Many children’s animated films derive their comedy from anthropomorphizing objects, machines, or animals. From robots to toys to airplanes, these films ascribe human traits to machines, blending human sensibilities and thoughts with the rote repetition, predictability, and occasional malfunction/error that we associate with manmade objects and machinery. Bergson writes about how if “some lifeless object…” is humorous, “it is always because of some resemblance to man” (Bergson 4), and it is clear that the unique blend of man and the manmade makes for absurd, surreal humor. Similarly, Michael North discusses our comedic fascination with machines, how they reflect the camera itself, and how animation can imbue ordinary objects with comedic abilities. For this blog post, I have selected a scene from yet another one of my childhood favorites, Cars (2006).
Michael North considers “whether there might be something potentially comic in mechanical reproduction itself” (North 5) – if repetition and predictability such as Chaplin’s anticipated and unsurprising pratfalls alone can rouse humor in the audience. The clip I have selected from Cars shows Lightning McQueen and Mater going “tractor tipping” (the automaton version of humans going “cow tipping”). In this repetitive scene, each time they approach a tractor and make a noise it behaves the exact same way, and one by one the tractors tip over. They behave predictably, and like machines, but with traits recognizable as human (worried expressions and humanoid eyes). The bit is repeated multiple times, and the machinery’s expected behavior is comforting in its obedience to outside stimulus.
Bergson writes about “mechanical inelasticity” (Bergson 10), which he says is a source of laughter. The example he gives is of a man who trips and falls, and the audience laughs at his “absentmindedness and a kind of physical obstinacy” in which his rote behavior of walking, and his failure to course correct, fail in a comedic manner, resulting in a fall that he did not foresee. In other words, “the muscles continued to perform the same movement when the circumstances of the case called for something else” (Bergson 9). This is similar to the humor an audience may find in this scene of Cars – the victims of the prank behave like machines, unable to deviate from their limited mechanically programmed destinies.
A final thought: it is interesting to consider the fact that in the universe of Cars, humans do not exist and cars, as far as we know, are not manmade. This reminds me of what North said about Benjamin’s understanding of Mickey Mouse: “The cartoon mouse represents nature mobilized by technology, anarchic freedom achieved by mechanical organization, and the utopia that modernization has always promised as the end point of its rigorous domination” (North 17).
I found your analysis really interesting, especially how the cars themselves occupy the roles of both human and machine in the film, filling each role at different times or even simultaneously, and how the humour is made by the absurdity of that contrast. It makes me consider how Pixar is, in some ways, the ultimate example of Bergson’s assertion that animals and objects are made funny by a resemblance to humans, since just about every movie of theirs is based around giving human qualities and storylines to a new type of animal or object — and playing with the ways in which the rules of human society can be applied in outlandish ways (like “tractor tipping”).
Cars is such a perfect example for these readings! The way that human actions are translated into the actions of the characters in the film really emphasises Bergson’s point about lifeless objects being made comedic because of their resemblances to man.
I thought your analysis was really good, I think your final thought is quite interesting as a wider area of discussion surrounding the mechanical and the mechanical in relation to humans. Also, when reading North’s commentary, I too thought of this scene, as it’s definitely a good example of North’s point.