The Lego Movie (Response)

The setting of The Lego Movie is a dystopian one. The Octon Corporation, a super-monopoly ruled over by President Business, controls all major ongoings in the various realms of the Lego Universe. The mass media, voting machines, and major businesses are simple subsidiaries of the Octon Corporation. And behind the facade of a functional society there is a police state, manned by an army of infallible robots. Their loyalty to Octan is uncompromising and they are not susceptible to the emotions of solidarity and sympathy that an a human being may have. The only human involved in the police industry, “Good Cop Bad Cop”, has to erase (quite literally, with nail polish remover) his human side after he hesitates to murder his own parents on order. “I have a job to do” he says, before proving that not even his family can escape police violence.

The setting and the policeman seem like two separate concepts which should be approached separately.

It has admittedly been a while since I watched the Lego Movie. If I remember correctly they don’t really rule by force, you don’t see the robots doing anything until the end of the film. People are living fairly peacefully and harmoniously in the status quo. You could describe how this setting is functioning ‘corporate fascism’ where everyone has a clear role to play, but then there are questions about the economic sustainability of the system.

The policeman illustrates the modern ‘capitalist zen’ ideology, where he willingly suppresses his humanity for what he sees as the greater good. Duty becomes a higher virtue than kindness, therefore by being a compliant bad person he is better than a dissident good person. It is not really him committing the evil deed but a ‘cosmic order’ acting through him.

Also why did he kill his parents? What was their transgression?

The work force of Bricksburg is a highly concentrated one, skyscrapers and synchronised traffic, alongside public transport, are necessary to bring the workers from their homes to their workplaces. It is here that we are introduced to Emmet, a construction worker. Alongside a hundred others, he works with immense coordination and teamwork to build skyscrapers. Despite it appearing so on the surface, this is not simply out of his passion for teamwork. It is also a necessity for the scale and time frame of projects that are being built. The complexity and physical size of industry in Bricksburg has reached a level where it is no longer possible for individuals or small groups to complete projects. The masses of workers have to work together to get the job done.

I don’t think the masses of the workers is the correct term. More like large-scale organisation and work forces, presumably carried out by some corporations.

Why is the public transport there? What is wrong with sychronised traffic? I would put this in the first paragraph as a part of setting the scene.

Emmet and his passion for skyscrapers seems like it should be a separate paragraph. How do we know he didn’t like them? How is he paid? Do we know for sure that it isn’t a planned economy?

Emmet soon finds himself, taken along by fate, amongst a group of revolutionary-minded intellectuals who call themselves “Master Builders”. These Master Builders reveal to us that President Business (now referred to as Lord Business) intends to use the “Kragle” (a brand name for super glue) to solidify the Lego realms. His drive to do this is a hatred of how the citizens keep “changing” everything – that is, attempting to build a world that works for them and not the fetishized perfection of Lord Business.

This is deeper than what you write. It is absolutely crucial that ‘perfection’ in this case means status quo. He doesn’t want to bring about any positive change – the existing order is perfect for him. This is the opposite of most Hollywood films, which present the villains as the people trying to destroy the status quo.

Lord business wants to end the progression of history, as he is scared of being swept away by any change.

Also, how do we know the world doesn’t ‘work’ for the citizens? Iirc it worked pretty well. We don’t see large-scale protest or even dissatisfaction in the film.

The master builders don’t seem to have a prescriptive plan other than to stop lord business. Perhaps this is better characterised as intra-bourgeois conflict?

The Master Builders, however, have seemingly failed to overpower Lord Business up to this point, and we are shown the flaws in their power system and revolutionary strategy. In Cloud Cuckoo Land, the congress they hold to discuss strategy contains only Master Builders. No representatives of the workers or citizens of the Lego realms are present. The only worker present, Emmet, is shunned as unintelligent.

It seems like you are criticising the revolutionaries more than the existing order. What are their motivations? What is their ideology? Iirc they are ‘creatives’ who want more individual freedom from the fascist status quo – bourgeois revolutionaries (liberals)? Or maybe not even revolutionaries at all, as liberalism seems to already exist - They are merely an alternative liberal faction.

Explain why bourgeois revolution can’t happen in a fascist bourgeois state – or is it a feudal state? Does lord business own the serfs?

Have they tried to overthrow lord business? Do we see this?

When police forces carry out their raid on Cloud Cuckoo Land, the Master Builders construct a submarine in an attempt to escape. Without any coherent or unified plan, they all build parts onto the submarine separately. This poorly coordinated design results in the structural instability and eventual implosion of the submarine. The intelligentsia have completely failed to grasp “freedom of discussion, unity of action”. They are individuals whose contributions to discussions and debate are invaluable, but only with unified action can they move the frontlines of the revolution forwards.

I don’t think this is a “freedom of discussion, unity of action” thing, iirc they acted in a unified way, just disorganised. Did they have freedom of discussion? I do not remember anyone disagreeing with them. How does escaping move the front line forward?

I don’t think this paragraph does much.

The issues with the revolutionary strategy of the intellectuals furthermore lies in their condescending assumption that they can bring about the revolution on their own. This is manifested throughout the movie with Wildstyle (a Master Builder) constantly iterating that Emmet (a worker) cannot possibly be the “chosen one” that their prophecy states will bring about an end to Lord Business’ plans.

You need to add a line explaining why the master builders are intellectuals – I don’t know if they actually are. Anyway, how did they alone find out business’ plan.

They don’t want a revolution (or at least you haven’t explained how they do), they just want lord business to stop.

Yet, Emmet is the one who figures out how to break into Lord Business’ tower to retrieve the Kragle, where it is hidden on the “infinitieth floor”. Emmet literally conquers what the intellectuals deemed was impossible. It was Emmet, whose familiarity with the system gave him a unique insight into how to conquer it.

How did he use his familiarity? What gave him the advantage over the builders? Iirc it was more like ‘divine fortitude’.

Even with Emmet’s plan however, our heroes are unable to take down Lord Business alone and we see them crushed when their small team is captured. In their darkest moment, Emmet sacrifices himself to rescue the Master Builders. In awe at the loss of the only person they thought could progress their cause, one of our protagonists solemnly states “if only there were more people in the world like he”.

“Maybe there are”

Maybe there are other people like Emmet, the Master Builders realise, turning to see the carnage in the city of Bricksburg. With the masses of workers on their side, mustered by a rousing speech, true revolution begins to unfold. It is clear now that the vanguard of the revolution is not, and cannot be, an elite few. The vanguard is the working masses.

Where did the carnage come from? What provokes the masses to action?

Kind of the opposite of a vanguard if it’s the masses.

How do we know it’s a true revolution? The masses didn’t become revolutionaries iirc, they just rioted.

Alongside this, we see a truly beautiful portrayal of the nature of dialectics. The way in which, a system which generates increasing contradictions will eventually reach a boiling point where the old systems must be replaced with a new. The character Unikitty is Master Builder who up until this point has preached positivity on the basis that change can be manifested with pure attitude. At the moment of revolution, this character finds themselves unable to strike back against the violence of the Octon Corporation with her positive attitude alone. She takes action at last, standing up and fighting against the soldiers of oppression.

I think this is an ambitious paragraph.

The ‘nature of dialectics’ is to do with a concept containing its own opposite and its internal contradictions leading to collapse – ie. Individualistic freedom contains the right for individuals to opress one-another. Additionally, 'dialectics' are not that clear of a term; Plato and Socrates had dialectics, Hegel and Marx had different dialectics. You are referring to the dialectical materialist view of history, and failing to give a good example of it.

I think the point about unikitty is completely irrelevant, there is nothing dialectical in her change of attitude. She illustrates the empty liberal idea of change, where ‘strength of spirit’ is enough. Again reiterating that they are bourgeois revolutionaries or an alternative liberal faction.

There is a dialectical materialist interpretation here. You could talk about how a system with free enterprise leads to monopolisation and increasingly powerful individuals, who will use their power to end the free enterprise of the system. Lord business could not exist without the freedom he is trying to destroy.

The Lego Movie is an excellent portrayal of the necessity to mobilise the masses to enact revolutionary change, and how an elite few cannot progress change on their own. It is a perfect example of how the vanguard of a revolution cannot be the intelligentsia, detached from the system of oppression that they intend to overthrow. It must be the working masses whose united power and material circumstances have put them in a position where they can mobilise to enact change.

I don’t know why you wrote ‘material circumstances’, as it hasn’t come up in the essay so far. We know virtually nothing about the economic system or the material conditions of the working class. We also don’t know what change they enact.

I don’t think this movie portrays what you say it does. The masses aren’t rising up to change the system as far as we know, and the builders don’t have a prescriptive platform. Both are acting in self-preservation and to maintain slightly more liberalism against the encroaching corporate fascism. The status quo is presented as fundamentally 'good' and functional, but under threat from specific individuals.

It also doesn’t really show the power of the masses that well. The master builders are still ‘master builders’ – ie. they are naturally superior to the masses. Emmet is special because of divine provenance and is allowed to join them because of his talents. The glass ceiling presented in this film is one of merit - anyone who has the innate skill to be a master builder has the divine right to shape and dictate society.

Additionally, it is still the builders who bring about the change iirc. They give the speech, they break into the palace, they defeat business. The masses don’t take action until directly threatened, and even then it’s as a distraction.

My conclusion would be that this is a fundamentally liberal film. Lord business is the ‘evil’ elite who must be replaced with the ‘good’ elite, who will ultimately perfect the system. The corporate fascist status quo is depicted as largely positive, with a few ‘cultural’ problems ie. police brutality. The film doesn’t understand the structural necessity of characters like business and the policeman, it takes issues it sees in real world America and injects them into an idealised capitalism where they don’t make sense.

Where are the factories, mines and farms? Where is the colonial exploitation or natural depletion? Where is the crisis of capitalism? This is a world where everyone lives in an idealised Manhattan, with no structural externalities or instability.