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

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

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.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

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

You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

He doesn’t want to lead you. He just wants you to follow.

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) (SPOILERS) The general failing of the prequel concept is a fairly self-evident one; it’s spurred by the desire to cash in, rather than to tell a story. This is why so few prequels, in any form, are worth the viewer/reader/listener’s time, in and of themselves. At best, they tend to be something of a well-rehearsed fait accompli. In the movie medium, even when there is material that withstands closer inspection (the Star Wars prequels; The Hobbit , if you like), the execution ends up botched. With Fantastic Beasts , there was never a whiff of such lofty purpose, and each subsequent sequel to the first prequel has succeeded only in drawing attention to its prosaic function: keeping franchise flag flying, even at half-mast. Hence Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore , belatedly arriving after twice the envisaged gap between instalments and course-correcting none of the problems present in The Crimes of Grindelwald .

So, you’re telling me that NASA is going to kill the President of the United States with an earthquake?

Conspiracy Theory (1997) (SPOILERS) Mel Gibson’s official rehabilitation occurred with the announcement of 2016’s Oscar nominations, when Hacksaw Ridge garnered six nods, including Mel as director. Obviously, many refuse to be persuaded that there’s any legitimate atonement for the things someone says. They probably weren’t even convinced by Mel’s appearance in Daddy’s Home 2 , an act of abject obeisance if ever there was one. In other circles, though, Gibbo, or Mad Mel, is venerated as a saviour unsullied by the depraved Hollywood machine, one of the brave few who would not allow them to take his freedom. Or at least, his values. Of course, that’s frequently based on alleged comments he made, ones it’s highly likely he didn’t. But doesn’t that rather appeal to the premise of his 23-year-old star vehicle Conspiracy Theory , in which “ A good conspiracy theory is an unproveable one ”?

You’d be surprised how many intersectional planes of untethered consciousness exist.

Moon Knight (2022) (SPOILERS) Now, this is an interesting one. Not because it’s very good – Phase IV MCU? Hah! – but because it presents its angle on the “superhero” ethos in an almost entirely unexpurgated, unsoftened way. Here is a character explicitly formed through the procedures utilised by trauma-based mind control, who has developed alters – of which he has been, and some of which he remains, unaware – and undergone training/employment in the military and private mercenary sectors (common for MKUltra candidates, per Dave McGowan’s Programmed to Kill ). And then, he’s possessed by what he believes to be a god in order to carry out acts of extreme violence. So just the sort of thing that’s good, family, DisneyPlus+ viewing.