To date, Pixar has created ten full-length computer-generated animated feature films. In addition to telling stories that successfully reach both children and adults, the young company is known for its lengthy production process (an average of four years per picture) and cutting-edge technical innovations. For instance, the animators of A Bug’s Life (1998) fashioned their style of lighting and shading to illustrate “the transparence and backlighting of an insect world” (Porter and Susman 25). Likewise, for Monsters, Inc. (2001), Pixar developed a process simply called hair technology, which enables the 2.3 million blue hairs on the body of lead character Sulley to move fluidly and naturally (right). [1] A third example of the company’s technical competence may be found in Cars (2006): as Pixar’s website explains it, a process called ray tracing allows the film’s characters like shiny red Lightning McQueen “to credibly reflect their environment.” Finally, Pixar animators created squashing and stretching, a technique that conveys the mass and flexibility of the superhero family of The Incredibles (2004) and the numerous furry rodents that scamper across the screen in Ratatouille (2007).
It is no secret, then, that Pixar’s narratives are almost entirely dependent upon computer-driven special effects. Moreover, the company’s conference papers, published essays, website, and DVD extras tend to emphasize its innovative prowess over the equally-significant creative minds of its designers and directors. For these reasons, one might think that Pixar’s onscreen representations of high-tech advancement might be positive, or in the very least, hopeful. This is, however, not the case. Paradoxically, the most technically-savvy animated filmmakers in the world depict technology and progress as agents of torture (Monsters, Inc.), tools for destruction (The Incredibles), and threats both to individuality (Cars) and the environment (WALL-E).
In Monsters, Inc. and The Incredibles, the latest in technical innovation is associated almost exclusively with the films’ villains: the scheming lizard, Randall (voiced by Steve Buscemi), and the freckled-faced would-be superhero, Syndrome (voiced by Jason Lee). For example, in the world of Monsters, Inc. the creatures who enter children’s bedrooms to frighten them and bottle their screams for energy are being replaced with a newfangled machine. This more modern “scream extractor,” as it’s called, is fashioned to yank the screams right out of the children’s mouths. This is necessary, we learn, because contemporary pop culture has desensitized the kindergarteners so much that monsters can no longer be relied upon to scare them. Built underground by the film’s slimy villain Randall, the machine latches onto a child’s mouth and literally sucks the terror right out of her, simultaneously leaving her lips doubled in size and restoring her sense of fear (featured above). Undoubtedly, Monsters, Inc. represents technical innovation as well as those who create it in a torturous and frightening way.
- Syndrome’s Omnidroid robot on a killing spree.
In The Incredibles, machines do not fare any better than they do in Monsters, Inc. Here, they serve as tools for destruction. For instance, as Syndrome, the film’s aptly named villain, puts it, massive octopus-shaped robots “emerge dramatically, do some damage, [and] throw some screaming people.” Moreover, because these technologically advanced robots are weapons that only he can defeat, the aspirant superhero will rise as the victor while obliterating authentic heroes like The Incredibles. The manmade robots are also touted in the film as uncontrollable, threatening, hard to track, and smarter than humans. As such, in the diegesis of The Incredibles manufactured machines only serve to initiate destruction. I might mention quickly here that the villain in Pixar’s latest film, Up (Pete Docter, 2009), functions similarly. Charles F. Muntz (voiced by Christopher Plummer) employs fancy technology on his pack of dogs. Muntz fits his animals with specially designed thought/voice-translators which allow him to communicate with his pups for the purpose of capturing and killing a rare South American bird.
While Monsters, Inc. and The Incredibles negatively depict progressive machinery, Pixar’s film Cars negatively depicts progress though machines: specifically, in Cars, advancement in society is represented as a threat to one’s individuality. For example, the film’s lead character, Lightning McQueen (voiced by Owen Wilson), ultimately encounters authentic friendships and learns his worth not in the fast-paced world of racing, commercialism, and celebrity but in a virtually abandoned town off the old Route 66. This young car’s countryside realization suggests that growth, construction, and modernism — or ultimately social and economic progress — damage our sense of community and values. Sally (voiced by Bonnie Hunt), one of the cars who lives in the dilapidated but friendly small town, reinforces this concept as she describes pre-Interstate driving to McQueen: “Well, the road didn’t cut through the land like that interstate. It moved with the land, it rose, it fell, it curved. Cars didn’t drive on it to make great time. They drove on it to have a great time.” In essence, an animation company that relies heavily on progress to depict its narratives prefers here, rather paradoxically, “to romanticize a past that resists innovation and change” (Snow, Cabanov, and Popovich). [2]
- In WALL-E, technology causes obesity and environmental ignorance.
Like Cars, Pixar’s WALL-E, represents technology and evolution as threatening not only to individuality, but also to the environment. Before continuing though, I should acknowledge that the heroes of this film — the scruffy-looking WALL-E and the sleekly-formed EVE — are in fact robots, clear representatives of technical innovation. Incidentally, EVE is modeled after the iPod, one of the most recent and most popular forms of technology today (Debruge). Nonetheless, the two seemingly mismatched robots are the ones that save humans from obesity, conformity, consumerism, and an unhealthy dependence on machines. As such, the depiction of technology in WALL-E may be read positively. However, there are several quite disturbing images of progress in the film as well, especially as machinery influences humanity. For instance, in WALL-E the human race — which has boarded space capsules that resemble modern-day cruise ships — is now catatonic and overweight, completely helpless without anonymous computer-mediated voices, glaring fluorescent signs, and hover vehicles to get them through the day. Having abandoned earth for something new and more modern, the human characters in the film have virtually forgotten the natural beauty of earth; in fact, they can hardly recall what plants look like or how dirt feels. A warning message, then, from Pixar’s WALL-E is that human beings must be careful of their current obsessions with progress; if not, they as well as the environment will suffer dramatically, possibly even to extinction.
- Technical advancements lead to unhealthy obsessions in The Conversation.
At the start of this project, I found it both odd and ironic that Pixar, the go-to company for technical innovation in animation, instills in its movies such negative images of progress. But ultimately, what I have discovered is that the company is simply following suit. In other words, Pixar is ultimately representing this subject matter the same way that Hollywood has done for years. I think, for instance, of Francis Ford Coppola’s The Conversation (1974) in which surveillance technology ultimately drives Gene Hackman’s character into a state of paranoia. I think also of films like 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968), Tron (Steven Lisberger, 1982), Blade Runner (Ridley Scott, 1982), and War Games (John Badham, 1983), each of which portrays humans who cannot control their technology and some of which appear to conclude with the obsolescence of humanity altogether (Wood and Smith 195). Finally, more recently The Terminator (James Cameron, 1984), Jurassic Park (Steven Spielberg, 1993), The Net (Irwin Winkler, 1995), The Truman Show (Peter Weir, 1998), Cellular (David R. Ellis, 2004), Untraceable (Gregory Hoblit, 2008), and Eagle Eye (D.J. Caruso, 2008) suggest the same: that even with the best intentions, humanity seemingly cannot manage its technological creations.
It makes sense that contemporary filmmakers would incorporate modern technology in their narratives, but as one columnist ponders, “It doesn’t necessarily follow that technology should be so destructive in movies” (James, par. 8). After all, many of these tools have significantly enhanced our current lifestyles. Furthermore, in contrast to cinematic technology, which frequently explodes violently, most machines in reality just break down with little pyrotechnic fuss whatsoever (Kozlovic 367). And what’s more, those in control of such innovation and development are depicted onscreen as nerds, criminals, children, and hackers rather than the mostly mature, educated, law-abiding adults who generally maintain such equipment in the real world.
So why are there so many negative depictions of technology and progress in both animated and non-animated Hollywood? Many agree that these representations express an intense yet mostly irrational fear that technology will one day outsmart and/or replace us (James, par. 11; Kozlovic 343). Others suggest that Hollywood, as usual, relies on drama to sustain itself, and “self-survival fear is a great dramaturgical motivator” (Kozlovic 366). Either way, Pixar — again, one of the most forward-looking companies working in Hollywood — continues to render progress as torturous, destructive, and threatening. As implied earlier, WALL-E suggests that the animators and directors are perhaps moving in an encouraging direction; after all, two very likable manmade creatures do assist humanity when the latter has gone too far. But as scholar Anton Kozlovic claims in his essay on “computer films,” Hollywood still has a way to go. These negative pop-culture images, he says, need to be revised, “especially amongst the children of the Internet in this age of the moving image” (366). And with this proposition in mind, Pixar — the current leader in creating moving images for children (and many adults) — might be wise, as they already know how, to break new ground.
This paper was presented on Oct. 31, 2008 at the Film & History Conference (Chicago, IL).
Works Cited
Debruge, Peter. “Why Pixar Is the Apple of Hollywood.” Popular Mechanics 26 Jun. 2008. 1 Aug. 2008.
James, Caryn. “Why Hollywood Loves Killer-Computers.” Macworld 13.2 (Feb. 1996): 268.
Kozlovic, Anton Karl. “Technophobic Themes in Pre-1990 Computers Films.” Science as Culture 12.3 (Sept. 2003): 341-73.
Porter, Tom and Galyn Susman. “Creating Lifelike Characters in Pixar Movies.” Communications of the ACM 43.1 (Jan. 2000): 25-29.
Snow, Nick, Mila Cobanov, and Claire Popovich. “Cars and Its Attack on Progress.” Mises.org 4 Jul. 2006. 1 Aug. 2008.
Wood, Andrew F. and Matthew Smith. Online Communication: Linking Technology, Identity, and Culture. Routledge: New York, 2005.
Notes
[1] For cloth and hair simulations in Monsters, Inc, the crew used an engine originally developed by Andrew Witkin, David Baraff, and Michael Kass. This technique would later be revised for characters in The Incredibles (2004), the first Pixar film to feature an entirely human cast
[2] In Cars there are some references to technological devices and advancements like the GPS, organic fuel, and horsepower. For instance, the lead character, racecar Lightning McQueen, explains his mantra thusly: “I’m a precision instrument of speed and aerodynamics” […] Speed. I am speed. One winner, forty-two losers. I eat losers for breakfast…. Speed. Faster than fast, quicker than quick. I am Lightning.” But these innovations are eventually replaced with a sense of community and values.
Related posts:
Professor of film and Shakespeare. Advocate of social media. Lover of popular culture,