Dear Pixar, From All The Girls With Band-Aids On Their Knees

[RJDiogenes]

Well, I'm glad you tried. Just remember that things don't change overnight, and it doesn't hurt to keep at them.

 

[Hermiod]

Well, I'm glad you tried. Just remember that things don't change overnight, and it doesn't hurt to keep at them.

Looking at the list of pilots Temis likes to post every year, things seem to just get worse.

Oh and look what this week's big summer blockbuster is...

 

[Pingfah]

Need I point out what "girls with band-aids on their knees" implies?

Well, to me it simply implied girls who are tomboys, but your mind obviously went to a different place.

In other words, Treker really needs to get laid.

Or a more expensive rug.

But probably the former.

 

[Greg Cox]

She has a point, not just about PIXAR, but about the culture in general. I have four nieces and it drives me nuts whenever I go shopping for birthday cards for them. The cards for little boys have all sorts of cool, dynamic figures on them: superheroes, astronauts, cowboys, pirates, etc. But the cards for little girls are all Barbie and Disney Princesses. Despite the plethora of Spider-Man and Superman man cards for boys, I've searched in vain for a single Wonder Woman or Supergirl birthday card.

Thank God for Dora the Explorer, and even she's hard to find when it comes to birthday cards . . . . .

 

[Gaith]

Now THAT's the real issue at hand. Our young women deserve better, and Pixar could lead the way if its guys gave a crap. At the moment, it's not remotely clear that they do.

 

[RJDiogenes]

This is the problem I have with my Niece, too. Almost everything worth buying has a male main character. And my backward family has raised her to believe in "girl things" and "guy things," so getting her something with a male main character is getting her a "guy thing." Hopefully, she'll be able to get around that as she gets older, but it's pretty annoying.

 

[ladyheather69]

Ok....

As a mom of a very well-adjusted, incredibly intelligent, funny, sci-fi geeky, strong, opinionated, and beautiful 16 year old daughter...I had to write something.

Now when my daughter was younger, she did love all the Disney movies with princesses and she would play dress up. She also played with cars and trucks and got dirty(although she wasn't as keen on being dirty) However, at the age of 4, we introduced her to Star Wars, and from then on all she wanted to do was be Princess Leia! Yes a princess, but a strong female character. Which I was perfectly fine with. She still dressed up in pretty pink costumes and tiaras, but she also played Jedi Knight and Rebel Leader.
And then came Pixar. Did she dis or get upset that PIXAR didn't and doesn't have female leads? Heck no! She loves all the characters that are portrayed cause she sees them as fun and engaging.

I will tell you what she doesn't like is those movies where women, regardless of if it is live action or a cartoon, are portrayed as stupid, mindless, bubble heads. Hence, the 'love' of Sarah Connor, Ellen Ripley, River, Zoe, Uhura, Mulan, Wonder Woman, etc.

So long post, but the woman who wrote PIXAR was just asking for them to put a female character as the lead. I find nothing wrong with her asking, and find nothing wrong with her voicing an opinion that I am sure other women may have.

I don't. I don't care. I go see their movies because they have engaging stories and characters that move me emotionally to tears or laughter. I go see their movies cause for 2 hours I want ENTERTAINMENT not a social commentary about the world(and yes, even tho WALL-E had that, I still was entertained!).

And that is the point: PIXAR will make movies however they want to make movies cause that is what sells. That is what makes them money. and as much as we want to have all our movies and tv shows be completely reflective of our diverse cultures, ethnicities, colors, races, etc., it is still in the long run about money and what sells.

so this wasn't supposed to be this long, and it wasn't supposed to be this serious...I mean, my original intent was to write:

some of us are taking this way too seriously, and need to get laid, or drunk or high. ....

Think I am going to partake of 2 of those activities since I just celebrated my 20th anniversary--yes shameless plug for me

 

[ladyheather69]

But seriously, I think sometimes we, as a society or community or whatever you want to call us, need to lighten up a bit.

Sometimes people just go see a movie for escapism..and that is what PIXAR provides for me. If I wanted to watch movies that were about what reality is like, I would sit and watch documentaries.

"Sometimes a movie is just a movie".--someone 'famous' said that

 

[RJDiogenes]

It's interesting that the prevalent social attitude in this phase is that "I want entertainment, not social commentary." I say "interesting" because we're on a Forum inspired by a TV show known specifically for its ability to weave meaningful messages into its entertainment.

But I guess that explains the vapidity and popularity of nuTrek.

 

[Sci]

But seriously, I think sometimes we, as a society or community or whatever you want to call us, need to lighten up a bit.

Sometimes people just go see a movie for escapism..and that is what PIXAR provides for me. If I wanted to watch movies that were about what reality is like, I would sit and watch documentaries.

"Sometimes a movie is just a movie".--someone 'famous' said that

And that's fair enough. But when every movie (or even the majority of movies) that's "just entertainment" is about one specific community and excludes every other community from their list of protagonists and heroes, then there's something wrong.

 

[Talosian]

Personally, I can never entirely forgive Pixar for the bizarre reactionary diatribe that is "The Incredibles".

As for the subject at hand, I see no issue whatsoever with a fan making a request. For all the supposed whining of victims, it's hard not to notice that at some point being brashly politically incorrect and constantly trumpeting how much society is persecuting the poor, innocent straight-talker, is *itself* a form of self-victimization.

 

[Gaith]

@ RJDiogenes: quite.

I go see their movies cause for 2 hours I want ENTERTAINMENT not a social commentary about the world

And the two are mutually exclusive how? In fact, as I've already explained, those no such thing as commentary-free art. If it doesn't appear to have one, then its message is probably "everything's fine, don't worry about anything, keep eating Big Macs."

But seriously, I think sometimes we, as a society or community or whatever you want to call us, need to lighten up a bit.

Please. We're living in the most entertainment-oriented society known to human history. Never was there anyone as comfortable or pampered as ourselves. You know who "needs" to lighten up? Starving child refugees in Darfur. If anyone could use lighthearted entertainment, it's them. Though I doubt they'd shed a tear over the mistreatment of toys. Just sayin'.

 

[ladyheather69]

If I have offended anyone with my comments, I apologize, that was not my intent.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ I wasn't offended, just making a counterpoint.

 

[Reverend]

To the OP: I don't know if this has been pointed out already (don't have time to read through 7 pages!) but I think it's fair to say Pixar have already featured such a girl in their most recent film 'Up'. Ellie was most defiantly a tomboy and though she appeared to live her whole life in the first ten minutes, her presence and spirit is very strongly felt right the way through.

I'd also include Helen/Mrs. Incredible from 'The Incredibles'. Oh sure she was a family woman and a Mrs. Incredible with a husband and three kids, but you get the impression she was most certainly the boisterous tomboy type growing up. The of course threre's Jessie from Toy Story 2, I mean how much more "not a princess" can you get?

Though it's not a Pixar film, I think 'Lilo and Stitch' deserves a mention as well. Aside from being one of Disney's best (non-Pixar) efforts this last decade, it has not one but two strong, independent and high spirited females as main characters.

 

[Goliath]

There's tons of movies and shows about politics, sociology and such..

You still aren't getting it: every narrative movie is a sociopolitical statement. If it strikes the viewer as neutral, that's because the viewer is probably blinded by his/her proximity to the mainstream.

I don't agree with this.

Meaning is attributed, not inherent--especially when it comes to works of art like films. And for this reason, works of art can be understood in many different ways--even in ways that are quite contrary to their creator's intentions.

Two classic cinematic examples would be The Exorcist and Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

The Exorcist is one of the most explicitly conservative movies to come out of Hollywood in the last 40 years. Its authors intended it as a critique of permissiveness, irreligiousness, and even feminism: their goal was, quite literally, to put the fear of God back into people. Yet this intention was completely lost on most viewers--even conservative viewers, who read the film as an example of the moral decay the movie was intended to decry.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers, by contrast, was never intended to make any kind of political or social statement: its director, Don Siegel, is on record saying that his intention was to make a thriller--nothing more. Yet this film has been read as a critique of both right-wing and left-wing politics--as a parable of the dangers of McCarthyism, and a parable of the dangers of communism.

This is because people use works of art like films as mirrors for their own preoccupations and concerns. As an irreligious person, for example, I detested Bruce Almighty, and saw The Passion of the Christ as little more than Christian torture porn. Other people thought Bruce Almighty was charming, and found The Passion of the Christ deeply moving. Which reaction was correct? All of them, and none of them.

If you see a sociopolitical statement in every narrative movie, then that tells us far more about your own personality and views than it does about the movies. The personal is not necessarily political--but it can be politicized--especially if you think people who aren't part of the solution are part of the problem. It is always the political activist who decries formalism and 'art for art's sake'.

 

[Sci]

There's tons of movies and shows about politics, sociology and such..

You still aren't getting it: every narrative movie is a sociopolitical statement. If it strikes the viewer as neutral, that's because the viewer is probably blinded by his/her proximity to the mainstream.

I don't agree with this.

Meaning is attributed, not inherent--especially when it comes to works of art like films. And for this reason, works of art can be understood in many different ways--even in ways that are quite contrary to their creator's intentions.

Two classic cinematic examples would be The Exorcist and Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

The Exorcist is one of the most explicitly conservative movies to come out of Hollywood in the last 40 years. Its authors intended it as a critique of permissiveness, irreligiousness, and even feminism: their goal was, quite literally, to put the fear of God back into people. Yet this intention was completely lost on most viewers--even conservative viewers, who read the film as an example of the moral decay the movie was intended to decry.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers, by contrast, was never intended to make any kind of political or social statement: its director, Don Siegel, is on record saying that his intention was to make a thriller--nothing more. Yet this film has been read as a critique of both right-wing and left-wing politics--as a parable of the dangers of McCarthyism, and a parable of the dangers of communism.

This is because people use works of art like films as mirrors for their own preoccupations and concerns. As an irreligious person, for example, I detested Bruce Almighty, and saw The Passion of the Christ as little more than Christian torture porn. Other people thought Bruce Almighty was charming, and found The Passion of the Christ deeply moving. Which reaction was correct? All of them, and none of them.

If you see a sociopolitical statement in every narrative movie, then that tells us far more about your own personality and views than it does about the movies. The personal is not necessarily political--but it can be politicized--especially if you think people who aren't part of the solution are part of the problem. It is always the political activist who decries formalism and 'art for art's sake'.

But you're forgetting something:

Everybody has political opinions of some sort, and those opinions inform the way characters and themes are depicted in a film. Even if it's not intentional, it's there. For instance, somebody who simply takes it for granted that men and women are equal will tend to depict male and female characters as equals; someone who takes heteronominativity for granted will tend not to depict LGBT characters; etc.

Now, there might not be particularly sophisticated attempts at making grand statements or espousing complex theories. But there is always a political aspect to the dynamics of characters' relationships and their depictions in film, and when we consistently see time and time again films that are about active, dynamic heterosexual white male characters (or their fictitious surrogates) and not about people from other communities, then it's clear that there's a political bias in favor of the depicted group, even if that bias is not intentional or conscious.

 

[Goliath]

But you're forgetting something:

Everybody has political opinions of some sort, and those opinions inform the way characters and themes are depicted in a film. Even if it's not intentional, it's there.

I'm not forgetting that at all. In fact, I provided an example of just this sort of thing in my post.

But, on the one hand: I don't agree that these opinions always or necessarily inform films to any significant degree.

And on the other hand: I don't think these opinions make much of a difference to the way a work of art is received and interpreted by its audience. It's the audience's opinions that matter--not the artist's.

The classic example of the gulf between the two is the figure of Satan in Milton. To Milton, and arguably, to his contemporaries, Satan was the villain of Paradise Lost. To a later generation, filled with Romantic enthusiasm and Enlightenment ideals, Satan became the hero of the poem. I can't think of a starker example of the irrelevance of the author's own attitudes than that.

For a more recent example, consider all the conservative whining that we've been hearing for the past nine years about how Hollywood refuses to tell 'the truth' about the War on Terror and the War in Iraq, and avoids making good old-fashioned war movies, like they did in World War II.

These critics obviously have not noticed that many of the most popular movies in the past nine years have, in fact, been war movies, in which the forces of Good with a capital 'G' are pitted against the forces of Evil with a capital 'E'. There is no question (at least, to my mind) that people have been getting their fix of war propaganda--they've just been getting it from fantasy and sci-fi--even if that wasn't what those film's makers had in mind when they made them.

For instance, somebody who simply takes it for granted that men and women are equal will tend to depict male and female characters as equals; someone who takes heteronominativity for granted will tend not to depict LGBT characters; etc.

That may or may not be true--but once again, it's just not all that important. People will take what they want from works of art, no matter what their creators intended.

Now, there might not be particularly sophisticated attempts at making grand statements or espousing complex theories. But there is always a political aspect to the dynamics of characters' relationships and their depictions in film, and when we consistently see time and time again films that are about active, dynamic heterosexual white male characters (or their fictitious surrogates) and not about people from other communities, then it's clear that there's a political bias in favor of the depicted group, even if that bias is not intentional or conscious.

'We consistently see'? As the old joke says: what do you mean 'we,' paleface?

Actually, I find it quite interesting that you put it that way. Because what matters, after all, is what you see in those films--not what was filmed, or even what's projected on the screen.

You, for example, see political bias. I, on the other hand, might see political bias. Or I might see businessmen trying to make a buck by showing people what they want to see--that is to say, a more glamorous version of themselves.

Or I might read these films in subversive ways: I once, for example, read an essay on Casablanca that argued that the film's true romance was between Rick and Captain Reynaud.

Or I might see none of these things, because I'm busy watching Bollywood musicals.

Which brings up an interesting point. By your reasoning, there must be anti-White and anti-Western political bias in Bollywood musicals. These films are always about active, dynamic heterosexual South Asian male characters (or their fictitious surrogates) and not about people from other communities--are they not?

Or is it just that South Asian people want to see stories about themselves, like anybody else?

 

[Sci]

Which brings up an interesting point. By your reasoning, there must be anti-White and anti-Western political bias in Bollywood musicals. These films are always about active, dynamic heterosexual South Asian male characters (or their fictitious surrogates) and not about people from other communities--are they not?

Or is it just that South Asian people want to see stories about themselves, like anybody else?

But that in and of itself constitutes a political bias that re-enforces the political dominance of the majority group or powerful group within a given society.

And the argument "Pixar is just making stories for Americans about themselves" relies on the premise that "American" equals "heterosexual white guy" -- when it very obviously does not. To start with -- half of America is female, yet as the original critique pointed out, Pixar's films so far have all been about men. Why? Because it's made by guys who want to see stories about themselves? They've made plenty of stories about themselves. Why not do a story about women (who are not princesses)?

 

[stj]

The notion that Bollywood musicals must have an anti-White and anti-Western political bias just shows that some people define the "West" on a racial basis, instead of a sociopolitical basis. The current civil and political society in India is continuous with the Raj. The replacement of the senior partners (the English,) with the junior partners (wealthy Hindus,) has changed the management but the firm is in the same business. The struggle for market share called the Partition shows that I think. Obviously I'm speaking metaphorically. More formally, the state institutions in India did not undergo a revolution that established a new sociopolitical order.

Therefore, one would expect Bollywood, as an industry that is part of Indian society, would promote the necessary values: Pro-Hindu (implicitly anti-Muslim, by exclusion); pro-capitalist (again, implicitly by exclusion of all alternatives); pro-chauvinist (both sexual and national, overtly by glorification of Hinduism, Hindu men and India, and by omission of tribal or religious or sexual minorities); anti-historical (refusing to admit self examination of the continuity of the current society with the Raj as a topic worthy of consideration.)

None of that is anti-White or anti-"Western" (that's pretty much a pseudoconcept, i.e., seems like a real idea but dissolves into hot air upon analysis.) In fact, anti-historical view would prevent anti-English themes from playing a large role in Bollywood.

Whether Bollywood musicals are anything like that described above, I wouldn't know, not having seen any. But if anyone cares to analyze the sociopolitical content of movies or other art forms, it seems to me they should actually make an effort to know something about politics and think through the analysis.

The news that Milton the Puritan revolutionary had a simple and straightforward approach to Satan the revolutionary strikes me as a marvelous accomplishment in objective literary and biographical analysis. I am in awe of the geniuses who proved this and wish the public library had their works. But the public libraries have been purged even of Christopher Hill.

Although the blatant vulgarity and crass sensationalism of The Exorcist may have offended more strait-laced conservatives, it seems to me that since the movie, more Christians are bold enough to admit they believe in demons. Which was I think an intent the movie fulfilled.

I know of no one in their right mind who has made a serious case that Invasion of the Body Snatchers was a cautionary fable about McCarthyism. It seems to me that someone likes to sprinkle BS in people's eyes. It's very much like those people who manage to extort a right-wing message from Avatar, because they're embarrassed to admit why the movie is popular. Denying the anti-Communist hysteria in Body Snatchers is an after the fact way of minimizing the insanity of the anti-Communist movement.

Which brings up another problem with the nothing is political unless you make it so position, which is that it is intellectually bankrupt. Movies and such are not as objective as the laws of nature, but mere thinking doesn't make anything so, not even in esthetic criticism. The problem that this position seeks to evade is criticizing some works as confused and incoherent; escaping from the conscious control of the artist; dishonest and/or evasive. It makes one wonder what one could say about anything except, "I liked it" or "I didn't like it." But that kind do seem to go on, anyhow.