Did you catch that piece about Michael Barrier that the Huffington Post ran last week? Where this noted animation historian said that the films that Pixar produces ” … are emotionally manipulative in a fundamentally dishonest way.”
Well, no disrespect to Mr. Barrier (By that I mean: I’m a longtime fan of Michael’s work. I’ve been reading & enjoying Barrier’s articles since he first began making them available through his “Funnyworld” magazine. More to the point, I’ve got well-thumbed copies of Barrier’s books – “Hollywood Cartoons: American Animation in Its Golden Age” and “The Animated Man: A Life of Walt Disney” – in my research library. So Michael Barrier is a historian & industry observer whose opinions I’ve really come to trust over the past 40 years) … But I think that Michael is way off base here.
I mean, it’s not that Pixar’s movies aren’t actually emotionally manipulative. Because they are. But when you get right down to it, aren’t all movies (at least the really good ones) emotionally manipulative?
Seriously, people. Think about it. When you go to your local multiplex and sit down in that darkened theater with your over-priced Coke & popcorn & then stare up at that big screen … Isn’t the whole point of making a trip to the movie theater that you’re actually hoping to be emotionally manipulated? Because you want someone to tell you a story that will then make you laugh or cry?
Master storyteller Walt Disney certainly understood this. That people genuinely enjoyed being taken on an emotional roller coaster ride whenever they went to the movies. Which is why Walt once famously told the storymen who worked at his studio that ” … for every laugh, there should be a tear.”
And right from the get-go – at least when it came to Disney’s animated features – Walt made sure that these films had scenes that deliberately went out their way to make the audience cry. I mean, think back to the funeral scene in “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.”
The only time in this entire movie that we get to see the character Happy being anything other than happy is when he’s standing in front of Snow White’s bier, weeping.
Likewise, when Grumpy – who’s always been guarded with his emotions right up until this point in the picture – starts to break down … Well, that’s when the audience starts crying as well.
But the coup de grace in this scene comes with Dopey & Doc. Now you gotta remember that Dopey is basically a pantomime character. He never actually speaks in “Snow White.” So to now hear Dopey openly sobbing in Doc’s arms … That’s the moment in this animated feature that usually makes even the most stoic audience member reach for the Kleenex.
And the Disney animated features that were produced during this era, when Walt was personally calling the shots story-wise on all of these projects, are loaded with all sorts of emotionally manipulative moments. Be it the death of Bambi‘s mother …
… or Cinderella having her dress torn to shreds by her stepsisters and then losing all hope that she’ll be ever able to go to the Ball before her Fairy Godmother finally arrives on the scene …
… or the entire “Baby Mine” sequence from “Dumbo.”
Each of these Golden era animated features was emotionally manipulative in some way. Though – according to what Barrier told the Huffington Post last week – the pictures that were produced during this period in Disney production history were far ” … more organic in their storytelling.”
Whereas the movies that Pixar produces … Well, to hear Michael talk, they’re loaded with “… synthetic emotions.” That these “grotesquely sentimental” films are only suitable to for those who are ” … looking for an excuse to break into tears.”
Which – again – kind of confuses me. Because — to be blunt here — animated features aren’t organic. Whether they’re done in CG or by using hand-drawn animation, these types of motion picture are manufactured products which passes through hundreds of hands before they finally reaches the big screen.
So if a film is this entirely artificial thing that people deliberately go to because they want to be manipulated into laughing or crying … Then why is it a bad thing to be emotionally manipulated by an animated feature?
I would argue – given that there are so many movies being produced today which fail to make any sort of emotional connection with the audience – that this ability to repeatedly forge an emotional connection with the movie-going public is one of the real virtues of the Pixar film library. Whether it’s the “Kitty has to go” sequence from “Monsters, Inc.” …
… or the opening montage from “Up” …
… Pixar’s animated features give audiences something tangible to take home with them. A lasting emotional connection to these stories & characters. Which is why these films wind up doing as well as they do during their initial theatrical releases and then go on to do just as well – if not better – when they’re sold as Blu-rays and DVDs.
In fact, I’d argue that one of the main reasons that “Despicable Me” did as well as it did last summer was because this Universal Pictures release borrowed heavily from the Pixar playbook. And I mean that in a good way. In that this Illumination Entertainment served up characters and a storyline that people could genuinely care about. Which is why “Despicable Me” wound up with such terrific word of mouth …
… more to the point, how this animated feature wound up selling $544 million worth of tickets worldwide.
So in the end, does it really matter that “Toy Story 3” (which – as I was typing this piece – just won the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature) is emotionally manipulative? That audience members were taken to the blackest, bleakest moment ever seen in a Pixar production when (SPOILER AHEAD) Woody & the Andy’s Room gang appear to be just seconds away from being burned up in an incinerator …
… only to then – at the last possible moment – be rescued from above by the Pizza Planet aliens. Who – in a gag that goes all the way back to the original “Toy Story” – are wielding the landfill’s enormous claw.
So I guess what I’m saying here is … Well, that I don’t think things are quite as cut-and-dried as Mr. Barrier says they are. That the films that Walt personally rode herd on ” … are more organic in their storytelling” while the movies that Pixar makes now are ” … very manipulative and completely unconvincing.”
Me personally, I figure that if it’s okay to feel sad when Geppetto thinks that Pinocchio is dead …
… and then cry tears of joy when the Blue Fairy turns that puppet into a real boy …
… I figure that it’s okay to become emotional while I’m watching “Toy Story 3.” To feel bad for Woody as Andy drives off for college …
… but – at the same time – feel happy for the Toy Story gang. Given that they seem to be in such good hands, now that they’ve been folded into Bonnie’s family of playthings.
Speaking of which … Though the feature film adventures of the Toy Story gang have officially come to a close, Woody, Buzz et al will live on thanks to the “Toy Story Toons” series. The first of which, “Hawaiian Vacation” …
… deals with what happens when Ken and Barbie are accidentally left behind when Bonnie’s family heads off to Hawaii. And it’s up to Sheriff Woody and the gang to make these playthings’ playcation dreams come true.
Anyway … Getting to the question that’s driving today’s JHM article: Do you folks think that Pixar’s films are too emotionally manipulative? Or do you – like me – see this as a positive (rather than a negative) aspect of these animated features?
More to the point, do you – like Mr. Barrier – use a different yardstick when it comes to measuring the animated features that were produced while Walt was personally in charge of his Studio? And – if so – why is it then okay to be concerned for Bambi & Faline as they’re trying to escape from that forest fire …
… and yet, when Woody & Co. are about to be burned up in that incinerator …
… that’s somehow considered emotionally manipulative?
What’s the real difference between these two films? They’re both animated features, right? If so, shouldn’t they be measured by the exact same emotional yardstick? I mean, the child who’s going to slot their copy of the Diamond Edition of “Bambi” right next to the Blu-ray version of “Toy Story 3” isn’t going to differentiate between those films because one was released in 1942 and the other was released in 2010. So why should we?
I’m genuinely intrigued to hear you folks’ thoughts on this matter. Because – while I do respect Mr. Barrier’s knowledge when it comes to animation history – I think that Michael’s letting his obvious love of the Golden Age classics get in the way of his ability to be able to enjoy some of the more genuinely entertaining stuff that’s being produced today.
Your thoughts?