The scary parts (part 1)

Your empathy is for humanity, and not necessarily humans. Though WALL-E and EVE aren't human characters in the literal sense, they carry some of the best qualities humanity has to offer (e.g. courage, purpose, a sense of discovery and wonder, and yes guilelessness).

Pixar is one of the best films in portraying this idealistic but not clinical essence of humanity, imbuing it in beasts (e.g. RATATOUILLE, FINDING NEMO) and automations (e.g. TOY STORY, CARS). It's not where it lies, but how it is revealed to us. We recognize it wherever it is embodied.

What makes WALL-E especially touching is our realization of WALL-E's seeming realization of how wonderful humanity's progenitors must have been (e.g. his keeping of sporks as treasure). It reminded me why I love Spielberg's A.I. so much. Because of Kubrick's underlying story that though man may not survive, his creations will carry the best of humanity onward into the future (no matter how corny that sounds).

I also want to say unequivocally, that WALL-E is the best film of the year. It's hard for me to admit that with all the great films (art and mainstream) that have come out this year, but I find it undeniable.

Jim, I'm glad you've posted again. It seems like it's been a long time.

Anyway, my thought on how we feel about the perils of non-human representations by pixels is this: When watching a cartoon (or something aimed for children, anyway) we don't expect to have loss, death, or disappearance explored. I was caught completely off guard by films like "Grave of the Fireflies", "My Neighbor Totoro", and parts of "Wall-E". Maybe this has to do with the fact that most entertainment designed for children is all bright lights and noise (isn't that part of what has made "South Park" or "The Simpsons" so appealing - a kiddie aesthetic married to adult content). I think that this same notion spills over into films about animals, who are "simple and guileless".

And if Pixar, earlier Disney movies, or anime can be crafted to such perfection, why be ashamed at our feelings for them?

Hi Jim-

I saw WALL-E for the first time a few weeks ago, and I can honestly say that I cried for a good portion of it (or was at least teary-eyed for the majority). More surprisingly, my boyfriend whom hardly sympathizes with ANY character in a film and rather focuses on character development and production value (etc.), was choked up at certain points in the film as well. My sympathies lie with the unsuspecting and the undeserving, and WALL-E is definitely a character of that caliber.

Also, I wanted to say that I just recently read a few of your articles (tonight), and that I'm very impressed with your skill at effectively conveying your thoughts. I think it's what all writers aim to achieve, and your Fight Club article was truly excellent.

Although your articles are new to me, and I'm hardly familiar with you and your work, I wanted to express my condolences for your recent loss. It is a shame to lose a pet, and a good friend, so soon.

Take care and do what you do best!

I agree wholeheartedly about Grave of the Fireflies, it just seems to work much better being animated. I still have the DVD but have only watched it once, it was enough. For weeks after watching it I couldn't even raise my voice to my kids.

Jim, I am the same way about being moved by animation over live-action sometimes. I think it's because with animation (Wall-E, in particular) we're able to project more of ourselves onto the characters because they aren't "real", and what can move us more than our own feelings?

I enjoyed "WALL-E," but oddly enough would have enjoyed it MORE if the robots had been actual robots, and not people who just happen to look like robots.

But this is Pixar's one gimmick, isn't it? People that look like toys, people that look like cars, people who look like rats, people that look like robots, people who look like insects, etc.

Haley Joel in "AI" and arguably HAL 9000 never become people, they just follow their programming and we feel for them anyway. WALL-E and EVE have emotions, laugh, etc. They clearly aren't machines anymore than Paul Newman was a car in "Cars."

Anyone who has a pet should be a little offended by this, or at least get bored of it. Yes, we turn our dogs and cats into people a little bit, but the essential fascination of having a cat as a best friend is that its understanding of the universe is wildly different than yours, yet you two have formed a bond anyway. Pixar continually undercuts this by turning everything non-human that we love into something human.

Still, a great touch in "WALL-E:" you know you're screwed when Fred Willard is the president of humanity.

Scott McCloud says a little something about this in his book Understanding Comics. It's been a little while since I've read it, so let me see if I get this right:

People tend to love and identify with more abstractly-designed characters because of that very abstraction. You're allowed to put more of yourself (or people you know) into characters who are more impressionistic; think of how much more involving a Sunday-length Calvin & Hobbes strip is than, say, any of the soap-opera strips that're crosshatched within an inch of their lives.

Or, for that matter, think of the characters in Persepolis -- at first glance you'd call them crude drawings, but anyone with a soul was crying by the end of that movie (or book.)

The genius of stuff like Wall-E is that Pixar literally had to break people down to their most recognizable parts -- you will notice a hell of a lot of emphasis on Wall-E's eyes. That's on purpose, as I believe the filmmakers have said in interviews.

That a certain level of abstraction invites projection (and therefore more involvement) from the audience is one of McCloud's more controversial theories, but I think it has some merit.

And, for what it's worth, I find the opening sequence of Finding Nemo brutal. Just brutal. I have been known to skip past it.

"Wall-E" seems to be supernaturally effective at this sort of thing (do you know the story of "The Crying Girl"? http://betteronme.blogspot.com/2008/07/hello-luxo.html?).

At one point in "Wall-E", I very nearly lost it...if the movie had taken any more time in resolving the issue in question, it would have been a real mess. Come to think of it, Toy Story 2 is probably the only other time I've been so directly and suddenly affected ("When She Loved Me"...Randy Newman was robbed of an Oscar that year).

Now as to why animated non-humans may be more effective at evoking our empathy than realistic humans...I don't have any well-formed theories. I'll be interested to read the other replies, though.

This is indicative, I think, of both your own personal state and the quality of the work in question; the little fella's such an exceptionally emotive, well-rendered character design (both in look and sound) that's I think anyone with a heart would have a hard time not getting worked up by his plight (that moment when he attempts, unsuccessfully, to flee the landing ship's rocket jets, always tears me up inside). Not pathetic at all.

I've been impressed by Pixar almost unwaveringly since Toy Story (only Cars left me disappointed), but I never expected anything from them along these lines (i.e. a fusion of 2001 and City Lights). Try to get through the scary parts; the dance amongst the stars is transcendent.

Not sure if you're familiar with the work of Bill Watterson (that is, "Calvin and Hobbes"). After hearing about Frances, this was the first thing that came to mind (unfortunately, its the best version of it I could find online, and I'm out a scanner).

I agree that there's nothing wrong with feeling strongly for characters who are not "actors" in the traditional sense; in fact, maybe the reason they have so much impact is that they takes us by surprise with their purity of emotion. Human actors can't help being human, which means that there is always more on the emotions required to be presented. Animated characters are. No human actor could play Wall-E because they would not be able to pull off this guileless innocence (maybe Buster Keaton?).

Also, as an aside, Finding Nemo is dark, man. And while the bright colours and the comedy is aimed at children, the primary theme is aimed at the parents: you have to let your kids take risks. And it's brilliantly covert: more parents of young kids will see Finding Nemo than almost any film explicitly aimed at adults. Andrew Stanton and Brad Bird are making movies that kids can enjoy, but which are really meant for adults to understand fully--although the kids will hopefully be enriched by the experience.

(The Simpsons, South Park, King of the Hill, anime, and things like Through a Scanner Darkly, really are for adults alone, and they again rely on the purity of animation. No human face could deliver Cartman's lines and still remain credible as a human being.)

Try to watch something less stressful - like "Bambi".

Haven't seen Wall-E, and Finding Nemo did not bother me a bit, maybe because I don't have children, so it did not hit home.

I maintain that the most brutal, horrifying movie I have ever seen is The Elephant Man. I had to leave the theater, came back in, left again.

I agree completely, and I would like to add "The Iron Giant" to the list as well. A wonderful movie that I have seen only twice, and I can get misty just thinking about it.

Pat: Or "Dumbo." Or "Pinocchio." The sadism of the House of Disney is sometimes underestimated.

rob: Thank you for that. I think you and William B. are right about how animation simplifies and thus leaves more for the viewer provide. That's one of the ideas I've been pondering...

I own the WALL-E DVD (I also watched it in theaters when it came out) I feel like crying every time I watch it or even think about it. It is a cute movie and at the same time intense. I cried several times during this movie and it is one of the best movies of this year, especially animated.

I went to see "Wall-E" with some friends and after the film we all agreed it was great, but one of my friends said a curious thing. He said he didn't think he could sit through it again because he hated how it made him feel. He was so emotionally attached to the characters he felt he would be too traumatizing to go through all that again.

I think it has to do with how innocent these characters are, and how they look at life. To me "Wall-E" was like E.T. which was an alien but was brought to life through real life robotics. Both characters had an innocence to them and you wanted to protect them from the dangers of the real world. They kinda represent the best qualities of humanity and we are very protective of that especially if something bad happens to them.

Just watch the films all the way through, and you will receive a cathartic payouff. Courage, friend!
Those feelings are how you know you are human!

I suppose it's a testament to the power of abstractions (and animated movies generally do tend to provide abstractions for more complex real-world situations).

I can't help but recall two scenes from "Babe: Pig in the City", both involving dogs, that made me shift uncomfortably in my seat. Wonderful movie though...

Bill Waterson was (I guess still is) a genius. He could express complex philosophies and emotions in 8 or 9 frames (sometimes even the 4 of a weekday strip) and yet still make you laugh while appealing to kids. My 8 year old now reads all my old C&H books and giggles. He also gets a lot of interesting ideas about what to do with snowmen...

Jim, if you get a chance, do watch the end of "Finding Nemo". There's a moment near the end that almost made me burst out in tears (but in a good way) while seeing it in the theatre - it so beautifully captures the conflict within a parent (or any kind of caregiver I guess) between wanting to protect their child from any possible harm and still needing to let go at some point.

I kinda teared up just there thinking about it.

Ken Lowrey--I was all set to mention Scott McCloud until I read your post. Great minds think alike, and so do ours.

Jim--Only a heart of stone could watch "Wall-E" and not be moved. It's also one of the best Sci-Fi movies ever. Seeing it in a theater was an astonishing experience.

Jim, I can certainly identify with you on the identification with animated characters and their plights. My kids always laugh at me when I get teary as Sully is saying good-bye to Boo in "Monsters" - when she pats his cheek, that little movement just gets me. Matt mentioned "The Iron Giant", and I always react as the Giant is soaring into space, closes his eyes and thinks to himself, "Superman..." That moment embodies for me both sadness and idealism so seamlessly.

The all time champion is probably Marlin's panic at losing Nemo. It always induces a cold chill of memory of the time my daughter wandered away...it all ended well, and quickly (although it didn't feel like it at the time). One of my kids once asked me if I would do what Marlin did, if one of them when missing, and I could only reply, "I certainly hope so."

Several commentators have said things about the abstract nature of animated characters and their relative simplicity vis-a-vis human characters.

But I think (as usual for me) that the answer isn't a simple one, but rather a complex multi-factor explanation.

First of all, I'm personally of the opinion that the people making the animated features these days are more passionately trying to produce the best possible work - the best story, the best characters, the best imagery; while the purveyors of 90% of live action films are just trying to push out the next mega-block-buster to make yet another $300 million at the box office. As evidence, I cite the near-unbroken string of Pixar hits.

So the result is that the characters are more interesting; the story is more interesting and engaging, and (from the purely technical film-making aspect) the scene on screen is more interesting, better built-up-to, and paid off better.

So that's my vote for the most critical factor.

But another potential factor is one that occurs to me as a life-long reader of science fiction. Perhaps Babylon 5 said it best, that humans build communities. We are capable of building a community with just about anyone (or anything) as long as we can find even one single thing to relate to. In cinema, we build a community with the characters on the screen. The degree to which we build that community is a mark of the quality of the movie.

Scott McCloud, definitely.

One of my favorite designs for a "surrogate" character is Grommitt, of Wallace and Grommitt. He can't speak or move any part of his face but his eyes, yet he seems to always be saying exactly what the audience is thinking. Probably the lack of a specific voice is also something that helps us identify with him more.

I think that's one reason comics tend to be the most emotionally involving medium. The characters don't speak out loud, and they're all abstractions of certain people by definition, unless you use photographs for the artwork.

Can you imagine if Calvin and Hobbes could speak? At this point, any voice they could possibly be given, the readers would reject those voices, we would never feel like "That's what Calvin and Hobbes sound like". I don't even like looking at an author's picture if I've read a dozen of their books not having seen their face before.

Pets and Movies - Both stir maddeningly irrational emotions on their own, when they join forces no veneer of cynical detachment stands a chance.

It's OK to cry Jim...

Sure, pretty much all kid flics revolve around the "innocent in peril" and other well-worn archetypes (don't even get me started on old Disney tearjerkers like "Bambi" and "Old Yeller"). However I think what Pixar is doing is something a little different. They are very careful and subtle about making the characters recongizeably "real" to us (even if they're robots or rats or bugs or superheroes...).

Pixar movies consistently "do it for me" because they know how to sneak up on me and push old buttons in novel ways. The flip side of parental panic in Marlin's lost child scene may be the palpable anxiety that everyone in the theater (regardless of age) gets in "Toy Story" when Woody realizes they've been left behind at Pizza Planet and he is now a "lost toy". We all collectively flash back to the abject terror of that first time we turned around in the grocery store to find that mom wasn't where we thought she was. This is some very deep-seated psycology at play - much harder on the subconcious than "I drink your milkshake".

Ditto Sid the toy sadist next door. Very few people will ever meet a Hannibal Lechter, but we all know a Sid. We learned to fear him when we first learned to fear, which makes him much scarrier (and ironically, less "cartoony") than your run-of-the-mill masked slasher of teeny-boppers.

It's this ability The Pixar folks to surround us with the familiar (even as they place us in an unfamiliar world) that really sets them apart for me. As embarassing as it is to admit in certain cineophile circles, "The Incredibles" is one of my favorite movies of all time. This is in large part because every character's motivation and behavior seems plucked from "reality" in ways that could (should) make most serious dramas envious - the cubicle travails, the dinner table interactions, the mid-life crisis, the "WHERE'S MY SUPER SUIT!" argument between Lucius and Honey - every scene plays "closer to home" than the vast majority movies shot with real actors in "real" locations. Anyone who has seen (or been) a good mom handling her kids in a crisis will recognize Helen's voice and manner as authentic in a way that few movie moms are ever allowed to be. It doesn't matter that she's a robber-bodied superhero being shot down my missles and washing ashore on a secret island fortress.

To George_G:

Re: The Incredibles (also one of my favourites)...

...and how about, "We'll get there when we get there!" I have actually used that line, both before and after we'd seen the movie. Since the movie, I use Bob's intonation and the kids often laugh.

Wall-E moved me on so many levels. I took my daughter to see it and I think in the initial viewing I enjoyed the movie more than she did! There were 3 distinct points in which I was teary eyed or all out crying. I won't spoil those scenes for those of you who have not seen this movie; but I would bet that most any of you who have know the exact moments I refer to.

Once we got the DvD I think the true quality of it finally wore off on her.. she remarked after watching it at home for the first time that it was 'probably the best movie I've ever seen." Its certainly one of my favorites - I fell in love with those 2 tiny robots and it mattered to me that both of them made it out ok. Simply brilliant, heartfelt filmaking at its very best.

To JRW:

Good to know we're not the only family communicating though movie lines to an inordinate degree. Honey's "Why do YOU need to KNOW?!?" has become an indespensible part of every conversation involving the location of a waylaid item. Ditto the incomparable Edna Mode: "And yet here we are..." gets invoked at every impasse, and no discussion of clothing or laundry is now complete without at least once observing that "...it breathes like Egyptian Cotton".

I'm just glad my daughter is finally entering teenagerdom so we can expand the conversational vocabulary - Monty Python entered the family lexicon like Sir Lancelot at a Swamp Castle wedding, and making her sit through "Casablanca" was like giving her a dictionary. She's perpetually amazed at just how often she's shocked to find that there is gambling going on in this establishment.

You mention WALL-E trembling in fear, which is the only gripe I have with the movie. Why would he do that? He's a robot! Why would he be programmed with such a characteristic? Seems like a waste of computer code/memory.

To George_G:

Yeah, we do that too. Although with kids between the ages of 13 and 5 it's more difficult to get them to watch fare aimed at older audiences.

We also play a game. It started with "Finding Nemo." When we came out of the theatre I mentioned to my oldest that the actor who provided the voice of Gill was in another movie that he had seen. He asked which movie, and I paused and then said, "Follow the cold shiver running up your spine." I flatter myself that I caught tone and cadence pretty well. My son recognized it instantly as Norman Osborne/Green Goblin from Spider-Man 1.

Since then, whenever there's an actor they've seen in other movies, my kids ask for lines of dialogue, and then try to guess the movie and character. And it's fun when the younger one(s) get it before the older...

Looks like the majority of respondants to your post are men. I wonder if all of them responded as strongly as I did to WALL-E's pursuit of a girl who was so far out of his league. Like an old TI calculator pursuing an iPod. It follows a recent tread of less-than-suave guys (Seth Rogen & Michael Cera) getting the gorgeous woman. It leaves me wondering about the tension between the men who conceive and create movies like WALL-E, and the heart-throb leading men who represent Hollywood on the red carpets. Are guys like that destined to only appear in films geared toward teenage girls ("Twilight") or older audiences ("Australia") as they are written out of other high-grossing or popular films? Is WALL-E the new icon of masculinity? I hope so. I'm someone who got the gorgeous girl, just like WALL-E did. :)