Monsters

Pixar Week Monday: Monsters, Inc.

(Note that the following article includes plot spoilers. You have been warned.)

Kind of an odd movie to start with, eh? Monsters, Inc. is one of the middle releases for the Pixar group, and in general tends to not be as prevalent as some of the bigger titles like Toy Story. However, I consider this movie to be part of the cream in Pixar's milk, and an excellent example of their storytelling craft.

Oddly enough, Monsters is the only true feature-length buddy movie Pixar has made. Toy Story and its sequel don't really count - in the first film, it's more about opposites finding common ground, and in the second, the buddies are rarely in the same scenes. Nemo is more of the Great Quest. But in Mike and Sully, you have two buddies who are friends at the beginning and the end of the movie. Sure, there is some conflict in the middle (a staple of the buddy genre), but ultimately, they stand together.

The surface story of the film - finding Boo in the monster world and the ramifications of that discovery - is interesting on its own. There is a very clear villain, a big twist in the midstory with Mr. Waternoose, and a secondary twist with Roz and the CDA in the dénouement. The characters are well defined and deep. Despite being just relegated to the comic relief, Mike has a fierce loyal streak, a deep love for Celia, and an amazing lack of jealousy - he's really the backbone of the relationship with Sully. Sully, while being the muscle and the star scarer of the factory, also has a huge heart and deep sense of what's right. Even the secondary characters are textured - Randall isn't just a bully, he's actually found a way to solve the energy crisis (the methods are questionable, but not so unthinkable from their point of few); Mr. Waternoose isn't necessarily a bad guy, he's just a stubborn and prideful leader in a loosing position who took one wrong step and can't see how to turn it around.

What I find fascinating, though, is the story beneath the surface. Namely, the whole concept of using scream as a power source. There are plenty of evidence to suggest that the monsters have always been able to visit the human world - check your local library under 'folklore'. The question is, though, how did they determine screams generate power? Is there some other less efficient power source native to the monster world, or have they completely exhausted whatever native resources were available? It seems unlikely that a monster scientist discovered the energy characteristics of scream independent of an industrial society, but I suppose it's possible that whatever method was used to travel between the worlds allowed a human through and happenstance caused the discovery.

So we then turn energy management heads towards creating an industry in harvesting scream from the human world using controlled entry points and scheduled screams. For an outside observer, it seems rather exploitative. But for a world in an energy crisis, this was probably an attractive option.

Which begs the question - why hasn't Randall's invention been invented before this (assuming scream isn't a recent discovery - the implications are that it has been going on long enough to have comments like "kids aren't afraid like they used to be" from a veteran scarer)? And secondary to that, why is there an entire framework built around the erroneous concept that humans are too dangerous to even touch? Why the conspiracy?

Scream is technically a renewable resource with diminishing returns - why not abduct children and use them up before sending them back to breed?

There's a couple of theories I can envision:

Theory 1: War. Not necessarily a full blown war between the worlds (that tends to show up in history books), but rather a violent confrontation in the past. If this theory is true, either the monsters got too greedy, didn't spread the scaring around, or chose the wrong child at the wrong time. Something happened where the humans fought back and refused to allow the monsters to scare their children - likely through violence. At some point, the gains are outweighed by the costs, and abduction is deemed to be not worth the effort. So there is a sort of dark period where scream collection is limited and eventually codified and regulated. At some point, all that remains is the societal norm and a 'truth' that humans are dangerous.

Theory 2: Activism. Instead of human resistance, there is instead a 'humanitarian' movement in the early days of scream collection. This seems most likely for a kid's movie, since it doesn't involve a lot of violence. Essentially, the monsters in charge decide that while they need the power, they cannot condone the exploitation of human children. It might be driven by a sense of honor, or they simply couldn't stomach it. Knowing that not everyone will necessarily feel the way they do, they concoct a story about the deadly nature of the human race and erect the precursor to the CDA - contain and cover up any contact. And hoo-boy, you sure were lucky you didn't die when that kid touched you - sorry about the shaving.

Theory 3: Capitalism. This is a strictly economic theory. Scream power is a resource. Selling scream power is an industry. Providing that power drives profits (note that Waternoose references a board of directors - energy is big business even in the monster world). But you don't want just any old monster hopping into the human world to collect some home-grown scream. So you cultivate an image of danger, and create a buy-in barrier by implementing regulations and laws. You monopolize the creation or discovery of transit doors. So the common group-think lines right up, and nobody has any interest in dealing with humans as long as there is a company doing all of the hard work for you.

There's even further twists to the puzzle as we consider the banishment angle. Bigfoot and the Abominable Snowman are well-known expatriates - we never meet Bigfoot (though we are led to believe he is of questionable sanity), but Abominable seems pretty amicable. In fact, Abominable isn't really his name, according to his comments to Mike and Sully - it's a label given by others. So why were they banished to such a "dangerous" locale? It doesn't appear to be a common punishment - Waternoose is incarcerated, not banished, as far as we know. (Randall was banished by Mike and Sully, not by way of civil punishment.) The most likely answer is that the banished monsters probably found out about something they shouldn't - namely, that humans aren't particularly dangerous without cause. And if you don't want someone to talk and you can't just kill them, you put them somewhere where nobody can hear them. Which suggests the conspiracy was active to some degree, whether the conspirators know the origins of the conspiracy or not.

With the advent of laugh energy, it would seem the conspiracy serves no purpose in the future of the monster world. There will still be a social stigma, but eventually that will fade. With a government agency (the CDA) that has nothing to protect against, one would hope that instead turns into a CPA - protecting the resource from the populace instead of protecting the populace from the resource.

Is this a lesson on managing limited resources and seeking less exploitive sources of energy? Probably. Nearly every Pixar movie has at least one secondary message in the plot. It's a positive message too - instead of lambasting the existing structure, it instead shows that we can find new resources that do not harm and still turn a profit.

All in all, it's a great film. If you haven't seen it, do so (though I fear that I have likely ruined some of the surprises). If you have seen it, watch it again when you get the chance.

I rate Monsters, Inc. as my third favorite Pixar film.

---

Link of the moment: Sing along with some other monsters!