Skip to main content

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc.
(2001)

(SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc., even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Waternoose: Our city is counting on you to collect those children’s screams. Without scream, we have no power.

In Monsters, Inc., the premised revolves around a couple of loveable monsters – John Goodman’s Sully and Billy Crystal’s Mike – and their community, nay society, which “carefully matches every child to their ideal monster to produce the superior scream”. This scream is then “refined into clean, dependable energy”. But alas, human kids are proving harder to scare, and a scream shortage looms (“Rolling blackouts expected”). They’re human batteries, you see. Which makes the monsters the machines of The Matrix. Or… adrenochrome addicts?

Waternoose: Kids these days. They just don’t scare like they used to.
A concern with the adrenochrome narrative generally – which is not to suggest the scuttlebutt on the substance doesn’t have substance – is the way it purportedly has a long history yet has sprung out of next to nothing in only a couple of years. By which, I mean as favoured drug of the elite, rather than its chemical existence. A Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas reference as a fabled high is about the size of it, aside from "drencrom" in A Clockwork Orange and eugenicist Aldous Huxley’s noncommittal consideration of it in The Doors of Perception and a Frank Herbert citation.

The earliest on-point reference I could find comes from Deeper Insights into the Illuminati, it appears from 2007, referring to elite practices (“a secret black market drug, is harvested from victims of human sacrifices. In other words there is big money in human sacrifices. That the mainstream law enforcement agencies have kept Adrenalchrome’s existence secret for so many years shows the power that the Illuminati-Masonic network has had over law enforcement in this country from law enforcement’s inception": at least that provides an answer for its prior obscurity). In a 2010 blog post, Indian in the machine (also the author of Deeper Insights) identifies prior mentions in 1993 and 1995 newsletters. This at least provides reasons for its prior obscurity, and yet similar considerations haven’t prevented any number of other conspiracies seeing the light of day.

There’s also the suggestion of repurposing of conspiracy lore (unless the original version was itself explicitly intended as a distraction). A tell-tale sign of the effects of the adrenochrome addict now seems to be popularly identified as that culpable black eye. Notably, this had hitherto been put down to “soul scalping” whereby the likes of Donald Marshall’s Vrill take possession of a body (amongst Donald’s revelations is the nugget that Queen Elizabeth II killed Eton John and chipped him with her consciousness. Or something).

Mike: Once you name it, you start getting attached to it!

On the basis of a key to adrenochrome’s potency being the fear induced in the victim, then yes, there’s a clear analogy that might be made to Monsters, Inc. And one might find a breadcrumb trail of evidence supporting the idea that the animation has a covert agenda (as this video points out, the bedroom may be seen to include coding including pizza boxes, pinecones and pictures of chickens – although let’s remember that sometimes a chicken is just a chicken). But at the same time, for every legit subliminal sex reference in a Disney movie (clouds in The Lion King, Jessica Rabbit flashing, Hercules with its cock-and-balls head), someone seems to have invented one in a Pixar one ( a sex drawing in Monsters, Inc, a penis shadow in Toy Story 3). Unless the Mandela Effect has been doing a full-scale clean up… If Hanks and Ellen disappear from the voice casts completely, we’ll know something’s going on (third-tier Spade only gets third tier Emperor’s New Groove… Actually, Groove’s really good. Better than anything else Spade has made).

Poster tagline: We Scare Because We Care.

I’m less persuaded still by the A-113 interreferentiality. It’s been suggested that A-113 is the cabal code for adrenochrome. Is it? Charlie Freak says so… And that it’s the chemical code for adrenochrome (I’ve yet to see a convincing attempt to explain this). Is it? Maybe it is, but I haven’t found a source able to take it beyond a repeated meme. Yes, A-113 is Pixar/animators’ favourite room at California Institute of the Arts. And 113 appears in relation to the Emergency Epinephrine Act, requiring schools to stock epi-pens (degrading into adrenochrome after expiration). Oh, and adrenaline pumping terror can use up to 113 calories. I know numbers and symbology are everything to the armchair investigator, but this one’s a bit thin. Surely the A113 from Leystone to Chipping Ongar features somewhere too, then? So much conspiracy lore is swiped undiscerningly from the likes of Neon Nettle that it becomes easy to discredit an area with sloppy citing. Pixar may well be a band of monsters – John Lasseter clearly has his issues – but the argument needs to be a little more comprehensive than this (more compelling examples of Hollywood depictions might be found in the likes of A Cure for Wellness or last year's Doctor Sleep. The latter ties back into Kubrick, of course, with The Shining).

Adrenochrome theory is, of course, big among Q Anon advocates. Some say its existence has swum into focus due to celebs dropping unveiled hints/jokes regarding their predatory habits on the basis they’d have nothing to worry about once Hillary was elected (“They never thought she would lose”). I’m on the fence with the saviour narrative generally. As in, I hope it’s true, but I’m not going to invest myself totally in a 5-D chess solution to the events transpiring globally. I can no more rule out that Q is, as some have attested, an AI programme psy-op than it is JFK Jr. The best and most compelling distraction from fighting for your rights would be suggesting you sit tight while a white knight saves you along with those most vulnerable and abused.

Again, this is not to say it may not all be true, but you couldn’t find a better means of manipulation. If the mainstream sources of information are obviously to be dismissed out of hand, that doesn’t mean alternative ones, with their many and varied levels of insight and hearsay, get a free pass. I hope Q is true, that we’ll see Nesara/Gesara, and that the DUMBs have been/ are being cleaned out, and I certainly wouldn’t denigrate staunch advocates as Q-tards high on “hopium”; if there was ever a situation in which unchecked desire for a magic wand waving tomorrow was understandable, it’s now. Because, clearly, most are not minded to save themselves from present circumstances. However, I can’t buy into the papal infallibility of the “Trust the plan” mantra. The best I can give is “We’ll see”.

In contrast to the adrenochrome – and you might say “potay-to, potah-to” to this – I’d seen the loosh analogy applied to Monsters, Inc. long prior to adrenochrome. It’s one that makes for a more obvious fit. Because, if the adrenochrome conspiracy is/was a very well-hidden one, then everything coming out of Hollywood involving preying on others, narrative-wise, has the potential for re-interpretation as an adrenochrome metaphor. The loosh take on existence was popularised by Robert Monroe – and detailed by the Wachowskis in Jupiter Ascending, or Unending, if you’re describing its boredom threshold – and asserted that unseen entities are feeding off mankind’s negative emotions, also known as “loosh”. Humanity is, if you will, a loosh factory, much as Monsters City is a fear factory.

Notably, by the end of the movie, the “negative” monsters are now processing positive energy (laughter gives ten times more power than screams), but this means they are still feeding off the kids. In the Monroe hierarchy, everyone would be identified as above or below someone else in the food chain. On that level, angels might be considered to feed off “positive” loosh (not that this is something Monroe really delves into, as I recall). This is the notion of an entirely predatory system under the dominion of a corrupt demiurge, where ultimately or beings, angelic or demonic, are simply two sides of the same coin. A comforting thought. The sort that induces nightmares to be fed off. So perhaps best not to dwell on it.

And how good is Monsters, Inc. itself? Not very. I might argue the value of (un)popular ringleaders in Pixar movies, Finding Nemo and Toy Story (not so much), but Monsters, Inc. has always quickly become a little tedious. And that’s with revisiting it alert to Illuminati eyes everywhere and all those doors. Crystal and Goodman don’t really spark of each other. Buscemi plays a weasel, again. There’s Pixar’s fixation on toilet habits (how adorable!) If E.T. is about the bond between a strange creature with a big glowing finger and a small boy, Monsters, Inc. is about the bond between a couple of strange creatures and a little girl who will nevertheless be ruthlessly exploited for her energy-giving abilities. Monsters, they’re just misunderstood. Heart-warming.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 .

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.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

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.

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for