“Boys” at Pixar Afraid of Little Girls?

15 Pages·2014·0.2 MB·English

Are the “Boys” at Pixar Afraid of Little Girls?
haseenah ebrahim
“Pixar has a girl problem.
—Joel Stein, Time magazine (38)
Until I visited Pixar’s offices, I did not know that 12-year-old boys were allowed
to run major corporations.
—Joel Stein, Time magazine (37)
christian metz’s observation that “a pleasure as it is to examine what elicits our
film is difficult to explain because it is easy disapproval” (xvi). I also make no apology for
to understand” (69) appears particularly evi- sharing those pleasures, however mitigated
dent when one is teaching an undergraduate those may be by my own position as a film
course on the animated feature films of Disney scholar (and as a parent).
and Pixar. In a recent class taught in Chicago,1 Having taught a course on children’s and
many students were taken aback when they family films since 2005 in South Africa, I found
learned that the course involved historical, the aforementioned sentiment more pervasive
sociological, and theoretical framing and among students in the US institution than
analysis. The students, it turned out, expected among those in my home institution in Johan-
little more than discussions of the animated nesburg, South Africa. The notion that this
films’ plot events, some character and stylistic category of media texts is somehow excluded
analysis, and the role of hand-drawn versus from ideological concerns—that the films are
computer-generated (CG) animation in a film’s “ideologically empty,” so to speak—reflects
popular appeal. In addition, a refrain began a widespread perception within both broader
to emerge—namely, “I love Disney films, but I cultures that children’s films are just innocent,
never thought of them as being ideological.” escapist fun. Walt Disney himself was known
In some instances, I sensed a hint of disap- to perpetuate this perception by, somewhat
proval that the course would subject Disney disingenuously, remarking, “We just make the
and Pixar to the kind of analysis that might re- pictures, and let the professors tell us what
quire students to reevaluate much-loved films they mean” (qtd. in Bell, Haas, and Sells 1).
associated with cherished memories of child- In both contexts, one finds that many
hood. I reiterated the argument I make every students—especially, but definitely not only,
time I teach the course, best encapsulated by males—are openly enamored of the films of
Giroux and Pollock, that the pleasures of sco- Pixar Animation Studios. This is not surprising.
pophilia notwithstanding, “it is as important In addition to the drama of the well-publicized
to comprehend and mitigate what gives us agreements and conflicts between Disney and
Pixar from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s
(before Pixar was purchased by Disney), and in
dr. haseenah ebrahim teaches in the Wits particular the tensions between their then two
School of Arts at the University of the Witwa-
larger-than-life CEOs, Michael Eisner and Steve
tersrand (Wits) in Johannesburg. She has pub-
Jobs, Pixar’s films have made motion picture
lished several journal articles on Caribbean
and animation history, with film after film
cinema and on Bollywood in South Africa and is
currently editing a collection of essays on cinema achieving considerable box office success and
and film culture in post-1994 South Africa. critical acclaim.
journal of film and video 66.3 / fall 2014 43
©2014 by the board of trustees of the university of illinois
JFV 66_3 text.indd 43 6/30/14 10:51 AM
Departing from what is frequently seen production company in Hollywood and painting
as the Disney formula—even if that notion is its animators as mavericks and eccentrics—and
something of a simplification—of princesses most of all, as boys in men’s clothing (whether
and fairy-tale fantasies, Pixar’s stories are per- these are the Hawaiian shirts worn by John
ceived as fresh and innovative, combining a Lasseter or the Scottish kilts preferred by Mark
motley assortment of characters, both human Andrews). Pixar director Lee Unkrich’s remark
and nonhuman, with technologically sophis- to Time magazine’s Richard Corliss that “Pixar
ticated and artistically acclaimed animation. is filled with people who don’t get rid of their
Pixar’s tales of friendship, or other types of toys” (Corliss 37) reiterates a brand image of
platonic bonds between male characters, have Pixar as a company run by “boys.”
captivated animation fans, male and female. It had also become quite obvious after
In the months preceding Pixar’s June 2012 twelve noteworthy animated features that Pixar
release of Brave, its first film with a female had avoided making a female a protagonist in
protagonist, Internet bloggers, animation and any of its films. It was to be expected, there-
film Web sites, feminists, Pixar fans, newspa- fore, that there were some qualms as fans and
pers, magazine columnists, and entertainment critics wondered whether thirteen might turn
TV channels were all abuzz with speculation out to be Pixar’s unlucky number.
about what this departure from the animation A key component of the previously men-
studio’s well-established record of highly suc- tioned college courses is the analysis of repre-
cessful male-centric fare would mean. The an- sentations of gender. As such, Disney’s female
ticipation, and in some instances trepidation, “princess” protagonists are quickly raised
was almost palpable—would Pixar be able to for discussion by students, all usually quite
give us girl stories comparable to its narratives familiar with Snow White, Aurora, Belle, Ariel,
of male homosocial bonding? Male bonding, in Pocahontas, Jasmine, and more recently, Tiana
several variations, is a conspicuous theme in a and Rapunzel. Finding scholarly discussions of
number of Pixar films: a pair’s shift from rivals Disney’s princesses is not difficult, but when
to friends in the Toy Story films; father-son compiling assigned reading material on various
bonds in Finding Nemo; interspecies symbiosis aspects of gender, it soon becomes apparent
forged by challenging the “elitism and preten- that little attention is paid to female charac-
tiousness of . . . French haute cuisine” (Booker ters who are not the protagonists or the main
101) in Ratatouille; the lifelong friendship and love interest of the protagonist, even though
professional partnership of Mike and Sully in the Disney animation universe is populated
Monsters, Inc.; or the bonds of affection that with a considerable number of human female
develop between two “boys,” separated in characters. Of those not featured as heroines,
age by seven decades, adventuring together in it is the villains who are most memorable. Little
Up. A question hovered uneasily in the ink and scholarship exists on these, although Elizabeth
ether of the pop culture landscape: what if this Bell’s discussion of Disney’s animated female
move into Disney’s well-established “princess” characters provides interesting insights into
terrain blemished the company’s stellar record Disney’s somatic time line, arguing that its con-
of Oscar wins and box office mega-hits?2 struction of female villains, such as Snow White
Why the concern? The answer may well lie in and the Seven Dwarfs’ Wicked Queen, Sleeping
the words of Time magazine’s Joel Stein, who, Beauty’s Maleficent, Cinderella’s Lady Tre-
a few weeks prior to Brave’s release, declared maine, 101 Dalmatians’ Cruella de Vil, and The
what every Pixar fan already knew: “Pixar has Little Mermaid’s Ursula “inscribe middle age as
a girl problem” (38). It is worth noting that the a time of treachery, consumption and anger in
media—both news and trade—and Pixar itself the feminine life cycle” (116).3 One could add
have expended considerable resources paint- to this list the characters of Mother Gothel in
ing a brand image of the company as an upstart Tangled and Madame Medusa in The Rescuers.
44 journal of film and video 66.3 / fall 2014
©2014 by the board of trustees of the university of illinois
JFV 66_3 text.indd 44 6/30/14 10:51 AM
LiVollmer and LaPointe investigate gender transformed into a boyish young woman who in
transgression in animated films and its asso- many ways—although not entirely—embodies
ciation with villainy, notable in the “queering” what Lissa Paul labels “hero[es] in drag”—that
of characters such as Scar (The Lion King), Jafar is, “female characters who take on traditionally
(Aladdin), and Hades (Hercules). However, it is male characteristics in an attempt to subvert
the Disney princesses who continue to garner the kinds of traditional female roles the first
the most attention, both scholarly and popular, and second wave Disney princesses have taken
and who constitute a disproportionately high on” (qtd. in Whelan 28).
number of proposed essay topics by under- In an ethnographic study of same-sex
graduate students, especially (white) female friendships among preadolescent boys, Red-
students. Scholarly analyses of the Disney prin- man et al. note that young boys’ friendships
cesses/heroines include those by Stone, Bell, utilize strategies of “borderwork” that serve to
Do Rozario, Hurley, Davis, Zarranz, Lester, and “other” their schoolmates on the basis of race
Whelan, among others. and ethnicity, gender, and/or class. Among
Pixar’s thirteenth film, Brave, is the first to these strategies, a key aspect of the boys’
showcase a female protagonist, the Scottish heterosexual same-sex friendship is expressed
Merida, a spunky princess in the mold of “Dis- in the form of insulting remarks about their
ney Renaissance” meets The Hunger Games’ female classmates and general expressions
archery-loving Katniss. A film characterized by of contempt for, and distancing of themselves
Gilbey as “not so much good . . . as significant” from, the feminine.
(51), Brave went on to perform respectably both The marketing strategies of media corpora-
at the box office and critically. Perhaps more tions not only appropriate any existing differ-
intriguing is an upcoming project announced ences in boys’ and girls’ entertainment tastes
by Pixar/Disney’s chief creative officer, John and preferences, but also actively entrench
Lasseter—a film scheduled for release in 2015 these. According to a New York Times article,
that is set entirely inside a girl’s mind (Ne- the “Disney Channel’s audience is 40 percent
witz; Wakeman). Although both Brave and the male, but girls drive most of the related mer-
“Mind” film are to be welcomed for their focus chandising sales” (Barnes 2). Disney initiated
on girls, a review of the little girls who appear— a drive to recapture a worldwide market of boys
with varying amounts of screen time—in the Toy aged six to fourteen, which market researchers
Story trilogy, Monsters, Inc., and Finding Nemo say accounts for $50 billion in spending; in
suggests that the boys at Pixar may be just a 2009, Disney launched the television channel
tad afraid of little girls! and Web site Disney XD, which reflects this
Although sometimes tongue-in-cheek, my revived target audience (Barnes). The courting
discussion of Pixar’s construction of little of boys has proved lucrative for the company,
girls is located within the context of a brand as Pixar’s Cars franchise attests, generating
image of Pixar’s animator-directors as “boys at revenues of $2 billion annually and $10 billion
heart”—that is, as Peter Pan types who have since its launch (Szalai, “Disney: ‘Cars’”; Sza-
never really grown up. As such, they are, pre- lai, “Walt Disney”).
sumably, able to capture the imaginative idio- These developments have resulted in some
syncrasies that we would like to believe mark re-visioning of Disney’s traditional fare. Even
our children’s perspectives on the world. Here as it has revived the princess trope to reinforce
I explore whether Pixar’s films reflect a certain its highly profitable Disney Princess brand, the
apprehension about little girls that can, per- company has updated its “princess” protago-
haps, be likened to the way young boys often nists to include a career-focused, African Amer-
display a notable ambivalence toward girls. ican heroine, Tiana (The Princess and the Frog,
Thus, by the time Brave emerges as Pixar’s first 2009), and the spunky Rapunzel (Tangled,
female-centered film, the girl-heroine has been 2010). Whelan argues,
journal of film and video 66.3 / fall 2014 45
©2014 by the board of trustees of the university of illinois
JFV 66_3 text.indd 45 6/30/14 10:51 AM
Essentially, since The Princess and the Frog successful animation studio in the world had
didn’t garner as much income as Disney relegated girls to the backseat of supporting
might have hoped, this perceived failure was roles. To be fair, adult females such as Elastigirl
placed at the feet of America’s boys, who
(The Incredibles), Dory (Finding Nemo), and
allegedly stopped seeing princess-themed
Eve (WALL-E) and, to a lesser degree, Jesse the
films—or rather, had begun to respond to
cowgirl in Toy Story 2 have fared somewhat
Disney’s aggressive marketing scheme that
better than little girls; having been cast in roles
began in 2000, linking all things “princess”
with girls. (31) as co-protagonists, they therefore have earned
reasonable amounts of screen time—even if
Film critic Alonso Duralde makes explicit Ratatouille’s Collette and Wall-E’s Eve are “cir-
one of the concerns about a film with a cumscribed within the orbit of . . . masculine
princess—or perhaps any female—protagonist: desire” (Booker 101). Up’s Ellie retains a con-
“Things have been tough for female charac- tinued presence even in her screen absence
ters in Disney cartoons of late. When ‘The (after she dies), Finding Nemo’s Dory sub-
Princess and the Frog’ yielded ‘disappointing’ stitutes for the more frequent male sidekick,
returns—i.e., it made gobs of cash but not the and Elastigirl reverses the role of damsel in
usual oodles—the studio retitled ‘Rapunzel’ as distress, leading the quest to rescue her kid-
‘Tangled’ so as to dispel the supposed stink of napped superhero husband.
girl-heroine” (emphasis added). Merida, Pixar’s only female protagonist to
Although both films can be welcomed for date, is an adolescent rather than a little girl. It
their updated representations of heroines as is, in fact, notable that the protagonists of Pixar
independent, intelligent young women actively films are rarely children. Shepard (3) notes that
pursuing their goals, this comes at the cost of “since the ‘Classic’ Disney films of the 1940s
being forced to share most of their screen time and 1950s there has been an aging of the pro-
with their respective love interests.4 However, tagonists in children’s films while the age of
even earlier, in a 2007 documentary titled The the viewing audience has remained the same,”
Pixar Story, John Lasseter noted that when the arguing further that “[t]he replacement of child
company began making animated feature films, protagonists by anthropomorphized animals
they wanted to make something that was dis- and objects causes Pixar’s films to forfeit the
tinctively different from Disney’s animated fea- opportunity to offer constructive narratives
tures: no musicals, no fairy tales, and although about children navigating the precarious terrain
he did not say it explicitly then, no princesses. of childhood. Through Pixar films, children may
Brave’s original director, Brenda Chapman, be learning that the best thing for them to do is
was the first woman to direct a Pixar film,5 and to grow up as quickly as possible” (2).
the response of production designer Steve Such criticism is based on several assump-
Pilcher on hearing Chapman’s pitch is telling: tions: first, that animated films are necessar-
“Brenda was telling me about it, and my eyes ily targeted to children; second, that a child
glazed over. Princess, king, mother-daughter, protagonist is required for a child viewer to
ancient kingdom—all words I didn’t like to be able to identify with the dilemmas posed
think about” (qtd. in Stein 38).6 Pilcher, as it in the plot and its resolution; and third, that
happens, did sign up to work on the film on animated films are a primary source of learning
the grounds that it subverted the princess nar- for children. In fact, research on child develop-
rative. However, it is not just princesses that ment and learning reveals not only that “even
make the boys at Pixar cringe; some commen- 3 ½-year-old children can discriminate fantasy
tators have argued that Pixar has an aversion characters from real characters” (Richert et
to girls in general. It can be argued that until al. 44) but also that “they do not necessarily
the release of Brave, the most consistently transfer information taught to them by a fantasy
46 journal of film and video 66.3 / fall 2014
©2014 by the board of trustees of the university of illinois
JFV 66_3 text.indd 46 6/30/14 10:51 AM
character [in oral stories, film, television, and/ addresses issues of interest to both parents
or literature] to real-world problems” (63). and children. Toy Story, consumerist as it may
Any study of contemporary Disney and be, also speaks to the bonds that children form
Pixar—and this is equally true of DreamWorks with their toys, as well as their parents’ nostal-
Animation or of other studios such as Twentieth gia for those items; the film reverses the famil-
Century Fox—will reveal that (Hollywood’s) ani- iar perspective we already have of a child’s dis-
mated feature films are not so much children’s tress at losing a favorite toy. In all the Toy Story
films as they are family entertainment; argu- films, a child’s sadness at losing his or her toys
ably, even that label may be too restricting. becomes the toy’s fear of—and hurt at—being
Pixar director Lee Unkrich has stated, “We don’t outgrown, abandoned, discarded, or replaced.
make movies for kids. Our mission is to make Pixar’s films are notable, in fact, for reversing a
films for everybody” (qtd. in Corliss). familiar perspective. In Finding Nemo, a child’s
Despite the label “kiddie movie” that many fear of loss of a parent becomes a father’s
people still uncritically append to any animated anxieties and overprotectiveness. In Monsters,
film, it is quite apparent that contemporary Inc., children’s fear of monsters becomes the
children’s films cater to both children and their monsters’ fear of human children, and screams
parents. However, the popularity of Pixar ap- of terror are transformed into a productive
pears to be widespread among adolescents force, a source of energy. Perhaps it is just such
and young adults too—a claim I admittedly a reversal along gender lines that we also see
make based on my experience teaching a uni- in Pixar—that is, little girls are not so “sugar
versity course on youth-oriented films. Krämer and spice and everything nice,” but rather, they
(295–96) argues that “the traditional children’s embody toxicity to varying degrees (though not
or family film has been upgraded with a heavy always seriously), becoming a source of fear,
injection of spectacular adventure to appeal pain, or humiliation to a number of male char-
to teenagers and young adults as well as their acters in several Pixar films.
parents,” resulting in what he labels as “family- Shepard argues, however, that “in Pixar
adventure movies.” films there is a tendency to expunge the child
The demographics in the domestic US characters” (5). Where child characters do exist,
market after the opening weekend reveal not she criticizes Pixar’s depiction of children (in
only that the audience of Brave was more general, not girls specifically) for its use of what
gender-balanced than expected, but also that she calls the “demon-child trope,” arguing that
teenagers made up 12 percent of the audience.
Cunningham observes that “audiences skewed Pixar’s participation in the demon child nar-
female at 57 percent and 55 percent were under rative and their simultaneous avoidance
of positive representations of children may
25 years of age. Families made up 66 percent
highlight the changing view of children in
of the crowds, couples 22 percent and teens
American [culture] and their increasing mar-
12 percent. Concerns that the female heroine
ginalization . . . The “demon child narrative”
would keep young males away vanished.”
is a narrative told by the dominant culture (in
Some scholars, such as Shepard, argue that this case, adult) about the oppressed minor-
Pixar’s films do not deal with the kind of issues ity (children) to an audience of children. The
that help children vicariously experience their Pixar film texts for children’s consumption
fears and find reassurance in a satisfactory out- portray primarily negative representations of
come. This appears to be an unfair argument. children. (10–11)
Finding Nemo, for instance, addresses one of
Although conceding that Boo in Monsters,
the most deeply rooted fears of a child and also
Inc. “is a thoughtful revisioning of the ‘child
of a parent—that is, loss of or separation from
as demon’ tradition” (11), Shepard views other
a parent or child. As such, it simultaneously
journal of film and video 66.3 / fall 2014 47
©2014 by the board of trustees of the university of illinois
JFV 66_3 text.indd 47 6/30/14 10:51 AM
nonnegative child characters such as Andy in nity, humiliation, and/or terror for one or more
Toy Story and Toy Story 2 and Russell in Up as of the other characters in a Pixar film.
marginal characters or as mere sidekicks. It
could be argued, however, that Russell is more Hannah in Toy Story (1995)
than a sidekick; he is a co-protagonist. Pixar’s
films generally have two central characters who Appearing a little later in the Toy Story film is
embark on a psychological and/or physical Hannah, the younger sister of vicious Sid, the
journey together or who are part of some kind toy-torturer who lives next door to Andy. Han-
of twosome in which their interaction is key nah appears to be about the same age as Andy,
to the characters’ growth. These twosomes in- although neither she nor her brother is ever
clude Buzz and Woody, Marlin and Dory, Sulley seen interacting with Andy in the film. When we
and Mike, Mr. and Mrs. Incredible, Remy and first meet Hannah, she is being tormented by
Linguine, and in this vein, Carl and Russell. Me- her brother, who regularly mutilates her dolls
rida, like most Disney princesses, appears to and creates the toy mutants that populate the
walk alone, but her mother, the Queen turned dark corners of his room. After snatching her
Bear is, arguably, a co-protagonist. Janie doll, he runs up to his room, where he
There are several memorable little girl char- is seen performing what he calls a “double-
acters in the Pixar films. In this article, I discuss bypass brain transplant” in which he replaces
Molly, Hannah, Bonnie, and Daisy in the Toy the doll’s head with that of a toy pterodactyl.
Story films; Boo in Monsters, Inc.; and Darla in He then taunts his sister with the dinosaur-
Finding Nemo. doll. Hannah appears to be a normal little girl
despite her brother’s torment and his “creative
Molly in Toy Story (1995) destruction” of toys—both hers and his own—
but it is precisely in her very familiar girl-play
In Toy Story, we meet Pixar’s first little girl, An- of tea party that we see the humiliation of one
dy’s baby sister Molly, who shares a room with of our protagonists, the macho, deluded space
her brother. She is introduced early in the film, ranger Buzz Lightyear. To Buzz’s consternation
after Andy play-stages a bank robbery in which and humiliation, Hannah, who cannot find her
Mr. Potato Head, as a one-eyed bandit, is foiled Sally doll, turns him into “Mrs. Nesbit,” dress-
by Sheriff Woody. Mr. Potato Head is ignomini- ing him in a frilly pink apron (with a dark pink
ously dispatched to Molly’s crib, which serves heart emblazoned on it) and a blue, flowered
as the town jail and where Molly gleefully gives hat. She then sits him down to tea with several
the “criminal” his just deserts by pounding him headless “Marie Antoinette” dolls (possibly the
against the rails of her crib with great relish, result of more of Sid’s surgical activities, but
scattering his (detachable) body parts. Despite which obviously have not hampered Hannah’s
the cute blonde curls, Molly manhandles and ability to play with her dolls).
humiliates the grumpy spud (or what is left Buzz’s humiliation and despair are both sad
of him) as she slobbers all over him, earning and comic. He has just discovered that he is
herself the title of “Princess Drool.” Mr. Potato in fact a toy and that he cannot fly. Addition-
Head rails not against being made the villain ally, he has severed his arm in a fall, which is
in Andy’s play, but against the indignities he now being used as a tea stand. To add to his
suffers at the hands of Molly, reminding the woes, Woody arrives to witness his humiliation.
viewer (especially parents in the audience?) of Woody gets Hannah to leave the room mo-
the inclusion on his box of the ubiquitous age mentarily by mimicking her mother calling and
guideline familiar to most viewers: “Ages 3 and then rushes in to rescue Buzz—the damsel in
up.” This, however, is only the first scene in distress!—from the indignity of being dressed
which a little girl becomes the source of indig- in drag, seated at a girl’s tea party. Buzz, how-
48 journal of film and video 66.3 / fall 2014
©2014 by the board of trustees of the university of illinois
JFV 66_3 text.indd 48 6/30/14 10:51 AM
ever, begins to laugh hysterically, seemingly Mallan and McGillis cite Susan Sontag’s
drunk on tea. well-known essay “Notes on Camp” when they
argue that “the pleasures both children and
buzz: One minute you’re defending the whole adults gain from viewing such performances
galaxy . . . and suddenly you find yourself can be attributed to the visual disruptions of
suckin’ down Darjeeling with Marie Antoi- gender/sex relation and their assumed natural-
nette and her little sisters. ness; consequently, gender becomes a laugh-
woody: I think you’ve had enough tea for ing matter and the camp performance is indeed
today. Let’s get you out of here, Buzz. one of ‘failed seriousness’” (4). However, they
buzz: Don’t you get it? You see the hat? I am go on to argue that “while camp may embody
Mrs. Nesbit! the unconventional, the abnormal, there is
a fine line between its mocking of gender
Woody slaps Buzz (with his own detached arm!) [conventions] and its embracing of gender divi-
to snap him out of his despair. Buzz soon so- sions” (5). The scene’s humor, then, is predi-
bers up but stays depressed. cated on conventional notions of gender and
It is apparent from the many user comments is deeply embedded in the appropriation and
and blogs on the Web that many viewers find reproduction of traditional gender stereotypes,
this scene extremely funny. The scene raises in- without which the scene would fail utterly in its
teresting questions about gender conventions, comedic function.
gender identities, and gender as performance— Within camp’s arsenal of strategies, “drag,”
and how these manifest in youth culture. In or cross-dressing, is prominent. As the perfor-
attempting to understand how gender identity mance of a gender through exaggerated use of
and the performance of gender are utilized in costume elements associated with that gender,
this scene to elicit humor, one cannot divorce drag is used here to evoke very traditional no-
the scene from the context of the broader narra- tions of femininity. After all, who other than the
tive that positions Buzz both as deluded and as server actually wears an apron to a tea party?
an “alpha male,” the latter referring to a model Buzz’s tea party scene is funny precisely be-
of traditional masculinity encompassing a cause his costume is so incongruous on a very
number of traits: muscularity, aggressiveness, conventionally masculinized character, but also
competitiveness, emotional inaccessibility, and a character who the viewer feels is safe from any
the pursuit of social and physical dominance actual—and therefore, subversive—feminiza-
(Jeffords; Gillam and Wooden). tion.7 As with actual drag performances, the cos-
Gillam and Wooden, drawing on Susan Jef- tume is coded as (highly) feminine but does not
fords’s discussion of masculinity in Disney’s overdetermine gender positioning. It provokes
animated films, argue that Pixar’s alpha males both sympathy and laughter in the viewer,
experience self-growth toward a more balanced perhaps simultaneously, because it never di-
“New Man” model of masculinity through a minishes Buzz’s perceived m asculinity—that is,
process of emasculation: there is never any actual ambivalence regard-
ing, or an undermining of, gender identity.8 Kate
As these characters begin the film in Davy notes (and Paul Wells cites her commen-
(or seeking) the tenuous alpha position tary) that “female impersonation provides, in
among fellow characters, each of them is
short, a seemingly endless source of fascination
also stripped of this identity—dramatically
because, unlike male impersonation, the man
emasculated—that he may learn, reform and
who appropriates his ‘opposite’ is not simulta-
emerge again with a different, and arguable
neously effaced by it” (137).
more feminine, self-concept . . . The decline
of the alpha-male model is gender-coded in Although this moment of gender transgres-
all of the films. (5) sion is funny, it is also highly poignant. For a
journal of film and video 66.3 / fall 2014 49
©2014 by the board of trustees of the university of illinois
JFV 66_3 text.indd 49 6/30/14 10:51 AM
moment, Buzz embraces the identity of Mrs. dolls that are able to “tame” the sadistic Sid.
Nesbit. This momentary disruption of Buzz’s Similarly, Stinky Pete the Prospector too gets
alpha-male identity not only allows Buzz to his comeuppance by being made a girl’s toy.
substitute an identity for the one he has just He finds himself in a pink Barbie backpack next
lost; assuming that of Mrs. Nesbit also allows to a face-painted Barbie doll, faced with the
Buzz to mourn the loss of his identity as a prospect of having his mint condition defaced
space ranger, giving vent to his emotions—as by his artistic new owner.
women are socially permitted to do. Thus, Hannah does not reappear in the Toy Story
Mrs. Nesbit is a transitional identity, permit- sequels, and Molly, Andy’s little sister, appears
ting an emotional release for Buzz and a safe only briefly in both sequels. In Toy Story 2, Mol-
object of amusement for the viewer, before ly’s only noteworthy presence is when Woody
Buzz reclaims his identity as a (very) male refers to her as a possible new owner for Jesse
space ranger toy. If, as Judith Butler argues, the cowgirl. In Toy Story 3, her appearances—
gender is performed, it is nevertheless consti- now as a tween—are brief but seem to reintro-
tuted in a series of acts that are repeated in duce the theme of toys being discarded by their
order to sustain the illusion of gender. Thus, young girl owners without much sentiment:
a momentary oppositional performance of Emily, in Toy Story 2, drops Jesse the cowgirl off
gender is here clearly accepted by the viewer in a donations box. Similarly, Molly tosses her
as cross-dressing, a transitory performance, Barbie into the donations box without so much
whether for entertainment, deceit, or in this as a moment of hesitation and then returns
case, emasculation-as-therapy.9 Additionally, nonchalantly to reading her magazine, while
one can observe that Hannah does not see fit Daisy in Toy Story 3 accepts a replacement
to have Buzz Lightyear attend her tea party as Lotso teddy bear, turning the first one into an
himself, but rather has to transform him into embittered villain.
a female character. As such, she reproduces In the audio commentary included in the
what Wohlwend describes as “dominant, tacitly tenth anniversary edition of Toy Story 2, John
agreed-upon ways of ‘doing gender’” during Lasseter, along with his codirectors Lee Un-
children’s play (11). Wohlwend’s ethnographic krich and Ash Brannon and cowriter Andrew
observation of preschoolers during play noted Stanton, states that a number of female anima-
that some children become quite disconcerted tors worked on this sequel, admitting that “the
by others who transgress accepted norms of first movie was made by a bunch of guys about
gender performance and may react by taunting the toys they had as kids and played with. It’s
the transgressive child or children in an attempt very much a boy’s movie!” They also comment
to enforce gender-normative behavior. Thus, on the fun they had buying toys on the com-
“play is never an innocent site; its elasticity can pany’s credit card, clearly enjoying their ability
be used to challenge gender stereotypes but to indulge their boyishness. Also noteworthy
also to reproduce them” (Wohlwend 19). here is the commentary on the role of (female)
Hannah is not done, however. Later, after Sid producers Helene Plotkin and Karen Robert
has had the tables turned on him by his toys, Jackson and Lasseter’s wife, Nancy, as well as
Hannah exploits his newfound terror of toys by Joan Cusack (who voices Jesse) in urging the
taking revenge on her brother via her doll Sally filmmakers to provide “a strong female charac-
as she chases Sid, who is screaming “like a ter.” Although Jesse the cowgirl is constructed
girl.” The balance of power has been reversed as a passionate and exuberant character, it
not only between Sid and his toys, but also is unclear what makes her a strong character.
between Sid and his little sister; even worse for Admittedly, the montage of her backstory—nar-
Sid is the humiliation of being menaced by a rated via the song “When Somebody Loved
toy—a girl’s toy at that. Thus, it is little girls and Me”—as a toy outgrown by her owner, Emily, is
50 journal of film and video 66.3 / fall 2014
©2014 by the board of trustees of the university of illinois
JFV 66_3 text.indd 50 6/30/14 10:51 AM
one of the most moving sequences in the film. From the opening scene of the film . . . chil-
At the end of the film, Jesse’s role in saving dren are understood more as being a mortal
Woody as he almost falls out of the airplane danger to, rather than being in mortal dan-
ger from monsters. The inversion is a neat
luggage hold is a reversal of the plot action in
one: kids are really the ones to be scared
the original screenplay, in which Woody res-
of, they’re the real monsters. In this sense,
cues Jesse. The filmmakers credit Joan Cusack
this is very much a film made by parents
for reversing this “damsel in distress” plot ele-
for parents, whose fear and horror of their
ment in the film. offspring, of the responsibility that comes
with them, runs deeper and lasts longer than
Boo in Monsters, Inc. (2001) the child’s perplexed powerlessness before
the adult world. This might be why we place
Monsters Inc. is Pixar’s fourth feature film. them under so much surveillance . . . don’t
Utilizing the childhood fear of monsters in the we scare because we care? (73)
closet as its premise, the film depicts the terror
Scherman contends that “‘Boo’ in Monsters,
of children as productive labor, their screams
Inc. is constructed as a monster when not in her
generating the energy that powers the city of
own society, illustrating [a] social construction-
Monstropolis. The protagonists, Mike and Sully,
ist model of disability” (16), one “whose only
work for a corporate powerhouse, Monsters,
disability is society’s act of exclusion” (16),
Inc., which collects the energy generated by the
and that “the films [Disney’s Lilo & Stitch and
screams of human children. Early in the film,
Monsters, Inc.] . . . create a tension between
human children—regardless of gender—are
the tradition of casting deviant bodies as mon-
positioned as highly toxic, with a firm warning
strosities and the possibility that the monster,
issued to trainee scarers by the company’s
like ‘Boo,’ is us . . .” (16). For us as viewers, Boo
CEO, Henry J. Waternoose: “There’s nothing
has the “right body [in the] wrong world” (17).
more toxic or deadly than a human child. A
Thus, although Boo turns out to be of no actual
single touch could kill you! Leave a door open,
threat, she is perceived by the monsters as
and one can walk right into this factory, right
highly toxic.
into the monster world.”
Boo’s presence in Monstropolis is, how-
From this setup, we can expect that a human
ever, not without negative consequences.
child will do just that, but the film’s use of an
That she does, in fact, wreak havoc—however
adorable little girl, to be named “Boo” by the
inadvertently—becomes the source of the
company’s champion scarer, Mike “Sully” Sul-
film’s humor, deriving from the seeming absur-
livan, generates both the drama and the humor
dity that a two-year-old girl could be the source
that follow. The notion to viewers, including
of much fear and/or consternation to anyone,
children, that a cute little toddler with enor-
much less monsters. Unlike the alarm elicited
mous eyes embodying the Disney “cute” factor
by Darla in Finding Nemo, the viewer remains
could elicit such fear among a city of monsters
at ease, resulting from the knowledge that
(including those who are professional scarers)
Boo poses no threat to the protagonists, and
is, of course, hilarious—but only because the
is charmed by the bond, however predictable,
audience understands little girls to be really all
that develops between Boo and Sully.
“sugar and spice.” Or does it?
However, Sully’s protective, almost parental
Stamp sees it somewhat differently, situating
attachment to Boo imposes a strain on the
the viewing parent in a somewhat congruent
long-standing bond of male friendship between
position to the scarers of Monsters, Inc., whose
Mike and Sully. Although this turns out to be
trademarked slogan, “We Scare Because We
temporary, Boo is given the role of creating
Care,” is likened to a not unfamiliar rationale
a wedge between adult male characters and
used in parenting:
journal of film and video 66.3 / fall 2014 51
©2014 by the board of trustees of the university of illinois
JFV 66_3 text.indd 51 6/30/14 10:51 AM
is toxic to their male bond. This is ultimately killer when his tankmates relay the story of his
resolved, though, when Mike joins forces with predecessor’s untimely end at Darla’s hand.
Sully to get the toddler safely back home. Chuckles, it turns out, was killed by shaking.
Nemo successfully completes his initiation
Darla in Finding Nemo (2003) into the “eternal bonds of tankhood” and is
christened “Sharkbait” by the Tank Gang, led
Although Pixar has created several villainous by Gill, a Moorish idol. Gill informs the fish
characters (Syndrome in The Incredibles, Muntz (and the viewer) that Darla will be arriving in
in Up, Lotso in Toy Story 3, etc.), they generally five days. Darla, we soon learn, is as terrifying
have a backstory that helps explain their turn to when happy as when upset. The film engages
villainy, unlike the unmitigatedly evil animated in a steady buildup of tension as the fish
villains for which Disney is famous.10 Not quite await the arrival of the nightmarish little girl.
villains, but embodying the role of antagonist Frequently shown from the point of view of the
in two Pixar films, are two human children: Sid fish in the aquarium, Darla is often rendered
in Toy Story and Darla in Finding Nemo. Both in close-ups, her face distorted as it is pressed
are constructed to evoke terror or dread, among up against the glass wall of the tank. When she
the other characters as well as in the viewer. does finally arrive (after a false alarm) to the
Both are also referred to as “demon-child” or screeching soundtrack from Alfred Hitchcock’s
“devil-child” by bloggers, in fan fiction (where famous shower scene in Psycho, the Tank Gang
the word “Darlaphobia” captures the feeling gasps her name in terror. Although the Psycho
evoked by fish and viewer alike [Dai-chan]), in soundtrack evokes laughter among those who
YouTube clips, and so on. Shepard has con- recognize it—because its association with a
demned the use of the child-as-demon trope little girl seems like a decided overstatement—
seen in the characters of Sid and Darla. Darla lives up to expectations.
Named after Pixar producer Darla K. Ander- Our next view of Darla is in close-up, as she
son, Darla must rank as one of the scariest terrorizes the maternal starfish, Peach, by try-
little girls in non-horror animated film.11 Easily ing to dislodge her from the glass wall of the
recognizable with her red hair in pigtails, her aquarium while singing “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little
freckles, and her dental braces, Darla is first Star” in a high-pitched voice. The Psycho musi-
introduced to us via a photograph as the eight- cal motif is repeated when, in long shot, Darla
year-old niece of the dentist Philip Sherman, turns toward the viewer on being called to the
who scooped up little Nemo while out scuba dentist’s chair. Again, the scene is simultane-
diving. Sherman takes the little clownfish back ously unnerving (the tapping on the fish tank
to the aquarium in his dental rooms in Sydney, and the endangering of Peach) and funny, since
intending to give the fish as a gift to his niece. Darla is standing on a chair in order to look into
The viewer’s attention is first drawn to Darla the aquarium, emphasizing her small size.
in a photograph, against a background of bro- The mayhem that ensues is similarly both un-
ken glass on the frame (the result of Nigel, the settling and hilarious. Marlin and Dory arrive in
pelican, knocking it down during his visit to Nigel’s pelican pouch. Nemo, now in a plastic
the Tank Gang when he first meets Nemo). The bag, feigns death and almost gets thrown away.
picture depicts Darla holding a plastic bag with Although Nigel’s distraction rescues Nemo from
a fish, visibly dead, as it floats upside down. the trash can, Darla picks up the plastic bag.
Darla’s photograph is moved by the dentist Undoubtedly, Darla’s most dread-inducing ac-
from the windowsill and placed alongside the tion is her vigorous shaking of the bag contain-
tank. Thus, Darla is introduced to both Nemo ing Nemo. Seeing that Nemo is in grave danger,
and viewer as a toxic character from the out- Gill puts a rescue plan into motion, catapulting
set. Nemo learns of her reputation as a fish out of the tank onto Darla’s head and causing
52 journal of film and video 66.3 / fall 2014
©2014 by the board of trustees of the university of illinois
JFV 66_3 text.indd 52 6/30/14 10:51 AM