This is something that I was wondering when I last watched Cars. I firstly want to make it clear that I do genuinely enjoy the movie and there are many aspects of it that I really, really like- I’m not a Cars hater.
But one thing that makes Cars stick out in comparison to its predecessors (as well as Pixar’s later films, now I think about it) is the use of stereotypical characters. The main character isn’t much of a stereotype, and that’s why I believe he’s one of the strongest characters of the film, but it’s mainly the minor characters that could be accused of being stereotypical- there are the two Italian cars, Luigi and Guido, there is the hillbilly, Mater, Sally always seems to me to be a bit Mary Sue-ish, you’ve got the hippy Fillmore, and so on and so forth. Although some of the characters do have an added dimension (Mater definitely has a heart and is clearly a good friend, Sally moved away from the city because she wanted a more peaceful life) some of them seem to be entirely based on their stereotypes.
I can’t help but question why this is. Is it because, in aiming to create a world based on cars that is meant to parallel our own, Pixar wanted to show that, just as we have Italian people and hillbillies and hippies in our world, they too have those sorts of people in the Cars world? You have to admit, there’s a rather eclectic mix of characters in Radiator Springs. Or is it because Pixar wanted each and every character to be easily identifyable for their slightly younger audience?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not knocking Cars. This is just something that’s struck me that’s different about Cars in comparison to other Pixar films. What do you guys think?
wannabechef91- Well, I don’t know if that’s actually the reason why. It might be part of the reason, but it doesn’t seem like Pixar to change the types of characters they create just because of their audience- after all, they’re always saying about how they’d want to make movies that they’d want to watch, and that it’s not all about a ‘target audience’. So, for Pixar to say, ‘well, we’re going to create a whole bunch of quite stereotypical characters so then kids can tell the difference between them’ seems a bit…Well, not like Pixar.
Plus, all of their other movies are aimed at children as well. So I’m guessing this isn’t the only reason.
While it IS stereotyping a bit, I don’t find it to be negative, since the characters are stil very likeable and funny. What Pixar was trying to do was to associate a particular type of car with a particular sort of PEOPLE that those cars were historically popular with. Most of the people I knew who actually had Volkswagon buses, back in the day, were people who were happy to be called “hippies”. The Latino “Low Rider” culture(and yes, I’ve actually attended some of these car shows and seen the money and love the people put into customizing those vehicles) has always been fond of long, low-slung big cars like Ramone, and of course, the 1940’s-era Jeep was purely a military vehicle not intended for civiilan use. I think that Pixar also wanted to convey that point that all these cars had come from other parts of the country, back when Rt. 66 was still the main “artery” between East and West, and when the interstate had been completed, they found themselves cut off from the rest of the country and were stuck there. I’ve got far less problems with that stereotyping, since it was not meant to show that “this group/type is bad”, than I have with say, making the one reptilian character in Monsters, Inc. out to be the main “bad guy” that everyone is supposed to hate, since that IS clearly intended to enforce an already very negative perception of real-world reptiles like lizards and snakes, rather than downplay it or show how wrong it is. It would have been far worse, for example, if Luigi and Guido had been type-cast as ruthless Mafia types, or Ramone was a drug lord-THAT is the sort of stereotyping I’m most concerned with.
That’s a really good point, pitbulllady- I hadn’t thought about how the cars’ personalities were related to their make. It’s probably the best explanation as to why Pixar decided to go down this route with their Cars characters.
That’s what annoys me about most reptilian character in movies too. Why do they always have to be the bad guys? I guess the only exception are dragons, if you count them in.
Although that woulda been offensive and not kid-friendly, I must say that would be a lot more interesting.
Well, I agree with pretty much what lizardgirl and pitbulllady settled on… the makers of the film probably intended these characters as in-jokes for auto aficionados… IMO, I was not really offended by their characterisation. In fact, it may just be the opposite, since this is probably the most culturally-diverse Pixar movie so far… and to have Latino (Ramone), Italian (Luigi and Guido), African-American (Flo) and Asian (Wingo) representation in an animated movie… that can’t be a bad thing, can it?
That’s very true, thedriveintheatre, it’s no bad thing. It just seemed a little strange to me because most of Cars is meant to be set in a small town in the ‘outback’ of America, Route 66 type thing, and so it’s not necessarily the environment in which you’d expect to find such a culturally diverse group of characters. Like, if there were some random Italian insects in A Bug’s Life or if EVE had a Scottish accent (that’d be amazing! ) it would seem a bit strange. But yeah, because of the relation of their personalities to their car makes, there does seem to be a reasonable explanation for it.
Well, actually, in that part of America, you WOULD have found a very culturally-diverse cross-section, given that Rt. 66 was widely traveled by people from many parts of the country, going from east-to-west and vice-versa. That particular section of the “Mother Road” isn’t far from the Mexican border, either, so the Latino influence would have been strong even then. In its flourishing post-WWII heyday, would have attracted people from all over the country, and the world, seeking to make their fortune catering to the Great American Car Culture. The point that Pixar was trying to make was that even though Radiator Springs is out in the middle of nowwhere NOW, that wasn’t always the case. It had at one time been a flourishing stop-over for people traveling that great icon of Americana, Rt. 66. When the interstate systems were built, though, towns like Radiator Springs simply dried up and faded into ghost towns, like the mining towns and dust-bowl stricken farming towns before them. If you do a search on Google about Rt. 66, you will see remnants of businesses that had belonged to Italians from Brooklyn, Native Americans, people from China Town in San Francisco, WWII vets, Germans, Japanese-Americans seeking to put as much distance between them and the infamous interment camps of the west coast as possible, Black former share-croppers looking to make a better life for themselves away from the segregationist South, and of course, Mexicans looking for work-the same sort of cross-section of cultures you would expect to find in a large city today. They were all seeking their piece of the American Dream on Rt. 66. Each group brought its own unique flavor to the melting pot, and the different cars simply reflect those cultures. I guess having been raised a part of this “car culture” myself, always having been in contact with diverse people who shared a love of great automobiles, I’m just really in-tune with the pride that people can feel about their cars.
Well I think it’s a clever use of the comparisons between the cars from those areas and the different diversities in real life. I think many of them are 3-dimensional, but it’s hard to tell in such a short movie.
The car styles and personalities match, which is the reason, IMO
This is just my opinion, but I think having different stereotypes was kind of the point of the different characters, and I think they did a very good job of it. Also I think the main character did have a stereotype he had an arrogant attitude like some famous athletes and celebrities.
) it would seem a bit strange. But yeah, because of the relation of their personalities to their car makes, there does seem to be a reasonable explanation for it.
Besides, hopefully we’ll see more background on these characters in Cars 2.