The Rugrats in Paris: The Movie (2000) – Apparatus
When I was a child, the peak of luxury was the orange VHS tape coming out of that Nickelodeon box getting ready to blow my small mind away with John Lithgow in a robotic snail fucking up Paris.
I know this film, this cinematic treasure, this luxe vehicle for The Godfather references is from 2000, but we’re bending the rules slightly because it’s The Rugrats in Paris: The Movie, people, let’s go, let’s do this. The Review Roulette wheel spun and spun and landed on Apparatus, and, my lovelies, I am sure by now you can guess just how damn excited I am to think through the lineage of Marxist theorists building our understanding of apparatus theory through the ages, Gramscian thought moulded in an Italian prison, distilled in the decades of debates, allowing me to apply Althusser’s logic to the nuances of Susan Sarandon’s goddess-tier performance of a heartless wretch in such a classic as this. Let’s go.
For those unfamiliar (though I am sure there are none), this film is the second of the three Rugrats films officially released by Nickelodeon on the coveted orange VHS tapes and follows the story of Chuckie wanting a mommy. The whole lot are whisked away inexplicably on a business trip of Stu’s to Paris where he is needed to fix the massive animatronic Reptar at the centre of the newly minted Reptarland in Paris (and many jabs at Disneyland Paris ensue). The head of Reptarland, Coco LaBouche is played by SUSAN SARADON in this RUGRATS SEQUEL(!) and she is the GirlBossiest GirlBoss to ever stunt on Paris in a peacock gown saying “I catch flights not feelings” with a mimosa in one hand and a spreadsheet in the other. BUT her promotion to CEO of all of Reptar Stuff is contingent on her being married and displaying that she understands the heart of the company, i.e. a child’s joy. So, Susan Sarandon, who hates babies and thinks men are pathetic, tries to seduce Chas with her assistant in her ear feeding her lovely things to say like a reverse Rugrats Cyrano de Bergerac.
So, genuinely, there is so much rich commentary in this film. 1) It’s for children and that is significant because this was my JAM when I was a child. I loved this movie. I loved the little side plot of the dogs falling in love and my child mind loved the farfetched concept of fictional places like Reptarland and Paris. And I also immediately understood why Chuckie wanted a mom. He only had a single dad, so obviously he needed a mom to rebalance the equation. And that’s just how I thought as a child because of the media and my surroundings seeing that as the normal structures of society.
2) Susan Sarandon’s promotion is contingent on her being married. One’s marital status and role as a parent should not ever be a stipulation of one’s employment under any circumstances, but as a child I was like “yes, this makes perfect sense, the strumpet gotta go, I am in complete agreement, Mr. Yamaguchi.” Now as an infertile woman who does not want kids of my own anyway, I’m like “yikesyikesyikesyikes.” Only 24 years ago we were out here making children’s films with the core instigation of the plot the requirement for a woman to have children of her own to demonstrate she deserves her job as though the only way to prove happiness and kindness and selflessness and the abilities of empathy, humour, and joy were to be a mother. And yes I get that the justification is she works for an amusement park, but let’s think on this further and take us to the third layer here:
3) She is a ruthless capitalist who is making the company mega-money and there is just no way in hell she would be fired for not having a maternal instinct or whatever. I can just hear Walt Disney himself in 1955 saying “sure you not only managed the opening year of Disneyland but also exceeded profit expectations with the ingenious idea to take a multi-media approach synthesising brand unity across platforms, but I just don’t think you have childlike whimsy enough for the role, I’m sorry.” Like that’s just ludicrous to even suggest, but that’s why we ate it up and this takes us to the fourth layer:
4) Women historically have been actually more likely to be punished in their careers for having a husband (and therefore the potential to become pregnant) or child (that need attention). So, the premise of this phenomenal film is just absolutely bananas already and that’s what brings us back full circle to the first layer.
This is a children’s film. This is the media we consumed portraying the ways the world worked in our first glimpses into it, and you may say it wasn’t to be taken seriously, but how are children to know that? The apparatuses of society that teach you how to be a citizen (school, media, etc.) and reinforce those teachings through social pressure in group settings (also school, church, family units, etc.) are both depicted within this film and represented by it. It has model families of expected heteronormative structures with the entire premise of the film resolving that heteronormative structural issue. It has one-liners about the correct way to raise your children and one about the flight attendant not having to pick a baby’s toy up on the plane because “the union forbids” it. These additions, while certainly jokes for the parents watching along, due stick in the mind and form unquestioningly the structures of society for the young person watching it.
I am not knocking this film at all. I am saying, however, that thinking about the films we loved as kids and the messaging within them is a worthwhile task while sitting through a bit of nostalgia and enjoying the absolutely fuck out of it. It’s fascinating to look back on the things that informed my worldview, some of which was dispelled quick quickly, but more of which I am still to this day thinking through and mulling over and deciding which parts to keep and which parts to leave behind. Propagation of the necessity of motherhood to prove a kind and caring nature I can do without, but John Lithgow’s “hon hon hon” I will keep forever.
Because I’m Never Done When I Say I Am
Feminist
One thing I love is that there are two GirlBosses in this movie and they are so careful to distinguish between them. This is very much a follow-on from the main section, but Susan Sarandon and Angelica’s mom are both career women with goals and ambitions and harsh tones. Yet Susan Sarandon is painted as a monster trying to steal the credentials as a mother by quickly seducing Chas and forcing him into marriage and Angelica’s mom, who is acknowledged at the start as inattentive to her child who recently watched The Godfather on her own as a 3-year-old, is still loving and caring by virtue of her being a mom. It’s a fascinating line that’s so carefully drawn between the two.