Not having children in the 1990s, I looked down with
complete disdain at kid’s movies. Or, actually, I didn’t look at them at all,
but I’m sure I would have shown some sort of snickering adolescent attitude
towards them, and covered it up with a buncha five dollar words.
Now, of course, I am immersed in children’s movies, videos,
tv shows, and general Youtubealia. Which brought me with a bump of recognition
to Toy Story 2. I promised Adam we’d watch it, and we did, Saturday.
It surprised me. Talk about a savage attack on
capitalism! For those who haven’t seen
it, the toys are dream figures of the proletariat. On the one hand, for
capital, represented in the movie as white kids and parents, toys are lifeless.
Whenever the gaze of some parent or adult is present, the toys fall into a dead
faint, in poses characteristic of toys that are scattered across the floor on a
Saturday evening (insert here picture of our floor after Adam has finished with
it). In reality, though, they have a separate life of their own, a life of
precarious solidarity. Yet that toy life
is riven by the attitude towards Capital.
Interestingly, in the 90s, the upper administration decided
that the work force needed the inspiration of new age therapies and Harvard
business school lingo to “incentivize” them. In the Working Life, Joanne Ciulla cits a study
which polled managers about the most
efficient incentives for building employee commitment: "The researchers
found that most senior managers believed that celebrations and ceremonies and
non-cash recognition were the best incentives for non-managers... But for
senior managers, they responded that the best incentive was cash rewards tied
to quality performance." The heartbreaking thing about celebrations and
ceremonies is that they substitute for an intangible yet evident cure for
alienation that long frustrated Marxists in the 20th century: employees
really do become loyal to their companies.
As witness the phenomenon of 401ks, in which employees, given choices to
invest across the spectrum, have a distinct preference for investing in the
companies they work for – in touching contradistinction from their CEOs, who as
often invest betting against their companies, if they aren’t loading them up
with debt in order to LBO them. Similarly, the toys confess to each other that
when they are selected by the kids, when they are “loved”, they feel alive. Of
course, the only time they are alive is when they are with other toys. Such are
the cultural contradictions of late capitalism.
Two sequences in particular have a startling realism. In one
of them, Woody the cowboy toy is torn by his “owner” – in much the way say Monsanto
carelessly poisoned its asbestos workers, then sold that division to
haliburton. Woody’s owner is bummed about the torn arm: he drops Woody to the
floor, and all sick at heart, leaves him behind as he goes to Cowboy camp.
Which, it is easy to see, represents Davos. Woody, falling asleep, has a
terrible dream in which his owner – Capital – tosses him in the garbage, along
with all the other wounded toys, who drag him under as he is calling to his
owner. Of course, here, in living color, is the whole reserve army of the
unemployed, demonized by Capital and viewed
with loathing by the same workers who are simply a drop away – a profit loss
away, or an “efficiency” away – from joining them.
The second sequence even gets a song. Here, the gender note
is struck. Jessie the cowgirl lived in perfect love and harmony with her owner,
Emily. Obviously, she thought of them as bound up forever, such is the burden
of the song. But Emily turns out to be intent on cracking that glass ceiling.
Yes! Instead of shaking up the patriarchal order, she’ll simply assume a higher
function in it and pretend that this is equivalent to shaking up the
patriarchal order. In order to make cruelly clear how this works, Emily doesn’t
just throw Jessie away – she stores her in a box labelled “donations”. Of
course, it is a good work, giving little Jessie to charity. One imagines Jessie
will be one of the lucky “poor” people uplifted by our trade treaties so that
she can go to a dangerous factory, work 16 hours a day for 18 cents an hour,
and whip inflation now in these here states. This sequence is such a painfully
accurate satire of Clintonism that I am surprised the film made it past Pixar’s
censors.
When the film was over, Adam pronounced it his favorite movie.
Mine too, for the moment.
1 comment:
prof premraj pushpakaran writes -- 2018 marks the 200th birth year of Karl Heinrich Marx!!!
Post a Comment