[b] I WROTE THIS PAPER FOR AN ENGLISH ASSIGNMENT LAST SEMESTER. MY TEACHER ASKED ME TO FIND AN ARTICLE THAT POORLY PRESENTED AN ARGUMENT, EXPLAIN THE FLAWS OF LOGIC FOUND IN THE ARTICLE, AND THEN DESCRIBE WHY IT WAS WRONG.
[/b] The art of storytelling not only places vital emphasis for the writer to understand the process, but also to keep in mind the audience and/or readers he or she is writing for. Writers, storytellers, and filmmakers alike have the ultimate responsibility to create stories and characters that will attract their audiences in an almost natural way which enable them to follow and enjoy them. Thus, when people dislike certain stories and/or films, there is either a problem with the way the story is told or the audiences’ failure to understand it. “Everyone wants the pleasure of storytelling, but they are loath to relinquish enough precious sophistication to fully surrender…how do you give yourself over to anything when you’re convinced that nothing is worthy of your credence?” (24). Kent Jones’ review, posted in Film Comment magazine, clearly defines the shaky grounds storytellers work on with their audiences, and those who have the skills are the ones behind universally acclaimed films and stories. Jones discussed in further detail the success of Pixar Animation Studio’s 2008 feature film, WALL•E, and how the writers behind the story possess those appealing skills for tackling skeptical audiences. One of the top reasons for moviegoers’ reluctance towards movies in general is their failure to look at the depths and true art of storytelling; this is apparent in Jason Arber’s review of Pixar’s 2006 feature film, Cars. Despite Arber’s honest listing of the film’s highlights, his judgments are somewhat shallow as he fails to give enough data and/or facts to support his negative opinion of the film.
Arber begins his argument by describing the origins of Cars from the perspective of John Lasseter (the director) and his homage to historical Route 66. Throughout the rest of his essay, he remarks how “fans of 50s Americana will love the fictional town of Radiator Springs” and how Lasseter got further inspiration from the “nostalgia of dusty, desert towns”. With all of this inspiration and historical background laid out, Arber gives the origins of Cars their credit. However, he then describes how the film is “uninspired” and “something of a let-down”. His reasons for his conclusion are left unanswered as Arber then goes on to describe Pixar’s relationship with Disney. By the definition of a non-sequitur fallacy, the evidence given is not relevant with the conclusion. Director Brad Bird remarked in the 2005 DVD commentary for his own Pixar film, The Incredibles, by saying “Pixar is well-known to put in the extra mile for all the detail” (Incredibles). Furthermore, John Lasseter discussed in a private interview on the making of Finding Nemo about the extensive research that falls into play at Pixar: “No matter what the subject matter is, you cannot do enough research because so much believability will come out of what’s really there” (Nemo). By failing to take this into consideration, Arber overlooks the method of inspiration that is emphasized heavily in Pixar’s story department.
Arber further demonstrates his misunderstanding of the story process where he remarks on the number of people involved in the writing of Cars. He claims that there were more pens behind the film than any of Pixar’s other stories, and attributes this fact as to why “they had trouble wrestling a decent story out of the premise of a world populated by anthropomorphized cars”. Although there were 30-some odd writers for Cars, this is roughly only seven more compared to the story staff of previous and successive Pixar films. Furthermore, if Arber considered the collaborative force behind Pixar’s story department, he might have believed that a high number of writers for the studio’s films would be a help, not a hindrance. A typical Pixar film takes about five years to complete, from the first sparks of inspiration to the finishing touches of post-production. The first two or three years in the life of a Pixar film is devoted to story, and those in story department work collaboratively with the director until they are completely satisfied with the plot and characters. Pixar would not be successful as it is today if the writers did not work as hard as they do, for “the company’s fiscal success is the direct – indeed, almost inevitable – outgrowth of its passion for making movies and only those it truly believes in” (Smith 50). Thus, Arber’s conclusion for Cars’ “let down” is false, believing that the story department is the cause. If he had given more evidence to support his reason, he might have presented a believable stretch of ground to argue by.
Lastly, Arber finishes his essay by stating, “If this movie is a dip in the road, then Pixar’s next movie looks like getting them back on track: Ratatouille sees Brad Bird, director of The Incredibles and The Iron Giant, back in the hot seat, which can only be a good thing”. In this hasty generalization, Arber makes the claim that Bird’s previously directed films can clearly foresee the success of Ratatouille. Although Bird is now one of Pixar’s Senior Staff members, Warner Brothers’ The Iron Giant was unsuccessful and ill-received by the public. The Iron Giant grossed $23 million domestically, whereas Cars went on to earn $461 million worldwide (Wikipedia). In a private interview, Bird explained that “[he] did not come to Pixar to do a CG film. [He] was interested in coming to Pixar because they protected stories” (Incredibles). Bird was not associated with Pixar until John Lasseter himself asked him to come on board before the production of The Incredibles started. In the light of Ratatouille, Bird was not the pen behind the original story and replaced Jan Pinkava (the original screenwriter) as director. By comparison, Ratatouille was to gross $10 million less than The Incredibles (Wikipedia). Thus, moviegoers might disagree with Arber’s claim that it can “only be a good thing” Bird is Ratatouille’s director. It is plain to see that it is not merely one person behind a film that makes it great but how the story is told and received by its listeners/viewers.
Arber’s argument that “Cars simply shows that Pixar can have off days” is backed by unclear and even non-existent evidence which makes it unreasonable. If he had extensively looked at the efforts behind the making of Cars, in the light of Pixar’s method of storytelling, he might have had a different opinion. In a behind-the-scenes featurette, John Lasseter (now Chief Creative Officer of Pixar) gave a brief description of one of Pixar’s greatest highlights: “What I always like about our stories and the films that Pixar makes is that they’re really fun and energetic on one level, but then the story – the underlying growth of the characters, that heart that’s in our films – is what I really take pride in” (Incredibles). Alongside its fellow Pixar stories, Cars is no exception to this. One does not have to be a writer or filmmaker to appreciate a good story; one just has to be a good audience and listener.
Works Cited
Jones, Kent. “Beyond Disbelief.” Film Comment July/Aug. 2008: 22-26. Print.
Arber, Jason. “Cars.” Pixelsurgeon Review: Movies. Pixelsurgeon Creative Consultants Ltd.,
Fall 2006. Web. 10 Feb. 2010
The Incredibles. Dir. Brad Bird. Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc., 2005. Film. DVD
Smith, Roger. “To Infinity and Beyond.” Film Comment Jan./Feb. 2005: 49-50. Print.
“The Iron Giant.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia, n.d. Tues. 16 Feb. 2010
“List of Pixar films.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia, n.d. Tues. 16 Feb. 2010
Finding Nemo. Dir. Andrew Stanton. Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc., 2004. Film. DVD
