free counter with statistics Toy Story 2 | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

ToyStory2.jpg
Where Does He Get Those Wonderful Toys?


The Films of 1999: Toy Story 2 / Drew Morton

Pajiba Blockbusters | October 13, 2009 | Comments (23)


This past week, Dustin linked to Time Out Magazine’s list of the 50 greatest animated films and, upon realizing the presence of John Lasseter’s feature-debut Toy Story (1995) ranked at number five, noted “Toy Story 2 was better than Toy Story (although the original, obviously, was more influential.” In response to Dustin, all I can say is “Goddamn you.” Not, of course, because your assessment is incorrect but because you stole my lead-in for my 1999 retrospective review of Toy Story 2. Quite simply, I agree with Dustin. Toy Story is one of those rare cases where an amazing original film becomes eclipsed by its sequel. Yet, as is also the case with Star Wars: A New Hope (1977), the original film often finds itself canonized over its superior offspring because it was “influential” or “culturally significant.” Does that mean that Toy Story doesn’t deserve recognition? Of course not! I’m simply trying to give Toy Story 2 (henceforth TS2) the credit it rightfully earned.

I was fortunate enough to hear Lasseter (who co-directed TS2 with Ash Brannon and Lee Unkrich) speak at a UCLA screening of Dumbo (1941) about two years ago. During his talk, Lasseter formulated what he believed to be Pixar Animation’s formula to success: “If we liken filmmaking to fashion design, there is one fundamental rule. You can give the consumer a wild pattern with a standard fabric or you can give them a standard pattern and a wild type of fabric. If you try to do both, the consumer won’t know what to do with it!” While this analogy could come across as the much despised “winning film = cookie cutter for all films following it” description of Hollywood studio filmmaking, I would tend to cite TS2 as a film that exemplifies that analogy perfectly in the most rewarding terms possible. Like The Godfather: Part II (1974), TS2 uses the standard established by the first film, particularly in its citation of shots and character moments, while changing up the fabric and deepening the experience.

TS2 takes its predecessor’s fear of neglect to the next possible stage. While the first film dealt with Sheriff Woody’s (voiced by Tom Hanks) fear of becoming obsolete upon the appearance of the tricked out space toy Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen), TS2 relocates that fear in the aging of Andy (John Morris), their master. As one of the supporting characters observes, “How long will it last, Woody? Do you really think Andy is going to take you to college, or on his honeymoon? Andy’s growing up, and there’s nothing you can do about it.” Woody and Buzz are of the mindset that they can do something about that inevitable reality (which appears to be the plot of the upcoming third film), which is to supply Andy with as many happy memories as they can while ensuring that “no toy gets left behind” in the process.

The process is perfectly represented in the ageless tradition of the yard sale. As Andy grows older, his interest for the toys of his childhood wanes, sometimes due to the fragility of the materials that the toys are constructed of. This provides the setting for the film’s inciting incident. Wheezy (the late Pixar regular Joe Ranft), a squeaky Penguin suffering from a broken squeaker, is carted off by Andy’s mother (Laurie Metcalf) with the hopes of making a little extra room on Andy’s bookshelf and perhaps twenty-five cents in the process. Woody, being the humanist leader of the toys, decides to launch a rescue operation. In the process, Woody, who quickly learns he is a valuable asset whose origins date back to a 1950s television show entitled “Woody’s Roundup,” is kidnapped by a toy collector (Wayne Knight). The collector has assembled a complete set of toys from the program, including Woody’s horse Bullseye, Stinky Pete the Prospector (Kelsey Grammer), and Jessie the Cowgirl (Joan Cusack) and plans on selling them to a museum in Tokyo. Continuing Woody’s humanitarian (or is it toytarian?) agenda, Buzz mounts a rescue operation with the help of Hamm (John Rarzenberger), Mr. Potato Head (Don Rickles), Rex (Wallace Shawn), and Slinky Dog (Jim Varney).

As the perceptive reader may have already noticed, not only does TS2 continue its predecessor’s theme of the fear of neglect but it does so through a series of events that echo the original film: a rescue operation is launched to save a character who no longer believes in his value to Andy that once again climaxes in a nail biting chase scene. Now, I’m not trying to treat TS2 as being unoriginal. In fact, I would tend to argue that the similarities in theme and structure enrich the finished product. We know the characters are going to get from point A to point B, the joy is figuring out how and in the detours on the way.

There are two detours that keep me coming back to TS2, the first of which is the film’s clever use of toy collecting. Growing up in the household of an antique collector, I often found myself being verbally chastised for taking my action figures and toys out the original packaging (I do feel kind of bad for opening up that B-Wing Fighter Pilot from Star Wars: Return of the Jedi). Yet, as the characters in TS2 point out, is it more fulfilling to be played with or to be lovingly and longingly gazed at through a plastic barrier? I had a lot of fun with my B-Wing Fighter and while I can’t speak for feelings of that Kenner action figure, I’d like to assume that he felt the same. I appreciate the film’s viewpoint on the matter, acknowledging the desire and nostalgia to keep things as they were, but ultimately siding with use value over exchange value.

This brings me to the second point I admire about TS2: the consequences of that decision on behalf of the toy, which is so wholeheartedly portrayed in the relationship between Jessie and Emily (or, to be more specific, via the musical number “When She Loved Me” performed by Sarah McLachlan). If, as Jessie did, the toy is brought into a loving relationship with its owner, that final break, the product of age that Woody and Buzz fear so dearly, can have terrifying repercussions. In a very subtle and indirect way (these are toys after all!), the film is helping kids recognize that friendships and relationships may not last forever but that new ones are to be formed on the other side (temporally, not figuratively). This sequence reminded me of the death of Carl’s wife in the opening moments of Up (2009): both are narratives about great loss, told without the use of dialogue, and very capable of making the viewers weep.

Over the past ten years, some of these qualities have come and gone in Pixar’s films, for better and for worse. While Monsters, Inc. (2001) was successful at keeping pace with TS2, I found that Finding Nemo (2003) relied too heavily on some of the themes and narrative structures of the earlier films and I felt a similar disappointment with Cars (2006) and the third acts of Wall-E (2008) and Up (2009). Despite these past disappointments, I look forward to summer 2010 to see if Pixar is once again capable of providing a standard pattern with a wild type of fabric (or do I mean that the other way around?).

Drew Morton is a Ph.D. student in Cinema and Media Studies at the University of California-Los Angeles. He has previously written for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and UWM Post and is the 2008 recipient of the Otis Ferguson Award for Critical Writing in Film Studies.


Cannonball Read Season Two | Pajiba Love 10/13/09



Comments


Hamm, Mr. Potato Head, Rex and Slinky is hands-down my favorite rescue team in all movie history.

"When She Loved Me" makes me bawl every single time.

Zorg coming out with "I AM YOUR FATHER?" Kills me. KILLS ME. It's so unexpected and perfect.

Hell, even the out-takes section in this movie is hilarious.

"And I'm packing some monkey food!"
"Monkey food? What do I need monkey food for?"
"FOR THE MONKEYS OF COURSE!"

Oh, the Potato Heads.

Posted by: figgy at October 13, 2009 12:24 PM

figgy, your comment just made me start laughing in class. Of course, I cleverly stifled the giggle, thus making myself choke and providing a loud coughing fit that conveniently covered the rest of my laughter. Thanks.

Posted by: esme at October 13, 2009 12:48 PM

Great review, Drew. However, I take a little bit of umbrage at your last paragraph. Or rather, I have a slightly different opinion of it. I see the progression of films from Toy Story through Cars as reflective of the maturity of Pixar rather than strictly a repetition of a narrative structure.

Toy Story set the Pixar standard for great storytelling and character development, but the sense of humor really set it apart, at least in my mind. In addition, the characters are all peers and make up a close, complementary group of friends. You could tell that the filmmakers were people working from a point of view of being not very far removed from childhood themselves. The duality of the nature of children is also portrayed by the stark differences between the loving Andy and the sadistic Sid. This is a relatively young studio making their first feature film. A Bug's Life had a similar tone and attitude.

Monsters Inc, however, represented a change in tone. Here the main character interaction is not amongst a group of close and complementary friends, but between an adult and a (surrogate) child. Sully has to protect and save Boo, and ultimately let her go. The subtext I picked up from this film was that the filmmakers were beginning to cope with the beginning of the life-changing experience of having children.

This tone is continued and intensified in Finding Nemo, which can be considered to be the completion of the maturation process. Risk is a part of life, and you can't let your kids live without letting them go.

I would argue that Pixar's best films have followed those of "the parental arc," but that's totally subjective. Makes an interesting pattern, if you ask me.


Posted by: Cat at October 13, 2009 1:12 PM

I will continue to believe Pixar deliberately made a lesser movie with 'Cars' because they thought it was going to be their last Disney film, and there was no point in giving them a brilliant one.

... and even then, I love Paul Newman's character in that movie.

Posted by: twig at October 13, 2009 1:20 PM

Cat,

I don't mind the arc and I love "Monsters, Inc." My problems are as follows:

The Incredibles---I get very uncomfortable with the genetic superiority subtext. It's kind of creepy. I love superheroes, I love parts of the film (which aren't deliberately ripping off "X2" or "Return of the Jedi") but its a mixed result.

Cars---I watched it once and it rubbed me the wrong way. I'd have to re-watch it to be able to articulate as to why more specifically, but it felt really phoned in.

Finding Nemo---Albert Brooks and Ellen drove me nuts.

Wall-E---Who gives a damn about the humans? It was a conventional ending to an unconventional and utterly beautiful opening act.

Up---I liked this one quite a bit but again, the story team seemed to take short cuts in the end. Carl becomes an action hero, using his walker to go from one airship to his house? Come on! He uses walker not as a prop, he's elderly!

Ratatouille? I don't really have anything negative to say about it. Brad Bird's second best film.

Posted by: Drew Morton at October 13, 2009 1:51 PM

I'm not sure I've seen this movie since it came out. I would have been 12, so I may have been so over animation at that point or something, but I don't remember particularly loving this movie except tour guide Barbie. That's a thing in this movie, right? Anyway, I'll have to give it another watch since you guys are talking it up so much.

Posted by: kelsy at October 13, 2009 1:57 PM

I get very uncomfortable with the genetic superiority subtext.

'Harrison Bergeron's' always freaked me out way more.

Posted by: twig at October 13, 2009 1:59 PM

Cat, intriguing theorem. I'd add that, in some ways, the "parental arc" didn't really end with Finding Nemo. After all...

The Incredibles are all about the parents are are forced to come to terms with children redefining their world. Ratatouille is all about children establishing their own identity separate from their parents. Wall-E is about the children fixing the world their parents left behind. And Up deals with forging new families out of the broken ones around.

Posted by: Fredo at October 13, 2009 2:06 PM

Fair enough points, Drew. I guess it all comes down to opinion. Personally, I've never had a problem with the denouments of any of the films- although Sally staying home with Red and "Granny" (forgot her name) while the boys go save the day sort of ruffled my feminist feathers.

The superiority of the, well, Supers in The Incredibles also didn't bother me. Maybe part of that is that I never really got over being a trumpet player and secretly believing I really am better than other players (despite all evidence to the contrary). But I don't think you can explore the idea of super-people among us without coming to some decision about inherent physical superiority. And I think the film emphatically points out that despite their superior talents, they are most definitely not without the capacity for failure, especially epic failure.

As for Finding Nemo, Wall-E, and Up, I think that's all opinion. I like Ellen in general and enjoyed her a lot in that role. I thought one of the main messages of Wall-E was that technology and a culture of ease alienates us from our humanity, and that, ironically, Wall-E's acquired humanity from back on Earth will redeem us all. Personally, I think a science fiction story that speaks of hope is refreshing and delightful compared to the often-bleak stories endemic within the genre.

I guess I'm with you on the airship-leaping walker scene in Up. I also rolled my eyes in Wall-E when the ship's wheel spins, the floor tilts, and everybody slides downhill. If it's in space, and you accept the notion of artificial gravity, then your up-down orientation doesn't matter, does it? But I enjoyed the film too much to quibble about the laws of physics.

As before, great review.

Posted by: Cat at October 13, 2009 2:32 PM

Ahhhh that song!!! So.damn.sad.

figgy thanks for reminding me of the Zorg moment.

I remember seeing this is theatres when it came out.

Now I feel old.

Posted by: grace b at October 13, 2009 2:56 PM

I hadn't seen this movie, other than snippets when in the minivan with my niece. I took her to see the TS/TS2 3D double feature last weekend. I'm certain that I loved it more than she did. She's five, so that's understandable. I had to look away during the "When She Loved Me" part, because I didn't want anyone to see me crying.

Posted by: Captain Tuttle at October 13, 2009 4:23 PM

Cat , I'm with you on the "parental arc," It really got me in Monsters Inc, when Sully is afraid Boo got caught in the trash compactor. I thought of my little toddler brother being in that situation and bawled myself silly. I'm sure once I have kids these movies will make me even more of a blubbery mess.

Cars was lacking in that arc, which contributed to the story's weakness. I'm also still miffed that Pixar didn't do anything creative with car interiors in their animation there, since interiors are the main way people experience and connect with their vehicles. Lightening McQueen couldn't use his passenger door like an arm or something? Mator couldn't swallow a bug in his cab?

On the other hand, I loved how Wall-E and Eve became parents in their own right, protecting the fragile new life inside her "womb." It's probably no accident she was named after the mother of all humankind.

Posted by: Empress of All the Russias at October 13, 2009 7:38 PM

Finding Nemo---Albert Brooks and Ellen drove me nuts.

THE HELL. Them's fightin' words. Grr.

Sorry. I just take personal offense to anyone saying anything bad about Nemo.

Posted by: figgy at October 13, 2009 7:58 PM

I saw Cars for the first time recently and quite enjoyed it. I think it's underrated, but that may be a result of my expectations being lowered by constantly hearing how it was Pixar's worst film. It's definitely not their best, but it's a fun story with great visuals and a nice message.

The only thing about it that made me uneasy is the unspoken history; clearly, Cars takes place in a world where machines (specifically, the titular cars) have gained sentience and overthrown (most likely killed) the humans (and are probably converting their rotting flesh into some sort of fuel). It's a kiddie-friendly Matrix, and while children may not get the terrifying subtext, it was a nightmare that spoke to my overpowering fears for the future all too clearly.

John Lasseter: Visionary or Madman?

Posted by: Daniel Hall at October 13, 2009 8:08 PM

I honestly barely remember any of Toy Story 2 other than "When She Loved Me". That song is utterly and completely shattering. My little sister was 4 when this movie came out and I could just see how one day she'd grow up and go away and not want me around all the time like she did then and it was AWFUL. It must've completely overshadowed the rest of the movie for me, because I can remember bits and pieces but not a lot else.

Basically, I remember a lot more about Toy Story and most of what I remember wasn't traumatic realizations about life.

Posted by: Rusty (formerly Genny) at October 13, 2009 8:39 PM

Favourite quote: [Piggy Bank falls over, savings fall out] "OK, nobody look until I get my cork back in!"

Posted by: piedlourde at October 13, 2009 9:23 PM

Nice review Drew, very timely. It’s been a crappy day

Random thoughts:
Collectors: during my heavy duty comic book days, I came into contact with a few guys (not all) who collected piles of pop culture paraphenalia on the strength of their “value”- ie other people’s love for them- that were never to be opened or read. Imagine owning the original run of Watchmen and never reading it? The reason the golden era comic books are so valuable is that people at the time were busy consuming them, loving them then ignoring or throwing them away, thus making the few that survived intact rare and valuable. TS2 nailed it to a T.

Sarah McLachlan has the same lock on weepy ballads that Pixar has on super-condensed sentimentality. The marriage of image and music in that sequence said more in two minutes than 15 minutes of exposition could hope to manage.

Ratatouille: Agree 100%. Where Cars seems to carry the “weakest” tag, Ratatouille is the underappreciated gem of the Pixar canon. It contains one of my favourite monologues from any film, a speech that should be pinned to the wall of anyone that deigns to pass opinion on someone else’s work:

“In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new.

The world is often unkind to new talents, new creations. The new needs friends. Last night, I experienced something new; an extraordinary meal from a singularly unexpected source. To say that both the meal and its maker have challenged my preconceptions about fine cooking, is a gross understatement. They have rocked me to my core.

In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau's famous motto, ‘Anyone can cook’. But I realize - only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere. It is difficult to imagine more humble origins than those of the genius now cooking at Gusteau's, who is, in this critic's opinion, nothing less than the finest chef in France.” – Anton Ego, “Ratatouille”


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPfN_zYKxNQ

Posted by: Squirrelgripper at October 13, 2009 11:09 PM

I saw Tory Story in theaters at the tender age of 8, after months of slow, agonizing waiting and absolutely freaking loved it(to the point of wearing out the VHS). The thing I remember about seeing Toy Story 2 in theaters was that I was completely floored by it. It was one of the movies I think led me to get into movies. Anti-gravity belt Buzz still makes me laugh uncontrollably when I see him.

"He wouldn't!"

"He would..."

Also, the 3D double feature was one of the high points of my year.

Posted by: Ken Hart at October 13, 2009 11:33 PM

I'm pretty sure my jaw literally dropped open when Ego tasted the ratatouille and flashed back to his childhood.

Sigh.

Posted by: Daniel Hall at October 13, 2009 11:33 PM

I have to disagree on any of the Pixar films having problems, Drew. I love 'em all, and have seen every single one more than once.

But the Toy Story films are the best if only for the fact that they managed to make fucking Tim Allen a great character.

Posted by: George at October 14, 2009 12:02 AM

I'm pretty sure my jaw literally dropped open when Ego tasted the ratatouille and flashed back to his childhood.

Posted by: Daniel Hall at October 13, 2009 11:33 PM

The inversion of the nominal villain to the good guy was a subtly executed twist, particularly the ending. But I'm not going to say any more, I'm hoping for a Pajiba Movies of Pixar retrospective sometime soon (pretty please guys?)

Posted by: Squirrelgripper at October 14, 2009 12:19 AM

Start a blog. Write it yourself. I'd read it.

Posted by: Daniel Hall at October 14, 2009 9:15 PM

Posted by: Drew at October 15, 2009 4:12 AM





Post a comment

 (required)

 (required)


Preview of your comment: