The Curse of the Pixar Universe

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/the-curse-of-the-pixar-universe

by samclemens • 11 years ago

40 43 11 years ago

wrsh07• 11 years ago

Maybe the critic is too cerebral for me [mentioning Malick etc], but I think I missed the point.

PirateDave• 11 years ago

I got the same feeling; I'm not sure what movie the reviewer thought he was going into, but it feels like he was expecting a David Lynch film or something similar, not a simple kid's movie.

dennisnedry• 11 years ago

That's the problem with critics, they get paid to analyze things. Sometimes things don't really need to be analyzed, just taken at face value.

anigbrowl2• 11 years ago

I think it's especially important to analyze kids' movies because of their significant ideological impact. You cant ell effective kids; stories without dumbing things down. I found it a very interesting analysis.

icebraining7• 11 years ago

I wouldn't say he expected any different; I think he just loathes the fact that these "kid's movies" are, as you called them, simple, or better yet, simplistic.

He thinks the movie does a disservice to kids by presenting what is, in his opinion, a distorted and sugar-coated representation of mental life and motivations.

Essentially, he thinks that a good movie would pass to viewers what Malick's Tree of Life does about the inner life of children (feelings of wonder, the need to act out for its own sake, the deception ones does for others and even oneself, etc) in a way that would appeal to kids.

(By the way, this is just what I understood from the review; I haven't seen Inside Out)

huu• 11 years ago

"The very notion of what’s appropriate for children looms over any consideration of a movie intended for children."

This is the author's justification for why he's critiquing the film. I disagree, personally, because he himself is not a child. I doubt any child would enjoy "The Tree of Life".

Jimmy2• 11 years ago

Before I clicked on the comments, I had a suspicion that this article wouldn't resonate with the HN crowd. It's very much an example of "humanities" thinking.

2muchcoffeeman2• 11 years ago

Honest question, what does that mean?

Jare• 11 years ago

I haven't seen the movie, but what the article says resonated with the vibes I got from the trailers, so...

The wonder of childhood is the opposite of the cozy vision of “Inside Out”

That may be a key quote. Kids movies, and Pixar movies (which often are, or used to be, for adults as much as for kids) don't need to contain simplistic world views; they need simple and layered presentation, but the world may be rich, and the characters and situations be driven by nuanced and sophisticated themes under the colourful hood. Toy Story 2, The Incredibles and Frozen, in my opinion, are shining examples.

GuiA2• 11 years ago

Malick is the director for "The Tree of Life", another movie about a child's inner life that the author contrasts "Inside Out" to in the article.

carlosdp• 11 years ago

Isn't the New Yorker satirical? One of their headlines is "Scalia Arrested for trying to Burn Down Supreme Court"...

lfowles• 11 years ago

Note the URL for that headline: http://www.newyorker.com/***humor***/borowitz-report/scalia-...

Although it is saying something that the top 3 most popular stories are from the humor section.

undershirt• 11 years ago

how does that url work with asterisks?

Jimmy2• 11 years ago

If you look at the URL for that article, you'll see it's filed under the "humor" folder. Other articles on the site are legitimate.

boken• 11 years ago

It does feature satirical articles and columns, including the Borowitz Report, of which that Scalia article is one installment. (One of its most famous regulars was James Thurber, creator of Walter Mitty and a rare kind of humorist, still widely read decades after his death.) But it is not a satirical magazine cover-to-cover. It's particularly well-known for its short fiction and criticism.

BrandonSmith• 11 years ago

I bet he's a real hoot at parties...

"Hi, Richard."

"Hello, how are things?"

"Great! I'm pretty happy that..."

"Oh, you're not actually happy. You've been indoctrinated to think you need to obtain an artificial mental state labeled 'happiness' by others. What you are really experiencing is resentment for others success and you are projecting your mediocrity as positive achievements."

I found Inside Out wildly entertaining. As did my children and parents. Pixar's storytelling and record of engaging multiple generations is unmatched. They are altogether tragic, dramatic, funny, personal, and universal.

I find nothing wrong with simplifying the rules of a film's universe and requiring filmgoers to suspend disbelief in order to tell a story. Why? Because good films are a catalyst for discussion. As a result, whereas the author is critical of the film itself as damaging for being simplistic, rather, it can be the very context to launch the necessary discussions with children to navigate their myriad of emotions.

Ironically, Pixar's very own Anton Ego of Ratatouille critiques the critics... "In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so."

toyg• 11 years ago

I agree -- I think this piece actually tells you more about the reviewer's idea of what life is ("the way we form social relationships: through performances and masks that one tries on, as much for oneself as for others"), including a certain enjoyment of casual cruelty, than what the movie is about.

ubernostrum• 11 years ago

My favorite approach to this came from a variation on the "famous people in Starbucks" memes a while back:

Patricia Churchland walks into Starbucks and orders a latte. The barista makes it for her, and she sits down to drink it.

A few minutes later the barista asks her "Are you enjoying your latte?" Churchland replies, "No."

icebraining7• 11 years ago

Ironically, Pixar's very own Anton Ego of Ratatouille critiques the critics

Ironic? While I enjoyed Ratatouille, that dialogue just seemed self-serving to me.

joezydeco• 11 years ago

Pixar kind of had a chip on their shoulder during that era, they seemed especially mad at Hollywood and the critics. There's a dig at the end of Ratatouille pointed at Happy Feet, which won the Oscar for Best Animated Feature over Cars:

https://reddit.com/r/movies/comments/35ezkp/til_after_cars_l...

mturmon• 11 years ago

Thanks for this.

The essayist seemed to want a very different film. He wanted one that challenged its audience more directly with the childhood id (as he put it, presenting the audience with the "Big Fuck You"), and that had a more complex and unexplainable range of emotions on the part of both the kid and the adults. In this way, the OP claims, the film spent its time in the shallow end of the pool. (I have to agree.)

But, it was a kids movie. As an adult, I can view it as not risking much, but my 9-year-old was very anxious in several parts of the movie. It was a real emotional ride for her. On its own terms, the movie succeeded very well.

Malick's "The Tree of Life" (mentioned several times in the OP) also succeeded, but also was a flawed film, especially so for a non-believer like me. My wife cannot abide pretense and was giggling through the big bang/dinosaur sequence of TTOL.

TTOL and Inside Out are odd movies to put next to each other; one being so determinedly beautiful and almost too personal and idiosyncratic, and the other trying to enact universal emotional states for children.

mc32• 11 years ago

He makes some great points, if he thinks he's talking to philosophical 10 year olds --but ten year olds don't care about philosophy and deep meaning, in a film, of all things.

He better not send his kids over to grandma or grandpa, cuz I'll bet they do even more sugar coating and infantilizing than this movie.

Relax, mr movie critic, take a breath. No, wait, you get paid to be critical and a cynic.

vernie• 11 years ago

Maybe Brody will enjoy Michael Haneke's upcoming foray into children's films: Funny Games Too

nemo• 11 years ago

If only there were 800 characters representing all of Riley's emotions and the parents were meaner the movie would have been much better...

masterponomo• 11 years ago

This is almost as bad as the same reviewer's brutal takedown of Steamboat Willie.

JackMorgan• 11 years ago

Ah, I needed that

tux1968• 11 years ago

This charming film is appealing and enjoyable to all ages while gently reminding us to attend to our emotions -- just as the main character learns that sadness has its place.

All dramatic performances are simplifications, from scenery to the focus of the content. Usefully simple that is; like any map for instance, which would be unwieldy (at best) if at full scale and containing every detail. Clarity is found by stripping out superfluous details.

To my ear, the author of the article had to really stretch to find a way to complain about this flick.

briandear• 11 years ago

The author sounds like a pretentious douche. The author has obviously never made or written a feature length film designed to entertain an audience. I bet the author spends Saturday mornings watching Wim Wenders films lamenting why Tom Waits doesn't release a new album already.

Blah.

Pixar writing once again hits it out of the park, creating a unique film that helps kids (and adults) think about how emotions affect us. Self-important gluten-free PBR drinkers notwithstanding.

bitwize• 11 years ago

Inside Out was inspired by the psychological concept of basic emotions, which boil down to joy, sadness, fear, anger, disgust, and surprise. They just conflated fear and surprise into one character.

What I think is interesting is that these emotional characters have different aspects and complexities of their own. Pay close attention to the scenes where we see Riley's parents' emotions. For her mom, Sadness is in control; for her dad, Anger is the leader. Yet they are not predominantly sad or angry people. In the movie universe, Sadness is responsible for compassion and Anger for our sense of right and wrong. If Riley's emotions seem underdeveloped in regard to these complexities, it's because... well, she's a kid.

jandrese• 11 years ago

I got about halfway through the second paragraph before backing out of the article slowly with my hands up.

The Curse of the Pixar Universe

Related Stories