The Hidden Story Behind Toy Story 3

After watching Toy Story 3, hearing reviews from friends, and reading several critical reviews of the film, I am stunned that much of the real story in Toy Story 3 has gone unnoticed. Underneath the bright colors, the funny lines, and the tear-jerking moments lies an existential tension that ultimately upholds a biting and deceptive nihilism that most audiences don't pick up on and if they did, would probably sour on the film. What am I talking about you ask? Lets dig a bit deeper.

SPOILER ALERT

Let's first get this out of the way; Toy Story 3 is a good film. The love from the writers and animators is clearly on display here, leading to a film that is equally parts funny, engrossing, and touching. Add on top of that continued great voice work, some fun new characters, and how could this film not be a success? While Toy Story 3 is clearly a winning film, there are a few issues that serve to limit this film (in many ways the series of films as well) for me, and it surprises me that many other critics and moviegoers don't seem to notice these issues as well.

The drama of the Toy Story Universe depends on its ability to create relatable situations between the toy subjects and the audience members. While there certainly are emotional points the audience can relate to within Toy Story 3, the overall dramatic issues are a failure as they fail to offer appropriately translatable situations for us, the audience. Toy Story 3's primary dramatic tension comes from Andy's growing older and no longer playing with his toys; he'll be going off to college by the end of the film. As such, the whole cast of toys has been getting neglected, thrown out, or donated. Our remaining cast of toys has to struggle with no longer being useful to their owner and eventually getting thrown into the trash, tossed in the attic, or donated to a daycare center. While it's a very relatable feeling to no longer feel wanted or used and indeed presents the audience with a similar existential crises, I don't think it becomes an appropriate tension for an audience to relate to.

Woody makes the argument early in the film that a toy's purpose is to be "there for Andy, whenever he needs them", basically saying that the purpose of life (for a toy) is to fulfill their role (being available to give joy to the kid) regardless of the circumstances (his seeming apathy and neglect). This makes things difficult for the audience because our purposes in life are very different. While Woody makes the argument that a toy's value comes in it's usefulness and acceptance by it's owner, that's a diametrically opposed value to what we feel humans have.

For instance, if something only has value because something outside of it finds it useful, attractive, fun, or whatever, then it has extrinsic value. Yet, most religions and the predominant culture of the day would argue that humans have intrinsic value. Meaning that we are valuable simply because of who we are and not based on anything outside us, say our family's love or our boyfriend's value of us. I would argue that this is the mindset the audience comes in with. It surprises me that the audience never picks up on the idea that the movie doesn't agree with that viewpoint. Woody makes this extrinsic argument in the beginning of the film (and in a way, the whole film series has been making it.)

You might say that this is just a beginning point for the film and that the theory undergoes change. Well, does it? By the end of the film, we find that the theme has gone from, "We are here for Andy" to "We are here for each other". This is told poignantly in a moment where our cast of toys embraces their seemingly inevitable fate of death (in a tear-jerking scene that would on its own stand as one of the best dramatic scenes of the year). However, has it changed our main issue of extrinsic versus intrinsic value? Unfortunately not, it's only multiplied it. Instead of finding one's value in the acceptance of the joy of it's owner, it's now about finding value in the acceptance of community. While it's true that genuine satisfaction comes from pleasing others and finding acceptance by others, should we be so comfortable with a film that makes it not a side-truth of our world, but 'the truth' of our world?

Ultimately what it comes down to is that Toy Story 3 is a nihilistic story at its heart, making it more akin to The Road, Up in the Air and No Country For Old Men than people would think. It's a story about beings who realize their ultimate purposelessness (Andy's growing indifference, toddler's mayhem, their fate being out of their hands, their ultimate fate at the dump), and must come to terms with creating value out of that world, where none exists. In this case, the value is family and staying together. There is nothing wrong with having a movie with this theme, however, it does strike me as odd that most people don't see it, or even know that it's going on.

I don't mind a nihilistic theme in a major release, but what I do mind are inconsistent themes of nihilism, which Toy Story 3 has in spades. As our film progresses, our characters ultimately catch onto tha "finding joy and purpose in their owner" is meaningless and changes their value to "finding joy and purpose in community". However, through some clever work by Woody (read writer manipulation), they are able to find a warm and caring owner again by the end. In essence, they are able to find a new Andy, one who takes care of them and looks after them. This is a lazy way to reward our characters and resolve a major worldview issue. Instead of our toys actually embracing and finding their fates as temporary passing objects of other's affections, they are rescued and sent into the hands of a new loving owner and community of toys.

One reviewer called this as close to 'religion' as a secular film gets, in remarking that there is an acceptance of mortality & purposelessness, but through the building of values they kind of find 're-birth' into a new world. I disagree. I think it's half-hearted nihilism. Here is the rub, if Andy can grow indifferent than so can their new owner. If Andy and the new owner can grow indifferent, then so can the other toys in their acceptance of each other. This is what the toys and the audience, after our experiences in this film should have learned. We shouldn't feel like the toys find a 'happily ever after', they have simply prolonged their fate, and allowed their value to come from community and the acceptance of an owner. What happens when this new owner tires of them? The film doesn't really want to embrace a nihilistic view of the world to it's end. It's more interested in a happy ending and a friendly loving community.

While the Toy Story 3 Universe may admit that these toys are just a piece of plastic meant to be thrown away when it's outlasted its usefulness, it ultimately doesn't treat them that way, because the audience wouldn't accept that. A brave film would've followed our heroes to their demise and to the triumph of its dramatic themes. Instead, the film stutters and panders not just to the audience, but more than likely to the half-hearted existential nihilism of the writers. It only makes me appreciate more the fully committed nihilism of a Charlie Kaufman, Cormac McCarthy, or Werner Herzog. They stare into the face of the abyss and come out changed, scared, and scarred. Our brave Toy Story characters stare into the face of the abyss and come out with smiles, hugs, laughs, and the welcoming arms of a re-born owner who lavishes attention, care, and love upon them. Something doesn't seem right here and I hope that audiences would take notice.

Sidenote: Does anyone else find it a little sad that rather than say goodbye to friends and family, Andy has to say goodbye to his 'good' friends Buzz and Woody? It's as if the film says that the best friend a boy could have are his toys. I'm all for creative play with toys, but shouldn't there be some balance with human interaction there? I just find the emphasis on the importance of toys (and the ungodly amount of toys) in a child's life to be a little scary.

Does Ebert Really Not Care About the Truth?

Recent release Green Zone scored a four star review from Roger Ebert today. While every man is entitled to his opinion of a film (I would never decry someone for 'feeling' a way about a film and isn't about it getting four stars), it's his shocking lack of concern for truth and even more shocking lack of objectivity that really caught my attention.

For those not in the know Green Zone is a war thriller about the early days of the Iraq War and one army chief's mission to uncover the truth about why the search for WMD's has come up empty. The film has come under fire from several places for it's fact twisting and simplifications. I have yet to see the film (will be watching it today) so I cannot comment on whether or not the allegations seem to be truthful. However, Eberts opening lines about Green Zone seem to indicate that he doesn't even care if the film is truthful or not, Ebert writes...

"Its message is that Iraq's fabled "weapons of mass destruction" did not exist, and that neocons within the administration fabricated them, lied about them and were ready to kill to cover up their deception. Is this true? I'm not here to say. It's certainly one more element in the new narrative that has gradually emerged about Iraq, the dawning realization that we went to war under false premises."

Where to begin? Is Ebert this willfully ignorant of recent history? Let me run down the issues with just these three points:

1) Ebert says the film claims that Iraq's 'weapons of mass destruction' were fabled and never existed. It was the neoconservatives who 'invented' the evidence as a pretense for war. Without going back into the whole Iraq war discussion, let me offer this

- It wasn't 'just' American intelligence who believed in Iraq's WMD, it was all the intelligence agencies of the western world, let alone Saddam's own people who thought he had them.
- U.N. Weapons Inspectors and Teams dating back to 1991 recorded and noted that WMD's were unnaccounted for and consistently desired to monitor and search for them
- Colin Powell (no NEOCON fanatic) became convinced of the evidence
- Nearly all the major players in Congress who say the same intelligence as Bush and the other allied nations believed Saddam to have WMDs.
- Many Generals within the U.S. Army and Iraqi Army believed many WMD's were destroyed or moved before the invasion

This is not me making a case FOR the war. This is me making the case that the film deceptively oversimplifies the issue, and does so with a partisan agenda. Of course, none of these things matter, because they don't fit the narrative that Ebert and revisionist critics believe.

2) "Is this true? I'm not here to say"

Ebert runs an end around the facts of the case by claiming that it's not relevant whether the history is true or not. Seriously? This film is meant to be a commentary on what happened in Iraq right? It's meant to be based upon a non-fictional account? I would surmise that it doesn't matter to Ebert because it fits his liberal narrative. I would guess (and I am speculating) that if the film had pressed the opposite case, that the evidence was a 'slam dunk' and that we were heroes in Iraq, then fact twisting would mean a lot more to him. This is more evident by third point...

3) "It's certainly one more element in the new narrative that has gradually emerged about Iraq, the dawning realization that we went to war under false premises"

Where has Ebert been since 2003? New narrative? Gradually emerged? Dawning realization? People were claiming Bush lied as early as the spring of 2003. It's been a constant drumbeat ever since and played pivotal roles in the 2004, 2008 elections. This line alone should be enough to caution anyone desiring to take his thoughts on the war seriously.

To straighten it out, Ebert says that the film claims 'Neocons' entirely fabricated the evidence for the Iraq War leading us there under deception. It's not for him to say whether or not it's true, but it's useful because it's an element that's emerging in our realization that we went to war under false premises? So, Ebert believes we went to war under false pretenses, this is fact for him. The films' claims, no matter if they are true or not, are important because they re-affirm what Ebert already believes?

This reminds me of an anecdote that the philosopher Peter Kreeft once told his class recounting that one student claimed it was okay to make any point they wanted because even if the point was inaccurate or unfactual, it at least stirred up a worthy debate. To that, one of Kreeft's other students replied, "Your mother is a whore!". The original student became offended, but the offendee replied, "I don't know if it's true or not, but it sure is a worthy debate!"

The sad part is, Ebert does buy this simplistic scapegoat crap about the Iraq War. No one claims there wasn't major failures in the run-up to the war and after the war. There were massive intelligence failures that could be explored insightfully and fruitfully. An excellent film could be made about the immediate failures after we entered Iraq, but it wouldn't be a black and white one; at least not an honest film.

None of this matters to Ebert and I think it's a shame. There are times when historical inaccuracies can be and should be overlooked, because of the larger themes and thrust of a film. A film like JFK can be enjoyed (even though it's tough) despite it's inaccuracies, mostly because that history is behind us, and the consequences of those inaccuracies only lead to simple disagreements, heated debates, or at the most conspiracy nuts.

This isn't the same with the Iraq War. We still have thousands of soldiers fighting in the that theater, let alone in Afghanistan. So much depends upon the successful outcome in Iraq and American's ability to operate there, that getting history correct or at least allowing the room for disagreement is important.

I'm not saying that these kind of films shouldn't be made because they are disloyal or would ruin our effort, people can make whatever film they want, it's a free country. I'm also not saying that Ebert can't have this opinion. What I do want to say is that I think both are dangerous to good political discourse and have the ability to only solidify in the minds of Americans and the world half-truths and myths, only obscuring further the real problems and issues that revolve around Iraq.

My view that Ebert is cleary easy on this film because of his liberal bias is only confirmed by his opening line, "Green Zone looks at an American war in a way almost no Hollywood movie ever has: We're not the heroes, but the dupes." Only someone with blinders on couldn't see that Hollywood puts out plenty of movies like this. Not being able to see that Green Zone fits comfortably within a whole line of films critical of American's role in Iraq (let alone several of the Vietnam flicks), makes me believe Ebert has lost his sense of objectivity.

We all have our subjective bias. We all lean toward narratives that fit our current worldviews. However, isn't one the essential parts of being a cultured and learned person being able to retain objectivity and openness, especially to those things that don't seem to fit our current worldview? Ebert's contention that Green Zone is a rare breed of war film is so glaringly untrue that I wonder whether Ebert cares that he's lost his ability to see past his own worldview. Or worse, that he even knows.