
The Political Philosophy of Toy Story 3 (spoiler included) - wglb
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/toystory3pol
======
siglesias
With all respect to Mr. Swartz, I find it hard to fit the world of Toy Story,
broadly speaking, into a widely-stretched political framework, although it is
a thoughtful and fun read. Here's how I differ in my read of TS3.

Swartz starts by connecting the dynamic between Andy and Woody & company to
feudalism, which is tempting at first glance (because loyalty is at play), but
upon closer scrutiny there is no economic exchange or significant obligations
to the "loyalty" apart from merely being present as a toy. Instead of the toy-
master arrangement being one of servitude, indentured labor, or military
obligation, the duty of the toy is in fact inverted from any such duty: they
simply have to "be," which doesn't require any work. The toys' purpose is
pure: to love and to be loved. The relationship forces us to ponder how we
relate to the non-human things around us: our iPods, the planet, animals--how
we form relationships with objects, and what consequences arise, both within
our minds and out in the physical world, from our regard (or disregard) for
those objects. That there is an unconditional dominance of the toys by humans
is granted, and, in the conceit of the films (with the exception of the moment
with Cid in TS1), immutable.

Sunnyside Daycare, however, IS rife with political undercurrent (as it relates
a power dynamic unto itself among the toys), but I disagree that it is being
presented as a "libertarian paradise" (if such a thing can even be said to be
possible). The reason, of course, is that there is a thinly veiled
communitarian, possibly communist sense of mutual obligation: that is, the
massage and sewing shops are exactly presented as examples of the ways in
which the toys in this community are meant to "help" each other--self interest
is ostensibly not at play, not among the toys anyway. In any event, we see the
system quickly unveil itself as a totalitarian police state, with Lotso at the
top, and we see quickly how his oppression becomes untenable for Woody &
company after they attempt to exercise their option to leave. What ensues is a
classic depiction of imprisonment (creatively, in my opinion, the movie's
low), along with an interesting interlude that comically reexamines the sexual
power inversion that Barbie enacts over Ken to trump his military authority.

Bonnie's house doesn't in any substantive way represent a "mixed economy" but
instead represents a reincarnation of purpose for the toys once they've
exhausted their use to Andy. Bonnie is, simply put, a younger Andy, and along
with that represents a new abundance of love and time that will reinvigorate
the toys with a sense of purpose and belonging. The moment at the end of the
movie is the very profound recognition, via the transference of toys, that
youth, and with that life, is fleeting. Andy recognizes that the joyous youth
within himself hasn't died, but has merely been passed on to the very capable
Bonnie. With that there is a third layer of meaning, that many have picked up
on, that relates to the paternalistic relationships present both within the
movie and its audience.

With the advent (some would say inevitable advent) of consumerism, we have
become a more materialistic society, and we imbue meaning to more objects in
our lives than ever before. Toy Story forces us to examine how we distribute
our own sense of self worth, and, in many ways, pieces of our own identity
among the various artifacts strewn about our houses. Perhaps there is even a
subtle critique of this materialistic culture hidden somewhere in the Toy
Story franchise--do we think twice before we swap in our iPhones anymore for a
new model? Has society forced us to discard our regard of what we own in hopes
that we constantly sell on eBay, REown, and repeat? There's rife economic and
sociological commentary here: we all feel it. The political interlude, in my
opinion, while funny, isn't nearly as interesting as its relentless focusing
and refocusing on what we consider garbage, and why.

~~~
lionhearted
"We do not see the world as it is. We see the world as we are."

— The Talmud

------
theBobMcCormick
Having just come out of this movie a few hours ago, I feel confident in saying
that this is the most completely stupid, half-ass analysis Toy Story 3 you're
likely to read.

While you could reasonable make some political and economic analogies about
the conditions at Sunnydale, Andy's toys relationship to Andy isn't a feudal
master slave relationship, it's a _family_ relationship. The most WTF part is
claiming that Bonnies house is a "mixed economy". It's not. It's another
family. A _new_ version of what the toys had years ago with Andy.

~~~
bokonist
_Andy's toys relationship to Andy isn't a feudal master slave relationship,
it's a family relationship._

Of course that's exactly what a feudalist would say, now isn't it! Ever read a
defense of feudalism before? Check out Sir Robert Filmer's Patriacha from
1680: <http://www.constitution.org/eng/patriarcha.htm> According to a
feudalist, the feudal relationship is an extension of the family relationship.

------
jazzychad
Surely he means "Woody" in the first sentence, and not "Andy" - took me a
moment to parse his meaning until I decided it was a typo.

~~~
MartinCron
He had a similar Molly/Bonny mistake near the end of the article. It makes for
an odd mix of thoughtful and sloppy.

------
Lendal
"Libertarian dictatorship?" Hunh?

~~~
jerf
Looks like he may have fixed it, that phrase no longer appears.

------
zeynel1
if this interpretation is true it seems that disney is now making movies in
the style of -animal farm-

~~~
axod
I think it may be Pixars influence... Up! and Wall-e were both pretty adult
intellectual movies (yawn).

Hopefully Toy Story 3 has something for the kids as well (Haven't seen it
yet).

~~~
spicyj
It's somewhat of a kids' movie, but it's quite dark and might be scary for
younger kids. (Kind of like _The Lion King_ , which was also dark and scary.)

