What if I told you they were preparing us for the future? What if I told you Pixar’s films will affect how we define the rights of millions, perhaps billions, in the coming century? Only by analyzing the collection as a whole can we see the subliminal concept being drilled into our collective mind. I have uncovered the skeleton key deciphering the hidden message contained within the Pixar canon. Let’s unlock it.

The Hidden Message in Pixar’s Films
> Catena Ex Situ

• I noticed an interesting, if pointless, link between the cartoon show The Boondocks and Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax. In both of these cartoons (or comics, books, whatever) there is a character representing big business, corporate greed, what have you. In The Lorax this character is the Once-ler, and in The Boondocks, well, it’s Mr. Wuncler. Both Once-ler and Wuncler represent the way big business uses the lower class for their own goals and rapes the land of it’s resources at the expense of all those on it. It’s just a nice little parallel, a nod of the head on the part of Aaron McGruder, as both characters’ names are pronounced the same.
  -Contributed by SamRay
• We’ve all had our suspicions about Spongebob’s sexual orientation. Oddly, being close with a friend of the same gender points to homosexuality but, this isn’t about a relationship with Patrick. This is about the episode of Spongebob Squarepants in which his B.O. fends off residents of Bikini Bottom.
  In the episode, Spongebob confuses his B.O. for “ugly”. Spongebob’s “ugly” is homosexuality. This is backed up by a few events in the episode. Mainly, the scene where he stands on the roof of his pineapple and proclaims his ugly pride. Right after he exclaims his pride, we switch to Squidward alone remarking “Is that what he calls it?” It was right there and then that I knew that this episode was, very subtly, taking on the issue of homosexuality.
  -Contributed by Matthew S.
• The toy characters in the Toy Story series are shown to internalize what they are made to represent: Buzz Lightyear initially believes himself to be a space explorer, the Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em Robots are extremely combative, and the like. However, they are not always equipped to actually carry out their assumed functions: Buzz’s laser doesn’t work, Rex cannot actually eat smaller animals, etc. One key inability shared by all of the toys is the inability to reproduce. Strangely, though, Woody and Bo Peep carry on a low key relationship. What makes this even stranger is that in Toy Story 2, Woody is prepared to leave for Japan and never come back, but does not even mention his relationship with Bo Peep, even though this would jump immediately into the mind of any normal person. This would suggest, then that their relationship is essentially “going through the motions”: they do it because they are “imprinted” to do so, rather than for any biological reason.
  -Contributed by H. Rex

[Editor's Note: I found this Ex Situ via the indispensable The Disney Blog.]

Mr. Michial Farmer at Ladder on Wheels has written an excellent two-parter about themes of darkness and anxiety in Disney and Pixar movies (including Up). It’s practically a survey of disturbing things in Disney and Pixar movies. The first part is all about how dark the early Disney features were, and how they lost some of that darkness after (roughly) World War II:

…All of the early Disney features—for our purposes, let’s define “early” as prewar, which would allow us to work with Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Pinocchio, Fantasia, Dumbo, and Bambi—are shiny and beautifully drawn, but all of their prettiness only serves to hide the deep, existential dread at their cores.

While Mr. Farmer has a good point, I do think he neglects some of the darker imagery of The Rescuers, The Black Cauldron, The Lion King, or even Lilo & Stitch. Though the darkness in these films isn’t quite as fundamental or thematic as most of the pre-WWII examples he gives.

His second part is all about how Pixar’s stories are successful partly because they have embraced those  mature themes which have been largely absent from the post-war Disney films. Here’s part of his discussion of Finding Nemo:

Finding Nemo, on the other hand, begins with a reference to and amplification of the central terror in Bambi. Here Marlin’s wife dies a terrible death just as they’re planning their life together, and the Barrucuda who eats her also goes ahead and takes out all but one of her eggs. Marlin—understandably, although the film doesn’t seem to acknowledge that!—becomes a picture of anxiety, protecting his disabled son (a nod to Dumbo, though Nemo doesn’t get the brutal mocking that his elephantine counterpart does) from the world that took his wife with little to no warning.

It’s very true that Pixar does not shy away from including  more sophisticated and mature themes. It’s certainly part of the reason why Pixar movies  resonate strongly with both kids and adults. Pixar also does not make the mistake (common among the filmgoing public) of mistaking “dark/edgy” for “dark/mature.” A lot of cartoon and comic fans seem to think it validates their love of the artform if disturbing stuff is haphazardly included, whether or not it actually adds anything symbolically or thematically. Pixar probably learned its lesson after that first disastrous “edgy” draft of Toy Story.

Deep in the Big Black Heart of the Sunshine State
Part 1 >Catena Ex Situ
Part 2 >Catena Ex Situ

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine

Contributed by Lucas R.

A gorgeous, well-crafted and charming piece of cinema. The design was rich and warm and it made me feel nice and happy just getting to watch that world. All of that is really fantastic and worth more than the price of admission, but on top of that I realized while I was watching, and delighted in the realization, that the movie was a metaphor for Pixar!

Alright, let me explain (or try to explain, because I tried telling a lot of this to the friends I saw the movie with, got a bit carried away and jumped all over the place, and mostly got smiles and nods).

First, we’ve got Gusteau, the almost mythic chef who became a well-known phenomenon because of his work, and because his work was so loved he grew and thrived and made an empire. The empire lost some steam and with the help of some critical voices pointing out the plateau, the momentum was lost and with that momentum gone, the head of the empire died, but his empire kept on. So Gusteau was Walt Disney.

That empire reached far, and despite the energy behind the chef’s message had died, his work had spread and the message itself still inspired, even inspiring someone far away with a love for the same art to learn and grow their skills. That energy, conviction and the excitement of challenges and creation sounds a lot like Remy is Lasseter, discovering his raw tools at the beginnings of Pixar, amongst people who are supportive but have no idea what he’s doing, and folks who realize he’s got something but want to steer it to fit their interest. Remy’s testing for poison while exploring some ideas of food combination, Lasseter’s testing software and testing some character interaction and storytelling with new and developing technology. So yeah, Remy is Lasseter.

So, since the death of Gusteau/Disney, the empire still exists, but isn’t in the hands of the person who began it. It is being run now in a largely totalitarian way by a man without the creative and inspirational vision of the creator, but with a mind for keeping things afloat and profiting on cheapening and exploiting the name and image of the company’s past in mostly cheap and easy ways. In the movie, that’s Skinner; at Disney, that’s Michael Eisner. So yeah, Eisner/Skinner is chugging along, riding high at the helm of another’s empire and keeping many things running without any change and discouraging talk of change, while at the same time making deals behind the scenes to merchandise everything he can plaster the name of the now long-dead Gusteau/Disney onto.

Next, we get a seemingly harmless and ineffectual remnant of the old days who Skinner/Eisner lets on, but dismisses out of hand and sets up in a place where he figures the guy can’t do much/any harm. This new guy turns out to have ties to Gusteau/Disney though, and starts to make some waves after he begins a relationship with a little-known outside party that makes a splash out of nowhere with their first big creative endeavor. Linguini is Roy Disney. Roy staked himself to secure a relationship with Pixar and when Pixar hit big with Toy Story, the eyes were on him, largely like how Linguini could’ve stayed ineffectual and bullied into impotence but found the potential greatness in a small outsider. To the majority of the outside world, this new, great creation belonged to the empire of Gusteau’s/Disney, while within Disney it was Linguini/Roy Disney making a stir and the real power behind it all was Remy/Pixar.

The challenge to replicate the first success and the scoffing that “meh, you can do it with soup/toys, but let’s see if you can do it with something even Gusteau/Walt couldn’t ever seem to pull off: a bug movie!” But by sticking to what he knew to be best instead of trying to simply recreate what was done before, Remy/Pixar pulled it off again and now people wanted more.

During this time, Linguini/Roy Disney falls for Colette, who has worked very hard to get in and stay at the kitchen/Disney studios and who thinks that the only way to work is to tenaciously stick to the classic formulas and rules and immediately jumps in with warnings that deviation can lead to disaster. She does clue Remy/Pixar into some technical aspects of their work that do improve his skill, but he blows past Colette because of his experimentation and sense of artistry, and Linguini/Roy Disney is left in the middle trying to be supportive of Colette while still providing an outlet for Remy/Pixar and being pulled all around in the process. Colette is Disney Animation (the department and the animators). She viewed Pixar/Remy as a threat and an anomaly at the beginning, and eventually had to bite the bullet and join in to be able to really make anything worth making by the end of things. But I digress, back to where we were in the story.

Roy/Linguini was now riding high, but didn’t really understand his relationship with Remy/Pixar and was even trying to steer them along himself, even though it was done pretty innocently. Eisner/Skinner saw things slipping away and was grasping at straws to find a way to keep control. He even tried to trap Remy/Pixar (Skinner with a literal trap, Eisner with contracts) so he could take advantage of what they were succeeding with and force it into his cheap merchandising plans, but Remy/Pixar fought around that and finally got Linguini/Roy to realize that for his relationship with Remy/Pixar to really work, he’d have to take the support role instead of the leader/sponsor role and give them the chance to be the force they are. Still, when Remy/Pixar finally enters into Gusteau’s/Disney, the people who were there running the machine left and Remy/Pixar found that they had to rally their own forces with the reluctant Colette/Disney Animation. In the end, Remy/Pixar finds out that they can’t just continue in the shell of a former empire, they have to take the good from that and make something new if they’re going to be able to succeed.

Finally, Anton Ego represents the critics of animation in general. People who figure it’s all been done to death already, but if you think you can impress them, then go ahead and hit them with your best shot, because they don’t know what they want out of animation, just that they don’t think they can be impressed by it any more. With that challenge, the people in the studios figure they should bank on something flashy and new and shiny, but Remy/Pixar goes for something simple and nostalgic with enough of their own twist to make it theirs without taking away from what makes the subject matter belong to the audience, and instead of trying to make their audience like something completely new, finds new ways to remind their audience about something they already loved. It’s not so much a formula as a recipe that Pixar has used well and continues to, and it’s the kind of meal that stays with you and really satisfies.

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine

Back in March of 2000, The Humanist magazine published an article by Lucia K. B. Hall entitled “Toy Stories for Humanists?” This interesting article presents thematic elements in both Toy Story and Toy Story 2 from a humanistic perspective. The author is convinced that each movie contains “a carefully thought-out and detailed humanist message.” Here’s an excerpt:

Seen as such an allegory, Toy Story becomes a carefully wrought description of two opposing world views: naturalism and supernaturalism. Woody and the other toys in the playroom represent the naturalistic world view. They are mechanisms–material objects that have a material source, a real-world history and origin (Mattel or Playskool or such), and no function other than to be just what they are. Woody embodies basic American Pragmatism. He’s a toy, a mechanism, a material being; he knows it and is content with it.

The article itself is hosted at The Free Library, and is linked below.

>Catena Ex Situ