"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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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|10 years ago|reply
"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|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mturmon|10 years ago|reply
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|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ubernostrum|10 years ago|reply
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."
[+] [-] icebraining|10 years ago|reply
Ironic? While I enjoyed Ratatouille, that dialogue just seemed self-serving to me.
[+] [-] bitwize|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] wrsh07|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jare|10 years ago|reply
> 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.
[+] [-] PirateDave|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jimmy|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GuiA|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tux1968|10 years ago|reply
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|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] masterponomo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JackMorgan|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nemo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jandrese|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] vernie|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] carlosdp|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lfowles|10 years ago|reply
Although it is saying something that the top 3 most popular stories are from the humor section.
[+] [-] boken|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jimmy|10 years ago|reply