REVIEW: ‘The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part’ wades into woke-nomics
Rex Dangervest and Emmet Brickowski (both voiced by Chris Pratt) in The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part, directed by Mike Mitchell.
When the first Lego Movie arrived in 2014, I’ll confess that I looked past the inherent commercialism of the premise. I was swept away by the freshness of the animation and the tone of Phil Lord and Christopher Miller’s writing, and having grown up with the toy that inspired the film, my fandom made me less cynical about the whole endeavour.
Which is not to suggest that after two spinoff movies (Lego Ninjago and Lego Batman) and now a direct sequel, that I’ve set my mind against the idea of movies-as-giant-toy-commercials. But times have changed (a little) in five years: the movie can now be placed the context of the growing awareness of “woke-nomics” - the idea of companies taking up the torch of a social justice or progressive cause. Kids’ entertainment has long sought to include messages about kindness, acceptance, and other core social concepts. But it’s hard to ignore the relationship between the messaging in The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part and the natural result of such a movie: more sales for a major toy company.
It’s also intriguing how the message of the new film hews so closely to another recent example of wokenomics, the Gillette ad “The Best Men Can Be”. The spot, which questions toxic prevailing ideas about masculinity, seems to share some thematic DNA with The Lego Movie 2. Our hero, Emmet (Chris Pratt), spends much of the story contending with a belief that he’s not grown-up or tough enough to be the “special best friend” (re: boyfriend) of the movie’s female lead, Lucy (Elizabeth Banks). And in classic Lego fashion, this insecurity is writ large by having Emmet meet a tough-guy, loner character who embodies everything he wants to be: Rex Dangervest (also voiced by Pratt). Ultimately the movie takes apart (pun intended) the “solo male hero” ideal, but not before encouraging the viewer to see both the production companies and The Lego Group in a socially-conscious light, just like Gillette aspired to be.
Emmet’s friends - Lucy, Batman, MetalBeard and Unikitty - are kidnapped and taken to a new planet.
The plot that drives these themes takes place five years after the events of the first Lego film. Following the so-called “Duplocalypse” - otherwise known as the Lego characters’ human owner, Finn (Jadon Sand), being forced to let his younger sister (Brooklynn Prince) participate in his play sessions - the idyllic Lego city of Bricksberg is a Mad Max-style wasteland. Emmet has lost none of his characteristic optimism, but that clashes with the grim, “mature” personality cultivated by Lucy. Then one day, an emissary of a character called Queen Watevra Wa’Nabi (Tiffany Haddish) arrives to apparently kidnap Emmet’s friends and take them to the Queen’s royal wedding. This compels Emmet to give chase, causing him to doubt whether his genial nature will keep him from completing his mission.
The most basic point of the film is to promote sharing between siblings, just as the first movie took aim at the value of imagination and Finn’s father’s attempts to control what could be built out of the Lego. But you can drill even deeper, as the parallels to the Gillette spot suggest, or even take it in a different direction: Rex Dangervest’s solution to most problems is to blow them up with a giant punch (his ship is the shape of a clenched fist), and you can read this trait as a commentary on our fractious political discourse. Shouldn’t we work on building things together, rather than smashing them to bits? And maybe buy some more things as we do so?
Queen Watevra Wa’Nabi (Tiffany Haddish) is a shape-changing character.
Of course, the Lego movies don’t put any of this front and center. They’re family movies after all, and the surface level is always fun character mashups, brick construction sequences, and jokes. On this score The Lego Movie 2 follows a predictable sequel tradition: it doesn’t sparkle with the same kind of freshness or wit as the first installment. The movie also leans a little too heavily on montages and songs. Whereas the first movie did put a lot of energy into a scene built around the song “Everything is Awesome”, it was a more diegetic use of music, and the songs here are non-diegetic departures in the style of a typical kids’ movie or musical. It’s not groan-inducing or boring, but a formula is starting to emerge in this series. It’s also harder to engage with a movie that prominently features a number called “Catchy Song”, intended to drive characters (and maybe the audience) mad.
The end result of wokenomics at the movies isn’t necessarily a bad one. If a movie is advancing a worthy cause and if it happens to prompt toy sales at the same time, then it’s hard to argue that a great harm is being done. But it is important to keep an eye on these trends, especially when they are coded into friendly family entertainment. Techniques meant for good can always be turned to nefarious purposes - look no further than the battle against disturbing kids’ content on YouTube. I won’t say no to more movies in the Lego universe, but I may look a little closer at the way they’re written.
The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part gets two and a half stars out of four.
Stray thoughts
Clearly the movie worked on a capitalist level, because I’d love to own a few of the apocalypse-themed building sets.
The relationship between the human and the Lego characters is still murky - are all the events just a product of the kids’ imaginations, or are the Lego characters actually alive in a Toy Story sense?
The animation is still top-notch - a real achievement for Warner Animation Group.