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.


Popular posts from this blog

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

I’m just the balloon man.

Copshop (2021) (SPOILERS) A consistent problem with Joe Carnahan’s oeuvre is that, no matter how confidently his movies begin, or how strong his premise, or how adept his direction or compelling the performances he extracts, he ends up blowing it. He blows it with Copshop , a ’70s-inspired variant on Assault on Precinct 13 that is pretty damn good during the first hour, before devolving into his standard mode of sado-nihilistic mayhem.

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 we have been subtle, then can I kill him?

The Avengers 6.16. Legacy of Death There’s scarcely any crediting the Terry Nation of Noon-Doomsday as the same Terry Nation that wrote this, let alone the Terry Nation churning out a no-frills Dalek story a season for the latter stages of the Jon Pertwee era. Of course, Nation had started out as a comedy writer (for Hancock), and it may be that the kick Brian Clemens gave him up the pants in reaction to the quality of Noon-Doomsday loosened a whole load of gags. Admittedly, a lot of them are well worn, but they come so thick and fast in Legacy of Death , accompanied by an assuredly giddy pace from director Don Chaffey (of Ray Harryhausen’s Jason and the Argonauts ) and a fine ensemble of supporting players, that it would be churlish to complain.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.