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

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.

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.

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…

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 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.

I mean, I am just a dumb bunny, but, we are good at multiplying.

Zootropolis (2016)
(SPOILERS) The key to Zootropolis’ creative success isn’t so much the conceit of its much-vaunted allegory regarding prejudice and equality, or – conversely – the fun to be had riffing on animal stereotypes (simultaneously clever and obvious), or even the appealing central duo voiced by Ginnifier Goodwin (as first rabbit cop Judy Hopps) and Jason Bateman (fox hustler Nick Wilde). Rather, it’s coming armed with that rarity for an animation; a well-sustained plot that doesn’t devolve into overblown set pieces or rest on the easy laurels of musical numbers and montages.