Place Your Bets.
This weekend sees the release of Pixar's seventh feature-length film, Cars, which Time's Richard Corliss has praised thusly: "Existing both in turbo-charged today and the gentler '50s, straddling the realms of Pixar styling and old Disney heart, this new-model Cars is an instant classic."
Will he praise the apparent plotline where the protagonist who is obsessed with speed (oh, damnable speed!) learns to slow down and appreciate nature and community in the small, out-of-the-way town of Radiator Springs?
Or will he condemn the movie for being populated with automobiles, those smoke-belching beasts that the divine Russell Kirk apparently called "mechanical Jacobins"?
Or will he and the entire Dreher brood miss this movie? Perhaps Rod will tell us (and himself) that his two young sons are far more interested in learning how to churn butter than in watching a Pixar movie about talking cars that go really fast.
We have a comments section here; let's use it. Tell us your best guess for how Rod will react toMechanical Jacobins Cars.
This begs the question which I'm sure weighs heavily on everyone's mind: how will Rod Dreher react to this movie?
Will he praise the apparent plotline where the protagonist who is obsessed with speed (oh, damnable speed!) learns to slow down and appreciate nature and community in the small, out-of-the-way town of Radiator Springs?
Or will he condemn the movie for being populated with automobiles, those smoke-belching beasts that the divine Russell Kirk apparently called "mechanical Jacobins"?
Or will he and the entire Dreher brood miss this movie? Perhaps Rod will tell us (and himself) that his two young sons are far more interested in learning how to churn butter than in watching a Pixar movie about talking cars that go really fast.
We have a comments section here; let's use it. Tell us your best guess for how Rod will react to
posted by Anonymous at 7:00 AM
32 Comments:
Older cars do seem to illustrate the point about "beauty over efficiency", but they pollute a lot more too. The cars in this flick seem a bit confused about their roots and loyalties. Since they are sentient beings, I suggest they read Rod's book as well as maybe "What's the Matter with Kansas" by what's his name so they can get their priorities straight.
Right SV Steve, Rod will see the movie for the Pixar NorCal cred, and if Rod likes it, it will be deemed "crunchy". If Rod doesn't like it it will be deemed "mainstream".
simple as that!
As far as predicting Rod's reaction, it's impossible, since his "crunchy con" theory is incoherent in the first place. Like he always does, Rod will gin up some very profound sounding (and certainly "honorable") reasons after the liking/disliking takes place, thereby anointing his own personal taste as something more meaningful and philosophical and *honorable* than, well, personal tastes in general (especially those of anyone who's not Rod).
too funny! did he ban me? I figured he would b/c my last comment was pretty direct.
plus he doesn't know what a smackdown is. (see contra blog, my new post)
Ditto to Diane's (first) comment. I'm banning myself from Rod's blog. I was extremely upset about the post you mentioned. No, I was, am, livid. I scribbled off something about the "Ball and the Cross" and left, ne'er to return. Wrath is a sin, and I'm really close. My point, although admittedly very badly made if made at all, is that whining like a girlie-man about how the Catholic church has masculinity issues is as revealing as it is paradoxical.
If Jonah was Catholic I suppose he would have called Rod on this in the same way that he called him on taking pages out of the liberal playbook to attack conservatives. Thank you Al Franken, thank you Lorraine Boettner and waiter, could I please have some cheese to go with my whine?
Diane, tell your DH he is right on the money about the futility of arguing with Dreher. It is a grand waste of time. He is not disposed to regard anything we say as sensible and facts that done fit his world of cool anecdotes are roundly dismissed, as we know. And how is he going to change anything for the "better" by these types of rants and straw-man attacks? As Bubba pointed out awhile back, he isn't happy being conservative or Catholic.
Is this another instance of Rod's perpetual problem with puritanical Platonism? The actualities of groups don't live up to their ideals; what did he expect? Rod really doesn't seem to care whether the Catholic church has produced any saints or whether it is the guardian of any truth; he's more concerned that it doesn't live up to his personal ideals. Likewise liberalism's lake of both coherence and success is not nearly as scandalous as conservatism's lack of crunch. Like Strephon, "disgusted" with his dear, sweet Celia after "finishing his grand Survey", Rod is scandalized that anything with which he is associated might, just might, produce something stinky from time to time.
Hopefully, the disgust displayed on his part for these groups has ensured that he will not be regarded as a spokesperson for the Catholic Church by actual Catholics or a spokesperson for the conservatism movement by actual conservatives.
Still not banned, so I wrote the following farewell on the "masculinity" thread:
Ironic isn't it? Rod and his favorite punching bags, US Bishops, can be heard ranting in unison:
"Don't say bad things about me! I'm really struggling here! I'm doing my very best! You are bad, bad catholics to say that I am being anything but honorable! My feelings are more important than any problems you have with my position regarding the Church!"
kathleen reilly | 06.12.06 - 12:47 pm | #
and if we question the masculinity of Rod's reactions he says "we are sucking the air out of the room" -- ummm, I'd say that is mighty revealing. read any Freud, Rod?
Diane, how does it feel to be so .... bannable. ya lawbreaker!
raise your hand if you think Jeff knows Rovira and Jacob Neal Liszt (perhaps quite intimately so as to be even the same person...?)
There are times when I'm embarrassed I give the Dreher so much attention. but it's FUN! i just can't help it. it's like he has a sign on his back that says "kick me [rhetorically]", and we kick him, and then he asks for more, and we do it again ... good times.
Sorry Jeff, I guess I didn't read your comments. But then again, i skip many of the comments (and entries) on the crunchy con blog. Dreher and friends got repetitive a long time ago.
Trust me, though, you and Rovira/JNL would get along famously. You can email him at The New Pantagruel.
"Does that mean I shouldn't hold my breath waiting for retractions? "
no, you should, Jeff. please do.
Here's a link to an article regarding the original topic of this post, i.e., how the frickin' movie did. I don't want to have to tell you all again to comment on the original subject. Bubba wanted you to all make bets, OK? I know I posted something off subject, but I'm sorry, all right? Was the movie MASCULINE ENOUGH FOR YOU?? [He's losing it, he's losing it....GIVE HIM ROOM! here, breathe in this paper bag, sir....] OK, OK, ahem...
Oh, the new guy. Hi, Jeff, welcome to the fun. Everybody's welcome here, don't worry about Diane, she'll be back. We're all agrarians to some degree here -- I used to grow some incredible stuff in my basement... but that was a long time ago mind you.
I found Cars to be very entertaining; maybe too predictable to be a great movie, but still great fun to watch.
I'll guess that, with its pro-small-town theme and its wild-about-NASCAR setting, it will be well received among self-identified crunchy conservatives.
I think Pauli doesn't care about thread "hijacks", he's just imitating Rod on the Masculinity thread when Rod said
"Thanks you guys for bringing this thread back to its original point of discussion."
-- after he banned Diane and the thread became a snoozefest once again.
Diane, Kathleen's right. I was mimicking Rod -- imagine that? when he talked on his girlie-church post about the tiresomeness of thread-hijacking one of the truly horrible problems in the blogosphere and our world today.
When Dreher uses the term "hijacking", he doesn't mean the thread is veering off point, he means someone is making a very good case for something Rod doesn't like at all, no, not at all. I think I'm going to start calling Dreher "His Excellency", since he does sound very much like the catholic Bishops he is always complaining about with such over-the-top rancor. Which is a parallel I recently observed and that really fascinates me. Obviously His Excellency Rod sees a bit of himself in the clerics he despises.
Diane, the woman in Rod's book who lives in Augusta is Rachel Balducci and she has a blog called testosterhome. if you're interested.
Jeff, I for one cannot take you seriously.
Fire has not devoured and displaced better things. (WHO NEEDS FIRE DEPARTMENTS? BE GONE WITH THEM! FIRE HAS NEVER CAUSED ANYONE TO LOSE ANYTHING) Fire is not subject to the level of abuse and misuse that characterizes modern technologies. (NO SUCH THING AS ARSON! HEY JEFF, DO YOU THINK ATTA HIJACKED A PLANE BECAUSE HE LIKES FLYING, OR BECAUSE JET FUEL IS FLAMMABLE/EXPLOSIVE?)
Jeff, you and the other crunchy cons need to refrain from speaking for others. It may well be that you abuse technology on a daily basis. but you have to learn that others, in fact many, don't.
in another example, one which is visible to the naked eye (unlike technology abuse) -- lots of Americans are fat and abuse junk food. but lots of Americans aren't fat at all, not by a longshot.
and cut the nonsense about me wishing you dead. there is no rule against sarcasm on the internet, just as there is no rule against the pomposity you exhibit. I realize that you want to portray me as an ogre, but it doesn't help your argument in the least, though no doubt you fervently wish otherwise.
"you've already made the absurd suggestion that a DVD of the London Symphony performing Beethoven's Ninth is 'objectively' inferior to a farmer screeching out music on his own violin."
did Jeff really say this? LOL. really, a violin is so bourgeois -- a higher technology - shouldn't the crunchy instrument of choice be an orange crate strung with sheep tendons? Old farmer joe with the gnarled calloused arthritic hands and bad back, after 14 hrs in the fields, ain't gonna be playing beethoven after all, so why bother with a violin? plus "turkey in the straw" is much more authentic and reflective of the farmer's life story.
Jeff you should really go over to the crunchy con blog and re-introduce yourself to Rod. there's another commenter over there called Franklin who is a self-described pagan libertarian and seems very interested in crunchy conservatism. You all are quite a constituency.
"A life which severely limits modern electronic entertainment is therefore a better life and is worth promoting. That's what Mr. Dreher seems to be doing, and I believe it is laudable."
Jeff -- Mr. Dreher seems to be limiting modern electronic entertainment?! he *hosts a blog* and links all over the place. I know for a fact he spends far more time on the internet than I do. He seems to be -- no, he is -- doing exactly the opposite of what you say.
But is homemade music (no matter how bad, presumably) even better than "even the best classical music" on DVD? No, obviously, and anyone who says otherwise is a literal fanatic.
The question, I think, is whether the act of making your own music is better than the act of listening to recorded music.
My answer is that the two acts are so different that it doesn't make sense to say either is "better" in any absolute sense.
In any case, it clearly doesn't suffice for Jeff to simply "submit" that the one is better. That submission has been turned down; the next step would be to present an argument for why it's true -- though, if I may say it without poisoning the well, I'm sort of guessing the premises of Jeff's argument wouldn't be well received by this crowd, either.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I don't believe anyone can honestly believe that.
You haven't met my ten-year-old son.
And, based on the reaction of my other son just this morning to a couple of blues licks I was trying out on my harmonica -- about as self-indulgent an act as a suburban-bread white man can perform in the presence of children -- making your own music isn't always intelligent or generous.
I am broadly sympathetic to the "a thing worth doing is worth doing badly" spirit Jeff is advocating, but I don't think arguments that things lend themselves readily to vices really provide it with a firm foundation. Abusus non tollit usum, as they used to say.
Actually, you thread hijackers you, I just saw Cars. no doubt Rod would deem it crunchy since it's anti-"vulgar capitalism", anti-interstate, pro-small-town, and anti-"winning at all costs". When he sees it, I'm quite sure Rod, instead of finally realizing that his ideas are not quite original, will seize the opportunity to marvel at his ability to read the pulse of the Zeitgeist (just as he did after reading about "Freakoutnomics" or the latest column by David Brooks). Certainly, it won't occur to him that his ideas are so generic as to be fodder for the plot of a children's movie.
Rod might even wonder if he himself wrote the screenplay in a fit of sleepwalking.
and what will he make of all the mainstream conservatives who love the movie?
Jeff wrote:
> Long live the Crunchies.
Actually, Jeff, I hope they all live long, too, but there were some posts on the original NRO crunch blog arguing that longevity might not be all it's cracked up to be by modern society. I'm serious. Bubba, KR, do you remember that?
Pauli, that was caleb if I recall correctly.
HEY! Back to the subject at hand, HIJACKER. why haven't you seen cars yet? You have a 4 yr old boy, dont you? delinquent dad.
After fighting the month end transnational corporate orc-tocracy, the Cubeland mystic goes to a high place to seek God’s will and prepare for the next buffeting, I come back and what the hell happened? 83 posts! And then one of my team started it. . . Porca Miseria! You guys were practically throwing malocchio at each other.
I wish I got in this one earlier. I went to see Cars with the kids. One word. . .boring.
Yeah, I have a 4-year old. I'm reluctant to take him to the movies until he's a little bit older. He doesn't see a lot of TV, and he's still content with Winnie the Pooh and Thomas the Tank Engine videos. He flips out during scary parts of, say, the "Ninja Turtles" which he wanted to watch once, and he doesn't just get scared, he gets violent and starts screaming threats; I'm not exaggerating. I know he could get us booted out of a theater, although maybe not with handcuffs on. That hasn't happened to me in several years and never with a kid.
I'm not just saying this to "get out" of seeing Cars. I love stuff like that. "The Incredibles" was one of my favorite films ever; I blogged on it in this post on our Harry Potter-related site. I'm also a huge fan of the "Toy Story" series and can't wait to watch all the great Pixar stuff with my kids -- I just don't think they're ready and I'd rather not rush them....
Am I overprotective? Am I sounding crunchy???
Totally understand Pauli. This is only my son's second movie, not counting the Incredibles last year, in which he fell asleep. he LOVED Cars and was riveted, so i was pleasantly surprised. have to admit i was selfish in bringing him, it was too hot to do anything outdoors.
also my son is soon 5, there is a big difference between young 4 and older 4.
the worst thing about the movie was the (loud) previews for other kid movies with vulgar jokes, etc. I love pixar b/c w/ them you know you're not going to get any of that garbage. why would somebody willingly expose their kid to that?
Post a Comment
<< Home