Skip to main content

Boo! Pick a plotline!

Inside Out
(2015)

(SPOILERS) The near-universal acclaim greeting the all-but latest Pixar offering is mostly warranted. It’s certainly their best feature in years, years that have been replete with a cash-in sequels and not-quite-there, increasingly rare, original outings. I have to admit I was sceptical, with Inside Out’s familiar high concept premise having been explored before, in movies, TV and animation, and what appeared to be a dubiously patronising approach to the workings of the mind (you know, for kids!) Yet, while Inside Out is sometimes a little rocky in terms of structure and plotting, it is mostly persuasively irresistible in character, and often hearteningly inventive. It might not be quite up to the standards of Pixar’s peak period, but Peter Doctor’s animation suggests such days aren't yet behind them.


Initially, the distillation of emotions into the handful that comprises Joy, Sadness, Anger, Fear and Disgust seems reductive and arch. Added to which, there’s a sense, not uncommon with Pixar fare, that this is a movie made by parents trying to relate to and understand their kids, rather than being a movie actually, you know, for kids. That feeling still lingers at times, and the lesser aspect is undoubtedly the uncanny valley of aesthetically-challenged parents and child. Like Toy Story (fortunately, the humans aren't quite so unnerving as the specimens there), the animators limit themselves to a milieu of domestic mundanity and attempt to eke out something creative therein. In both cases, the kids themselves aren't really a part of the vibrant aspect of the scenario, don't get to embrace it; Pixar’s children reflect the restricted reality of their mobility-challenged parents, wedged behind computer screens banging out code all day.


But Pete Doctor, whose Monsters, Inc. I didn’t find overly impressive, unchanged by repeat visits, has nevertheless tapped into an infectious cause-and-effect here. While the emotions’ designs are nothing particularly special, they’re undeniably effective. Joy’s struggle for control of her host’s diminishing sense of positivity, as she is uprooted and moved to San Francisco, may be a little hard to swallow as a new thing for an eleven-year-old (everything has been Rainbow Unicorns, the odd interlude excepted, it seems we are supposed to think), but the give-and-take as other emotions, particularly Sadness, wrest control, and Joy learns empathy through Sadness (sadness can be a positive emotion!), is a tidy and measured metaphor (leading to an obligatory family hug which is, at least, as Doctor points out, something different from the usual fireworks finale).


The internal logic of Riley’s state of mind, with Joy and Sadness excised from the control room, did give me pause, since it’s difficult to swallow that, in her uprooted and distressed state, Sadness wouldn’t also be getting a look in amid the Anger, Fear and Disgust, and I found the islands of personality rather a banal visual device (smacking too much of a “how your brain works” documentary), ditto Joy’s attempts to retain perceived vital core memories. But Joy and Sadness’ attempts to navigate their way back to Headquarters is confidently paced, and occasionally even dazzles.


Imaginary childhood friend Bing Bong, marvellously voiced by Richard Kind, is a splendid creation, mostly candy and part-cat, part-elephant, part-dolphin, who even cries candy (and whose departure from the picture is truly touching). 


And the further the picture strays from its central purpose, the more creatively engaged it becomes, the highlight being a flight through abstract thought, in which the characters break down into cubist and two-dimensional forms. The dream production factory is also quite smart (the I’m Falling for a Very Long Time into a Pit poster, styled on Vertigo), although this also highlights a tendency to take easy, rather than less travelled options; a scary clown? Again? Really? Hatred of broccoli? Likewise, the imaginary boyfriend, which seems more about writers lost for ideas than congruent with their character.


One might argue the representation of the internal workings of the adult minds also indulges lazy stereotypes (dad is always thinking about football, mum is constantly on-message, except when she is daydreaming of the guy she could have been with instead of her husband, which is slightly off; perhaps they should have showed dad surfing porn sites too, while they were at it?), something underlined by the inferior Riley’s First Date? short (it’s what you’d imagine the picture would be like if everyone was taking a lot less care than Doctor). Essentially, though, this gag-based shorthand is effective and funny, designed to evidence our comparable inner processes, rather than something to get too worked up over.


The voice cast, led by Amy Phoeler, acquit themselves with honours, although it’s a case where you wonder – as ever with modern animations – what names like Kyle McLachlan and Diane Lane brought to the table when unknown vocal artists could surely have got the job done just as well. I’d read mixed things about the Lava short that preceded screenings of Inside Out, but I found it charming; probably its standing rests on whether you go for the simple, catchy tune, which I did. Inside Out already seems to have been lent perspective by the subsequent nose-dive that is The Good Dinosaur; hopefully Pixar press forward with its successes in mind, rather than taking the back foot due to its failures. They desperately need more Inside Outs, and less Cars 3s and even (much as I’m intrigued to see them, I also think they’d have been better left as stand-alones) Finding Dory and The Incredibles 2.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You’re easily the best policeman in Moscow.

Gorky Park (1983) (SPOILERS) Michael Apted and workmanlike go hand in hand when it comes to thriller fare (his Bond outing barely registered a pulse). This adaptation of Martin Cruz Smith’s 1981 novel – by Dennis Potter, no less – is duly serviceable but resolutely unremarkable. William Hurt’s militsiya officer Renko investigates three faceless bodies found in the titular park. It was that grisly element that gave Gorky Park a certain cachet when I first saw it as an impressionable youngster. Which was actually not unfair, as it’s by far its most memorable aspect.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.