena Iara.

Helena liked the film: enough so that she was able to sit still for almost an hour before she began to fidget.  The pure visuals of the movie are great, and they probably attract an almost two year-old as much as they do any other kid.  What struck me, however, was the political critique implicit in the film: though supposedly about race cars, the movie's subtext seems to be about the rise of the populist Right and the Tea Party.

OK, that sounds a bit out of context, so let me make the argument.  The enemies in Cars II are failed automobiles, Pintos and AMC Pacers and Gremlins who can't find parts anymore.  They want to destroy other cars -- and the possibility of a real alternative fuel -- out of pure resentment of the success of others.  They fall in line behind a movement led by a faux-folksy oil tycoon who is really using the movement as a way to make sure that no other fuel undermines his base of wealth and power.

Let's talk about the origins of the Tea Party: they are mostly white and working class, and many of them have lost out in the modern economy.  Their skills of manual labor have been outsourced to India, China, and Latin America, and they haven't been able to take advantage of the new opportunities of globalization.  Resentment against elites is the fundamental motivator behind the Tea Party, and they are manipulated by a faux-folksy Australian (not that different from the accent of the villain on Cars 2!), Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News, who needs their support for his nefarious business dealings.

As an insight into the origins of the populist right (I bet it would work as a way to understand Le Pen in France and many other Euro-neo-fascists, too), the movie is very sharp.  I can understand why Pat Buchanan and so many others on Fox News got riled up about the movie... especially coming as a sequel to the original Cars, which seemed to emphasize small town values, NASCAR, and other things Republicans love (personally, I think it was about class consciousness, but that's another story).  But here's the problem: there are only two sides, only two alternatives.  The salvation of the world comes from the elites (in the form of the British MI5, no less!), while the marginalized and forgotten can find an advocate only in a manipulative demagogue in it for his own benefit.  We see the American political landscape seen through the lens of well-educated, Hollywood/New York liberals, where the poor have to choose between one of two champions, and they (we, quite frankly, because I can't except myself from this liberal elite) can't understand why the people would possible chose Newt Gingrich and his ilk.

The promise of any politics of liberation is that there aren't just two sides, a choice between two elites that represent the people, but that the people might, in fact, be able to govern themselves.  And there's where the movie falls flat.  And, quite frankly, where America falls flat, too.