Toy Story 3 and the Afterlife

Don't read this if you haven't seen the movie. This is SPOILERIFIC. Go see the movie now. It is awesome. Then come back and read this.

Pixar's latest film is an astoundingly good meditation on death and the afterlife... with toys. Through the course of the movie the protagonists confront or consider a variety of possible scenarios for what fate awaits them. Most interestingly the movie has a clear hierarchy for which possibilities are the best and worst.

At the beginning of the movie we know already that Andy, the owner of Buzz and Woody and friends is going to college. The toys make a last ditch attempt to get him to play with them, but when it fails they resign themselves to the fact that their life as Andy's toys is over. This is death. The movie takes it for granted from the get go. There is no question whether the toys will "die". The question is what awaits them afterward. We are presented with 5 options in order from the worst to the best:

#5 - Annihilation. The worst possible fate awaiting the toys after the end of their life with Andy is total annihilation according to Pixar. At the genuinely terrifying climax of the movie the toys are in the furnace at the landfill unable to escape and on the absolute brink of being melted down. The scene is presented in such a bleak way that I was actually convinced Disney would allow children to watch their favorite animated toys get obliterated against all meta-film logic. Amazing storytelling and a sublime example of eucatastrophe let you know that this is not the option the writers choose for their characters. Beyond the furnace there is nothing. They could have chosen to show melted plastic being recycled and include reincarnation among their possible afterlifes but in the film the fire is just a full stop. It is fascinating that this was the worst fate in the writer's minds because it is one that a growing number of atheists are perfectly comfortable with.

#4 - Hell. Not as extreme as annihilation, but almost as bad is Hell, which in this case takes the shape of a daycare/gulag run by an evil pink teddy bear. The toys are imprisoned and tortured by having their joys turned into nightmares and their identities robbed (in the case of Buzz Lightyear). Interestingly, hell itself offers a choice of destinations. The destiny of most toys in hell is to become trash and be annihilated. The only way to avoid ending up at number 5 is to become the jailers and imprison and torture other toys. Staying in hell means becoming Satan.

#3 - Purgatory. Initially the toys were going to be put in a box in the attic awaiting an unknown future. There is some hope, "Andy might have kids of his own one day," but no certainty - they could still end up getting sent to hell (donated) or annihilated (thrown away). Purgatory is not as good as life, even Woody who gets to go to the nice purgatory (college) has to leave his friends, and none of them get to do what they feel is their purpose: be played with by Andy. After facing Hell and Annihilation the toys decide that purgatory looks like an acceptable fate, because they can't imagine better... yet.

#2 - Heaven. The evil pink teddy bear steps over the line and is tossed out of Hell by his own lackeys. What happens then is pretty profound - Sunnyside Daycare become the Toy Story version of Heaven. This is a place toys go when they die, but instead of a gulag where they are tortured, it is a place where they are cared for and made whole. According to Pixar heaven and hell are the same place and even all the people are the same. The only difference? How they treat each other. As good as heaven is though, this is not the fate that the writer's chose for their characters. Woody envisions something even better...

#1 Resurrection. The toys end up handed down, by Andy to a young girl who he trusts to take good care of them. Andy hands each of them over, relinquishing ownership by telling their story one by one to the girl who takes them with gratitude. The difference between this and heaven is that it is not an escape from the world. The toys remain in the world for which they were created, to be owned and loved by a kid. Escape from this world isn't desirable, even to go to a nice-seeming place like heaven, because this is the world God created and loved. The toys wave goodbye to Andy who is moving on to a new life of his own while Woody, Buzz, and the gang look astounded at having been given a fresh beginning. The best of all possibilities for life after death, according to Pixar, is to rise again; to be gifted a first day, after our last.

A-Team & Gandhi

I saw the A-Team movie today. I needed some flat-out escapism after Synod and the summer season offered plenty of choices, but this movie was at the best time for me so I grabbed my ticket and sat down. For the most part it delivered what I wanted. It was fun. It was ridiculous. I actually chuckled aloud in boyish glee at the parachuting tank scene. So I got my money's worth.

But one thing in the film begs to be called out for sheer idiocy. B.A. Baracus experiences a vague conversion while he is in prison and talks about being unwilling (unable?) to kill. This sets up his character's shallow character arc in which he goes from badass Army Ranger to whiny pacifist to badass mercenary outlaw. The entire thing is set up as a foregone conclusion that he will remember that he is a meathead whose purpose in life is killing badguys at the dramatic climax. His transformation is symbolized by his mohawk, which he shuns for the 2nd act of the movie in his pacifist stage, but is back for the thrilling reveal when he murders the villain. Like Samson his mojo is in his hair.

The worst moment in this bad idea of a subplot is when he trades Gandhi quotes with Colonel Hannibal. Baracus asks Hannibal if he knows who said, "Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary." Hannibal does of course and shoots back, but Gandhi also said, "It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence." He then uses that quote to urge Baracus to get back to killing people, because that is what Gandhi would do. Obviously.

It's depressingly ironic that Gandhi would be so badly misused. Hannibal's quote was cut off. It continues, "Violence is any day preferable to impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." Gandhi then of course went about demonstrating in his life the conclusive superiority of non-violence to violence, which is the opposite of impotence and cowardice which is what is implied about Baracus during his pacifist phase in the movie.

The movie thoroughly fails to grasp Satya-Graha, Gandhi, or non-violence, which I suppose is fine for a summer blockbuster. I went in there looking for explosions and I found them. I just wish they hadn't thrust this clumsy, ugly sub-plot in the middle.

The completion of the ironic reversal is in the ending of the movie. The A-Team fails to get their name cleared and their elaborate scheme is completely undone in a matter of moments by corrupt government agents. They find themselves once more fugitives, arguably worse off than they were before, yet the movie shows no hint of awareness that the quote Baracus pulled from Gandhi had actually been prophecy. "Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary." Everything Baracus gained by going back to his violent ways was actually a loss in disguise, and it will continue that way until he realizes that violence is nothing more than a slightly higher form of impotence. Like the movie, violence is all flash and no substance.

Politics in Avatar

I am perhaps that last person in the country to see James Cameron's Avatar in 3D. I enjoyed it immensely. It was, in my opinion, a very good movie. No it was not as profound or subtle as Up In The Air, which I saw the same day, but it was a very different kind of movie. I went to be entertained, and boy was I, but I was also amazed, and transported. Avatar accomplishes exactly what it sets out to and that is high praise.

Some critics complained about the script. They're wrong. A movie like Avatar needs a simple workmanlike script. It wasn't dazzling dialogue, but dazzling dialogue would have gotten in the way of the immersive experience. Some critics complained about the acting. They're wrong. Like the script, the acting was serviceable. The actors needed to disappear behind the drama and the effects for this movie and they did that well without being wooden.

But more than these complaints I heard a bunch of complaints about the politics of the movie. Criticism hit Avatar from both the Left and the Right. The left didn't like the depiction of the Na'vi or the fact that they were 'saved' by a white man. The right didn't like the fact that humans were depicted as immoral colonialists. Both sides were straining out gnats to swallow camels in my opinion. There is something I would criticize about the movie, much bigger than either of those complaints. I'll deal with them in order.

Liberal Criticisms
I've heard Avatar compared to Pocahontas and Dances with Wolves every 30 seconds since the film came out. According to many liberals out there James Cameron is rehashing a tired Hollywood cliche about a white guy who "goes native" and then fights with the natives against his own people (see The Last Samurai). This cliche is insulting to indigenous peoples who are often portrayed stereotypically (even if the stereotype is a good one) and who, furthermore, don't need more white saviors - they've had quite enough thank you very much.

Basically this criticism is true. This is a Hollywood cliche and it is racist and demeaning. James Cameron does indulge in it to a certain extent as well.

But the criticism is way overblown in the case of Avatar. First, the movie is science fiction. These are not any historical indigenous people. They are similar to several cultures superficially, but also substantially different. There just isn't enough real substance here to make a clear and damning comparison. Secondly, the white savior in this case actually becomes a native, and saves the natives using their tools, their culture, their God. Third, and most importantly, James Cameron is a white guy. He can only make movies as a white guy, and I think this represents a pretty decent effort at moral imagination from a white perspective on issues of colonization and indigenous peoples. What we need are more filmmakers from indigenous cultures to tell their own story.

Conservative Criticisms
Avatar is full of hippy-environmentalist, anti-American, anti-military bullshit. The badguys in the movie are all military and corporate people. The good guys are scientists and naked blue people who are "in-touch with nature". They even use the phrase "shock and awe". It is just a bunch of your usual Hollywood liberal crap.

Again, I'll concede there is a level of basic truth here. Cameron does play into some stereotypes - the macho violent colonel, the calculating indifferent corporate executive, the awe-struck scientist. The overall message of the movie is in fact environmentalist and anti-violent hegemony.

But this criticism falls flat since in the context of the basic story Cameron is telling (a powerful colonial people fighting with a weaker indigenous people over a natural resource) real world analogies are abundant and overwhelmingly justify Cameron's portrayal. In fact, Cameron went easy on us colonialists. Besides the main character he puts a variety of sympathetic characters on the colonial side, not just the scientists either. There is the pilot who defects, and even the corporate executive is shown having moments of doubt. Frankly, if we were to just give a historical portrayal of similar situations like the Trail of Tears, we would have to search long and hard for any redeeming qualities in white-man.

The Real Problem With Avatar
If Conservatives are angry that Avatar portrays the violence of the humans as unjust, and Liberals are angry that Avatar portrays the Na'vi as needing a human to lead their just defense, both sides have missed the forest for the trees. The problem is that James Cameron couldn't imagine anything but a violent resolution to his story. The third act was always going to be a big guns and explosions set piece. We knew that from the beginning and the only thing conservatives and liberals are arguing about is whether one side or the other was portrayed fairly. Both agree that the violence was necessary and inevitable, they just want to see more nuance in the portrayal of their favored side.

This is the eternal myth of redemptive violence told in 3/4 of movies and books produced. In Avatar it is extremely explicit. The Goddess of the Na'vi "blesses" and even assists in the final military victory of the Na'vi. Salvation takes the form of a battle waged between good and evil. When the humans are shooting Na'vi we cringe. When the Na'vi shoot humans with javelin-sized arrows we cheer. It's that simple. Reverse this description and nothing of substance has changed, we merely tell the same story with a different protagonist and antagonist.

I can't wait for an epic science-fiction or fantasy movie where the possibility of peace is held out as a viable alternative. I suspect I'll be waiting a long time.

Not 17 Again

I rented "17 Again" expecting to be mildly amused, and was instead moderately pissed off. Despite the hotness of Zac Efron (I guess) and the cheezball plot the movie managed to get me angry for a few reasons.

#1 - Sexism. Did Anyone else have a problem with the fact that the dude goes back to high school to help his kids and he ends up having to save his daughter from sex, and save his son from virginity? Yes we are convinced that the jock the girl is dating is a complete douchebag, who the teen daughter needs saving from - but where are we led to believe that the "head cheerleader" the son has a crush on is a redeemable human being? Actually, does anyone remember anything about the personality of the cheerleader girl at all? Exactly. It doesn't matter - if the son wants to bang her then he absolutely should and dad (transformed into Zac Efron) should do everything in his power to help. On the other hand, anyone who wants to have sex with his teen daughter is obviously a scum bag in need of severe humiliation and scorn.

#2 - Homophobia. It was a short moment in the film, but at one point someone suspects Zac Efron of being gay - and despite the fact that it would be the perfect resolution to the situation for him to confirm the suspicion he vigorously denies it. Why? Because being gay is just not cool and Zac Efron is cool. Right?

#3 - Persistent Lame "Geek Jokes". One of the main characters is Zac Efron's friend from high school who first shows up in the film running in to a basketball practice late wearing a wizard's robe and mumbling about his D&D game. This character later ends up being rich but ridiculously socially maladapted, living in a house full of toys and manequins. Listen, as a geek, I love to poke fun at geeky behavior and pastimes. We are a funny group of people. In fact, there is probably no subculture that laughs at itself more. But this movie wasn't laughing with us, it was laughing at us, demonstrated by the fact that it utterly failed to understand geek culture, in favor of perpetuating demeaning stereotypes. The geek in this movie committed cardinal geek sins like saying "the force is strong with this one" while dressed in a Star Trek uniform. He spoke elvish, but didn't remember that Gandalf the White is the one who appears in Fangorn Forest in the Two Towers. The movie wasn't interested in presenting a sympathetic and realistic portrait of a geeky personality they just needed somebody to do their slapstick and be the butt of their jokes, and the weirder the better - so make him forget his pants all the time, and wear ridiculous hats, and cover his walls in memorabilia, oh and make him act like a total dunce around women, because all geeks are like that, aren't they?

#4 - Banality. I guess in the final estimate, my complaint about this movie is that it was so painfully banal. So perfectly mainstream. So determinedly status quo. And I mean that in the most condemning sense. Zac Efron played a white-bread hero from a picket-fence town who knows how to teach boys to be MEN, and protect women from their own inner whore, and even how to be kind to the village idiot. I got the distinct impression that Zac Efron was too cool for real geeks who won't be happy as bumbling sidekicks, too cool for women with minds of their own, and too cool to let his son go through high school as something other than a mac daddy. He was definitely too cool for me. A real American Hero.

Go See District 9

A week ago, I went by myself to see District 9 on opening day. I went for a matinee because I was pretty sure Pam didn't want to see the movie, but I wanted to see it...bad.

The short version: this movie is amazing. It is a gory science-fiction action thriller that is relentlessly good. I recommended it to a coworker who dislikes gory movies and science fiction, and she loved it.

Technically, the movie is superb. The cinematography is a mix of first-person shots, third-person shots following characters as usual, and supposed security-camera feeds organized later. The premise of the shooting is that the film you are watching is a documentary on what went terribly wrong in District 9 interspersed with shots that are not part of the documentary but also take place in the recent past.

Emotionally, the movie is very affecting. The ending isn't all bad news, but this is a movie that morally horrifies in a couple of places. One of the premises of the movie is the monstrosity of human beings compared to the monstrous aliens. The aliens are not ET - they are not cuddly, and do a good job of being alien - but during the film I felt more alienated from the humans, even though all that they do in the film seems plausible to me given our history.

Philosophically, the movie is challenging. It asks questions like 'What is it to be human'? 'What is heroic'? As well as the usual questions of the thriller, like 'Oh my God what will happen next!?'

I can't say much more without spoiling things about the movie. It will surprise you in a number of ways. Unless you are very squeamish (the movie has some visceral parts) I recommend this movie very highly - even if you don't normally like science fiction that much. I left this movie thinking, satisfied, and wanting to see it again.