Showing posts with label up. Show all posts
Showing posts with label up. Show all posts

I like where your head is, sir, but I think you should have gone all the way with this. To that end, I offer a brief addendum: Up is a great movie because it, again like The Incredibles before it, works to demystify the patented Disney happy ending. Why should we celebrate this? Because the typical happy ending is no more than a ploy to sell sex to children. Yes, I said it.


The classic fairytale model advocates moving toward an idealized heterosexual relationship, the expectation being that once you're finally whisked away to the prince's castle (or walk down the aisle), hardship ends, and all your dreams come true. This kind of happiness only happens, mind you, with a man well above your economic status - I believe some call this indoctrination. I imagine this is partly why J Dub found Up's opening montage so satisfying: real relationships have real setbacks and real tragedies, and Pixar works to capture that. Damnit. Why are we agreeing on this shit?


"
Yet -- and I mean this -- not everyone deserves to be special. Pixar gets this, and their oeuvre supports that claim.* The exceptional rise to the top, while those of the status quo get left behind. " -WHayes on Disney Pixar's Up

I feel like I've heard this somewhere before... Ohh that's right... Disney Pixar itself expressed much the same sentiment in another one of their movies already....

Disney Pixar's "Ratatouille's" main character, a rat named Remy, strives to become a great chef in the city of Paris. Remy idolizes a famous chef named Gusteau, and he considers Gusteau's book, entitled "Anyone Can Cook," to be a great chef's instruction manual.

Their biggest critic is Anton Ego, a dark and brooding journalist who is only too eager to slam Remy's cooking. By the end of "Ratatouille," however, Remy succeeds in making a dish (ratatouille, believe it or not) which takes Ego back to his childhood and ultimately wins his praise.

Ego's review of Remy's cooking at the end of the film is naturally quite complimentary, but it also offers a different take on the meaning of the title of Chef Gusteau's book:

"
In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau's famous motto, "Anyone can cook". But I realize - only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere."

The bold part is the important part. The message WHayes pulls out of "Up" is that even an old man, a random and strangely ambiguously ethnic boy, and a talking Golden Retriever can be special, remarkable, great. Not everyone can be remarkable, but a remarkable person can come from anywhere. This now seems to be a common theme in these Disney Pixar movies.

WHayes takes it a step farther by mentioning Disney Pixar's "The Incredibles" because this film depicts remarkable people who have been forced to live unremarkably. His idea is that remarkable people are born that way, and are so permanently.

This point WHayes offers in addendum to the main one, and now I will offer an addendum to this addendum: it seems to me that all of these Disney Pixar films are also demonstrating that it requires great adversity and terrible odds to force these characters to realize their remarkableness. It is only because Carl and Russell find themselves clinging to the side of a flying zeppelin that they discover their ability to cling to the side of a flying zeppelin.

And so, WHayes and JDub present "The Gospel, According to Pixar:"

"
Remarkable people can come from all walks of life, and although it always requires a challenge, quest, or some kind of adversity for them to realize that they are remarkable, they're all born that way. So kids, dont be afraid of adventure, danger, scrutiny, and tribulation: these things are what allow you to realize your remarkableness, after all."

It seems to be this message that Disney Pixar is communicating in many of their films, and for my money (and my future kids), this is a far better moral than that of life being the persuit of some unatainable "happily ever after" idea.

Disney Pixar's Up, about a man, a boy, their dreams, and their dog, is probably the capstone film in Pixar's current thematic pattern of telling stories of the nature of being special.

I'll begin this post by warning you guys that I won't be the guy to relentlessly trumpet the studio's triumphs for the umpteenth time (those people sound like Apple fans, anyway, and Apple people are undeniably annoying...I am one...ooh, paradooooxxx), I will give credit where credit is due. And just as my MacBook lets me safely surf for porn in an ocean of spyware, Pixar movies give my brain something rewarding in a sea of Dreamworks "entertainment."

That said, what I appreciate most about Pixar movies is the effort that goes into creating a story that resonates on multiple levels. This is by no means a new concept to the animated feature -- Tex Avery cartoons were rife with violence and innuendo that seemed funny to kids who didn't know any better -- Pixar thankfully continues the tradition in an intelligent fashion, instead of doing "just enough" to get by.

But back to being special. I heard once that the problem with reality tv, aside from the rampant, indignant exploitation, is that these shows are sliding from their potential to showcase the talented unknowns among us (Project Runway, and Dirty Jobs for its dedication to showcasing the people who make modern life possible) into showing people that are truly banal in their actions (Jersey Shore), intentionally elevating that banality into "celebrity." Yet -- and I mean this -- not everyone deserves to be special. Pixar gets this, and their oeuvre supports that claim.* The exceptional rise to the top, while those of the status quo get left behind.

I go through the hoops in suggesting this, because its the only way I can reconcile Up's problematic third act, where it seems like protagonist Carl Fredricksen magically gains the strength to save the day. Yes, its just a cartoon where a man floats his house to Peru courtesy of the thousands of helium balloons he blew overnight, but the best fiction still has to follow its own rules. If I can accept Carl playing Spider-Man on the side of a blimp, then its only because he didn't gain the strength (physical and emotional) in that moment, but had it all along. Extrapolating from this, the addendum to the Pixar thesis is that while not everyone can be special (see The Incredibles), those that are, are so permanently. Dontcha just wish you were important?




* J.K. Rowling got this, even though her fans don't. Kits don't realize that the Hogwarts universe is an elitist fucking place, one where the magical folk dominate their "muggle" counterparts, and even shun their own children, the "squibs," when they fail to showcase magical propensities. Rowling's haves are explicitly better than her have-nots; they're the ones who save the world in the end, and the muggles would be helpless without them. Normal people are doomed to eternal inconsequentiality.

Disney may not have come up with the idea of ending a story with the "happily ever after" concept, but they sure did perfect it. They also managed to convince 50 years worth of children that "happily ever after" is the way stories should end. Even in real life.


Most of the time, the "happily ever after" idea is evoked surrounding Disney characters finally getting together romantically. In "Cinderella," they ride together in a fancy carriage toward his fancy castle, and the story "ends" with their marriage.

Pixar's latest film "Up" begins by spending about ten minutes setting up a love story between Carl and Ellie, and this time, their marriage is the film's point departure. Their archetypal "happily ever after" moment sets off one of the greatest montages I've ever seen, but the message Pixar ends up sending here is far less idealistic than it has been throughout Disney's past.

Carl and Ellie's goal was always to make it to Paradise Falls in South America as part of their "Adventure, On!" mantra. The montage shows them throwing change into a large jar to try and save enough money to buy plane tickets to Paradise Falls.

But as it invariably seems to do out here in the real world, life manages to get in the way. The opening montage shows things like tires going flat and storms damaging their house, which force Carl and Ellie to have to dip in to their Paradise Falls fund for repairs. As the montage closes, Carl and Ellie grow old together, living their life and simply never making it to Paradise Falls.

The conflict between the "happily ever after" ideal and the reality of Carl and Ellie's life seems to be what drives Carl to make a last ditch effort to get to Paradise Falls and tie a ton of balloons to his house and float on down there. Obviously a certain element of fantasy will pervade kids' movies, but I'm quite happy to see modern Disney working to right the ideological wrongs of Classic Disney: there's no such thing as "Prince Charming," and life will always get in the way of "happily ever after."


Free Blog Counter