Comments (25)

• Jeffrey

  I appreciate this review, but I must say that my own reaction was much more negative. The authors of this review suggest that it is fine for kids, but kids can see straight through the manipulative themes. They are all-too familiar with the anti-competitive values taught by this film. They've been to birthday parties where the parents structure games that no one wins. They've been in sports where rules specify that everyone must rotate positions so that no child perceives himself to be less skillful than anyone else. They've seen how this system wars against excellence and guarantee the triumph of mediocrity.

  The film heralds this town for what it once was and decries the conditions that led to its decline. But what are we really talking about it? The scale of commercial activity that the town attracted declined. Who is to say that such and such a town should and must be forever a certain size? The same people who bemoan the decline of small towns regret when small towns become medium-sized towns and then pass regulations to prevent them from becoming big towns. Even the film hints at this. When someone announces that a developer will be building a major race track in this depressed town, the pious and insufferable lawyer-car proclaims: "There goes the neighborhood!"

  So all towns must be only a certain size and no bigger and no smaller? Are we to believe that all existing merchants must be guaranteed a certain level of revenue and never have that threatened either by new local competition or by a decline? This is indeed a longing for a guild system, one that is utterly unsustainable with a rising population and growing division of labor.

  What was interesting too is how the film completely avoids the subject of money. Lightening McQueen is constantly browbeat to buy his tires from the local merchants and its considered snobby and awful for failing to do so. But what is it that the local merchants are actually demanding from him? His property. And at the end when he finally does call on their services, you don't see any money exchanged. He is just regarded as a great guy for having finally seen the merit of calling on their services. But matters would have been very different if we had seen what was really going on. The local merchants wanted McQueen to fork over, and when he finally did, they are happy for the money. So there you have it: pious invocations of charity and love masking what would otherwise be called greed. So you can see why the film glossed over the nature of the exchange taking place.

  The reviewers also didn't point out that there is an insipid scene involving—you guessed it—the environment. The former hot city urban lawyer car reveals that the real reason she moved to this small town was the scenery. Well, good for her. But then why bellyache about the lack of commerce when it was the lack of commerce that drew her to the place in any case?

  In sum, this is not a good movie for adults or kids. It disparages excellence and achievements. It praises a pre-modern form of economics. It is deceptive in its treatment of economic exchange. It caricatures the motivation behind want to compete and win. It wallows in victimology for inefficient producers who refuse to look forward. It competes the worst impulses of the left and right to put down and devalue hugely important character traits, such as the willingness to adapt, do well, and achieve. Blech, I say.
  

  Published: July 4, 2006 10:25 AM

• Michael Wengler

  Reading this commentary on Cars I wondered if I had seen the same movie!

  I saw no attack on progress. The heros of the film are a state of the art race car and a pretty new Porsche, neither with any sort of identity crises wishing they had carburetors or didn't have chips in their engines.

  I did not see us being told there was ANYTHING wrong with efficiency or modern towns and neither did my eight year old who LOVED the film. Maybe we here in California are USED to diversity and difference, and so we just don't identify a story about one place as a commentary on what is wrong with another. We visit wine country, the mountains to ski, the redwoods, Hawaii, without ever thinking that there is something wrong with San Diego because these places have things we don't have.

  The new interstate supposedly robbed the town of its former aesthetic value and its livelihood, but what is really targeted here are the values commonly associated with market economics: individualism, self-interest, competition, and striving for achievement.

  When is McQueen more of an individual: when he single mindedly pursues winning to the exclusion of all else, just like the other race cars, or when he exemplifies an atypical personal utility function by going back to push The King across the finish line? Is self interest the same as greed, or could being more of a "human" actually BE in McQueen's self interest? Would McQueen have achieved more if he had driven mindlessly across the finish line and taken the Dinoco sponsorship?

  The greatest producers of wealth in the world agree: service to humanity is an exceptionally powerful way to make yourself happy. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett ARE those greatest producers. They could each buy more in this world than, generally, any 40,000 of us reading this blog. And what have they chosen to buy? Life for the poorest people on the planet.

  *****

  The lesson here is not against individuality or progress AT ALL. If anything, it is a call to develop a personal utility function that doesn't echo all the others around you.

  IMHO

  Published: July 4, 2006 11:15 AM

• M E Hoffer

  Having not seen the film, I'll only posit that the reviewers' notice of "something changed", in this Pic v. previous from Pixar, may have something to do with "Disney-fication"( Pixar's new owners ).

  And, this: "to develop a personal utility function that doesn't echo all the others around you."-- seems to be a horribly wretched way to restate that which HDT gave us: "Whoso be a Man, be a Non-conformist."

  
  

  Published: July 4, 2006 12:10 PM

• Mila Cobanov

  I saw no attack on progress. The heros of the film are a state of the art race car and a pretty new Porsche, neither with any sort of identity crises wishing they had carburetors or didn't have chips in their engines.

  Our concern had nothing to do with McQueen changing into a more community-oriented individual; we comment throughout the article that his personal growth is a good message to take away from the film (morals that parents want their children to apply in their own lives).

  However, we do disagree about the economic message.

  Maybe we here in California are USED to diversity and difference, and so we just don't identify a story about one place as a commentary on what is wrong with another.

  We never said there was anything necessarily wrong with the town itself; it was the mentality of the town's inhabitants that was the problem. Their nostalgia for a past free from the competition of a more efficient road is a call for stopping progress. Demand drives markets, as the movie shows in the end, because McQueen's fame is what brings the town to life again - it has nothing to do with nostalgic sentiment. The problem is that Pixar heavily focuses on the "injustice" of the building of I-40 more than the fact that McQueen's success brings in customers to the town. It may have been unintentional, but more often than not, every time someone mentions the "good old days" and cues the violins (or in this case some country song), it is an emotional appeal that overshadows all sense of reason.

  Published: July 4, 2006 1:10 PM

• fancyleprachaun

  M E Hoffer,

  Though Disney now owns Pixar, it is actually more reasonable to say Disney paid Pixar a buttload of money to take over Disney's entire animation division.

  All Pixar feature films have been under the Disney moniker, and Cars was to be the last in their contract together, because Eisner didn't renew.

  That was one of the final straws between the Disney board and Eisner, that finally forced him out, and thus the new deal.

  So, just like Apple bought Next, essentially paying Jobs and his company to take over Apple, Jobs did it again with his other company Pixar.

  Published: July 4, 2006 2:53 PM

• Daniel M. Ryan

  From what I've read of it here, Cars is a movie which a conservative would love. Look at how McQueen shows moral redemption: by helping the old lion at the expense of his callow self. I am sure that any conservative would say that he made the obvious decision because McQueen, until the end, was callow; he'll have many "next ones" whereas The King will have none subsequenly. A conservative would note that McQueen cultivated his self through learning patience, respect for the old, and the hollowness of merely self-absorbed success orientation.

  In addition, a conservative would note, the town which empty progress scorned proves to be full of morally worthy people - bucolic in the good sense. McQueen's conscience was awakened at the end to grant them what they clearly deserve.
  

  Published: July 4, 2006 3:55 PM

• Karl Weis

  Great article!

  Published: July 4, 2006 8:00 PM

• Evan L. Pierce

  If you thought cars was bad, you should see robots...

  Published: July 4, 2006 10:41 PM

• M E Hoffer

  fancyleprachaun, old sport, note: "I'll only posit that the reviewers' notice of "something changed", in this Pic v. previous from Pixar, *may* have something to do with "Disney-fication"( Pixar's new owners ).

  As well, with this: "All Pixar feature films have been under the Disney moniker..."-- you mistake the reality of the previous relationship that existed between Pixar and the House of Mouse.

  Pixar was no mere hackshop executing orders being out-sourced from Disney. Pixar had a viable, stand-alone business in the beginning-to-end development of animated pix. Their(Pixar's) previous deal w/ DIS was for mere distribution.
  

  Published: July 4, 2006 11:17 PM

• Artisan

  I haven’t seen “cars�, and I probably won’t because … I just can’t seem to go into kids’ movies… not yet (my kid will teach me one day I believe).
  Still, this review is all the more strange to me since it is actually criticizing the most technologically advanced company in 3d animation for not being “modern�. Economically speaking, apart from the fact that Pixar is not known for being government sponsored, a movie is a special product, not designed to necessarily attack governments (especially a kid’s movie). It merely addresses emotions of all kinds. And apparently man has emotions in him that must tie him to old things. And perhaps modernity won’t change a thing to it? The interpretation of the movie in the blog really sounds like political propaganda – or paranoia? - to me (but again, I haven’t seen it). I’d rather hear how such movie, despite its nostalgic aspect, and despite the interpretation that some socialist will make of it, fits well in the libertarian scheme… blah blah.
  

  Published: July 5, 2006 3:45 AM

• Reformed Republican

  M E Hoffer:

  I thought that Pixar was still an independent company when they made Cars, and the purchase came later.

  As far as the movie itself goes, it seems like a remake of the Michael J. Fox flick "Doc Hollywood."

  Published: July 5, 2006 7:49 AM

• M E Hoffer

  RR:

  As far as I know, the movie was complete, or nearly so, when DIS bot PIXR. But, as you well know, many movies go under the post-production "knife" for multi-various reasons.

  Note: My original posit was only a supposition, in an attempt, to put forth a potential reason why "this movie" seemed different from the others that were issued forth from PIXR( as noted by the reviewers ).

  Published: July 5, 2006 8:52 AM

• Paul Marks

  Firstly the fact that (most) roads in the United States before the interstate system were government built does not mean that the goverenment interstate system was a good idea - it was terrible idea.

  Lots of places cut off, railoads undermined by subsidised road transport (yes I am one of those terrible people who suspect that there just might be a problem with C02 from road transport -although I do not draw any statist conclusions from that) and so on.

  And all for a vast network of roads (started only fifty years ago) that now cost endless billions just to maintain.

  As for the myth of small town values - often it is not a myth. Sorry but it is not all dark secrets and incest behind the lace curtains.

  There is nothing statist about liking small communities, and as economic value is subjective surely it is not statist to say that.

  Last week I visited two English towns. One I had been to before Shrewsbury. This is an town with an interesting history and many fine things to see - but something seemed wrong as I walked about the town, it is hard to put into words but it seemed as if the town was trying to "accept the modern world" (as a polite way of putting it) - there were screaching police cars, and drunken people, and the pubs were full of people watching the antics of the Association Football World Cub (British football is associated with everything "modern" in this country).

  I know it will sound like a cheap shot (perhaps it is) but I was not surprised to hear that two women were beaten to death in a brothel only a day after I was there. Although I must stress that Shrewsbury is much better than many English towns and cities I have visited.

  The other town was few miles south of Shrewsbury (by the way, south Shropshire is a fine part of the world - full of rivers, hills and forests going on to Wales) - the town of Ludlow.

  Ludlow also has interesting history and intereting buildings (although less of them than Shrewsbury), but I had never been there before. I went partly because a radio show on the B.B.C. mocked the place as typical "middle England" (which means it is wildly untypical of England as it is now) - a state of mind summed up in the words of one person the B.B.C. interviewed "I do not care to "keep up with the times" I think the times are going in the wrong direction".

  There was plenty of high technology in Ludlow (that is not what people tend to object to about the modern world), but there was a different atmosphere. People were not interested in the Association Football World Cub (in the sense of being "interested" by getting drunk and rolling about in their own vomit)- they were more interested in walking in the woods instead (not just visitors - I talked to an a resident whilst waiting for a train).

  Of course there is development in Ludlow - for example there are high quality restaurants, and some of them fairly inexpensive - actually cheaper than the nasty eating places I have come upon in many parts of England.

  But why does "economic development" have to make things WORSE?

  Why can it not make things BETTER? As it does when people are just trying to do what they know to be right - not deperately trying to be "modern" and "progressive" (like the people who got rid of traditional church music and ritual in much of the Roman Catholic church - and admited in their retirement that they loved what they got rid of and hated what they replaced it with - surprise everyone else hated as well).

  What economic law says that people have to live and work in ugly buidlings, or that everywhere has to be an urban sprawl.

  Often the "economic" (a misuse of the word in my opinion - in Britain "economic" or "rational" tends to mean vast, wildly expensive and crap - with, of course, lots of administrators and consultants) way of doing something is actually more expensive (as well as worse) than doing a job as if you cared about it.

  This goes for everything from the preperation of food to medical care.

  For example, in Ludlow (as in every town in England) hospitals were founded for the treatment of both rich and poor long before the National Health Service came along - now the small hospital is under threat of closure.

  So many small local hospitals have been closed by the "rational" National Health Service (and I do not see what a goverment health service has got to do with the free market - any more than the interstate road network does).

  "There will be more scientific treatment" (as if this needed a vast army of administrators) - which I doubt is much comfort to people left to rot in some corner of a vast hospital where nobody knows where they are and no local community can help them. Let alone to the people who die long before they get to a mega hospital.

  Published: July 5, 2006 9:53 AM

• Reactionary

  At the age and station in life of the authors of this article, "progress," is viewed as an end in itself. Later, they will find out that "progress" is mostly a euphemism for faster, cheaper ways to do the same old thing, and the end result is having to do more tasks to make the same (or less) amount of money.

  Much of the cultural and technological "progress" so admired by the authors is the result of: (1) government highways; (2) government policies that are anti-faith, anti-community, and anti-family; and (3) the artificial expansion of the economy through government monetary policies.

  Published: July 5, 2006 10:39 AM

• Drew Knowles

  There are too many flaws in this analysis to properly enumerate.

  One infinitesimal example: old Route 66 was NOT built with government money. Route 66 was cobbled together from pre-existing roads which already carried traffic at the time the feds launched the numbered highway system in 1926. The feds simply added the signs pointing the way along the "route" and helped share the cost of improvements.

  Published: July 5, 2006 11:40 AM

• Mila Cobanov

  Reactionary:

  Perhaps this sentence wasn't blunt enough: (Incidentally, the movie can't be construed as a praiseworthy attack on a government road project since the road to which the town owed its previous prosperity was similarly government built.)

  But essentially the movie had no message suggesting that progress was the result of a government road.

  As for the comment about a reverence for "anti-faith/community/family" policies, our position is misconstrued once more (see comment above by Michael Wengler). There is nothing wrong with community values, social values, family values, religious values, etc.

  I value the village that I was raised in more than most people comprehend. In a similar respect, I value Detroit for a variety of reasons that most people in America wouldn't understand. I don't feel indignant that other people don't share my views and will never pass through my hometown or decide to hang out in Detroit. Contrast that with the town-cars' attitudes in the film and their lack of comprehension for how the rest of society doesn't value their own town as much as they do.

  My "age and station in life" have less to do with this article than the fact that I have lived and traveled in several different countries and have a greater respect for individual beliefs and values, and not feeling the inclination to impose my own views on others.

  Published: July 5, 2006 12:03 PM

• Reactionary

  "My 'age and station in life' have less to do with this article than the fact that I have lived and traveled in several different countries and have a greater respect for individual beliefs and values, and not feeling the inclination to impose my own views on others."

  "Lived and travelled in several different countries" tells me only that you consider yourself an enlightened cosmopolitan trying to bring light to the backward rubes.

  With all the respect for individual beliefs and values your travels have taught, you will surely understand the views of the individuals that made this film that "progress" ain't all it's cracked up to be.

  Published: July 5, 2006 12:20 PM

• David Spellman

  In the end, at least we can say that the movie industry is basically a free market system. Those who produce unpopular movies go broke and those who produce popular movies will be able to make more movies. Some people cry for censorship of the media, but none is needed beyond the simple laws of economics: do what is wrong and go broke.

  Yes, there are many movies that present an idyllic or untenable view of the world. Its all imaginary anyway. I can't even begin to enumerate all the pathetically impossible movie themes. But some are profitable and some are not, and that is the ultimate arbiter of what shows at the theatre.

  Pixar has been successful because they provide entertainment people like. I am sure the principles of the company are accutely aware of movie-making economics no matter what themes they choose for films. They present an imaginary world that appeals to an audience, and really it doesn't matter how foolish the audience may be so long as they are happy.

  The tragedy of humanity is our infinitely elastic ability to rationalize destructive behavior in real-life. Our social ills really are not macro end products of government, corporations, media, or other collective enterprises. Our problems result from the micro choices made by each individual adding up to trends in civilization. When everyone goes to one side of the boat, it capsizes.

  Published: July 5, 2006 1:23 PM

• Dawn of the Rock Cafe on Route 66 aka Sally of Cozy Cone Motel on Route 66

  This movie was developed in concept in 1999. It was the directors view to portray his favorite toy as a youngster and pair that with a family lesson he learned about slowing down and getting to know his family and this country better. It was not his intention to divide the country into corporate and small business. If anything John Lasseter has taught us that both can work side by side. It surprises me that so many people in the world have such negative emotions that they must tear down a man's simple storyline and try to figure out if he's really saying more. I have owned my tiny cafe for year's and quite successfully. It is my desire to keep it simple although it seems that the corporate world keeps finding me out here in my version of Radiator Springs. I have worked with some of the biggest and at the cost of little more than simple bartering. What a shame to keep your children away from such a movie that at its core has simple moralistic values for family and individuals from a man that feeds nothing into the world but positive vibes. I have spent time with John Lasseter and can only compare him to the likes of Walt Disney, Ray Kroc, Sam Walton, and Will Rogers. A simple man who desires to show the world their views and become corporations in doing so. We all have been the small town and yes some have gone corporate and others have not but a fine mix of both fits my tastes!!
  Love, Dawn aka Sally

  Published: July 6, 2006 7:12 PM

• Nick Snow

  Dawn of the Rock Cafe:

  First of all, as was stated in the article the movie did have good morals that children and adults both can learn from. The problem we had was more with the way it was presented. Through most of the film, it seemed to us and I think others will see it the same way, we were supposed to feel bad for the poor cars in Radiator Springs. And the reason we are supposed to feel bad is that the world has left this town behind. The town refused to change and it was our fault it became a thing of the past. There is nothing wrong with a lesson of slowing down and getting to know one's friends and family. But we felt that this is not what came across. I don't doubt that John Lasseter was is a great guy, as we stated we liked a lot of his past films and think they presented a great lesson (it was just done better). Secondly, we did not say that it was a battle of corporate and small businesses. It was about people's subjective values. Sally in the film, for instance loved Radiator Springs, and that is fine. A mix of both is a good thing, not everyone wants a corporate world and no corporations would be wrong too. So a mix fits our tastes as well. Again the problem seemed to me that the movie wanted us to feel bad for the town. The movie might not have meant this, and we did say that in the end through McQeen the town did give people what they wanted, but I don't think that is how a lot of people will see it. The real workings of economic laws were too mudled by the superfical emotions.

  Published: July 7, 2006 8:48 AM

• Dawn of the Rock

  My point is that I don't believe it was his intention to debate economic law through a cartoon movie. It was supposed to pull at your heart. It was an emotional movie about ones journey not the economics of America. I'm sorry to ruin your debate but its just a cartoon to sit and enjoy not use in the classroom for economic law. Mr Lasseter was giving us a taste of his personal journey for enjoyment only. When you begin to debate the economic law of the movie you insult his point which is the emotional attachment he has to his memories of a trip across the country and his experience of small towns. Listen to his NPR interview, he always mentions his family's connection to this story. Its supposed to be emotional.
  As a business owner I connect with your point of pulling up your bootstraps and finding new ways to promote your business. But most in small towns have a difficult transition and wait for that McQueen/Sally magic that saves a small town and rebirths its Main Street.
  

  Published: July 8, 2006 8:14 AM

• Nick Snow

  Dawn of the Rock:

  Of course it wasn't the intention of the film makers to debate economics but that feeling came through in the film, at least to us. It was of course just a movie to sit and enjoy but I personally found it weak in that area as well. As for looking at it from an economics perpective, what is wrong with that? You can see economic lessons in anything. Its good to look at things around you. I disagree that it insults Mr. Lesseter's point but personally I don't care what his point is, people are going to see the movie the way they want to. I do believe many did walk away with the point we made (the lesson of individual value scales) but a great amount more will see it as an attack on progress. Still it is possible some just watched and saw only its entertainment value. This will happen no matter his intentions. Of course this is nothing personal, we were just trying to discuss the economic persectives that could be seen in the film (or at least how we saw them), if this is insulting to the film makers (which I don't believe it is) then so be it. However, it is also your right to disagree with our perpective or our motives.

  Published: July 9, 2006 6:13 PM

• Dawn of the Rock Cafe

  I believe to each his own and I am happy to hear your version. Just wanted mine out there also. Would also like to mention that many corporations are jumping at the chance to be a part of this movie's campaign. So I believe that many progressive corporations connected emotionally with this movie and found it profitable to be a associated with this movie. Personally, I am new to this sort of fame and when people accuse the story as week it makes me sad for a spit second because Sally is such a big part of my personal life. But again, not everyone finds my life interesting. I would love any of you to come and visit my cafe or even plan on spending to day with me. It may even become emotional for one's visit. Peace and love to all and may all of you get your kicks somehow!!

  Published: July 10, 2006 12:22 PM

• Frank Fogelfrei

  I take a slightly different message from the film than the reviewer. For me, the film was not an attack on progress. Rather, it was an attack on ethos of 'win at all costs' and 'the goal of life is to achieve the maximum amount of fame and fortune'. The protagonist initially believes happiness will come from winning: winning the big race and winning the larger sponsorship. Through his interaction with the small-town cars he comes to see that real happiness also comes from friendship and doing things not just for oneself but also for others. Achievement still has its place, but it is more fully enjoyed in the context of friendship and community.

  Published: July 27, 2006 8:32 AM

• Dello

  One infinitesimal example: old Route 66 was NOT built with government money. Route 66 was cobbled together from pre-existing roads

  I assume the pre-existing roads were built with government money (albeit, local and state goverment — but still, government money). I find it hard to believe that the pre-existing roads were built by private road-owners.

  Published: July 27, 2006 8:37 AM