Skip to main content

People still talk about Pandapocalypse 2002.

Turning Red

(SPOILERS) Those wags at Pixar, eh? Yes, the most – actually, the only – impressive thing about Turning Red is the four-tiered wordplay of its title. Thirteen-year-old Mei (Rosalie Chiang) finds herself turning into a large red panda at emotive moments. She is also, simultaneously, riding the crimson wave for the first time. Further, as a teenager, she characteristically suffers from acute embarrassment (mostly due to the actions of her domineering mother Ming Lee, voiced by Sandra Oh). And finally, of course, Turning Red can be seen diligently spreading communist doctrine left, right and centre. To any political sensibility tuning in to Disney+, basically (so ones with either considerable or zero resistance to woke). Take a guess which of these isn’t getting press in reference to the movie? And by a process of elimination is probably what it it’s really about (you know in the same way most Pixars, as far back as Toy Story and Monsters, Inc. can be given an insidious spin).

On the outside at least, Turning Red is yet another of Disney/Pixar’s wretchedly transparent, virtue-signalling attempts at culturally-specific inclusivity. One might suggest these manoeuvres are not a little patronising, but most critics are too woked up, or fearful of the movement’s Twitterati adherents, to say boo to a giant red panda. So Mei – in the footsteps of all females in her family – is subject to an ancestral curse. She assists at their Chinese temple too (as much as the movie is focussed on rejecting familial ties that bind, it is hamstrung into cooperating with traditional values interweaving with the same).

Mei’s also one of those obnoxiously hyper-confident juveniles only Hollywood animators find appealing (see also The Mitchell and the Machines). This may be partly intentional – descriptions of her include “A very enterprising, mildly annoying young lady”, “A major weirdo” and “An overachieving dorc-narc”, all fair – but there’s also a slavish desire to reflect and validate tween obsessions, further limiting the appeal of director Domee Shi’s milieu. Mei obsesses over boy group 4-Town, and a major plot point involves her and three best pals planning to see them perform (furnished with “authentic” tunes from Billie Eilish. You know, the one who delivered the most recent of entirely forgettable recent Bond songs).

Because, being Disney and essentially devoted to eroding the family unit while appearing to embrace the same, Mei’s true family – or fam, as Dominic Toretto would say – comprises her best chums, who enable her to control the red menace within. Her mother, as a counterpoint, is insanely overbearing. Which, loaded dice as it is, admittedly carries a degree of dramatic engagement. In due course, such tensions lead to her asserting herself, breaking the family unit’s authoritarian control structure (“I’m changing, mom. I’m finally figuring out who I am”). It is thus Mei, rather than her deranged and explosive mother, who is mature and considered, in the final analysis. Dad, meanwhile, is effectively the Hausfrau; he makes food, mum calls the shots. The “be who you really are” message might be interpreted in various ways, but “letting the beast out” is construed as an entirely positive mode of expression. Except when it isn’t (Mei’s mum). Emasculated dad tells Mei: “People have all kinds of sides to them, Mei, and some sides are messy”.

The gist of the above is, to a greater or lesser extent, par for the course, then. Where Turning Red distinguishes itself, if you want to call it that, is in making the red panda puberty metaphor overt. “Did the red peony bloom?” Mei is asked. “I’m a gross red monster!” she complains. Always best to overstate one’s subtext, just in case anyone might not get the – ahem – bleedin’ obvious; Mei is having her first period and she is turning into a large red panda as a metaphor for having her first period.

Is producing a family animation about the physical changes undergone during adolescence Pixar’s best foot forward? How far into this territory do they wish to stray? Were this about a boy, would his parents leave a box of tissues on his bedside table and some jazz mags in the bottom drawer? The director is open to a sequel. How about they depict Mei smoking weed, smacking herself with heroin, or OxyContin, experiencing teenage pregnancy followed swiftly by a backstreet abortion, all the while trapped in an abusive relationship with a toxic white (privileged) male? They could even take a leaf out of Paul Thomas Anderson’s book and make him 25.

Pixar’s desire to tackle all things progressive, irrespective of whether its audience needs or deserves such a beating, has seen their LGBTQIA+ employees issue a statement regarding Disney – that’s Disney, the wokest of the woke of Hollywood studios – being somewhat backward when it comes to such matters: this coming in light of the studio failing to meet expectations in its response to the Florida “Don’t Say Gay” bill. Which, if they’re coming up short, you can bet relates somewhere to the perceived effect overt endorsements may have on their balance sheet (certainly, their many woke demonstrations among the MCU and Lucasfilm have received a rocky reception. But do not fear, they will continue unabated).

Per the statement, it seems Pixar’s attempts to include “overtly gay affection” were rebuffed by Disney. Never mind, though, I’m sure before long they’ll get to be exactly as explicit as they long to be. As Mei tells her mum “I like gyrating. I’m thirteen. Deal with it”. Yeah, deal with it, prudes! Let Pixar sexualise minors if they want to! Let them state outright that Tyler is gay! That Miriam is trans! Let them purchase the rights to a Cuties animated spin-off!

The director has cited her anime influences, lest you wondered at the repetitive inclusion if irritating big twinkly eyes (all the better to underline the movie’s superficial, pop-tween sensibility). She appears to have resisted hentai, but who knows whether that too was purely because of backward Disney edicts. When mum asks “Now is there anything else I should know about Mei-Mei?” of a potentially molesting boy, Mei ought to have replied, “Yes, your Disney+ subscription”.

Sean O’Connell’s Cinemablend review, meanwhile, was taken down because he dared to suggest Turning Red was too culturally specific to appeal to a broad audience. In which regard, he was clearly wrong, since it was certainly no more so than other recent culturally specific Disney fare (has there been any other focus in animated Disney fare recently?) I suspect he was mostly getting at the movie being aimed at just-menstruating teenage girls, however. Which is a demographic, but in comparison to the average Pixar, it’s also inarguably a narrow-ish one.

But let’s not get side-tracked. This is all by-the-by the movie’s prevailing message. All the kids at school want to spend time with Mei the red panda, secure in the knowledge of hugs and protection and affection (ie, they all want to become commies). Added to which, all the Chinese-Canadian families are hiding their red pandas within (their communist credentials). Unless she goes through a ritual (deprogramming), Mei will remain an overt communist forever; by association, her indoctrinated bezzie mates will also remain communists. This is the way forward. The way of the Great Reset. Pixar be praised! (With the likes of Turning Red and Red Notice, and current geo-political events revved up, the titles alone might be identified as predictive programming, regardless of the movies’ content.)

If you’ve read my takes on Pixar/Disney animations of recent years, you’ll know I’ve been prevailingly unimpressed. As a piece of compelling storytelling with strong, appealing characters, Turning Red represents another let down. In terms of increments, it offers more dramatic engagement than other most recent efforts, but the counterweight is the underlying intent and off-putting execution. There’s also the payoff that Mei is now an “out” panda (oh look, more metaphors). Quite why the US Government hasn’t hauled her off to a secure facility for further testing is anyone’s guess, but presumably those aren’t the kind of overtly impacting issues the studio cares to address.

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

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…

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.

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.

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.

Tippy-toe! Tippy-toe!

Seinfeld 2.7: The Phone Message The Premise George and Jerry both have dates on the same night. Neither goes quite as planned, and in George’s case it results in him leaving an abusive message on his girlfriend’s answerphone. The only solution is to steal the tape before she plays it. Observational Further evidence of the gaping chasm between George and Jerry’s approaches to the world. George neurotically attacks his problems and makes them worse, while Jerry shrugs and lets them go. It’s nice to see the latter’s anal qualities announcing themselves, however; he’s so bothered that his girlfriend likes a terrible TV advert that he’s mostly relieved when she breaks things off (“ To me the dialogue rings true ”). Neither Gretchen German (as Donna, Jerry’s date) nor Tory Polone (as Carol, George’s) make a huge impression, but German has more screen time and better dialogue. The main attraction is Jerry’s reactions, which include trying to impress her with hi