Skip to main content

Ages three and up. It's on my box.

Toy Story
(1995)

(SPOILERS) Pixar has a lot to answer for. Killing off traditional animation, for starters. And Randy Newman (well, in Pixar films at least). Indeed, one of the reasons I’m immune to the unconditional worship of the animation house’s crown jewel franchise is that I simply cannot stomach his anodyne, twee songs and lightly-sandpapered crooning. He does not have a friend in me (I’m sure he’s a very nice chap). The first Toy Story profoundly changed the industry (and won a special achievement Oscar for its troubles) and has paved the way for both the plentiful very good computer-animated movies since as well as the multitudinous ones that aren’t, but at what cost? And is it really that good?

It’s well observed, undoubtedly. And the assembled voice cast, including Tom Hanks doing the comedy-exasperated voice he does so well (did: this is very nearly the last remnant of comedy Hanks) and Tim Allen playing commendably straight (Wallace Shawn as Rex – a character added when Joss Whedon did a rewrite – and John Ratzenberger as Hamm are my favourites, though).

But for all its pockets of “edgy” adult humour (at Jeffrey Katzenberg’s behest, with an eye to as broad a demographic as possible) – “laser envy”; “The word I’m searching for, I can’t say, because there’s preschool toys present”– and humorous asides – “I’m not actually from Mattel. I’m actually from a smaller company that was purchased by Mattel in a leveraged buyout” intones Rex – Toy Story is shot through with a mile-wide streak of sentimentality hideously compounded by Newman. I find this eminently resistible, and it’s something that put me off Monsters, Inc. even more. As such, going against the grain, my favourite Pixar until Finding Nemo came along was probably the unloved A Bug’s Life, (although, that itself is inferior to Antz).

There’s also the not inconsiderable issue that, in some areas, Toy Story has not aged well. The human children are seriously disturbing distillations, spawn of hell itself, not so much uncanny valley as ghoulish gorge. This works, to an extent, you might suggest, for devil-child-from-next-door Sid, a shoe-in for Will Poulter to play when the live-action version comes around, but it’s generally distractingly crude. On the other hand, there are sequences that still seem just as fresh and masterfully assembled as ever, notably the climactic dog/van/radio-controlled car road chase, complete with the kind of escalating problems thrown into the mix that would have made peak Spielberg proud.

And, as is the nature of animation, the sheer amount of time spent crafting the picture means its littered with little details and asides. For me, it dips somewhat once Woody and Buzz are trapped in Sid’s house, but Buzz forced to take afternoon tea still tickles, and if Joe Dante did the mutilated toys better in Small Soldiers a few years later, Sid’s sick creations still have a twisted, Tim Burton Beetlejuice/ Frankenweenie vibe about them (“I don’t believe that man’s ever been to medical school”).

There have, of course, been lots of theories about the world of Toy Story, and what precisely the animators are trying to achieve (ranging from the fate of Andy’s dad, to an Illuminati exposé included in the third instalment), even if the intended premise is as unfussy as doing what it says on the tin: “Toys deeply want children to play with them, and… this drives their hopes, fears, and actions”. Naturally, however, this lends itself to various opportunities for creator-created plays/ parodies and musings.

Most famously and endearingly, the key embodiment of this is found in the alien toys at Pizza Planet, paralleling Buzz in their hermetic understanding of the world, believing in the great claw as God (“I have been chosen”) and speaking in the coded language of a cult (“A stranger from the outside”); Woody even accuses them of religious extremism (“Stop it, you zealots!”) One might accordingly contrast this with the – on the surface – rational, knowledgeable Woody, who knows the way things are and has certainty about the tangible world, that they are the products of a very nuts-and-bolts master-and-servant system that is easily explainable; his scientific matter-of-factness could be considered equivalent to taking stock in evolutionary theory. Which would make delusional Buzz a fantasist convinced of a fake reality, one written on his box, tantamount to a belief in God, complete with his calling on fake miracles (his ability to fly). But Woody’s scoffing at Buzz in turn exposes his own unquestioning faith in the value of the owner-toy bond, and the requirement to accept a false god as their sovereign (their true creator remains unseen, naturally).

The chief reason Toy Story works is that it fully services the buddy comedy template, though (again, a Katzenberg suggestion, made when the development process was hitting bumps), with jealous Woody learning to appreciate and get along with interloper (for Andy’s affections) Buzz. Does that justify three sequels? For me, not really, as despite The Godfather Part II-esque praise aimed at the second in the series for improving on what went before, I’ve generally found the upgrades cosmetic, rather than truly expanding on what is essentially a stir-and-repeat formula. But then, I’m not one of the chosen.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

Anything can happen in Little Storping. Anything at all.

The Avengers 2.22: Murdersville
Brian Clemens' witty take on village life gone bad is one of the highlights of the fifth season. Inspired by Bad Day at Black Rock, one wonders how much Murdersville's premise of unsettling impulses lurking beneath an idyllic surface were set to influence both Straw Dogs and The Wicker Mana few years later (one could also suggest it premeditates the brand of backwoods horrors soon to be found in American cinema from the likes of Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper).

James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season.

Moonraker (1979)
Depending upon your disposition, and quite possibly age, Moonraker is either the Bond film that finally jumped the shark or the one that is most gloriously redolent of Roger Moore’s knowing take on the character. Many Bond aficionados will no doubt utter its name with thinly disguised contempt, just as they will extol with gravity how Timothy Dalton represented a masterful return to the core values of the series. If you regard For Your Eyes Only as a refreshing return to basics after the excesses of the previous two entries, and particularly the space opera grandstanding of this one, it’s probably fair to say you don’t much like Roger Moore’s take on Bond.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

My dear, sweet brother Numsie!

The Golden Child (1986)
Post-Beverly Hills Cop, Eddie Murphy could have filmed himself washing the dishes and it would have been a huge hit. Which might not have been a bad idea, since he chose to make this misconceived stinker.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991)
(SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

When I barked, I was enormous.

Dean Spanley (2008)
(SPOILERS) There is such a profusion of average, respectable – but immaculately made – British period drama held up for instant adulation, it’s hardly surprising that, when something truly worthy of acclaim comes along, it should be singularly ignored. To be fair, Dean Spanleywas well liked by critics upon its release, but its subsequent impact has proved disappointingly slight. Based on Lord Dunsany’s 1939 novella, My Talks with Dean Spanley, our narrator relates how the titular Dean’s imbibification of a moderate quantity of Imperial Tokay (“too syrupy”, is the conclusion reached by both members of the Fisk family regarding this Hungarian wine) precludes his recollection of a past life as a dog. 

Inevitably, reviews pounced on the chance to reference Dean Spanley as a literal shaggy dog story, so I shall get that out of the way now. While the phrase is more than fitting, it serves to underrepresent how affecting the picture is when it has cause to be, as does any re…