Saturday, March 28, 2015

Loophole's inTyler's "Home is Where the Heart is: Pixar's Up"

Dennis Tyler's article "Home is Where the Heart is: Pixar's Up" is an interesting piece. He poses great ideas concerning the life-lessons and values depicted in Up, however he goes on several tangents throughout his piece that reduce the substance of his argument. Intertwining issues of the white man's burden, drawing heavily on race when it was not necessary, and reducing the independence and adventurous persona of Ellie to that of a domestic wife drew attention away from the true messages of the movie.

Before diving into the lows of Tyler's article, I would like to address certain aspects that I appreciated. Tyler opens his articles with critic reviews on Up, establishing its widespread appeal and general acceptance by the public. Similarly, he sets the stage for Up by broadening into the world of Pixar; he demonstrates that Pixar truly seeks to bring "life" into their animation and portray family as a "grouping of individuals who care for each other whether technically related or not" (269). He supports this well with evidence from other well-known Pixar movies like Chicken Little and Toy Story, effectively drawing on the nostalgia and sense of family in the Disney community that most of us treasure. Lastly, I liked how Tyler detailed the logic behind animation, illustrating its twelve most prominent principles and the enormous power that animation has over depicting reality (i.e. using and reinforcing cultural stereotypes). I felt that the combination of these segments made for a great introduction, however I feel that Tyler's argument went downhill from here. 

Tyler's take on Ellie's relationship with Carl is completely misguided. He is correct in depicting Ellie as the talkative and energetic extrovert who seeks adventure while Carl is an adventurous introvert who is not as outgoing, however, he shifts this clear understanding of Ellie and Carl by asserting that Ellie's spirit is tamed by Carl's practicality, suggesting a silencing of Ellie's voice. For anyone who watched the film, it is SO clear that this is not true. Ellie brings substance to Carl's life and lends him the voice that he lacked when they were children. Her passion for experience and living life to the fullest is what get's Carl out of his comfort zone and makes the pair a mutual partnership that seeks exploration and wonder. If anything, it is Ellie that is responsible for making the majority of Carl's life so emotionally and mentally fulfilling. Tyler backs up his argument against this by stating that Carl forces childhood on Ellie, envisioning babies in the sky and replacing Ellie's own vision with his own. Except, in the movie, Carl initially sees the baby in the sky, but Ellie is the one who then envisions a sky full of babies, thus, the decision to pursue having a child was mutual and equally wanted, not one-sided and forced. Additionally, Tyler asserts that Ellie's body "defines" her; she is the "catalyst for Carl's sexual awakening" and is a slave to domesticity (274). I was extremely annoyed by this because Tyler reduces Ellie's life and fulfillment to being impregnated and helping Carl changes his ties, when it is obvious that she represented much more. She got to live a normal, fulfilling, happy life with her love and enjoyed life's spirit and offerings in her daily experiences. Though she is unable to fulfill her lifelong dream of going to Paradise Falls, she still possessed a spirit that stayed with us throughout the entire movie. Now interestingly, despite having accused Up for portraying Ellie in a restricted and submissive manner, he asserts that Ellie is the "true spirit of adventure in the film." (274). ??? WHAT??? Dude is directly contradicting himself. Literally asserts that Ellie's spirit is repressed by Carl one minute and a paragraph later implies that her spirit is present an undeniable. Not a fan of this.

Another aspect of the article that I didn't like is the assumption that Up is the "white man's" story. He relies heavily on the assumption of whiteness and it's dominance, saying that the white man rules over the other characters and that his desires must become their desires as well. He supports this also by saying that Russell, an Asian-American character, looks white alongside Carl and "becomes covered Carl racially" (275). Ermm no. Like not even. I hate when people try to incorporate issue of ethnicity and race when it is not warranted. Just because Russell does not appear to have Asian origins does not imply that his ethnicity is overshadowed by Carl's whiteness. What if Disney is just trying to display that Asian-Americans don't have to be assigned the stereotypical Asian characteristics that we see today. If anything, I think Up is just a progressive movie that's defying the racial stereotypes we see today and the inability to distinguish Russell's Asian ethnicity is demonstrative of appearance not defining who we are. Plus, the whole notion of white man's burden is misplaced, seeing that Carl simply had a wish that he sought to fulfill and the people that he encountered along the way voluntarily came along for the ride. 

Okay, and lastly, WTF is with the mention of The Princess and the Frog?!?! That actually really upset me because Tyler has no basis for an argument concerning African Americans in Up!!!! Like no! First off, his mention of "African Americans in the film" as if they play a major role in the film is complete crap! There is legit one African-American girl in the film for LITERALLY five seconds that stares out her window in awe as she sees as freaking house with a mound of balloons floating in the air. Like WHO WOULDN'T be looking up in wonder?!?! Tyler spins this as a symbol of unimaginable hope and wonder that the African-American lacks and will only dream of but the white man can fulfill. NOT EVEN!!! And the comparison to The Princess and the Frog is that the lack of social realism and the deracialization of Tiana's story assumes a story where race is unimportant. However, it is in Up??? Where an innocent African-American girl who's reaction to something unrealistic was COMPLETELY normal has to be somehow tied to her race??? No.

And in addition to The Princess and the Frog, Tyler literally mentions eight different movies within the last couple of paragraphs of the article. He introduces literally eight different movies with eight different points for each movie when he should be tying together the loose ends of his argument and ending with a cohesive statement that summarizes his article. Definitely think he should have just kept Up as the main focus of the conclusion but that's just me!

So those are my thoughts on Tyler's "Home is Where the Heart is: Pixar's Up"! Definitely check out the article and see what you think!



Peace Love Disney :)

No comments:

Post a Comment