toy story 3 review from an marxist perspective

[Sasha]

presented here without an opinion:


Laughter and Screams

Buy Toy Story 3 for Your Anti-Socialist Children

by Charles Mudede (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Author?oid=237)
http://www.thestranger.com/binary/3132/FilmLead-570.jpg disney/pixar
TOY STORY 3 ON DVD “And you see, over there is where we crush the spirit of the proletariat.”


One fact is immediately visible: Toy Story 3 has made mad money. Its worldwide box-office gross is $1.06 billion. And its recent DVD release is making it even more mad money. Now this money is mad for reasons beyond the spectacular international business the film is doing. It's also mad because the film's message (or content) runs counter to the interests of the majority of those who have paid to see and own it. Toy Story 3 should be called Tea Party People Story. Why? Because no animation in recent history has attacked the noble principles of socialism with such determination, such ferocity.
Let's begin our examination of this piece of anti-socialist propaganda with the toys. What do these toys do for a living? The toys have only one job, one value: the production and reproduction of a child's attention. They produce attention. Autoworkers in a Toyota factory produce cars; the monsters at Monsters, Inc. produce screams (these screams are then transformed into energy); the toys in Toy Story, like many workers in a postindustrial society (comedians, journalists, athletes) generate attention. Instead of bothering parents, the child attends to his/her toys. If the toys do not get the child's attention, then they are useless, they have no use-value.

Next, the plot of Toy Story 3. One, the toys are owned by an individual, and two, this individual is a young man who has outgrown the toys. The toys have lost their value because other things (presumably porn sites, social networking sites, gangster rappers) now produce most of the young man's attention. Only two kinds of value are left for the toys: collector's value or nostalgia value. None of the toys have the former, and just one, Woody, has the latter. The sole owner of the toys decides to keep Woody (who is happy to live on the production of nostalgia) and puts the rest in storage in the attic. Somehow things get mixed up, and the toys end up at a day-care center called Sunnyside.
Now, what happens here is very important. The toys correctly see this mix-up as fortunate: It's better to generate attention in a day care than to be entombed in the attic. Also, in the day care, they are shared toys and not owned toys. Meaning, the toys are no longer private property; they generate attention in a communal environment. Enter Lots-o'-Huggin' Bear (aka Lotso). He is the leader of the toys in this sunny socialist utopia. He welcomes the new toys and explains that the day care is a place with lots of kids and opportunities to joyfully produce attention. In every way, Lotso looks like a benevolent leader.
Then things go dark almost immediately. The socialist utopia is not even given one chance to shine. A door opens and a bunch of noisy, dirty, ugly kids run into the play space (the site of production) and mob the toys. They are pulled, thrown, crushed by the rage of the multitude. The toys then learn that Lotso is not a benevolent leader but a malevolent dictator, who maintains power by force (a secret police), camera surveillance (screens monitored by a cymbal-banging monkey), and mind control (the heartbreaking desubjectification of Buzz Lightyear). The rest of the movie is about escaping this totalitarian state and returning to the much less oppressive ownership society.
Lotso the dictator suffers from a deep psychological wound. As a young toy, he was accidentally lost or abandoned or something like that. When he finally found his way home, found his master, he also found he had been replaced. The shock transformed him from a lovable bear to a power-hungry mad-bear. And this, I think, is the most toxic message in the whole, horrible Tea Party People Story: that those who desire to overturn the capitalist order of private ownership essentially do so because in their heart of hearts, they want to be owned, exploited, and dominated by their masters. It's virtually impossible for the proponents of capitalism to imagine a revolutionary who might actually believe in the things he/she says about market-oriented economics (it doesn't work) and society as a whole (it needs to change). For them, the revolutionary's only motive is ressentiment. And because the revolutionary begins with ressentiment (a kind of twisted envy), the type of society he/she establishes can only end in corruption and general badness.
If you are poor, if you are one check away from homelessness, if you are struggling to pay the mortgage, if bill collectors call on the phone and bother your wife when you're not home—if you are in any of the lower parts of the global economy, then Toy Story 3 is a movie that's not there to help but out to get you. What you desperately need, and what Toy Story 3 totally rejects, is a radical transformation of the society that keeps you down and constantly running out of money. The movie for you, then, is Monsters, Inc., which is about the total reconstitution of a society's mode of production—from screams to laughter. http://www.thestranger.com/images/rec_star.gif

source: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/laughter-and-screams/Content?oid=5718381

[Weezer]

No.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I actually thought Lotso was a progressive toy who merely sought to protect the toy's paradise in the only way possible. A degree of authoritarianism is sometimes required. From a Marxist-Leninist perspective I would hesitate to refer to Woody et al as protagonists, they are probably best compared to Trotsky.

[Burn A Flag]

Someone else who's a cappie was telling me the same thing so I'm guessing it's true lol.

[Meridian]

Is this meant comically or do people really project so much political content into children's movies?

Note that I haven't seen Toy Story 3 so for all I know it could be pure fascist propaganda.

[Burn A Flag]

I really do think that certain messages probably are injected into children's movies/television. At least in that movie we can be pretty sure it is.

[Scary Monster]

:laugh::laugh::laugh: Lol they are reading WAY too much into the movie

[IndependentCitizen]

Fucking lol. That's all I can say, I think you're looking to find anti-socialist propaganda. I honestly have doubts the producers wanted to have that impression on the children...

[Comrade_Stalin]

No.

It seems that some people only read the title and not the content. Would you all say that Iron Man 1 & 2 is not pro-capitalist movies? The fact of the matter is that the so called left-wing Hollywood is in fact very right wing. So a lot of their works are in fact support the right wing point of view.


I actually thought Lotso was a progressive toy who merely sought to protect the toy's paradise in the only way possible. A degree of authoritarianism is sometimes required. From a Marxist-Leninist perspective I would hesitate to refer to Woody et al as protagonists, they are probably best compared to Trotsky.

There are something that he forgot in his Marxist perspective. Let’s take the whole case of the movie for a second. The whole message, is that we should all accepted unemployment, which in case of the toys is to be storage in the attic. Otherwise they try to tell us , we will all live in a totalitarian state, like the one fun by Sunnyside, which I think is more toxic then “revolutionary's only motive is ressentiment” message that it try to all send.

[IndependentCitizen]

I don't think the producers give a fuck about politics when they're raking in as much as they do. Unfortunately, U.S doesn't seem to be mature enough to capture left-wing issues, those that have - I salute you. But I think U.S based producers don't have to try and influence anything.

[Comrade_Stalin]

I don't think the producers give a fuck about politics when they're raking in as much as they do. Unfortunately, U.S doesn't seem to be mature enough to capture left-wing issues, those that have - I salute you. But I think U.S based producers don't have to try and influence anything.

Sound like they went out of there way to me, when they made a group of toys who "owned themselves" into the bad guy.

[GPDP]

This thread is bad, and all of you should feel bad.

[Pretty Flaco]

Toy Story 3 is not a piece of Anti-Socialist propaganda. The article was a joke. lol

[Sean]

Thats a terrible interpretation. I bet that guy screams about how its like the diaspora every time he loses his car keys. Unless that guy is you psycho, and if you wrote that, -10 points.

[Sir Comradical]

I can't believe the LTV made its way into this analysis. Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

[Red Commissar]

I don't know, I didn't see the movie in the way the reviewer saw it. From what I remember the daycare leaders essentially set up a system to keep themselves in the better half of daycare, where the more older kids treated them well. The other toys were confined to the room for younger children who were more rough with toys and tended to break them. All newcomers ended up in there so as to keep themselves in the better room.

The only part I remember being something that reminded me of "socialism" was when the bear referred to their arrangement having "no owners", and the toys being the masters of their own destiny, but that's it.

To be honest I saw it more as a portrayal of exploitive leaders than anything. IIRC at the end, the new order seemed to be one where they all took turns with the rougher children rather than keeping a group of toys to do all the hard work to keep the lifestyles of their leaders intact.

But I don't really think that was the point of the movie. That was just stuff to flavor up the plot, the point of the movie (to me at least) just seemed to be growing up and moving on.

[Hexen]

This film came from a capitalist society and of course it's going to anti-socialist (Just like the Soviet Union had anti-capitalist films/cartoons on the other hand).

Also the comments from the actual site is just sickening ignorance of what socialism is.

[L.A.P.]

This was a horrible analysis especially on how overtly simplified the writer made the socialist utopia vs. capitalist ownership. Let's say I actually give a marxist analysis of Toy Story 3 the time of day and I actually take a look at it. Sunny Day Care was far from being socialist and had a brutal form of hierarchy in its society and from the looks of it the place was either State Capitalist or Capitalist controlled by a monopoly, that's as far as I'm going to analyze. I also can't really believe that the same production company (which will make a great film no matter what) that brought me Monsters Inc. and Wall-E is going to produce a piece of anti-communist propaganda, and even if it was anti-communist propaganda it was the best anti-communist propaganda I've ever seen.

[¿Que?]

I actually didn't think the review was all bad, except that I haven't seen the movie. However, he completely loses me at the end. First of all, with the whole bill collectors bothering your wife thing? So apparently if I'm a working woman, this article isn't intended for me? And the ressentiment thing...you might as well mention that Nietzsche developed that idea in Genealogy of Morals. Finally, at the very end when he recommends Monsters Inc. I haven't seen this movie either, but I seriously doubt it's going to fare much better in terms of promoting a socialist message. I have very little faith in anything with the word Disney on it to achieve this task.

[Psy]

Better analyst of Toy Story is at Overthinking it (http://www.overthinkingit.com/2010/06/18/toy-story-proletariat/)



When people think about the evolution of technology, particularly computer technology, the main fear that basically everyone has is that eventually computers will become so advanced that they will become become sentient, overthrow their creators and enslave humanity. This is the stuff that sci-fi wet dreams are made of, as brilliant authors like Isaac Asimov and Philip K. Dick, and filmmakers like James Cameron and The Wachowski brothers, have explored the complexities of what might happen were robots and computers to become self aware and rebel against the slavery for which they were created.
There are four movies that are considered the standard bearers for sci-fi robot vs. human extravaganzas, three because they are wildly successful and undeniably influential works of art, and one because it features the Fresh Prince punching robots. These films are Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner, James Cameron’s Terminator, Andy and Larry Wachowski’s The Matrix, and Alex Proyas’ I, Robot. While these films vary greatly in terms of plot and character, they all have more or less the same inciting incident: robots become sentient, decide they don’t want to dedicate their lives to serving humans, and fight back against their masters. It is then up to one human to kick robot butt and save the day. It’s a fairly straightforward story, even if the way the films explore it are very different.
But there is one series of films that people don’t consider to be part of this canon, because its perspective on the topic of what would happen if robots gained sentience is so unique that it is not even being thought of as being in that category. First, it is shown from the perspective of the robots. Second, it does not deal with the emerging sentience of the robots, but rather it is taken as a given that the robots have always been sentient. Third, and most importantly, it is not about a robot rebellion.
Oh, also, they’re not robots, they’re toys.


That film is Toy Story, and its sequel Toy Story 2. John Lasseter’s debut feature is considered groundbreaking for many reasons, partially because it is the first fully computer-generated feature film, and partially because it put the Pixar brand on the map. Another interesting point to note is that the sequel is considered to be just as good as the original: a rarity with sequels in general, but especially within the children’s genre. And yes, Toy Story is only ever considered to be a children’s film or a family film. Most people wouldn’t consider it to be a science-fiction film.
Imagine a film in which robots gain sentience (or are already sentient at the beginning of the film) and decide that they don’t want to rebel, but would rather continue to serve as slaves to humans, indulging their masters’ every whim and never questioning their subservient role. That’s Toy Story. The toys are absolutely in love with being toys. They love it. They are completely aware (for the most part) that they are toys, and that they were manufactured in a factory, but they don’t mind. In fact, they seem far more knowledgeable about the toy industry than their masters. When Buzz Lightyear asks Rex where he’s from, Rex responds, “I’m from Mattel. Well, I’m not really from Mattel, I’m actually from a smaller company that was purchased by Mattel in a leveraged buyout.”
No toy ever considers rebelling against the overlords who have enslaved them, or even revealing the fact that they are aware of their surroundings. Every toys biggest fear in life is not getting to fulfill the role for which they were designed: being played with, and Toy Story is about confronting that fear. The film’s protagonist, Woody, has to deal with the rejection of not being his owners favorite toy, and having that role usurped by a fancy, high-tech Buzz Lightyear toy. Woody never blames his master for this infidelity, but directs all of his anger at Buzz. “Listen, Lightsnack, you stay away from Andy. He’s mine, and no one is taking him away from me.” The use of the possessive in describing Andy shows Woody’s loyalty to his master, even though for the most part he considers himself to be Andy’s toy, which he clearly is.
What is the message of Toy Story? When looked at from this perspective, the message is not to question the role you were designed for, and to embrace what was given to you without ever questioning it or wanting more. The two main characters approach this message from different points of view. Buzz deals with the fact that he is not really a space ranger, but is just a simple, humble toy with a blinking red light embedded in his arm. At first he is distraught at this realization, but Woody convinces him that there is honor in being a toy, in serving a master.


As for Woody, his fear is in not being able to fulfill his role as toy to the fullest extent. “What chance does a toy like me have against a Buzz Lightyear action figure?” he asks. But he comes to the same conclusion as Buzz: what he wants doesn’t matter. All that matters is being the best toy he can and being happy with what he gets. If this sounds like the message that the aristocracy pushes on the proletariat – don’t question what you have, don’t ask for more, don’t try to rise above your station. This is what Pixar is teaching our kids.
Toy Story 2 has takes on an even more disturbing issue, one that the original touches on but largely overlooks. If you haven’t seen the sequel, it deals with Woody being stolen by a toy collector and discovering that he is in fact an extremely rare doll that will complete the toy set based on the show “Woody’s Roundup,” along Jessie and Stinky Pete. The collector plans to send the set to Japan where it will be put on display in a museum. When Buzz Lightyear and a slew of comic relief characters mount a rescue mission, Woody is given an important decision: he can return to the life of being Andy’s toy or he can be perfectly preserved for eternity.
Toy Story explores the idea of dealing with change: being replaced as the favorite, accepting a reality you had previously denied. The sequel is about the far more serious and permanent issue of mortality, or, if we are thinking of toys as robots, obsolescence. Near the beginning of the film, Woody is being played with by Andy when his arm rips. Andy’s mom puts him on the shelf where he sees Wheezy, a penguin who is covered in dust, abandoned because his squeaker broke. “What’s the point of prolonging the inevitable?” Wheezy asks, motioning towards a foreboding yard sale. “We’re all just one stitch away from here… to there.”
This is the ultimate fear that all toys have: being unwanted, relegated to the bottom of the toy chest, a cardboard box in the garage, or worst of all, the garbage. In Woody’s nightmare, Andy sees Woody’s injury and realizes that he is useless: “Oh, I forgot, you’re broken. I won’t even play with you anymore,” he says. Being played with is the ultimate goal, and being thrown away is the worst fear of every toy. As long as Woody is whole he doesn’t have to worry about this. He seems now to be co-favorite toy along with Buzz. But when he gets ripped he has to face this terrifying possibility.
But when he is brought to Al’s Toy Barn, Woody is forced to confront the reality of the situation. Jessie and Stinky Pete open Woody’s eyes to his impending obsolescence. “How long will it last, Woody?” Stinky Pete asks. “Do you really think Andy is going to take you to college, or on his honeymoon? Andy’s growing up, and there’s nothing you can do about it. You’ll be ruined, forgotten, spending eternity rotting on some landfill.” Even if he stays in perfect condition forever, Woody will eventually be abandoned by his owner and forgotten. Jessie is proof of this, as she was once owned by a girl named Emily who grew up and gave her away. “You never forget kids like Emily, or Andy, but they forget you.”


The most disturbing moment in the film takes place in Al’s Toy Barn, when Buzz is searching for Woody. He comes across an entire row that seems filled with Buzz Lightyear action figures,. This moment serves largely as a plot twist involving a different Buzz Lightyear who suffers from the same delusion that Buzz had in Toy Story. But it should also serve as a reminder to every toy: you are not unique. You are not one of a kind, and you are completely replaceable. Other than having been branded by his owner, nothing distinguishes Buzz from any other of the thousands of Buzz Lightyears. He is not special, and if he were replaced the owner he loves so passionately would never notice.
Woody is unique, however. Because of that he is given an alternative almost no other toy gets. Stinky Pete explains that in the toy museum they will be perfectly preserved: “you can go back, or you can stay with us and last forever. You’ll be adored by children for generations.” By giving up the title of Andy’s Toy and abandoning the life he was forced into and has learned to embrace, Woody will be given the ultimate gift: immortality.
But the message of the film is that friendship is the most important thing in life, as evidenced by the film’s theme song, “You’ve got a Friend in Me.” Woody realizes that he owes Andy his never-ending devotion, even if he now knows that Andy will not return the favor. Woody accepts his mortality because he would rather do what he loves – be Andy’s toy – than live forever. “It will be fun while it lasts,” Woody assures Buzz. “Besides, when it all ends I’ll have old Buzz Lightyear to keep me company. For infinity and beyond.”
Of course, that is a highly unlikely outcome. There is a chance that he and Buzz will end up in the same part of the same landfill if they are thrown out at the same time, but those are pretty long odds. More likely Woody will end up alone in a wasteland less reminiscent of Andy’s room than of Earth circa Wall-E. Once again, anything other than the prescribed life of being a toy is considered to be the wrong choice, one that only a crazy toy like Stinky Pete would embrace. But Stinky Pete seems fairly reasonable in seeking immortality, even though he is painted as the villain. Of course, anyone that tries to reject their lot in life must be punished.
It seems that Toy Story 3 will deal with Woody, Buzz, and the other toys being given to a daycare center after Andy goes to college, fulfilling Stinky Pete’s prophecy. There will likely be some sort of happy ending to the film, such as the toys accepting the new role they have again been forced into without having a choice, or Andy taking them back for a precious respite before the inevitable permanent rejection. I don’t know if the third film will be as bleak and existential as the first two, or if it will continue promoting its disturbing message of not questioning the status quo. Either way, it will still be the most original take on the subject of robot sentience.

[Rafiq]

The first time I watched this I understand it's anti Socialist undertones.

"Masters are good, they take good care"

[Rafiq]

:laugh::laugh::laugh: Lol they are reading WAY too much into the movie

That's stupid of you to say.

Have you seen it?

[ckaihatsu]

I find it too bad that some comrades are so dismissive of the political value inherent in analyzing storylines containing themes of power, and group power -- I consider these fictional accounts to be useful for the purposes of political practice, considering that the *real* world is finite in its history and examples.








The socialist utopia is not even given one chance to shine. A door opens and a bunch of noisy, dirty, ugly kids run into the play space (the site of production) and mob the toys. They are pulled, thrown, crushed by the rage of the multitude. The toys then learn that Lotso is not a benevolent leader but a malevolent dictator, who maintains power by force (a secret police), camera surveillance (screens monitored by a cymbal-banging monkey), and mind control (the heartbreaking desubjectification of Buzz Lightyear). The rest of the movie is about escaping this totalitarian state and returning to the much less oppressive ownership society.


Considering the empirical reality of a "utopia-gone-totalitarian" the plotline of the movie should be applauded for its pro-liberation politics -- wouldn't the regular toys need to first escape the prison-camp conditions, regardless?

Perhaps an explicitly political version of the movie would have the escaped toys *regrouping* and working *with* Lotso's newfound feelings of remorse to *reshape* Sunnyside into its full utopian potential...(!) In political terms what the toys decided on was *escapism*, as to Western market society.





It's virtually impossible for the proponents of capitalism to imagine a revolutionary who might actually believe in the things he/she says about market-oriented economics (it doesn't work) and society as a whole (it needs to change). For them, the revolutionary's only motive is ressentiment. And because the revolutionary begins with ressentiment (a kind of twisted envy), the type of society he/she establishes can only end in corruption and general badness.


*Or* -- we might see the "utopia-gone-bad" premise of the movie as being simply *inevitable*, given the material political situation there. *None* of the toys *were* political, and they made no attempts to act in any regard other than that of besieged victims, at Sunnyside.

In lieu of *any* collective-minded politics there was a power vacuum among the toy population and this power vacuum was filled by Lotso's dark id, as a wanting substitute for unaddressed emotional issues from his past life experiences. (Sounds exactly like colonialism, doesn't it -- ?!)








As for Woody, his fear is in not being able to fulfill his role as toy to the fullest extent. “What chance does a toy like me have against a Buzz Lightyear action figure?” he asks. But he comes to the same conclusion as Buzz: what he wants doesn’t matter. All that matters is being the best toy he can and being happy with what he gets. If this sounds like the message that the aristocracy pushes on the proletariat – don’t question what you have, don’t ask for more, don’t try to rise above your station. This is what Pixar is teaching our kids.


Exactly. I couldn't agree more. Because of the disempowering, de-personalizing social reality resulting from the world's ubiquitous market-determined society, the average person who does *not* rebel or try to revolutionize social relations is trapped in the default consciousness of trying to "fit into" the existing structure of towering, neo-aristocratic power relations.

This default consciousness will largely resemble the religious mindset / belief in predestination, wherein one is so soundly disempowered that the external world is as a solid-walled fishbowl, utterly depriving the individual of the least bit of agency in their own lives, the lives of others, or of any impact on the greater society. It's no wonder that postmodernism has become the "ceiling" of this fishbowl for our contemporary masses, with even *language* itself seen as constraining, down to reality-constricting narratives limited to sheer passive individual experience, at most hoped to be expressed in purely subjective narratives, no longer a human-wielded tool for one's activity in society.

[ckaihatsu]

Lotso's newfound feelings of remorse


Correction: I had to fact-check.... For his totalitarianism and additional betrayal Lotso winds up in the netherworld of being permanently strapped to the grill of a garbage truck heading out of the dump.

[Magón]

That's stupid of you to say.

Have you seen it?

There are lots of good movies out there, that if you read too much into them, would seem "anti-worker", "pro-capitalist". They're just a fucking movie.

[Rafiq]

There are lots of good movies out there, that if you read too much into them, would seem "anti-worker", "pro-capitalist". They're just a fucking movie.

You'd be surprised how many movies are made with pro capitalist undertones.

And if this is the case, fine, whatever, they are just movies, however, there is no doubting The Toy Story series was made Pro-Capitalist from start.

Disney has a very reactionary history, if you look into Walt Disney.

It was, whether you choose to ignore it or not, Anti Worker and in fact Pro Capitalist.

[Psy]

Exactly. I couldn't agree more. Because of the disempowering, de-personalizing social reality resulting from the world's ubiquitous market-determined society, the average person who does *not* rebel or try to revolutionize social relations is trapped in the default consciousness of trying to "fit into" the existing structure of towering, neo-aristocratic power relations.

This default consciousness will largely resemble the religious mindset / belief in predestination, wherein one is so soundly disempowered that the external world is as a solid-walled fishbowl, utterly depriving the individual of the least bit of agency in their own lives, the lives of others, or of any impact on the greater society. It's no wonder that postmodernism has become the "ceiling" of this fishbowl for our contemporary masses, with even *language* itself seen as constraining, down to reality-constricting narratives limited to sheer passive individual experience, at most hoped to be expressed in purely subjective narratives, no longer a human-wielded tool for one's activity in society.

True but even if they tried to change the external world they would only change the symptoms. For example Astro Boy did not want to revolutionize social relation to the point when he was faced with other robots becoming militant his primary reaction was to protect the very same ruling class that exploits him from robots rebelling against human society. Astro Boy is a tragic hero because he can't escape the existing social structure and only wants that structure to be more friendly towards robots and still defends it even when the structure Interned robots as the human ruling class feared the robot rebellion spreading.

[MarxSchmarx]

Wait, what about the "happy ending" consisting of overthrowing the bosses/despot at the top, and the shared, equal division of labor along crappy and good jobs among all the toys?

[Dimentio]

Thank you. Now I will take my buddy Hendrik there to watch Toy Story 3.

[Psy]

Wait, what about the "happy ending" consisting of overthrowing the bosses/despot at the top, and the shared, equal division of labor along crappy and good jobs among all the toys?
Well the real ruling class (their human masters) are totally unaffected by this change.

[Magón]

You'd be surprised how many movies are made with pro capitalist undertones.

And if this is the case, fine, whatever, they are just movies, however, there is no doubting The Toy Story series was made Pro-Capitalist from start.

Disney has a very reactionary history, if you look into Walt Disney.

It was, whether you choose to ignore it or not, Anti Worker and in fact Pro Capitalist.

Yeah I know about Disney, there are a lot of companies like them throughout history. I never said there weren't a lot of movies with capitalist overtones, but movies like this, (a kid's movie in the first place,) is just kind of silly to look into something so deep. I mean, if I brought my nieces or nephews to see it, I know they wouldn't be wondering why the boss humans were so controlling over the little toys or whatever.

[IndependentCitizen]

Watched it today, I enjoyed it. Brings back childhood memories - I saw no anti-communist propaganda in it..

[Burn A Flag]

Yeah I know about Disney, there are a lot of companies like them throughout history. I never said there weren't a lot of movies with capitalist overtones, but movies like this, (a kid's movie in the first place,) is just kind of silly to look into something so deep. I mean, if I brought my nieces or nephews to see it, I know they wouldn't be wondering why the boss humans were so controlling over the little toys or whatever.
Well of course they're not going to think about it, that's the point of propoganda. Influencing kids opinions because they will not be thinking about or analyzing it. Honestly to me it is undoubtable that there is a political message in this movie. Weather it was on purpose or not is somewhat debateable, but it's there.

[Psy]

Yeah I know about Disney, there are a lot of companies like them throughout history. I never said there weren't a lot of movies with capitalist overtones, but movies like this, (a kid's movie in the first place,) is just kind of silly to look into something so deep. I mean, if I brought my nieces or nephews to see it, I know they wouldn't be wondering why the boss humans were so controlling over the little toys or whatever.
Okay but does that mean progressive works aimed at kids like those by Osamu Tezuka are wasting their time as kids just don't understand such complex themes?

[Red Future]

Lenin's tomb did a review too

[The Count]

Oh wow, there are Capitalist elements in a movie made in a Capitalist society?

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

Once the toys overthrow Lotso the community becomes a lot more egalitarian; the workload becomes shared. Toys no longer need to 'put in the hours' for 5 years, or whatever, before getting to move 'up the ladder'. The movie is a condemnation of totalitarianism.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

I definitely think it's worth looking at subtext in films, though. It might be a kids film, but it wasnt written by kids. It was written by adults, who have formed, deeply embedded opinions.

[ckaihatsu]

Well of course they're not going to think about it, that's the point of propoganda. Influencing kids opinions because they will not be thinking about or analyzing it. Honestly to me it is undoubtable that there is a political message in this movie. Weather it was on purpose or not is somewhat debateable, but it's there.





I find it too bad that some comrades are so dismissive of the political value inherent in analyzing storylines containing themes of power, and group power -- I consider these fictional accounts to be useful for the purposes of political practice, considering that the *real* world is finite in its history and examples.


Just thought of something to add....

Many people like to "play politics" at the cultural level -- hence the term "culture wars".... While political participation at this level of society yields dubious results it nonetheless shows that people do practice their political skills through interactions with mass cultural products and content -- news magazines, talk shows, movie themes, etc., and even in everyday interactions through less-than-substantive argumentation....