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

Mondo bizarro. No offence man, but you’re in way over your head.

The X-Files 8.7: Via Negativa I wasn’t as down on the last couple of seasons of The X-Files as most seemed to be. For me, the mythology arc walked off a cliff somewhere around the first movie, with only the occasional glimmer of something worthwhile after that. So the fact that the show was tripping over itself with super soldiers and Mulder’s abduction/his and Scully’s baby (although we all now know it wasn’t, sheesh ), anything to stretch itself beyond breaking point in the vain hope viewers would carry on dangling, didn’t really make much odds. Of course, it finally snapped with the wretched main arc when the show returned, although the writing was truly on the wall with Season 9 finale The Truth . For the most part, though, I found 8 and 9 more watchable than, say 5 or 7. They came up with their fair share of engaging standalones, one of which I remembered to be Via Negativa .

Schnell, you stinkers! Come on, raus!

Private’s Progress (1956) (SPOILERS) Truth be told, there’s good reason sequel I’m Alright Jack reaps the raves – it is, after all, razor sharp and entirely focussed in its satire – but Private’s Progress is no slouch either. In some respects, it makes for an easy bedfellow with such wartime larks as Norman Wisdom’s The Square Peg (one of the slapstick funny man’s better vehicles). But it’s also, typically of the Boulting Brothers’ unsentimental disposition, utterly remorseless in rebuffing any notions of romantic wartime heroism, nobility and fighting the good fight. Everyone in the British Army is entirely cynical, or terrified, or an idiot.

Isn’t it true, it’s easier to be a holy man on the top of a mountain?

The Razor’s Edge (1984) (SPOILERS) I’d hadn’t so much a hankering as an idle interest in finally getting round to seeing Bill Murray’s passion project. Partly because it seemed like such an odd fit. And partly because passion isn’t something you tend to associate with any Murray movie project, involving as it usually does laidback deadpan. Murray, at nigh-on peak fame – only cemented by the movie he agreed to make to make this movie – embarks on a serious-acting-chops dramatic project, an adaptation of W Somerset Maugham’s story of one man’s journey of spiritual self-discovery. It should at least be interesting, shouldn’t it? A real curio? Alas, not. The Razor’s Edge is desperately turgid.

It’s not as if she were a… maniac, a raving thing.

Psycho (1960) (SPOILERS) One of cinema’s most feted and most studied texts, and for good reason. Even if the worthier and more literate psycho movie of that year is Michael Powell’s Peeping Tom . One effectively ended a prolific director’s career and the other made its maker more in demand than ever, even if he too would discover he had peaked with his populist fear flick. Pretty much all the criticism and praise of Psycho is entirely valid. It remains a marvellously effective low-budget shocker, one peppered with superb performances and masterful staging. It’s also fairly rudimentary in tone, character and psychology. But those negative elements remain irrelevant to its overall power.

You have done well to keep so much hair, when so many’s after it.

Jeremiah Johnson (1972) (SPOILERS) Hitherto, I was most familiar with Jeremiah Johnson in the form of a popular animated gif of beardy Robert Redford smiling and nodding in slow zoom close up (a moment that is every bit as cheesy in the film as it is in the gif). For whatever reason, I hadn’t mustered the enthusiasm to check out the 1970s’ The Revenant until now (well, beard-wise, at any rate). It’s easy to distinguish the different personalities at work in the movie. The John Milius one – the (mythic) man against the mythic landscape; the likeably accentuated, semi-poetic dialogue – versus the more naturalistic approach favoured by director Sydney Pollack and star Redford. The fusion of the two makes for a very watchable, if undeniably languorous picture. It was evidently an influence on Dances with Wolves in some respects, although that Best Picture Oscar winner is at greater pains to summon a more sensitive portrayal of Native Americans (and thus, perversely, at times a more patr

My Doggett would have called that crazy.

The X-Files 9.4: 4-D I get the impression no one much liked Agent Monica Reyes (Annabeth Gish), but I felt, for all the sub-Counsellor Troi, empath twiddling that dogged her characterisation, she was a mostly positive addition to the series’ last two years (of its main run). Undoubtedly, pairing her with Doggett, in anticipation of Gillian Anderson exiting just as David Duchovny had – you rewatch these seasons and you wonder where her head was at in hanging on – made for aggressively facile gender-swapped conflict positions on any given assignment. And generally, I’d have been more interested in seeing how two individuals sympathetic to the cause – her and Mulder – might have got on. Nevertheless, in an episode like 4-D you get her character, and Doggett’s, at probably their best mutual showing.

You’re a disgrace, sir... Weren’t you at Harrow?

Our Man in Marrakesh aka Bang! Bang! You’re Dead (1966) (SPOILERS) I hadn’t seen this one in more than three decades, and I had in mind that it was a decent spy spoof, well populated with a selection of stalwart British character actors in supporting roles. Well, I had the last bit right. I wasn’t aware this came from the stable of producer Harry Alan Towers, less still of his pedigree, or lack thereof, as a sort of British Roger Corman (he tried his hand at Star Wars with The Shape of Things to Come and Conan the Barbarian with Gor , for example). More legitimately, if you wish to call it that, he was responsible for the Christopher Lee Fu Manchu flicks. Our Man in Marrakesh – riffing overtly on Graham Greene’s Our Man in Havana in title – seems to have in mind the then popular spy genre and its burgeoning spoofs, but it’s unsure which it is; too lightweight to work as a thriller and too light on laughs to elicit a chuckle.

The best thing in the world for the inside of a man or a woman is the outside of a horse.

Marnie (1964) (SPOILERS) Hitch in a creative ditch. If you’ve read my Vertigo review, you’ll know I admired rather than really liked the picture many fete as his greatest work. Marnie is, in many ways, a redux, in the way De Palma kept repeating himself in the early 80s only significantly less delirious and… well, compelling. While Marnie succeeds in commanding the attention fitfully, it’s usually for the wrong reasons. And Hitch, digging his heels in as he strives to fashion a star against public disinterest – he failed to persuade Grace Kelly out of retirement for Marnie Rutland – comes entirely adrift with his leads.

I tell you, it saw me! The hanged man’s asphyx saw me!

The Asphyx (1972) (SPOILERS) There was such a welter of British horror from the mid 60s to mid 70s, even leaving aside the Hammers and Amicuses, that it’s easy to lose track of them in the shuffle. This one, the sole directorial effort of Peter Newbrook (a cameraman for David Lean, then a cinematographer), has a strong premise and a decent cast, but it stumbles somewhat when it comes to taking that premise any place interesting. On the plus side, it largely eschews the grue. On the minus, directing clearly wasn’t Newbrook’s forte, and even aided by industry stalwart cinematographer Freddie Young (also a go-to for Lean), The Aspyhx is stylistically rather flat.

I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me.

North by Northwest (1959) (SPOILERS) North by Northwest gets a lot of attention as a progenitor of the Bond formula, but that’s giving it far too little credit. Really, it’s the first modern blockbuster, paving the way for hundreds of slipshod, loosely plotted action movies built around set pieces rather than expertly devised narratives. That it delivers, and delivers so effortlessly, is a testament to Hitchcock, to writer Ernest Lehmann, and to a cast who make the entire implausible exercise such a delight.