[On April 17th,
1937, Daffy Duck made his debut, in the Warner Brothers cartoon “Porky’s Duck Hunt.” In
honor of that foul-tempered feathered friend, this week I’ll AmericanStudy five
animated histories. Share your thoughts on them, on Daffy, or on animation or
cartoons of any kind for a weekend post that’s sure to draw a crowd!]
On consumerism,
childhood, and contradiction. [Some SPOILERS for The Lego Movie follow.]
I’m sure there
was some golden age when children’s cartoons weren’t directly tied into toys
and other consumer products—but not so by my childhood, when I could play with
my He-Man or G.I. Joe or Transformers figures
while watching their TV shows and movies, when my younger sister could do the same
with her My Little Ponies
or Care Bears, and
when one of my favorite
Saturday morning cartoons featured the exploits of a line of candy bears
one could eat while watching their adventures (although that act of borderline
cannibalism did always feel wrong to this young AmericanStudier). Indeed, in
all of those cases (I believe) the toys or products preceded the animated shows
and films, making the cultural works entirely inseparable from (if not simply a
merchandising arm of) the consumer products. Which is to say, such synergies
have been central to the experiences of American childhood for at least a few
decades (and didn’t turn me into some sort of capitalist automaton, at least
not to my knowledge).
On the other
hand, even within that long history The Lego Movie (2014) could be seen as representing a new level
of consumer culture. I refuse either to capitalize lego or to put the trademark
symbol after it, but both are part of the film’s title, revealing just how
fully the movie is a product of, well, a product. I was in a Lego Store with my
boys before the film’s release, and even then a substantial percentage of the
products for sale were direct movie tie-ins; I know from experience (what can I
say, I spend a lot of time in toy stores) that the
merchandising only ramped up in the weeks, months, and years since. Given
that the film’s ultimate themes include both an emphasis on imaginative play
that refuses to “follow directions” and a direct critique of corporate culture
and conformity (in the form of the film’s villain, Lord Business), such
consumer connections seem hugely ironic and even hypocritical, a position at
the heart of Anthony
Lane’s pointed review of the film in The
New Yorker.
I take that
point, but would push back on it to a degree as well. After all, a great deal
of childhood, now as ever, is defined precisely by contradictions: between
dependence and independence, safety and adventure, rules and fun, and, yes,
consumerist conformity and imaginative inspiration. Which is to say, the
presence of such contradictions in a film, as in any area of life, does not
necessarily reflect hypocrisy so much as simply inevitable reality. The Lego Movie is a two-hour sales
pitch; it’s also an imaginative, engaging, and effective story. My boys saw it
and wanted to own some of the Lego products it includes; they also came out
talking about its themes, about why it was important for the protagonists (both
lego and human, although I won’t spoil it further than that) to break from the
tyranny of conformity and Business and find their own path. I can’t say for
sure which end of those spectrums was or is more influential, no more than I
can say if my boys’ video game playing is more meaningful to their young lives
or future development than our nightly chapter book reading. It’s all part of
the childhood and cultural mix, and The
Lego Movie is both a troubling and a thoughtful contribution to that mix as
well.
Crowd-sourced
post this weekend,
Ben
PS. So one more
time: what do you think? Other animation or cartoon thoughts you’d share?
No comments:
Post a Comment