your £$ support needed

part of a small rebellion | by maryann johanson

Up (review)

Fly Away Home

If there’s magic in them thar Pixar films, it’s not just the magic of supernaturally gorgeous animation and inexpressibly poignant characters and a touch so light that it turns the deeply profound into something ethereal. It’s that, Damn, do the Pixar wizards have a crystal ball, or are they just mystically prescient? Anyone with half a brain could see years ago that tough times were on the horizon, but how did the Pixar folks time it just right, especially with the looong production schedules these animated movies require, to get this cheerful and fantastical yet never unrealistically optimistic movie before our eyes just as we are getting desperate for a movie to hug us reassuringly? How did they know that a story about dreams deferred and ambitions reconsidered and making the best and the most of what you have was exactly the kind of thing we’d need at the start of what looks to be a gloomy summer of 2009?

There’s something both grand and cozy in the concept: An elderly man lofts his house into the air by way of thousands of brightly colored helium balloons, the kind you’d buy at the zoo or the circus to please a child. Carl Fredricksen (the voice of Edward Asner: Elf) is going to fulfill a dream that he and his wife, Ellie, now deceased, shared: to see the mysterious land of Paradise Falls in South America. And he’s going to travel there by floating house. It’s a wonderful clashing of two wildly opposing desires, for home and comfort, and for excitement and adventure, and it’s so gloriously and perfectly executed by Pixar-vet directors Pete Docter (Wall-E, Toy Story 2) and Bob Peterson (Ratatouille, Finding Nemo) — Peterson wrote the screenplay — that it would be churlish to call it implausible even if the film allowed any room for you to do so. The peculiarly effective Pixar magic in Up is that it doesn’t allow that. The moment that house rises into the sky, your heart soars with it, and knows that Yes, that is exactly right.

We know Carl by that point, thanks to an introductory sequence that fast-forwards us through his life with Ellie — they met as imaginative children — that may be one of the most moving 10 or 15 minutes of movie I’ve ever seen. And so that feeling of rightness springs from that, from knowing what it means to Carl. It means: escape from the many things that have been haunting him, not just memories but more immediate concerns that I won’t spoil for you.

Not that this is a spoilable movie. I could relate the entire plot and still it wouldn’t matter, because Up is all about the cinematic experience of it. (I must admit, though, that while I saw the movie in 3D, I’m not sure it demands that. But don’t miss seeing it on the biggest screen you can.) It’s about the luscious colors, and about the warmth and life the animation imbues its characters with and the sweetness with which it brings them together. For there is also Russell (the voice of Jordan Nagai), an eight-year-old Wilderness Scout, accidentally along on Carl’s journey. Which is what prevents Up from being purely about escape for Carl… and for us, too. If Carl’s adventure feels like pure fantasy, Russell grounds him, and the film, with his own issues.

There are dark moments here: the film earns its PG rating, and I have no doubt that some children, years from now, will talk about a few of those dark moments in the same way that we grownups today talk about Bambi’s mother and flying monkeys. But the cleverness and originality of Up is nearly boundless. For all that it does evoke The Wizard of Oz, especially with the storm that blows Carl and Russell and the house to the strange realm of Paradise Falls, as well as the cunning play on its “there’s no place like home” theme, there are surprises at every turn, too. In the plot, in the visuals, in the dialogue… some of which is so refreshingly novel that I couldn’t tell you anything about the rest of it, because the audience I saw this with was laughing so loud and so hard and so long that we all missed half of what was said. Dug the talking dog (the voice of writer-director Peterson) is surely the highlight. (If you’ve ever wondered what kind of sense of humor a dog would have, wait till you hear Dug’s attempt at a joke.)

When I wasn’t sobbing through Up because it’s so honest in how it wants to touch you, I was sobbing at how beautiful it is to look at. Or sobbing at how marvelously witty it is. Or sobbing simply with the relief of having my love of movies reconfirmed. This is a perfect movie in all ways. Don’t miss it.

Oscars Best Animated Feature 2009

previous Best Animated Feature:
2008: Wall-E
next Best Animated Feature:
2010: Toy Story 3

go> the complete list of Oscar-winning Best Animated Features

Please support truly independent film criticism
as generously as you can.
support my work at PayPal support my work at Patreon support my work at Ko-Fi support my work at Liberapay More details...

Up (2009) | directed by Pete Docter, Bob Peterson
US/Can release: May 29 2009
UK/Ire release: Oct 09 2009

MPAA: rated PG for some peril and action
BBFC: rated U (contains mild threat)

viewed in 3D
viewed at a public multiplex screening

official site | IMDb | trailer
more reviews: Movie Review Query Engine | Rotten Tomatoes

If you’re tempted to post a comment that resembles anything on the film review comment bingo card, please reconsider.

  • Jan Willem

    Nice write-up! You are one of the few reviewers to spot that here we have yet another Pixar director upstaging his leads in the valiant tradition of Andrew Stanton as Crush (Nemo) and Brad Bird as Edna Mode (Incredibles). Too bad we need to wait until October to see this in the Netherlands.

    However, I believe the term they use for Russell in the movie is ‘Wilderness Explorer’, probably to avoid the trademarked ‘Boy Scout’. (I know about that stuff because I used to be a Sea Scout. Not quite the same thing as them landlubbers, you know, but this probably isn’t the right place to relive those ancient rivalries.)

  • JoshDM

    I like how your review doesn’t ever mention the accursed words Mouse, The Mouse, Disney, The Disney, or Walt.

  • Glenn

    I was already planning on seeing Up this weekend–it had the only trailer I didn’t mind sitting through so many times before showings of Star Trek–but now I’m all the more excited about it.

  • m

    “This is a perfect movie in all ways.”
    -Agreed. A masterpiece.
    After seeing NATM2 last weekend, I started to re-consider going to the movies again, maybe ever, it was that bad.
    So glad I went to UP, it re-confirmed my love of movies also.

  • Mathias

    Ellie’s 2 sentence message to Carl at the crisis point of the film was unbelievably touching. My heartstrings haven’t been tugged liked that in a long while.

  • Susan Wilson

    I think every adult needs to see the Pixar film UP. It makes us all want to live our life to the fullest and never give up. The spirit of adventure lives in us all and we need to remind ourselves of that fact everyday.

  • What’s interesting about Pixar is the way they make movies whose themes resonate much more with adults than children. Toy Story 1 and 2 and Finding Nemo, in particular, are specifically about adult concerns that kids might be able to understand, intellectually, but can’t relate to the way their parents can. And now here’s this movie that seems emotionally targeted primarily at old people, for all the fun and whimsy for the youngsters.

    By the way, I love the lack of schmaltz in this film (something Pixar occasionally does fall prey to, particularly in Nemo). They barely even use “sad music” for the big emotional beats.

  • PaulW

    I couldn’t help thinking this during the aerial dogfight:
    “Grey Two to Grey Leader: Look at the size of that SQUIRREL!”
    “Cut the chatter Grey Two!”

    This is not a movie about whimsy, however: it is poignant and wistful and melancholy and SQUIRREL! Sorry.

    There is only one other thing to say about UP: why did Pixar stop making those funny blooper outtakes?

    P.S. I cried twice in this movie. I also cried twice in the current Star Trek. Coincidence, I think not!

  • amanohyo

    I cried like I always do and have the same broken record nitpicks that I often have with Pixar movies. The female characters are mainly there for emotional support, to die, or to get rescued (the first ten minutes gave me hope, and then let me down). The cartoon physics occasionally threw me out of the movie (mainly the superhuman strength, not the balloon-house parts, those were handled perfectly), and the comic relief scenes often feel tacked on for the benefit of the wee ones.

    But aside from those minor perennial issues, it was a great movie and another baby step in the right direction. As Prankster mentioned, a few of the big emotional scenes were actually handled in an almost subtle way (though the score is still a bit schmaltzy). It felt rushed in spots, but only because I enjoyed every minute and wanted more. Although it’s not gonna knock Monsters Inc. out of the top spot for me, it came pretty damn close.

    I felt (and the audience reactions seemed to confirm this) that it definitely leaned more towards adults than children. I wish Pixar’d just split off an adult division already and show us what they can really do when they’re not pulled in two directions at once. So they’d probably lose millions of dollars, so what? And for the record I cried four times during the movie and once during the short. I hereby claim the title of wussiest movie goer ever.

  • Miguel

    it’s one of the few films I’ve seen where people didn’t mind if others heard them crying.
    those first 10 minutes are so beautiful yet so emotionally draining!
    and yes, he might be there for comic relief, but Dug is fantastic -but for some reason I kept wondering if it was the voice of Seth Rogen.

  • Miguel


    forgot to quote my favourite Dug line: I’ve only just met you, but I love you!

    Even Kevin, whom I found annoying and extremely childish throughout the film, ends up being an unforgettable character.

  • I did not cry, but I did sniffle a little.

    It was a great, great movie. While I liked Wall*E, I thought UP had a vastly superior script.

  • OldDarth

    Huzzah. I have just seen the perfect film.

    Pixar makes treasures. Magical ones at that.

  • MaryAnn

    The female characters are mainly there for emotional support, to die, or to get rescued (the first ten minutes gave me hope, and then let me down).


    I mentioned this in my Week in Women column this week, but I thought it didn’t really belong here, because it’s not a problem with this particular film… it’s just a problem that every Pixar film all but excludes women. Even the dog here is male! (Kevin is female, it turns out, but we can’t call her a woman.)

    My favorite Dug line is “I was hiding under your porch because I love you.”

    Though if I could remember Dug’s whole joke, that would be my favorite. But his explanation for it is priceless: it’s something like, “It is funny because the squirrel is dead.”

  • amanohyo

    EVE, Elastigirl and Jessie are okay side characters, and Dory is pretty awesome, but it’s weird to see male characters at the center of Pixar movies over and over and over when everyone at the studio claims to idolize Miyazaki. I don’t get how anyone who loves Miyazaki’s work could fail to see that a lot of the appeal of his greatest movies comes from strong, realistic, independent female characters.

    Oh well, just like I always say when I watch a Pixar movie, maybe next time… maybe next time.

  • Martin

    Coincidence, I think not!

    Don’t Bernie me! This little rat is guilty!

  • amanohyo

    I studied bioengineering a little bit, and a device that translates certain signals in the brain into words is within the realm of possibility in our lifetimes, certainly for simpler organisms (we’ll probably be gone by the time they make it to something as complex as a dog).

    Anyway, people have always told “if animals could talk,” jokes but until this movie, I never realized just how hilarious it’s going to be for those first few years. After a while, everyone will probably get used to it; however, Dug is a riot, and most of his “jokes” don’t even feel forced.

    Aside from the talking dogs, the movie suffered from a lack of imagination. I was kinda hoping they’d see a lot more surprising miracles of nature and relics of past civilizations in that legendary jungle. Maybe Muntz got to them all first?

  • Tom

    Mary Ann, I rely on your insightful reviews before seeing any movie, mostly because your opinion is spot on.

    You truly hit the bullseye with this review. I felt all the things you felt about this movie, which in my mind does function on so many levels, touches the heart like few movies do, and leaves you with a genuine – not forced – warm feeling of hope inside. The timing is impeccable.

    Thank you for your candid, accurate and touching review. Ironically, this movie harkens back to the era of young Muntz and Karl, to a time when movies moved you. Wonderful stuff…why can’t they all be of this quality???

  • bats :[

    Is it weird that many of the “classic” Disney animated films had strong women, or at least those who were the featured performers (Snow White, Cinderella, Mulan, Ariel, etc.)?

  • amanohyo

    Yeah bats… I’m not really a big fan of the Disney “princesses” (Mulan, Esmeralda, and Jasmine are okay, ), as their main goal seems to be to hook up with Hunky McBlanderson in the final reel. But you’re right, at least they used to be at the centers of their stories, and das maushaus definitely created some kickass female villains. Everyone remembers Cruella and Ursula, but Maleficent is my personal favorite.

    The only female villains I can think of on Pixar’s side are Darla and Mirage. Veeery disappointing… I’d better stop whining and let people discuss the movie. At our showing, the entire theater was sobbing after the first ten minutes, and there isn’t even any dialogue in that section after the “cute meet.” Pixar truly excels at the silent movie format (the first half hour of Wall-E similarly impressed me).

  • i agree with amanohyo — never a big fan of the “princesses”. i mean, snow white cleans house for the dwarves; cinderella sweeps and cleans up; sleeping beauty — kinda just sleeps, really. all of them are waiting for “prince charming” and there isn’t a mother-figure in sight who isn’t evil, wicked, mean and nasty. i did like Mulan and Belle (who at least loved to read and yearned for adventure, though she wound up living with a man instead). i’m never sure about Ariel — who at least had a goal and went after it, willingly paying the price. but her goal was… a man. stil, for sheer beauty and quality of animation, it’s hard to beat Pixar and Disney.

  • Scott P

    Went to see “UP” with my 4-yo nephew & his parents. My sister-in-law recently stated that she NEVER cries at movies. So with tears still in my eyes after the movie, I asked her if UP got to her & she replied “That movie? Really???” Apparently, she is a stone-hearted dude & I am a big, softy wuss because there were big crocodile tears rolling down my face at least 3-4 times. Glad to see that many other folks on this forum also got choked up during those first 10 minutes.

    As others have noted, UP is really an achingly-beautiful movie made for adults but it’s got enough humor & action to entertain the kids too.

    Regarding the discussion of women’s limited roles in Pixar films, I do not disagree. However, I would like to point out that everything Carl does is for his beloved wife Ellie. So in that respect, the movie revolves around the love story of Ellie & Carl.

    UP is hands-down the best movie I have seen in 2009…going to see The Brothers Bloom & Sugar tomorrow.

  • Erik Goodwyn

    I disagree that there are no important female characters in this film. Ellie is not a character “whose main function is to die”. Ellie is the heart and soul of the entire story. As is so often the case, the female element of the story is more subtle and pervasive (not unlike the “transfunctional goddesses” of ancient indo-european religions, without whose approval no male king is worthy). But male heroics seems more popular these days, so that’s all anyone talks about, even if only in the negative.

    Carl is only a closet romantic adventurer without Ellie, she pulls him out of his shell, which is more like a coffin by the end of the first montage. Only when her image, which Carl worships, is threatened does he act, and out of respect for her “cross your heart” promise to her. But (spoiler alert), by the end of the movie, we realize with Carl that Ellie was a much deeper person than that, and that on her death bed she composed a new grand adventure for him to remember her by. Then the house–more a mausoleum–is allowed to drift to its rightful place in Paradise Falls, which is a beautiful but empty fantasy, and he is allowed to live the rest of his life. Notice how before he spends the movie hauling around his house like a burden–its a metaphor, intentional or not, of his imprisonment of grief over losing Ellie, but forgetting her “spirit of adventure” (which he not coincidentally inherits by the end of the film).

    So what if Ellie doesn’t conquer the vast horizons like “male” heroes do in stories? Do that and the whole story becomes stupid. Instead she’s the most important leitmotif of the story, and even from the grave rescues him from withdrawing into despair at the end of his life. Anyone who thinks she is “unimportant” or only exists as a plot device is viewing it far too narrowly, perhaps with a procrustean political lens rather than an open mind.

  • MaryAnn

    Did anyone say Ellie was “unimportant”? Clearly, she’s not. But she’s also NOT a character in this story. She is motivation for Carl, who grows and changes and learns throughout the story. That’s what characters do: they experience something and they change because of it. That’s the whole purpose of telling a story, and the whole purpose of experiencing it: to move with a character or characters through that change.

    But this does not happen to Ellie. I’m not saying that as a *person* she doesn’t change, but as a character in a story, she doesn’t. And that’s very much the case with LOTS of movies. Women are very often either prizes or goals for the hero to attain, or “goddesses” (ie: the hooker with a heart of gold) or or “villains” (ie: the nagging wife) of one sort or another who inspire them or motivate them. These women do not change and grow: they are present in the story to force the men to change and grow.

    Imagine if almost every movie we saw forced men onto the sidelines, cast them as either irredeemable bad or inhumanly good, and never allowed them a journey of self-discovery. Imagine if almost every movie we saw said, in its subtext, that men were only good for what they could do for women. Wouldn’t that piss you off eventually, guys, no matter how good each of those individual stories might me?

  • amanohyo

    I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but in order to create female characters that can change and grow, at some point you have to accept that human beings have goals in life other than sitting around dreaming of the day when Prince Charming will sweep them off into baby-making paradise. Prince Charming and the other male side-characters have plenty of passions and goals other than “getting the girl” (which is usually just a side-effect of finishing the “quest”), why don’t the girls?

    Maybe there are women out there who spend their every waking moment thinking about how to be pretty so they can catch the perfect man. Maybe their adult lives really do revolve entirely around having and raising children and keeping their man happy and satisfied. However, I don’t know any people like that, male or female. That’s why I respect Disney villains more than Disney princesses. They may not change, but Cruella and co. at least have dreams that don’t consist solely of satisfying someone else.

    That’s kind of why the big payoff with the extra pages in the Adventure book rang a little hollow to me. I was waiting for Carl to say or show somehow that he was sorry that Ellie was forced to make a choice between her dream and a life with him. I’m not blaming Carl for the financial realities they had to face (although his job clearly wasn’t bringing in the kind of change their dream required), but he should have at least felt some regret that he was the one to go on the adventure that Ellie had been so passionate about. The movie lets him off his guilt hook too easily. I’m sorry, but a few pictures of walks in the park and some pleasant memories do not erase a lifelong dream in an instant, I don’t care how many miles you’ve been dragging around a house. The shift from penance to triumph was too abrupt. If Carl had shed a tear or broken down when he saw those pages or even just mumbled “I’m so sorry,” it would have felt as if he had actually learned something more meaningful.

  • JoshB

    Wouldn’t that piss you off eventually, guys, no matter how good each of those individual stories might me?

    Nope. Movie portrayals of men account for exactly zero percent of my self-image.

  • Erik Goodwyn

    In the previous comment, and in yours, you are saying that being “emotional support”, or a foil, or a villian is being in a devalued position. Either she is only important insofar as she is of value to a male character, or if she is the main character, she only achieves happiness through a relationship with a male. But doesn’t this second option simply mirror the male character’s role? Most male-centered stories have a female love interest, because it is important to him to gain her favor through his growth.

    There are zillions of movies and books with central female characters–they’re usually called “romances”. Yet you often rail against these too. The women in these experience and grow, and at the end, yes many times they get married and have children. So what? Are women not *supposed* to want these things? Isn’t it possible these are used as “rewards” simply because most women want these things, just like most men want to be admired by women?

    It seems that what you want is a story where a woman experiences, changes and grows completely outside of any male character’s influence. That would be unusual, just like a story wherein a male character grows and changes independently of any female characters would be unusual (like, say, Lawrence of Arabia; hardly typical).

    But there’s a deeper issue here, in that men and women are not identical. Men and women think somewhat differently (on average)–this is probably due to our primate heritage. Men are more geared toward physical and sexual competition, and women are superior in language abilities and empathic reasoning (again, on average). The way we present “male” vs. “female” stories may be just as much a reflection of biological brain differences in the sexes as it is of some kind of social conspiracy to suppress women. The latter may very well exist, by why always assume it?

  • MaryAnn

    In the previous comment, and in yours, you are saying that being “emotional support”, or a foil, or a villian is being in a devalued position.

    No, I’m not. I’m saying that *as fiction in our culture typically presents women,* they are useful only as far as they serve the growth of the male characters, not as characters in their own right.

    There are zillions of movies and books with central female characters–they’re usually called “romances”.

    Thank you for making my point. Why aren’t there zillions of movies and books about women that are NOT primarily centered on romance?

    Are women not *supposed* to want these things?

    Ah, so you’re suggesting that the fact that most stories about men are NOT about them seeking out romance and marriage and children, that means that men don’t want those things?

    Or can it be that our culture — and the fiction that dominates it — allows for men to be fully rounded people who CAN want it all, and have it all, but does not extend the same courtesy to women?

    In other words: *Up* could have *easily* been about Ellie struggling to find a new path in life after the death of her beloved husband — who, in his wisdom, had discovered his own peace during his lifetime that he posthumously passes on to her. But it isn’t.

    There could be a tradition of stories in our culture about women seeking meaning and adventure and wisdom (and not excluding love and romance and children from that equation, but not making it women’s only priorities) accomplished through sidelined male characters who are there to inspire them or motivate them. But there isn’t.

  • MaryAnn

    Movie portrayals of men account for exactly zero percent of my self-image.

    This isn’t about “self-image,” JoshB. If it were, and mine had been crushed by the lack of strong, positive, *human* depictions of women onscreen, I’d hardly have the moxie to complain about it, would I? I’d have long ago dedicated myself to satisfying male needs in some way over my own, having internalized the message that men are more worthy of their humanity than women are.

    I cannot believe, though, that someone who loves movies enough to keep coming around here and posting comments wouldn’t be mad to be constantly told that you’re not as important as some other people are merely on account of your gender.

  • MaryAnn

    There are zillions of movies and books with central female characters–they’re usually called “romances”.

    Oh, and another thing: those zillions of movies and books about romance are typically derided as “chick” stuff, of interest to women only. Yet the stories about men are supposed to be universal, and of interest to everyone. Is it too much to ask for a story, just once in a damn while, about a woman that is also meant to be of interest to everyone, and representative of all humanity, instead of the tiny minority the 51% of us comprise?

  • JoshB

    It seems that what you want is a story where a woman experiences, changes and grows completely outside of any male character’s influence.

    That’s a wild exaggeration. She wants a story where his attention is not her sole motivation.

    In other words: *Up* could have *easily* been about Ellie struggling to find a new path in life after the death of her beloved husband — who, in his wisdom, had discovered his own peace during his lifetime that he posthumously passes on to her. But it isn’t.

    So easily, in fact, that it was called “P.S. I Love You”

  • Erik Goodwyn

    Have you ever read any romances? Many of them are not really about romance, per say, so much as all the other stuff you say is absent in fiction about women.

    Consider these two stories: a man experiences, changes and grows, and in the end “gets the girl”. Here you might cry foul that the only purpose she serves is to provide him with a “prize”.

    In the second story, a woman experiences, changes and grows, and in the end, gets married with hopes for having children. Here you might cry foul that she is only being shown to want to get married and have children, and darn it she’s supposed to want MORE!

    But I might as easily cry foul that the first story only shows men as interested in women’s opinions of them. And the second story only shows men as a vehicle through which a woman can have a child and marriage. Hey, you can’t have it both ways!

    And yes, I think women are–on average–more interested in family and children than men are. No it’s not a popular opinion, but I think it’s the most scientific. Males in the animal kingdom (which includes humans!) are rewarded with reproductive success if they are aggressive, competitive, and glory seeking. And since men in the ancestral environment could never be certain their children were actually theirs, Nature made attachment and child bonding less intense for males than females.

    Females, on the other hand, are less interested in short-term sexcapades than men, because no matter how many partners she has, she can only have one or two babies at a time. So Nature invested in females less interest in outrageous conquest and more interest in intimate bonding and familial attachment. It’s a tradeoff: invest time and energy into mate seeking or child rearing? Men lean more to one side, and women to the other…on average, just because of our biology.

    I agree women should be encouraged to “have it all”, but what men and women want is not all due to “society”, which ours is admittedly patriarchal due to Roman influences on Western civilization, but a big chunk of it may be also our biology.

  • MaryAnn

    But I might as easily cry foul that the first story only shows men as interested in women’s opinions of them.

    No, you couldn’t, because those movies are NOT about men doing nothing but pursuing women! The men get to do all sorts of exciting things that have nothing to do with the pursuit of romance: romance just gets plopped in their laps at the end of it all.

    And yes, I think women are–on average–more interested in family and children than men are.

    If you feel better thinking along these lines, fine. But if you want to talk about “averages,” please explain this: Most men are NOT cops, FBI agents, fighter pilots, or superheroes. So why are so many movies about those kinds of male characters?

    And let’s talk about movies. Almost any Hollywood movie can be boiled down to this: It’s about the most important thing that will happen in the life of the protagonist. On average, for most people of either gender, that WILL be getting married and having children. On average, how often do we see movies in which a man is the protagonist and the resolution of his story is that he falls in love, gets married, and has children?

  • Erik Goodwyn

    Yes, some movies are called “chick flicks”. Others are called “guy movies”. “Guy movies” are derided by many women who just don’t care about things blowing up. Understandably.

    But all the romance novels that you claim are “derided” sure are popular. About one of every two novels written is a romance. Perhaps the perception is that only women read them, but I doubt it. However, that is a reflection of men’s attitudes toward themselves–I admit to reading them, but I’m in the minority, after all “real” men wouldn’t bother with such stuff. Why isn’t that limiting attitude due to society “suppressing” men?

  • MaryAnn

    In other words, why aren’t women allowed to have the same extreme fantasies in the realm of cinema that men are allowed?

  • MaryAnn

    But all the romance novels that you claim are “derided” sure are popular. About one of every two novels written is a romance. Perhaps the perception is that only women read them, but I doubt it. However, that is a reflection of men’s attitudes toward themselves–I admit to reading them, but I’m in the minority, after all “real” men wouldn’t bother with such stuff. Why isn’t that limiting attitude due to society “suppressing” men?

    Again, you’re making my points for me! It IS suppressing men! Why aren’t you proud to say you read these books?

    I’ll tell you why: Because the general perception of them is that they’re inferior because they’re intended only for women!

  • JoshB

    I cannot believe, though, that someone who loves movies enough to keep coming around here and posting comments wouldn’t be mad to be constantly told that you’re not as important as some other people are merely on account of your gender.

    Believe it or not, it’s true.

    Yeah, I love movies. No, it wouldn’t bother me if men were constantly portrayed as less important than women.

    I dunno, people in general tend to be a lot more emotional than me. Most men probably would be upset, so in that regard your point is well taken.

  • Erik Goodwyn

    It isn’t about my “feeling better” by believing that. My opinion is based on a lot of literature in the fields of evolutionary psychology, affective neuroscience, anthropology and comparative ethology–but I didn’t want to bore your readers with a bibliography. At any rate it seems you disagree.

    The bottom line is basically that the brain regions that handle attachment bonding and infant care are more active and vigorous in females than males, and that’s in ALL MAMMALS. On the other hand, the sex region (the interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus, or the INAH-3 nucleus) is triple in size and activity in men than women; men dream of sex 3 times as much as women do, and that’s in every culture ever studied. I’m not making this stuff up.

    Your question about superhero movies is great. I think it’s because cops and super FBI agents epitomize the “hero” ideal latent in everyone; he is aggressive, strong, courageous, conquering. These are themes universal to all cultures because ancestral men were hunters and warriors above all else. The best ones succeeded in enhancing the survival of the tribe and his offspring. Nature didn’t have time to hard wire men to be excited by the prospect of being a middle-management clerk. So, the answer is because men want to be these guys, and women want to *have* these guys…again, on average.

  • Erik Goodwyn

    I’m neither proud nor ashamed of having read them. But I question the perception of them as “inferior because they pertain to women”. Why do you say that? Who says this? These books are insanely popular, I’m not aware that they are considered inferior to any other genre.

  • bitchen frizzy

    Erik, you have a few valid points, like that bit about the maternal bond and all, but, good gracious, your take on history and anthropology is askew.

    A few points:

    1) Ancestral men were not above all hunters and warriors. They spent most of their time and energy gathering, and, later, farming. The young men did the fighting, at the direction of the older men, who didn’t do the fighting because they had responsibilities like homes and children. The young men are the most expendable, and this is true in many species, like dogs. So, yes, the young men are the most aggressive and glory-seeking, but it’s survivors that propagate and pass on genes…

    2) A high percentage of women think romance novels are crap.

    3) Men in the ancestral environment had all kinds of ways of ensuring their mates’ children were theirs. Some of those primitive means are still in use today. In some ancient cultures, men were positively obsessed with this – like in cultures where a man had the right to kill his adulterous wife and the man he caught her with.

  • Erik Goodwyn

    When I say “ancestral” I mean foraging societies–hunter gatherers. Farming was introduced around 10,000 BC. The rest of the 99.5% of our 2 million years on this planet was as hunter gatherers. That is enough time for Natural selection to favor men to be obsessed with warfare, the hunt, and as you point out, mate guarding behavior. Sexual jealousy is more prevalent in males (animal and otherwise) in all cultures. Cults of virginity are another way of serving this basic emotional need.

    My point is that the reason *why* young men seek glory is because in the ancestral environment, it promoted reproductive success. This is because of nothing less than female selectivity (remember Darwin was criticized for suggesting *females* direct mate selection). Like peacocks, males are rewarded for showy, competitive behavior. Why? Biology. Women invest far more time and biological resources on infants than men (who need about 4 minutes vs. 4 years). This imbalance rewards females who are very picky and men who are lusty and competitive, lest they commit genetic suicide by failing to get a mate.

    Your argument about men being obsessed with paternal certainty supports my view: after all, WHY should men care? Because natural selection has hard wired us to care! And so do all other species who engage in paternal investment–tigers, for example, couldn’t care less. This is because tiger fathers don’t take part in infant care. But prairie vole fathers do, and they engage in mate guarding, like many birds.

    My point is that culture does not dictate our deepest emotional needs and wants, evolution does. Culture follows biology–not the other way around!

  • Erik Goodwyn

    Oh yeah, and if so many women think romance novels are crap, why are they so doggone popular? I agree that most are crap, but I’m just one person, and I’m talking about general trends in large populations.

  • bitchen frizzy

    (What does this have to do with the subject? Well, some on this thread were arguing for more complexity in characters’ motives, and I sympathize. Those people are not denying their biology. Rather, Hollywood is focusing on the young male demographic, so young males’ priorities are reflected. Or something.)

    According to anthropologists, in hunter-gatherer times, the emphasis was very much on gathering. Hunters preferred – and still do prefer – relatively defenseless herbivores. Yes, men take on dangerous animals, but always either in large numbers or with weapons that give them a considerable edge. Young men that take foolish risks often exit the gene pool too early to have many progeny – there’s more to genetic success than wowing potential mates with strength and bravery. But then again, pack animals need an expendable class to put on the perimeter, so there’s a necessary tradeoff between discretion and valor. It’s more complicated than you make it. Like all pack animals, humans’ roles and behavior are stratified not just by gender but by age and status.

    I agree, Erik, men do care a great deal about their paternity and mates. Another way of phrasing that – by word substitution – is that they care a great deal about their children and wives. That’s a change from what you were saying.

    Culture and biology interact in evolution, both in humans and in other pack animals.

  • bitchen frizzy

    –“Oh yeah, and if so many women think romance novels are crap, why are they so doggone popular?”

    Popular? If 0.5 percent of the population buys a book, it’s a bestseller. That makes it “popular” as defined by the industry. Millions of women read romance novels – they’re “popular.” That leaves tens of millions of women that do not.

  • Erik Goodwyn

    You’re correct, I’m simplifying considerably. I agree with everything you’re saying about hunter/gatherers. But the fact remains that men are and always have been more concerned with social rank and hierarchy, as well as physical competition and rites of passage than women, and I argue that this is found in pack animals of all kinds, including humans (like wolves), and this translates into young men being perennially interested in spending lots of money watching super hero exploits.

    And, like wolves, those put on the periphery are those who are *low* on the ranking scheme. Those who are high have access to more mates and choice food selections. But humans have an additional factor: organized warfare, which is as old as humanity. Even modern foraging societies have a higher rate of homicide than “civilized” cultures. This adds an additional intra-species competition factor that gives impetus to male competition and preoccupation with carnage and mayhem.

    I’m not saying men don’t care about mates and children, just that women have the edge in these matters. And I have no idea what this has to do with the subject matter; I guess we all got sidetracked :)

  • MaryAnn

    My opinion is based on a lot of literature in the fields of evolutionary psychology, affective neuroscience, anthropology and comparative ethology

    But even the conclusions of science have long been filtered through male perspectives… perspectives that have been shaped by perceived male dominance. There are facts — such as observed behaviors of animals (including humans; yes, I’m aware that we’re animals) — and then there are the interpretation of those facts. For example: a scientist sees a group of higher primates who organize themselves in multiples of females and one male. A human man who has grown up in a male-dominated society interprets this situation as a “harem” and gives the male animal an approving nudge-nudge, wink-wink. But mightn’t a female scientist from a culture in which women were dominant see this as an an example of a band of powerful females keeping one studly young male around for their sexual pleasure?

    I’m just trying to say, Erik, that what you see as obvious and basic fact may not be so. Which means that what you see as a culture shaped by biology may, in fact, be more shaped by biased interpretations of that biology.

    And this *does* have something to do with *Up.* So many people — male and female — see it as “normal” and “correct” that stories about men are universal while stories about women are “niche” that it rankles a lot of those people when others point out that this isn’t how it MUST be. And that’s why so many movies are about men and not about women, and unthinkingly so.

  • Ryan

    The anthropological comments on this thread are being simplified to a ridiculous level. Whether or not men were hunter/gatherers or farmers had a great deal more to do with geography, availability of large herd animals, and climate then with desire for status. I would direct you to the book ‘Guns Germs & Steel’ for a more thorough analysis on the topic.

    Complaining that science has a male bias *may* be accurate, MaryAnn, but unfortunately it’s a non-starter in any argument. If you want to argue anything scientifically you have to look at data, facts, and research in the field. Today more women then men are graduating from college in America, so I would imagine that a large influx of women into different scientific fields will help dispel any bias that might exist. Until then you can’t just disregard science because it *might* contain a gender bias.

    I still tend to disagree with the notion that there are so few strong female characters in film; from Scarlet O’Hara in Gone with the Wind, to Trinity in the Matrix or La Femme Nikita, etc. etc. I could find thousands of films with strong central female characters that are NOT romances.

    Is there still a disproportionate number of films featuring men? Of course, but then change never happens overnight, and as recently as the ’80s open misogyny was still very prevalent in many facets of America…and still exists in small pockets today.

    I would anticipate that as more females take directors chairs, or act as producers and heads of movie studios in the future, that ratio will continue to shift. Also it would be helpful if there were more Anne Hathaways in the industry and less Lindsay Lohans. Bankable stars are more important to the industry than gender. (IE: Jody Foster or Julia Roberts will have an easier time pushing a product than Vince Vaughn or Sam Worthington)

    I guess my main point is that we still haven’t reached some perfect point of equality (nor are we ever likely to…since perfect equality doesn’t exist. Some white males are rich, some poor, and same for women and every race) But the scales are tipping and it’s more important to be pro-active about supporting the projects of those enterprising women or minorities than assuming a position of victimhood, where everything is outside of your control.

  • JoshB

    a scientist sees a group of higher primates who organize themselves in multiples of females and one male. A human man who has grown up in a male-dominated society interprets this situation as a “harem”…But mightn’t a female scientist from a culture in which women were dominant see this as an an example of a band of powerful females keeping one studly young male around for their sexual pleasure?

    Bwa? Sexual pleasure? Harem? A proper scientist of either sex from any culture will look for biological explanations for why there might be one male to many females. Erik’s posts showed no evidence of him getting vicarious jollies from the sexual exploits of our furry male brethren.

    When he points out that reproduction requires more energy and time investment for females than for males that’s not a Discovery Channel themed Penthouse letter, it’s an objective fact.

  • Erik Goodwyn

    Well it IS getting interesting in here isn’t it? To Ryan, I would say that hunter/gatherers are the default position for homo sapiens. Farming only came about 12000 years ago. Foraging, 2 million. Guns, Germs, Steel is ok, but I would direct you to “the Innate Mind” ed. Caruthers, or Buss’ Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, both 2005.

    To MJ, I’m aware of deconstructionist criticisms of science, but I’m not sure how to address them *scientifically*, since they’re not falsifiable strictly speaking. But you’re right, it is very important to keep in mind one’s personal bias, male or female. I would say that one of the leaders of evolutionary psychology is Leda Cosmides–a female, and a brilliant one at that. Incidentally, why do you think a man would get excited about “harems”–doesn’t it prove the point that men are far more interested in massive polygyny than women are polyandry?

    Also, I’m not convinced that everyone things stories about men are universal but women are “niche” property. Could you give me some reasons you think this is so?


    I was waiting for Carl to say or show somehow that he was sorry that Ellie was forced to make a choice between her dream and a life with him.

    Well, first of all, it seemed obvious that Ellie was the aggressive one in that relationship. It also seemed obvious that no one made Ellie do anything she didn’t want to do.

    Moreover, it seemed obvious that the reason Ellie and Carl deferred their dream for so long is because they wished to go there together–and could not afford to do so. Maybe it would have helped if Ellie had worked–and for all we know, maybe she did so offscreen. After all, Ellie didn’t seem like the type of character who allowed herself to be forced to do anything she didn’t want to do. (And I’ve met women in real life who were just that type.)

    Anyway, since they both had dreams of going to South America, why perceive Ellie as having to choose between her dream and life with Carl? Once again I’ve met women in real-life who have had conflicting dreams–one of whom was my favorite cousin–so Ellie seemed in a win-win situation by comparison if for no other reason that her beloved Carl actually shared her dream and made no attempt to belittle or downplay it.

    But, hey, your mileage obviously varies.

    And here, I thought the worst complaints anyone would have about the movie would be:

    1. The lack of actual South Americans in a movie that mostly takes place in South America.

    2. The fact that our protagonist spends so much time running from the dogs when it would seem much easier for him to climb into the floating house and fly away.

    Anyway, I liked it–but not as much as I did Ratouille. Perhaps because I had seen that movie with my own equivalent of Ellie. Only my “Ellie” wasn’t a redhead…

  • PaulW

    Don’t Bernie me! This little rat is guilty!

    No, no, the rat’s in that other movie.

  • PaulW

    How did this thread turn into an argument over anthropology and romance novels? Dammit, people, this thread is supposed to be about SQUIRREL! Ahem. It’s supposed to be about this movie.

  • A


    I totally agree. I did not get the impression AT ALL that Ellie had to “give up her dream” because of Carl. If anything, life(bills, illness, ect.) got in the way. And, the message of the movie (imho) was best summed up by Russell, “It’s the boring stuff that you remember.” True, Ellie never got to go to the REAL Paradise Falls, but would going there have made her life measureably better? Sure, she would have had an adventure, and great stories to tell, but in my experience adventures are only as good as the people you share them with. she shared her life with Carl, and that made it an adventure.

  • Erik Goodwyn

    To PaulW, it is obvious why this thread progressed the way it did because of–squirrel!

    Hi there.

  • Newbia

    I mentioned this in my Week in Women column this week, but I thought it didn’t really belong here, because it’s not a problem with this particular film… it’s just a problem that every Pixar film all but excludes women. Even the dog here is male! (Kevin is female, it turns out, but we can’t call her a woman.)

    That is SO not true! Elastigirl was not just a side character in The Incredibles. She was one of the main characters, and she was completely awesome! That’s why the movie is called “The Incredibles”, not “Mr. Incredible”.

    My favorite Dug line is “I was hiding under your porch because I love you.”

    Awww, I loved that line too. ^_^

    Two comments on this movie:

    1) This is the only movie that has ever made me cry within the first ten, maybe five minutes.
    2) The short before the movie was SO CUTE! I have a cute little story: after the movie, my friends and I were talking about the mini-movie, and someone said, “Now I know where all the cute animals and the nasty animals come from,” and another girl said, “This explains everything!” and then her boyfriend said, “Now I know where you come from.” :)

  • amanohyo

    I know Ellie never felt as if she was forced to make the choice between Carl and her dream. Clearly when they were married, they both believed that they would fulfill their dream together. The realities of day to day life forced her to choose. I guess I’m probably just projecting my own frustrations and fears on to the movie, but Ellie was so much more passionate and outgoing than Carl that I can’t see how he wouldn’t feel really guilty about having an awesome adventure without her (yeah, yeah, I get the symbolism of the house and the moral about the boring everyday experiences of being together being just as big an adventure, I just don’t buy it… maybe I’m still too inexperienced and idealistic).

    Newbia, I think Elastigirl is cool too and she has a couple great moments, but the next time you watch The Incredibles, keep tabs on who the point of view character is in each scene. I think you’ll find that almost all of the key plot developments hang on the thoughts and actions of a central character, even though the title of the movie might suggest otherwise.

  • tinman

    Guys in all respect to the movie, I think UP was a masterpiece, and I don’t think it deserves to used as a poster child for a gender argument -it was too beautiful and perfect a movie to dragged in the mud in any way…

    Still, I think one reason, Mary-Ann that you and others see a lack of female-oriented stories coming out of creative folks like PIXAR is simply the lack of women in high end creative positions in hollywood…simply put, there aren’t many women who lead creative teams -and high end narrative creativity as seen in work like pixar’s require people with deep love and vision, unfortunately because the majority (or only available, in many cases) group of these folks in hollywood, are men, you get a male perspective – I think some women are beginning to creep into the industry- but there’s a long way to go – The only high profile example of a women leading a Hollywood creative team i can think of at the moment is Tiny Fey…and we can see some results..her movie ‘mean girls’ or 30 Rock have offered some new female-centric perspectives..

    Even recently, the female-oriented, Coraline which came out of Neil Gaimain’s work was written by a man (who wanted to teach his daughter about self-reliance) – we basically need to get women directors and teams at places like pixar -but they, of course have to be as talented and driven as the men there… the question that feminists need to ask is how to practically accomplish that, obviously the audience wants a good story, the fact that its from either a male or female perspective isn’t the driving force in satisfaction

    I for one, want diversity of perspectives, but I want good, deep and entertaining stories even more, so I would rather my daughter watch a million ‘up’s than one ‘sex and city movie’

    Of course too gender bait slightly.. one can argue one of the reasons, men try to be creative and funny is to attract women, while women are pressured to subdue creative and other impulses to be ‘feminine’ -cultural influences to be sure, but we aren’t we all slaves to cultural expectations ?

  • JoshB

    but we aren’t we all slaves to cultural expectations?


    That argument pops up all the time in various forms, but seldom stated with such purity. Suffice to say I have no patience for it.

  • I guess I’m probably just projecting my own frustrations and fears on to the movie, but Ellie was so much more passionate and outgoing than Carl that I can’t see how he wouldn’t feel really guilty about having an awesome adventure without her…

    I always thought it was obvious by the way he glanced at her pictures so often that he was a tad guilty about not having Ellie there. True, he doesn’t have a big speech in which he says as much but then most guys–especially of that generation–don’t necessarily verbalize every emotion they’re feeling.

    But maybe I’m projecting. I know I’ve felt guilty a time or too this past year whenever I’ve had some great experience that I have have liked to have shared with my favorite ex-girlfriend. Heck, because she and I had seen so many good movies together, I felt more than a little guilty just seeing this flick without her.

    But then again not every guy out there is like me…

  • Pedro

    *minor spoilers*

    Saw this last night along with the family ladies. We all loved it.

    I must admit I was apprehensive about the kid and the talking dog. Kids are rarely done right, and talking dogs tend to be overbearing, forced attempts at comedy that rarely work (except for Brian Griffin).

    Well, the least I can say is this: I know a 9-year-old that is EXACTLY like Russell, and as for the dog, he acts…well, like a real dog. In fact, rather like MY dog, what with the relentless tail-wagging, love-dispensing and optimism. Along with Carl, these are some of the best-written characters I’ve seen in a movie in a long time.

    And how could you NOT mention Kevin, the show-stealing bird!? (S)he only has one line of dialogue – “SQUAWWWWWWWWWWKKKKKKKK!” – and yet she had me clutching my belly with laughter.

    As for gripes: I thought the second part of the movie was wildly unbalanced with relation to the first. If the movie had kept going in that direction, it would have been historical. The attempt to adventurize it for the kiddies detracted from it. This film thrives on the interaction between Carl, Dug, Russ and Kevin, which, at its best, comes across as really funny sitcom (think Everybody Hates Chris, not Two and a Half Men). The second part is…well, merely good.

    Also, two physical facts: HOW CAN THE TWO HUMANS HOLD DOWN A HOUSE!?!? They’d be swept away behind it, not bring it back down the way we see in the movie! But oh well…it’s fantasy :) Also, notice how Carl stops needing his walker halfway through? Early on, he can’t even come down the stairs, and by the end he’s pushing off fridges with the utmost ease!

    Still, I’m being mean. It was wonderful. It’s believable, well written, and doesn’t pander to the kids (much). For example, early on, the house floats by a window-washer and startles him. A lesser movie would have had him fall off the platform for a cheap laugh; but here, he merely waves at the house and goes on with his work. That’s what makes this movie so wonderful. Also: hundreds of dogs and NOT A SINGLE POOP OR PEE JOKE!!!!

    And you’re right about that “married-life” sequence. I was thinking the exact same thing. It’s hauntingly adult and beautiful for an animated flick, and it shows us a more wholesome, believable and romantic relationship than the purported “romantic” movies Hollywood puts out.

    Oh well, now all that’s left is to see Wall-E…

  • markyd

    Saw this with my wife and 8 year old son on Sat. (sidenote: My son saw a copy of this at his Daycare center last week. They actually allowed some kid to bring in a bootleg copy of the movie and played it for everyone! I gave the teacher an ear full on Friday)
    I liked the movie, but didn’t LOVE it like I was hoping. The whole Muntz(sp?) thing didn’t work that well for me. Plus the dogs were obviously just there to amuse the kids. Not that some of it wasn’t funny. I just didn’t get the talking dog thing as part of the story. So Muntz was a friggin genius, too? Yet the only invention on display is collars that allow dogs to talk? Odd. Plus, wouldn’t Muntz be like 30 years older than Carl?
    Despite my problems, I still like it a lot, and did indeed find myself getting sniffly a few times.
    Like someone else said, my fav line was the kids. Its the “boring” stuff that you remember the most.
    I’m with the guy who said that Pixar needs two divisons. I want to see what they can do without pandering to children.

  • Alex

    Pixar, please don’t heed the comments here. Don’t play the politics by forcing a female character into the central role of a movie. Just keep doing great movies,regardless of that. If one happens to have a woman in the central role (as one already is), great. If that never happens, great too.

    We know there is a movie coming up in the following years with a female central figure, but I do hope that didn’t happen out of political duty.

  • amanohyo

    Alex, Pixar makes movies for children; It is most definitely not great if they never make a movie with a female character in a central role. They certainly have the right to write and produce whatever they choose to, but using male characters and perspectives to demonstrate universal messages about human relationships over and over and over isn’t merely a coincidence or an artistic choice or even just a case of men “writing what they know.” It’s part of a larger pattern of unjustly marginalizing the perspectives of over half of the population of the Earth. It’s also boring.

    I’m not asking them to force anything or narrow their perspective; on the contrary, I’m waiting for them to free themselves from preconceptions and broaden their viewpoint. You’ve got my hopes up though. What up and coming Pixar movie were you referring to in your comment? Toy Story 3 looks like another buddy flick, and Newt seems like it will once again be told from the male’s point of view. Cars 2? Bleaugh…. Is it The Bear and the Bow? The little I’ve read about it seems promising except for the “royal family” part (please oh please not another princess). At this point, I’m so desperate I honestly don’t care if its creation resulted from a sense of “political duty” or not.

  • MaSch

    So, the female half of the population of Earth has a perspective that is marginalized?

    And here’s silly me who thought it was about 3 billion different perspectives there; like the about 3 billion different perspectives found among the male half of the population of Earth, which some people also often assume to be one (that of the white men in power (restrictive, not descriptive)).

  • amanohyo

    Your first statement is essentially accurate MaSch. The perspectives, plural, of a little over half of the Earth’s population are systematically marginalized to varying degrees in every human culture that I am aware of. Many like to pretend that the playing field has been completely leveled with regard to gender and that each special snowflake now has its moment in the sun, but that is not yet the case. Inequality of power perpetuates itself, and will continue to do so without a sustained, conscious effort to overcome it at every level.

    I do recognize that there are a variety of male perspectives out there as well. How could I fail to when I’ve seen almost all of them put on display multiple times? Oedipus, Hamlet, Citizen Kane, The Godfather, The Bible, The Quran, The Prince, The Dukes of Hazzard. I could go on and on listing Important works of art that are supposed to teach us something fundamental about what it means to be human. Many of them succeed in that goal, but taken as whole, it’s pretty obvious that an important piece has been missing for a long, long time.

    All that being said, even if you don’t care about or believe in social justice or you think it’s all a bunch of militant feminist propaganda and we should unfurl the “mission accomplished” banner when it comes to gender relations, I hope that you can at least agree that it’s important for little girls to be taught that their perspectives should be just as varied and important and valued as any other person. Of course they’ll learn that isn’t actually the case at some point as they continue to see women outperform men academically yet receive, on average, less recognition and pay for doing the same amount of work at the same job, but that doesn’t mean that every popular children’s movie they see should center around the perspective of a boy or man (unless it’s a princess, of course, because every little girl dreams of being a princess, how else will they nab a handsome prince?).

    To get back on topic, I can easily imagine Russell being Rosa, a chubby Japanese-American girl scout. It would take nothing away from the movie to “force” the switch (think Aliens), and would probably add to the complexity and make it more interesting and potentially more universal. Likewise, if Ellie had turned into a crotchety old woman, the movie would have been benefited artistically and felt like less of a retread of the many previous crotchety-old-men-learn-the-true-meaning-of-stuff films.

  • The perspectives, plural, of a little over half of the Earth’s population are systematically marginalized to varying degrees in every human culture that I am aware of.

    Well, allow me to tell you about… The Amazons.

  • amanohyo

    I’m familiar with the Amazons; however it’s far from certain whether the myths about them are based on an actual culture. From the Wiki article:

    “In works of art, battles between Amazons and Greeks are placed on the same level as and often associated with battles of Greeks and centaurs.”

    And also:

    “These findings have led scholars to suggest that the Amazonian legend in Greek mythology may have been “inspired by real warrior women”,though this remains a minority opinion among classical historians.”

    I wish they really existed, but the evidence isn’t quite solid enough to convince me yet.

  • Well, that was just a joke meant to be a tongue-in-cheek agreement with you — i.e. the only culture that met your stated criteria is in all likelihood mythological.

  • Paul

    I just saw “Up” and loved it. I laughed at how the dogs were allowed to be dogs. I laughed at the human folibles. I loved the subversiness of how the old fashioned hero turned out to be the villian. I enjoyed how Carl’s friends kept trying to be good and screwing up so he had to bail them out again and again, creating an emotional arc of restoration both spiritual and physical.

    As for the men and women in media thing, I think the proper target of all this ire is not a great movie that happens to lack women, since guys sometimes have a lift beyond women just as women have a life beyond men, but movies and TV shows that make women look like simpering idiots or annoying b——s. Even if Pixar has male-centric movies, at least the women in their movies are mostly protrayed positively. That’s a lot better than a movie focused upon women that makes me wonder what enemy I would wish them upon.

  • Drew Ryce

    amanohyo: Thank you for your well reasoned posting. I am inclined to agree with you. Dorothy in Oz and Scout in Alabama demonstrate that a girl can be the central character in a magnificent story.
    I am aware of no reason why it couldn’t be Nemo’s mother searching for him. Switching the boy in “Up” to a girl is actually stronger because it makes the connection to the adventurous dead wife more clear.

  • amanohyo

    Thank you, Drew Ryce. I’m not advocating that exactly fifty percent of children’s movies have a female central character (although it would be kinda nice to make it to double digits), and there are certainly some stories which are more resonant with a boy in the lead. For example, as much as I dislike Hamlet and male lions (lazy baby cheetah killing bastards), I have to admit that The Lion King works well with Simba as a boy rather than a girl.

    But as you say, the themes of this movie could potentially be examined in a more resonant way if Russell was a girl, especially since the father/son-I-never-had relationship has been explored to death. Again, as I wrote above, Ellie as a crotchety old woman going on a postponed adventure/learning to let go of her husband would introduce a feminist subtext that would enrich and strengthen then movie further, but I suppose that’s debatable.

    What isn’t debatable is the simple novelty of making a movie about an old woman and a young girl going on an adventure together. I continue to be shocked that every single movie critic isn’t an advocate of more women filmmakers/rounded characters out of sheer boredom with the male perspective on life, the universe, hot chicks, and everything. How do people live here on Earth surrounded by interesting men and women and put up with only seeing half of the story at the movie theaters? Especially people who are paid to watch and critique movies? It’s like doing a thousand jigsaw puzzles and never noticing or caring that half of the pieces are missing from more than nine-hundred of the pictures.

  • Accounting Ninja

    It’s like doing a thousand jigsaw puzzles and never noticing or caring that half of the pieces are missing from more than nine-hundred of the pictures.

    This quote is a great illustration of the “privelege” concept. Most of us “don’t notice”. The truly malicious “don’t care”. Because your stories are always told, you don’t know what is missing. Because your stories are presented as “normal default”, you think every brain behind every pair of eyes sees the world as you do. When my upper/middle class white father scoffs that racism is “dead”, I say, “of course it is, to you. Because you’re a white man, you never have to deal with people treating you differently.” Same with sexism.

  • Martin

    I don’t think that this has been brought up (and I apologise if I’m late to the discussion) but isn’t EVE a strong female character in a Pixar film?

  • amanohyo

    Well, “she” is strong in the sense that she’s powerful. However, EVE is not the central character in the movie – only a very small percentage of the scenes are presented from its perspective. In addition, EVE’s role in the movie never moves too far beyond babysitter and/or love-interest, and it spends most of the movie reacting to other characters rather than acting on “her” own.

    To be fair, I did appreciate that EVE had a specific job that it was very serious about accomplishing; although as I stated before I don’t understand why it was programmed to laugh and kill anything that moved. If the movie was presented primarily from EVE’s perspective (or if the Incredibles was presented primarily from Elastigirl’s perspective, or if Marlin in finding Nemo was Marilyn, etc…) then I’d stop whining about Pixar. Simply having a strong, independent female side character in a kid’s movie doesn’t cut it. There’s a huge vacuum in children’s entertainment when it comes to strong female main characters and Dora, the Powerpuff Girls, and Kim Possible haven’t even come close to closing the gap (they’re all close to retirement anyway).

    I want to see a girl/woman at the center of the movie, and I want her to have adventures and goals that have absolutely nothing to do with catching Prince Charming and/or becoming a popular, pretty princess. You know, like little girls do in real life. When filmmakers at Pixar or any other studio want to make a movie that teaches us something about the human condition (or even just entertains), there should be more options on the table for the central character than “male” and “princess.”

  • Jurgan

    amanohoyo: Are you familiar with Miyazaki movies? Spirited Away, Kiki’s Delivery Service, and I think My Neighbor Totoro all have female leads whose agendas are unrelated to males or relationships. Princess Mononoke too, but she’s not the main character (close, though, and there’s also a sympathetic female villain). Pixar supposedly reveres Miyazaki, so I wonder why they don’t follow his lead in that regard.

  • amanohyo

    I am a huge fan of Miyazaki (and studio Ghibli in general). I’m actually going to the Studio Ghilbli museum in Mitaka when I visit Tokyo in November (gloat gloat). I also like most of Satoshi Kon’s movies. Somewhere higher in the comments, I made a similar observation about the weirdness of Lasseter taking time in almost every interview I’ve seen to praise Miyazaki, but never encouraging the filmmakers at Pixar to make a movie with a female lead (as far as I know).

    However, it seems like The Bear and the Bow will feature a female main character, although I wasn’t impressed with Cars at all, and don’t appreciate his patronizing tone (and his implication that only a female director can make a movie with a female lead). But it’s nice to hear that even his wife notices the disparity. I’m really looking forward to seeing how it turns out. There aren’t enough female directors, to say nothing of asian american female directors.

  • Regicide

    I found the thought process of the dog to be incredibly funny too. It reminds me of the Grant Morrison tpb “We3” where talking animals have very different personalities than a human would.

    Heres an example.


  • Regicide

    It’s fucking bizarre that anyone would think Pixar is somehow sexist…

    Based on all the movies that are out there? Really?

    You need to calm down and get off the internet for a few hours every day…

    Would this movie have been improved with an ass-kicking ninja girl? Would it have been improved with a dozen more flashbacks to the main characters marriage…?

    It’s not mysogonist trype, It’s just a movie that doesn’t feature any living girls. So It’s like a World War II movie, and everyone loves those.

    You are wasting energy for your ‘pretentious pinko-lefty commie feminist’ arguments by focusing on a goddamned Pixar movie. Because the 300 people that work at that studio are all just fucking hairy macho monsters. Hence all the fucking violent gun fights and rape.

    Seriously…. Pixar. Think about it.

  • amanohyo

    Uhhh… Regicide, help me out here. I’m having a hard time figuring out if this is an attempt at satire. Misogynist tripe? No one on this thread has suggested any such thing. Ass-kicking ninja girl and marriage scenes? Your ideas about women in film seem to be a bit limited. Why not something simple, like making the Russell and/or Carl characters female?

    Pretentious pinko-left commie feminist?! Hairy macho monsters (Inc)???! Oookay, now I get it. You’re just being silly. Whew! For a second, I thought you were actually serious. Do you truly believe that there is no way to make a movie about violence and rape from a female perspective? How does that line of thought help explain why Pixar makes movies that focus on male main characters? I honestly don’t understand the structure of your argument.

  • Regicide

    I was only kind of kidding, and that took you a long time to figure out, dude! But heres the thing, I was still making fun of you the entire time… So don’t forgive me yet.

    Because the things you say are stretched to a point where, when we talk about sexism in the movies, we won’t be talking about the same thing. You think pixar is sexist because there hasn’t been a leading female character yet, whereas I think japanese tentacle porn or romantic comedies are sexist. Which of us is more right?
    I am using extreme examples because it may make you take a second look at the movie you are actually talking about.

    And I’m not arguing at you because you’re a woman, it’s just because you’re a dumbass. I shouldn’t have to cut you any leeway just for making a stupid argument for a few dozen posts, over like, a 5 month period. Just because you’re an irrate girl and I’m not opposed to equality, We probably agree on all sorts of things, but come on. You seriously started an argument about Pixar either being sexist or not female character friendly. Think about that…

    When you say there should have been more of a developed female character in this movie, I think about what this entire movie is about… And I say you’re wrong. The entire opening segment is about setting up a sense of loss.

    “Women don’t want to just be people that Men get married to for 50 years, love completely, sacrifice for, and then uproot their entire lives over. We want to be something more! We have dreams! We have talents and hobbies and interests! And Pixar keeps relegating us to people without our own stories, or human flaws!”

    You know whats more sexist than every single animated movie ever made in America? 85% of anime or manga. And you LIKE anime.

  • Regicide

    Also, don’t expect MaryAnn to jump to your defense, she’s an alcoholic. And it’s only sunday…

  • MaryAnn

    Quit it with the namecalling, Regicide, or fuck off altogether.

  • amanohyo

    Wait a sec, am I a dude or a woman? And where did I say that Pixar or even this movie in particular was sexist? I clearly stated that I enjoyed this movie a lot. I simply observed that it’s odd for the filmmakers at Pixar to be such huge Miyazaki fans and yet never place a female at the center of one of their stories, which is one of the most refreshing qualities of Miyazaki’s best work.

    As for your belief that the movie is kind of sort of about a woman because Ellie was the wind beneath his wings (or eaves), I disagree. Perhaps you saw a movie centered on the relationship between a man and a woman and their shared dreams. I did not. Scenes From a Marriage is a (many would say the) movie/show about such a relationship. This is a movie centered around a man coping with loss by going on an adventure. That doesn’t make it a bad movie, but that’s what it is. Ellie is an important component, and one could argue that her perspective “triumphs” in the end, but the fact remains that the character we are primarily meant to sympathize with is Carl. And none of this would bother me in the least if it weren’t part of a larger pattern in Pixar movies which is in turn part of a larger pattern in children’s movies (all movies really) in general.

    I do like some anime, including many Studio Ghibli films, a couple of Satoshi Kon’s, and for somewhat sentimental reasons, several TV series including The Vision of Escaflowne, Crayon Shin Chan, Maison Ikkoku, Bubblegum Crisis, and Azumanga Daioh. You seem to believe that anime is a genre. It is not, and even it were, I don’t choose which movies I watch on the basis of genre or art style. Do you believe that I pick up a DVD and say to myself, “it’s anime, I’m guaranteed to like it!” Not even the most fanatical otaku does that.

    When it comes to your 85%, I despise the gratuitous objectification and fan service that often rears its ugly head in manga and anime, to say nothing of the disgusting and dangerous rape fantasies (male and female) and fetishization of youth that feature prominently in Japanese pornography. Your argument is somewhat similar to the anti-feminist argument that goes something like “what are you American feminists complaining about, if you were in Saudi Arabia, you wouldn’t even be able to drive or show your face in public!” The existence of horribly blatant sexism in some anime in no way precludes me from criticizing lesser instances of it in other movies.

  • It’s not mysogonist trype, It’s just a movie that doesn’t feature any living girls. So It’s like a World War II movie, and everyone loves those.

    You mean it’s not about the origin of mice? Do tell. Or is there another possible definition of mysogony I’m missing?

    And no living girls in World War II movies, you say? You mean like in Casablanca? Or They Were Expendable? Or Buck Privates? Or I Was a Male War Bride? Quentin Tarantino just made a World War II movie this past year and I’m pretty sure there was at least one living woman in that one.

    However, you are right in saying that such movies tend to be pretty popular.

    Also, don’t expect MaryAnn to jump to your defense, she’s an alcoholic. And it’s only sunday…

    You’re such a class act, Regicide. :-(

    Thanks for making almost every other male who posts here look like Cary Grant by comparison.

  • Regicide

    I don’t honestly care if you are a dude or a woman. Which do you think I am? Would it even matter? If you’re a guy, then you are a fucking pussy-whipped leftist that likes to frame their argument entirely in cliches. I could write this for you, but it would be a parody.

    Okay, first paragraph: It doesn’t matter if this is a movie about an old guy that has already lost his wife. We need a strong womans role. Even though it defies the entire storyline, and everything that made you cry. But Pixar should have included it anyway.

    Second paragraph: Theres nothing to argue with here, you simply describe the movie. And then agree with me.

    Third paragraph: You’re an American that only likes good anime. Well, good for you.
    That doesn’t mean that most anime isn’t sexist. Hey, try visiting Japan. They’re all attracted to western people, they have 15 kinds of kit-kat bars, and It blows my mind what they can get away with in media. I also saw a vending machine that sold dirty panties. So I don’t fault them for liking animated sexuality. Their educational system keeps them in school for the entire day, And the businesmen all jump off buildings whenever the stock market drops. Wanting to have sex with Bambi eyed girls is the least of their problems.

    Fourth Paragraph: Well, I agree with you to an extent. I like SOME anime or manga. 90% of everything generally sucks (music, movies, novels, comics, internet websites) But there has been one underlying point that I keep saying again and again. You Are making a feminist argument against the movie “Up!”

    I asked you to think about that. Did you?

  • Regicide

    Hey Tonio, thanks for adding nothing to the actual conversation. Maybe this need to protect women on the internet will net you a long distance girlfriend someday.

    Me though? Well I’m married. We were both in debate club in 9th grade, But I hated her back then. She is a mainstream liberal that believes in law and war, I am a post-leftist anarchist. It’s like a sitcom. You can imagine the arguments.

    But the important thing you’ll learn (when your balls drop) is that you can’t let someone control you based on gender or race, just because of your guilt over a world that you were born into.

  • Regicide

    Hey, MaryAnn. I wasn’t name calling, You say you are an alcoholic in your profile. Unless you meant “a lot of wine”.

    Too much means more than you want to drink. I’ve been an alcoholic before. It’s totally cool. Ernest Hemingway and Abraham Lincoln and Emma Goldman were all raging alcoholics, and they were talented writers. But it’s going to kill your body, and now that you’re getting older, thats not something to continue on with.

    Try weed again.

  • MaryAnn

    Hey, MaryAnn. I wasn’t name calling, You say you are an alcoholic in your profile.

    I was referring to your calling people “dumbasses,” Regicide, and “pretentious pinko-lefty commie feminist.”

    You’re being an obnoxious jerk, and I will delete any further comments from you that are not 100 percent civil. If you want to disagree with other commenters, that’s perfectly fine. Just behave like a civilized human being while you do so.

  • MaryAnn

    Deleted a post by Regicide…

Pin It on Pinterest