"A Bug's Life" falls short, but demonstrates potential for 
proletarian art

by MC206

Disney and Pixar's "A Bug's Life" has as good side and a 
bad side. The good side is that it portrays the successful 
collective struggle of the apparently weak oppressed and 
exploited (in this case, an ant colony) against the 
apparently strong oppressors and exploiters (in this case, 
a band of grasshoppers). So it could be used as a parable 
about the struggle against u.$. imperialism. The bad side 
is that it never directly ties its oppressors (the 
grasshoppers) to the biggest oppressors in the real world, 
the imperialists. 

Amerikan imperialism has always cloaked itself in the 
rhetoric of freedom and the struggle against oppression, 
while actually denying the broad masses any true freedom 
and oppressing entire peoples around the globe. So very few 
audiences will recognize themselves or their government in 
the grasshoppers of "A Bug's Life" and take home the lesson 
that they should be fighting against Amerikan imperialism. 

Although "A Bug's Life" is obviously fiction and geared for 
young children, it manages to portray many small and large 
aspects of what MIM would call class conflict. The 
grasshoppers demand tribute from the ants crops every year 
(feudalism); the ants bear this tribute because of the 
armed force of the grasshoppers and because of 
superstition; there is debate among the ants about whether 
to stand up against the grasshoppers at all and, once they 
decide to fight, how to do it; in this debate we see the 
importance both of leadership and of winning over the 
majority of the oppressed; the head grasshopper decides to 
make an example of the one ant with a rebellious attitude; 
the ants turn their seeming tactical weaknesses into 
strengths and defeat the grasshoppers; etc. etc. At the end 
of the film, we see that defeats of the grasshoppers and of 
superstition have allowed the ants to adopt a mechanical 
method of harvesting grain, leading to prosperity.

Art is not the same as science or politics. MIM believes 
that art should popularize scientific truths (and spur 
scientific thinking) using artistic forms. In this sense "A 
Bug's Life" is a positive example for budding proletarian 
artists, because as outlined above it crams so much 
experience into a short time frame using such simple 
symbolism. But "A Bug's Life" is primarily a negative 
example to budding proletarian artists, because our art 
should take a definite, proletarian class stand. "A Bug's 
Life" fails to do this. It does not connect its abstract 
condemnation of feudalism and exploitation with the 
concrete reality that u.$. imperialism is the main 
supporter of feudalism and the biggest exploiter. 
Proletarian art can and should be subtle, but not so subtle 
that nobody or only those "in the know" get the point.

Another problem with "A Bug's Life:" It actively works to 
reduce the attention span of those who watch it. This is a 
problem with much modern programming (and modern children's 
programming in particular.) We believe youth can and must 
concentrate and think about issues in depth.

MC234 contributed to this review.