Cars 2: A Vehicle for Religious 'Science Deniers'?
Last week, NewsBusters explored how the new Pixar cartoon Cars 2 promoted a Big Oil vs. Alternative Fuel plot. But blogger Josh Berta of the Design Observer Group has an entirely different worry. He thinks the cartoon is promoting the religious view of an Intelligent Designer who made the world:
While it was less than loved by critics, there is no question it was a commercial success. In fact, some would say it is Pixar’s most obvious grab at a pay day, appealing to the NASCAR set without even the thinnest of veils. But I would argue its middle-American appeal goes much deeper than its subject matter. Indeed, I believe Cars is a vehicle for the conservative, science-denying belief known as Intelligent Design.
Rooted in the Creationist philosophy, Intelligent Design attempts to explain complex scientific phenomenon, especially biological systems such as photosynthesis, or the structure of the human eye, as being the work of a Designer, commonly understood to be the Christian God. In essence, anything that science has failed to yet explain is easily attributable to the work of a higher being whose intelligence, and rationale can never be understood via human empirical thinking.
Cars, more than any other Pixar world, is designed and built with that very premise as its foundation. It is a world populated entirely by cars, trucks, aircraft, and RVs. These vehicles are essentially stand-ins for human beings. Their only companions in the animal kingdom seem to be tractors (which are cows), combines (bulls), and little VW Beetles as winged house flies. Other than a pair of steer horns mounted to the front of a Cadillac, and the dinosaur logo of Dinoco Oil, there is no sign of any animal we would recognize... Not a bird in the sky, nor a squirrel in a tree. So one is left to surmise that sentient vehicles simply exist, and always have, independent of any other circle of life.
The design of the vehicles is devoid of any suggestion of natural selection. The cars have eyes in their windshield, and mouths, complete with teeth and tongues, between their headlights. (Apparently motorcycles don’t exist, presumably because the Designer couldn’t figure out how to give them a face.) They can flex and move their metal frames, undercarriages, and tires at will, and yet they are undoubtedly made of metal, plastic and rubber. They are imbibed with life, which apparently allows them to ignore the laws of physics. Conveniently, non-living fixtures made of those same materials (buildings, furniture, etc.), obey those laws. Indeed, it is those very fixtures that offer the most disturbing glimpse into the Designer’s machinations. It’s as if the world was made by humans, now long gone, and replaced by living, breathing autos. One might expect Charlton Heston to crash land on the planet and later discover that those maniacs blew it up.
On this Planet of the Cars, buildings not much different than ours awkwardly accommodate their four-wheeled tenants, gas pumps — again, like ours — operate with precision simply by pressing a button the ground, and farms, growing vegetables for goodness know who, line the highways. Even the cars themselves are at the whim of a seemingly human mind. They have doors and windows that never open. They’re alive and moving, but can only drive with gas in their tanks. Boy cars and girl cars are attracted to each other, raising awkward questions about reproduction (and yet, no kid cars?). Photojournalist cars are forced to use large, clumsy, tired-mounted rigs to hold cameras, and the racing pit crew chiefs wear comically huge earphones on their non-ears. Perhaps the greatest injustice seen is a minivan toting a mattress atop its roof down the interstate. Do I need to mention they don’t sleep in beds?
But there are a couple of crucial elements in the design of this world that point not to a human overlord, but an all-powerful Designer with a bad case of motorhead. The rock formations surrounding the movie’s main location, the town of Radiator Springs, resemble similar landmarks of our American Southwest, particularly Monument Valley, with one major difference: They are in the shapes of cars and car parts. That would be as if our Mount Rushmore was a naturally occurring phenomenon.
But even more inexplicable than the Geo-logy: if one looks closely enough, cloud formations resembling tire tracks can be seen drifting through the sky. Certainly, it’s no mistake that this most befuddling design element is also the most heavenward. There’s something up there, and It won’t be explained. But It does have a name, and we can thank the tractor trailer character Mack for this revelation. Upon finding his lost friend McQueen late in the second act, he exclaims, “Thank the Manufacturer!” Must we?
This weekend Cars 2 opens. It will be the first Pixar movie I make a point of not seeing. It’s not that I even mind so much that it’s propaganda, or even that it’s propaganda for “The Manufacturer.” In theory, I could forgive that. What I can’t forgive is that director John Lasseter and his team hung their hat on Intelligent Design, and alas, it’s anything but.
God forbid anyone "Thank the Manufacturer"? That's not very Hollywood.
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Wow. Just Wow.
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 7:06am.
This guy seriously has waaay too much time on his hands....
What's the difference?
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 7:09am.
If you believe in Intelligent Design you believe that the universe, and all that's in it, was created by a seemingly magical being (God) that no human can fully understand.
If you believe in evolution you believe that the universe, and all that's in it, was created by a seemingly magical being (science) that no human can fully understand.
How about God created the universe...
Submitted by Red Jeep on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 9:43am.
...and what he created EVOLVED from then.
It can't be
Submitted by goodone91 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:27pm.
Why not? Simple-He created the universe "very good". If evolution, which requires death, was how He created, He would have been calling death "very good".
?
Submitted by Red Jeep on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:42pm.
?
What?
Submitted by goodone91 on Tue, 06/28/2011 - 4:23pm.
You have to give me specifics about what you don't understand. I don't mean to sound rude, but I won't be able to explain more fully without knowing what you misunderstand.
DontFeedTheTrolls
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 5:50pm.
I get the point of your post and the use of sentences which parallel one another as a literary device to get your point across, but that won't stop me from being nitpicky about it...
It's Big Bang theory which talks about the origin of the universe, not evolution - believing one doesn't require belief in the other. And the aim of cosmology is to come up with an understandable materialistic explanation for the origin of the universe - not a magical, ultimately unknowable being called science.
Hmm...
Submitted by falcon on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 7:27am.
If it wasn't for the "big oil as bad guy" plot, I might go see it.
Heck, when it comes out on DVD, I'll probably see it anyway, just to keep the grandkids quiet.
“I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership, that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose.” – Ronald Reagan, July 17, 1980.
An interesting opinion.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 9:31am.
From Marty Davis at chickaboomer:
"I saw Cars 2 Saturday. Came away shell-shocked from the non-stop noise and action guaranteed to mesmerize kiddies with gnat attention spans. Got a dizzy headache from the 3D glasses.
Came away wondering which country I lived in --Cuba or America. In 25 words or less:112 minutes of anti-Big Oil propaganda. Much like Cuba and other dictatorships brainwash kids right out of the box teaching them how to count, add, subtract, multiply, and divide weapons arsenals; politicizing the alphabet (A is for AK-47, B bullets, C Castro) -- you get the picture -- Cars 2 demonizes the American oil industry.
The plot's antagonists are oil-guzzling junker lemons v the Cars hero protagonists hellbent on defeating the lemons; fiery, sinister offshore oil platforms rise from the angry, roiling sea like monsters; menacing oil tankers with Great White teeth. In a plot twist, the righteous car with a new company pushing alternative fuel is unmasked as a dastardly Big Oil proponent marshaling the lemons to sabotage three international races. The villain enlists the lemons to blow up the good guy cars on the tracks. Message: don't believe those clean coal and oil companies pretending to be environmentally conscious.
The movie is just so intense that, unlike the first film, subtlety is non-existent. I would be quite hesitant to let a kid under five see this sensory overload with obvious and disturbing political overtones."
Double post. How?
Submitted by Red Jeep on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 9:41am.
?
Psssst.....
Submitted by pfurman69 on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:46am.
...it's a cartoon. Big Oil vs. green. Intellegent design. All it is and should be taken as is entertainment. Did the director screw this one up? Yes. Took a great movie and made it a propaganda film against big oil. He admitted as much. But that is what killed the movie. Having seen both, this one will not be going on my shelf at home. The critics didn't like the first one because it was wholesome. Now when Roger Ebert, Salon, and Rolling Stone give it 4/5 stars, you know it has progressive (pun not intended; as in insurance company) written all over it.
For the record
Submitted by BosTarus on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 11:34am.
The first Cars film was considerably better reviewed than the sequel, across the board... so you can't assume the "liberal propaganda" of the sequel has made it a critical darling.
As per your examples:
Ebert gave the sequel a slightly better review-but he gushed over the first film already.
Salon, is your only example you could actually use-though they weren't negative about the first-just a bit more luke warm than the sequel.
Rolling Stones gave an equivalent review to both films....
All of which were way too kind, in my opinion. But even Pixar can't be perfect-apart from the Cars franchise, they have a near perfect record! Can't blame em for chasing an easy payday...
So I guess.....
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 10:58am.
...what people are saying is that the second Cars movie lacks what the first one had ... intelligent design.
Knowing the "message"
Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 11:38am.
Knowing the message that they are putting out with this movie, I may just watch it once, if I watch it at all when it comes out on blu-ray. I'm still trying to decide. The only reason I would watch is because of the graphics, same reason I watched "The Incredibles," "Mega Mind" and others that were CGI movies. I even watched Avatar just to see how the graphics were. But that was only once.
It's easy enough, just turn the volume down to zero, turn off close-captioning and subtitles and etc.
But knowing the driving force behind this message which is part of that disney change the planet scheme they got going on, I might not even bother to rent this movie.
I hate that political crap that goes into movies. So much for real entertainment. Oh well, I will always have Star Wars and some others.
-Jon
One finds...
Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 12:05pm.
...what one looks for.
It's entertainment guys!
Submitted by tvhall on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 11:13pm.
The evil oil company plot line was just a device. It helped to globalize the plot giving the people at PIXAR the opportunity to imagine what a "car world" looks like in those various locals. I knew about the evil oil plot before I went and was on guard. However, it didn't preach nearly as much as Avitar and others that were not memorable enough for me to list.
At its core the movie was about a humble hard working (rube) truck caught up in somthing way over his head (head gasket?) and through earnest effort (and luck) saves his buddy, catches the bad guys and gets the girl.
Approached with an awareness of the minor propaganda theme, it can be an uplifting, afirming and enertaining romp.