Mater vs. Buzz

Last week I started my critique of Mater of the Cars movies, and how I find his character a rather poor example of his type, the well-intentioned bumbler. I think a much better example of the lovable goofball would be Buzz Lightyear. In the first Toy Story movie, Woody's angst at being "replaced" as Andy's favorite toy is compounded by the fact that Buzz thinks he's a real-life Space Ranger, and is oblivious to the fact that he comes from a toy factory. Yet just as Woody learns to accept Buzz as a fellow toy whose owner loves him, Buzz himself also changes; he learns the truth about himself, and adjusts his priorities accordingly. In Toy Story, it's not just the straight man who winds up a different person, the bumbler does as well. Another good example of a decent bumbler is Linguini of Ratatouille. Linguini is a klutz who can do very little without Remy the rat helping him out. Though he doesn't get "better", the film does not seek to justify his weaknesses. The worst example I've ever seen of a comic bumbler is Eliot the deer from Open Seasons. Eliot repeatedly gets Boog the bear into trouble through his self-centered actions, and really does nothing to redeem himself until the end of the film, where he is perfectly placed to save Boog from a hunter. I would've liked to see Eliot a bit more reformed and apologetic well before that moment. Likewise, I would've liked to see Mater make more of an effott to do something that did not come easy for him by the time Cars 2 hit it's climax.

As I stated before, it bugs me when characters like Mater have their films seek to justify their weaknesses, rather than showing them overcome their weaknesses. In fact I've come to regard the moral "just be yourself" as a dangerous half-truth that can do more harm than good to those who struggle to fit in. Those of us with learning disabilities and such do not always have the luxury of doing what comes naturally, because what comes naturally to us is all too often counterproductive to our efforts in our work and social lives. I would also argue that everyone has weaknesses which can hold them back in life, and that in order to be, not just ourselves, but our best selves, we have to work on those weaknesses. Those who are poor at math still need to learn enough of it to get by. Those who are poor at reading still need to learn enough of it to get by. Likewise, those who are poor at social skills still need to learn enough to maintain positive relationships, while those who function poorly alone still need to learn to function by themselves at least to a certain degree.

Mater the Tow Truck...victim of "The Jar Jar Treatment"

A couple of weeks ago I watched Cars 2 on DVD. I liked it well enough, but I agree with what a lot of reviewers have said, in that Mater was given too much emphasis. I found Mater's portrayal here an all too good example of the "Jar Jar Binks" treatment, which I think deserves some analysis as how not to treat a comic relief character.

In Cars 2, the story has Lightning McQueen joining a worldwide Grand Prix race event, with Mater coming along. In Japan, Mater gets mistaken for a secret agent by a couple of James Bond-esque cars looking to stop some bad guys from endangering the racers by sabotaging their new "green" fuel. Mater's mix-up in this, combined with his utter naivete' and lack of common sense, results in McQueen losing his first race, and getting upset with Mater. Near the end of movie, McQueen takes back everything he said, urging Mater to just be who he is.

Like the infamous Jar Jar Binks of Star Wars Episode I, Materis character is an attempt to make an inept character likable and sympathetic, with the moral being to appreciate the oddballs in one's life. I would actually say that Mater's story was better than Jar Jar's, since Mater wasn't as completely useless. While Jar Jar's only important contribution to Episode I was showing people where the Gungans where the Gungans were hiding, Mater ends up saving the day, and even figures out who the real villain is in the end. Mater also, (unlike Jar Jar), is at one point brought to the realization that he comes across as a dope to everyone else. However, it was still a stretch to have Mater, the comic relief, have the weight of the world on his shoulders, and expect viewers to take him seriously because of it. A much better depiction of the accidental hero, in my view, would be The Man Who Knew Too Little, in which Bill Murray plays another doofus mixed up international intrigue, but who believes, from start to finish, that he's just acting in a weird urban drama set-up. That film was a goofy farce with no "touching moments" or moral high points at all.

What especially bothered me about Cars 2 was McQueen telling Mater to just keep being who he was, and if others didn't like it, that was their problem. This was the exact opposite of the moral in the first Cars movie, where McQueen actually does change who he is, from an arrogant jerk to a humble, caring person. Why does McQueen's hubris need to be fixed, but Mater's bumbling, clingy, occasionally even rude behavior not need to be fixed? Next week I'm going to elaborate more on this apparent double-standard in films, and explain how I think it hurts, rather than helps, the mentally challenged in real life.