Up

[oyceter]

First: I laughed and laughed and even cried while watching this, had a great time, love it to pieces, thought it was extremely well executed, and loved the voice acting.

Second: I am also a giant fan of having an old protagonist, especially in action scenes, as well as having an Asian-American lead (with actual Asian-American voice!) and making no big deal about it at all. Overall, I love the movie

That said...

I know I've seen quite a lot of feminist critique of this movie, along with Pixar's other work (rightly deserved). Has there been similar post-colonialist critique of it? Because while I love 40s exploration and Indiana Jones as much as the next person, can we have critique of it some time, as opposed to people pointing out that yes, it's a throwback, but oh, isn't it fun? We all know it's fun. But at some point, if you want to keep that sense of "Pow! Bang!" and the dashed paths going across a sepia world map and the fedoras and 40s pin-curled hair and the propeller airplanes, you gotta start making something new, not just doing the same old evocation of the atmosphere while doing nothing further.

And about the squee... I totally get needing the squee. But wouldn't the squee be even better and more awesome, if, say, you had reimaginings of the 40s exploration movies with a queer woman of color in propeller airplanes and fedoras and khaki going across the unexplored areas of Europe? Steampunked (I know the era's different, but you know what I mean) wheelchairs? Wouldn't it be so much cooler to keep the fun trappings and to add another level with a social justice twist?

ETA: spoilers in comments

Comments

[ginny_t]

I don't know if it's critique, but it's definitely a different angle: Once Upon a Time, a joint Korean/Japanese film set in the last days of the Japanese occupation of Korea. I was sceptical of it at several points, but in the end, I quite liked it.

[oyceter]

Huh, interesting! Will have to check that out, thanks.

[laurashapiro]

We just saw it on Friday, and my thoughts were similar. I wondered if it wouldn't have been better for Russell to have an Asian last name, if he was too assimilated, what my friends would think.

But mostly I wondered about the "South America" visited in the film, how curiously empty it was, of ecosystem, of people. It would almost certainly have been worse if there *had* been people there, given Disney's typical treatment of POC. But I was somewhat reminded of Mammothfail: rather than fuck this up, we'll just erase all those troublesome brown people.

OTOH, they did make Muntz evil, implicitly condemning a certain type of colonialism -- mostly in the shape of environmental damage, wanting to own things that can't be owned (Kevin! I loved Kevin) in order to prove something to the white world. That message is there in the film. I'm not sure it's enough, what with the utter lack of South Americans. But it's there.

On further reflection I wondered if it would have been less problematic to create a fictional continent for Muntz to have explored, so that at least real people were not being erased. Not sure.

[vito_excalibur]

Oh yeah, I totally thought MammothFail. And you know what? I was glad. :/ A novel has enough space that it can address issues. That movie? Where would it have shoehorned it in between the tragedy and the talking dogs?

My expectations, so low.

[laurashapiro]

Yeah, I went there, too.

[oyceter]

Ha, so true! I was thinking: I am so sure if there were people Pixar would have screwed them up.

[oyceter]

Yeah, right after I posted, I was thinking even though I love having Russell in there and not making a big deal of it, I probably would have liked it more had it had a little something about him being Asian Am without it being a big deal. I did very much like seeing his mom there though, and that his relationship with his dad was not miraculously cured.

Very with you on the emptiness of South America and not being sure if not having people is better than having brown people and messing it up.

I do like that they made Muntz evil, but I wasn't entirely sure if the thing about him stealing not just Kevin, but also all the other artifacts were in the subtext. I think so, but... not sure. Also, every time Muntz mentioned how people were trying to steal his stuff, I kept thinking it would be South American ppl, as opposed to presumably white explorers.

But yeah, I am not sure if there is an easy answer to it. Mostly I wanted to know if the critique was out there, because I get sick of people picking up the feminist stuff and not post-colonialism or vice versa and etc.

Just seen the film

[jesuswasbatman]

Agree in general about the dodginess of the lack of any local people. But I think Muntz only caring about white explorers stealing his stuff is in character for a man like him both emotionally and ideologically - he would probably behave horrifically to any indigenous people he met but he wouldn't consider them human enough for them to trigger his paranoia in that way.

Re: Just seen the film

[oyceter]

*nods* That does make sense. And I know it'd be hard for the movie to distinguish between who he thinks will steal his stuff vs. who would actually steal his stuff, though I'm now kind of curious about an Up with Venezuelan Karl and Jordan...

Re: Just seen the film

[jesuswasbatman]

I am hopeful because I think Pixar actually does listen to critiques of the subtexts of their films: Ratatouille keeps the respect for natural talent in The Incredibles while overtly rejecting the creepy subtext of worshiping blood nobility, and Russell's uncommented-on corpulence in Up might be an apology for the fatbashing some perceived in WALL-E.

Re: Just seen the film

[oyceter]

Oh! I had not noticed that progression, but you're right. Here's to hoping for a female protagonist too...

[coraa]

But wouldn't the squee be even better and more awesome, if, say, you had reimaginings of the 40s exploration movies with a queer woman of color in propeller airplanes and fedoras and khaki going across the unexplored areas of Europe?

I would love that. In fact, I kind of want to write it now.

[oyceter]

Doooo itttttt!!!!!

[vehemently]

you gotta start making something new, not just doing the same old evocation of the atmosphere while doing nothing further.

...While I'm with you on wanting something new, I'm also not consistently convinced that most audiences feel that way. Especially where "audience" includes a heavy proportion of children. (Built-in supervisory conservatism, parental nostalgia, etc. etc.) And relying on Pixar to work up new/thoughtful worldbuilding is... well, you saw Wall-E, right?

(Although I would totally endorse "harebrained fedora adventure" as the new steampunk, as far as style-applied-to-many-kinds-of-stories goes.)

[oyceter]

Ha. I am completely convinced most audiences do not feel that way. I was mostly thinking of the creators' excuses for things like this, in which I feel they are always "Oh, but we're remixing and stuff! Really! It's post-modern hipster ironic, don't you get it?" That said, I have not seen Pixar's team saying that (I have seen no commentary on the movie at all, outside a few things on DW/LJ). I am just so tired of all the people saying things like "We are rewriting this era to be critical and post modern!" re: Regency and Victoriana and 30s-40s and they are so not doing what they say they are.

Although now that you mention audience, I wonder if the kids would notice people making something new, as opposed to the same-old with shiny new pictures. Maybe younger kids wouldn't know what the 40s references are riffing off of, meaning they might actually be more inclined to like more radical riffs. Or, you know, not, since gender roles and race and etc. get socialized fairly early.

[wired]

I think it depends on the kids. Mine are 6 and 4, and they like Indiana Jones, and my daughter has an Indiana Jones whip that makes noises, and my son plays Lego Indiana Jones, and they totally recognized the trope, and thought the DOGS were the most novel part of the movie.

Some day, I am going to write an essay about how the dogs are a problematic stand-in for native porters.

[oyceter]

*nods* Yeah, I have no idea how much of the genre tropes kids would know or not.

Ooooo, that sounds like a cool essay!

[gloss]

(Here via friendsfriends readingreading[?})

Wouldn't it be so much cooler to keep the fun trappings and to add another level with a social justice twist?
I love this post and I love this question. Thank you for elaborating it so, well, *squeefully* and challengingly and just all around awesomely.

[oyceter]

Thanks! I challenge only because I am selfish and totally want to read things like that!

[wintersweet]

I complained about this in the car on the way about, as well as the peculiar emptiness of South America--it was an exotic fantasyland with no humans who were born there living there, and I wanted to know why they bothered setting it in a real place, Venezuala, if they weren't going to *really* set it there. I realize that was kind of supposed to be Angel Falls, and I later heard Pixar staff did visit Venezuela and they changed the real scenery because they felt it was too unbelievable, but ... If you're going to set it in a fantasyland, I feel strongly that you should just creae a made-up country. :/ It's just rude to the actual people who live there otherwise. :P Am I nuts? My moviegoing companions didn't see anything wrong with it and thought I was totally off my rocker. :/

Oh well, I like your other idea

[oyceter]

No, I think you're completely right! It's just... so weird how empty it was. And maybe some of it was because the location was very far away (I don't know anything about Angel Falls), but just... the lack of people in South America was very disturbing.

[wintersweet]

OMG, typos and broken grammar ahoy, sorry--I was in the middle of a migraine and it shows. :p

You'd think they could have passed over a city or something. Blah!

[vom_marlowe]

Hmmmm. While I'm with you on the exploring of Europe and the South America issue, I thought they were doing some fairly cool social justice with the cast of characters and what happened. I've become more and more aware of the discounting of older people as people (instead of things to be farmed out back). Here's this older guy with a set of dreams of his own, and no physical strength but a lot of hard won cunning. It's very different from the increasing narrative I see about older people these days.

The other issue I was really pleased to see was how much it turned heteronormativity on its head and jumped up and down on it. The happily ever after ended--it didn't work. I thought that was sad, but also really cool. Because the guy's life began anew--he didn't get to make his dreams come true through the traditional happily ever after. And it created a new non-traditional (although really kind of truly traditional) family. Which I thought was fairly subversive for Disney and made me really happy.

[oyceter]

No, I do think they are doing some interesting social justice things, especially with Carl as the hero (although I wonder how old Muntz must have been!). I thought it was great that they included things like loneliness and younger people trying to run your life and shoo you away into nursing homes, as well as smaller details on aging and your body not working as well.

Although I might be more onboard with the turning around of heteronormativity and coupledom if there had been more women. Otherwise it feels more like the "boys' adventures" genre, in which having a close guy buddy is always better than having a girl around. I don't think Pixar is doing that, especially with the cross-generational relationship, but... it skirts the edges in a way that makes me nidgy.

The bit the really makes me disinclined to accept the turning around of heteronormativity is how the "Stuff I'm Going to Do There" portion of Ellie's book is filled with her marriage. As an emotional thing, it totally got me and I cried. But on a meta level, the fact that the giant adventure that she longed for turned into... marriage felt like such a reversion to the narratives of how women must get their satisfaction out of romance and how that is our greatest adventure. Whereas the guy gets the romance, and once he's unshackled, he can still tour the world!

Again, that is totally not the tone I got from Pixar; I thought it was incredibly poignant and I loved that Carl loved Ellie so much and that it was her dream in the first place. But the undertones just... bug me.

[wintersweet]

Yeah, I was sad all over again when I thought about it, because if he'd just pushed himself a little to grow and change more while Ellie was alive, they could have had adventures together. :/ mrf.

I'm a huge Studio Ghibli fan and I know that supposedly the Pixar staff and bigwigs are too, so it seems odd to me that they haven't internalized anything about female characters from Ghibli, unless there's some kind of agreement that Disney Will Do Girls and Pixar Will Do Boys. Uh, which sounds totally paranoid ... ... ...

[oyceter]

Well, I actually don't blame him much for that, which is why the undertones bug me although the general tone I got from the movie really didn't. You get the feeling that he loved her a ton and that both of them were really gunning for their adventures, but life things like car payments and hospital bills and etc. got in the way.

I love Ghibli! Although sometimes I get annoyed at Miyazaki's girls for being so sweet, haha. There is no pleasing me! That said, still far beyond what Pixar has been doing and far beyond Disney princesses!

[daedala]

I saw this Sunday, and adored it. I did see the issues, and they bothered me some, but to be honest "The "rincess and the Frog" trailer at the beginning made the bar really low for me.

(I don't know that "The Princess and the Frog" will be horrible, but I have trouble imagining a Disney movie with Creoles and jazz and witch doctors and voodoo priestesses that isn't.)

I did think that the helmet-goggle trophies made it clear that the people "stealing" stuff from Muntz were other white explorers.

I did keep waiting for someone to call "AAAAALLLVIN!" to the alpha dog.

[oyceter]

Ahaha oh Disney.... sigh. I am probably going to watch it anyway because I think I have watched all the Disney Princess films and loved them as a kid, but yes to the problematic.

[jinian.livejournal.com]

Just saw this tonight, totally agree on all counts -- but you didn't mention the quintessential awful American tourist thing of dumping a huge amount of trash in your own ideal exotic destination! I do not think Pixar meant it as a comment on colonialism, alas.

[jinian.livejournal.com]

Also: all the clouds turning into babies? I'm afraid Wim did not know what I meant when I mentioned the end of Angel Sanctuary.

[oyceter]

BWAHAHAHA! OMG I did not think of that!

[oyceter]

Yes! I forgot to mention that! During the scene when Carl was cleaning out the house, I was just sitting there like, "OMG! Don't just dump everything there!"