MONSTERS, INC.: Scream of the Crop

Twenty years ago Pixar Animation Studios revolutionized cinema with the first full length completely computer-generated film. Two decades later and Pixar is still one of the most consistently groundbreaking studios in the business. Leading up to the release of their new film The Good Dinosaur, I will be going through Pixar's entire filmography at the rate of two movies a week. Now we're onto Monsters, Inc., which I enjoyed less and found more interesting than I remembered.

Other Reviews in this Series.

Directors: Pete Doctor, David Silverman (co-director), Lee Unkrich (co-director)
Writers: Andrew Stanton, Daniel Gerson, Pete Docter, Jill Culton, Jeff Pidgeon, Ralph Eggleston
Cast: John Goodman, Billy Crystal, Mary Gibbs, Steve Buscemi, James Coburn, Jennifer Tilly, Bob Peterson, John Ratzenberger
Runtime: 92 mins.
2001

Monsters, Inc. is Pixar's fourth feature film. Unsurprisingly, the germ of the idea for Monsters, Inc. derived from their other ingenious original property. Apparently after Toy Story was released, people told Pete Docter that they started really believing that their toys came to life when they left the room. Docter took that sentiment and applied it to his childhood certainty that monsters really did live in his closet. Many years and story iterations later, the Monsters, Inc. we know and love came to be.

In Monsters, Inc. Pixar returns to the buddy movie format of Toy Story. The protagonists of Monsters, Inc. are Sully (John Goodman) and Mike (Billy Crystal), an odd couple whose friendship makes complete sense. Sully's scary, Mike's funny. Sully's laid back, Mike's uptight. Sully's empathetic, Mike's neurotic. Sully's big and furry and blue, Mike's small and round and green. They're perfect complements, and their work partnership is record-breakingly fruitful--until a third party is introduced.

They work at a company called Monsters, Inc., which specializes in energy production. That energy is produced from the screams of children. Professional scarers travel through doors that, when activated, transport them to the closet of an unsuspecting child. They then do their best to scare that child and harvest its screams. They must be careful, though--children are incredibly toxic and dangerous.


One night while staying late at work, Sully accidentally lets a three year old girl through one of the doors. She speaks only gobbledygook and has a propensity for disappearing and reappearing when least expected. At first he is terrified, but he soon softens toward her and calls her Boo. Sully enlists Mike's help in getting her back home. Unfortunately, Monsters, Inc. is locked down by bureaucratic and quasimilitary forces due to the threat of an escaped child. The pair must also deal with a secret plot carried out by rival scarer, Randall (Steve Buscemi).

I've gone into such detail about the world and the plot because it is Monsters, Inc.'s finest feature. Monsters, Inc. has the richest central conceit in Pixar's body of work, with the possible exception of Wall-E.* The corporation in this movie actually harvests children's terror for energy and profit. Chew over that thematic nugget for a while. Monsters go to college and are trained to be better scarers; they are even pitted against each other in meaningless corporate competitions for the sake of increased productivity. The company inculcates the workers such that their efficacy within the structure of the corporation is a point of great personal pride to them. The company seeks to erase each monster's individual identity (think about the slogan for the commercials: "I'm Monsters Incorporated!") and forcing them to disassociate their typical personality from their scaring capacity.

*Though if memory serves, Wall-E's conceit sort of peters out later in the movie. I should also mention that Inside Out is a contender for best premise, and is also the only movie I know which has a title completely comprised of prepositions.

Enter Sully, the best and brightest scarer in the company. It's his livelihood and his identity. That is, until he encounters Boo, and realizes that the company's "dangerous kids" propaganda is false. He's an empathetic monster, and he begins to doubt the status quo when...

*SPOILERS AHEAD*

...he accidentally scares Boo and sees a picture of himself on a monitor screen. In that moment, he realizes that the children from whom screams are harvested are people too, and his part in terrorizing them for the sake of capital is wrong. This all escalates when he discovers the secret plot of rival Randall and boss Waternoose: they plan on kidnapping children and strapping them into a machine that rips screams from their mouths with maximum efficiency. This is a commentary on the increasing mechanization of capitalism, and how humanity takes a backseat to increased productivity. Waternoose claims that he only does this for the good of monsterkind, as it is the only way to solve the energy crisis. But instead of taking the easy road of going deeper down the path of capitalist depravity, Sully investigates and discovers a more humane way to power the city. It turns out children's laughter is even more potent than children's screams, albeit more difficult to acquire--the workers need to establish a healthy relationship with those who supply the power: the children in the other world (third world...?).

*SPOILERS BEHIND*

It's a complex commentary that is worthy of sociological essays. The amazing thing is that Pixar also manages to make these big ideas totally palatable to children. Part of that is the central trio: Sully, Mike, and Boo. Their relationship is crystal clear, simple, and effective. Boo's three year old gibberish, supplied by an actual gibberish-speaking little girl, is heartmelting. She's a window for kids to insert themselves comfortably into this world, despite that the main characters spend all day scaring the living hell out of sleeping children. The fact that the audience doesn't hate Mike and Sully is a credit to endearing character work.

Unfortunately, the rest of the movie isn't quite as remarkable. One of my biggest beefs with this movie is its desire to totally ignore gender representation. Besides Boo, there are two female characters that I can recall. One is Ross, who is a pretty good character, but the whole joke is that she's an ugly woman that Mike tries to flirt with--one voiced by a man, at that. The other woman is Mike's girlfriend. I believe her name is Celia (Jennifer Tilly), but she's generally referred to as Shmoopsy-poo. I suppose she's meant as a parody of cutesy relationships, but her whole character exists to be the scorned woman who impedes Mike from doing important man work. She's jealous and effusive and a whole bundle of nasty stereotypes. At one point she is actually physically holding onto Mike, dragging along the ground, as he and Sully run from danger she doesn't understand. It makes you reflect on Pixar's treatment of gender up until this point. Who do we have to look up to? Bo Peep? That Princess love interest from A Bug's Life? There's Jessie, I guess. Eventually Pixar got around to making Brave, perhaps to make up for this, but that didn't turn out so well either.

Other than that, Sully and Mike are a strong pair of protagonists, but their character arcs are less about them changing and more about their priorities rearranging. I love the slick jazz soundtrack at the beginning, but it kind of disappears during the second act. The jokes are very good, but are not excellent. The movie is funniest during the credits blooper sequence. Finally, the monsters in this world are colorful and well-designed, but they spend a great deal of the movie running around painfully bland corporate hallways and locker rooms. The building needs to be bland for story purposes, but it feels visually repetitive nonetheless.

The exception is the climactic sequence, a globetrotting chase through teleport door after teleport door. It's visually breathtaking, and enhanced by the legitimate threat of Randall, who is far more savvy and sinister then your typical kids' movie villain.

Monsters, Inc. is a Pixar gem, though not a masterpiece. The company would soon perfect their brand of emotional manipulation, but as far as thematic interest goes, this one is at the top of my list.

4 / 5  BLOBS

The Short: For the Birds

For the Birds is kind of dumb. I guess you could call it a simple morality tale, with the moral being don't ostracize those who are different than you. The story is mostly just that these mean little birds are being nasty to a big doofy bird, and they regret it. Pixar shorts have never gone in for complex narratives, of course, but this feels far less inspired than something like Geri's Game.

I can't say as how it's super visually interesting, either. The feathers look good, probably owing to all the work Pixar did perfecting fur and cloth animation for Monsters, Inc. The discrepancy between the birds is neat, but the blue on blue on blue is kind of blase. I appreciate the traditional Pixar cloudy sky though.

2.5/5