Depiction And Fiction: Toys & Cars

I have previously written about the difference between created imagery (animation and paintings) and recorded imagery (live-action film and photography), claiming that the former is far more complex than the latter on an aesthetic level and yet far simpler on a fictional level. That is, in animation a character will always have a dual status as an image; they will always be both the character and a depiction of the character. Yet at the same time, as a fictional being, the animated character is more ‘true’ than the live-action character – Michael Corleone from The Godfather is the character and Al Pacino purporting to be the character, while Mickey Mouse is always ‘really’ Mickey Mouse. When we apply these ideas to the Pixar films, we can see that there are a multitude of levels of understanding at work in even the most straightforward of moments.

The early Pixar films in particular – both shorts and features – can be seen to form something akin to a ‘meta-franchise’ in that they are linked in a variety of extra-textual ways. While some argue that all of the Pixar films take place in one consistent universe, attempting to cohere everything into a single text (http://jonnegroni.com/2013/07/11/the-pixar-theory/), I would argue that this is a) stretching it a bit, and b) far less interesting than viewing the films as distinct texts that have a range of interpretative relationships to one another. Put another way, the references, cameos and in-jokes in the Pixar films do not unify them but create highly complicated interactions between them, turning some works into fictions within other works of fiction. The first character animation by the Pixar team (though not under that name) was the short The Adventures Of Andre & Wally-B, a fleeting chase cartoon between the vaguely human Andre and the antagonistic bee Wally-B. In itself, the film is a straightforward narrative taking place within its own diegetic reality. As an animated character, Andre is both the diegetic figure and a depiction of the figure. But in their third short film, Red’s Dream, the first in-joke reference adds even more layers to the depiction and fiction of Andre.

On the wall of the Bicycle shop where Red the unicycle lives a clock can be made out as portraying the character of Andre, his arms indicating the hour and minute. As an inside joke, we can take it on the same level that we take the floor pattern within Red’s fantasy (emulating the ball in Luxo Jr.) – a reference to entertain the animators and anyone else eagle-eyed enough to notice. But the nature of the reference is more complicated. The fact that the clock is a clear reference to the famous Mickey Mouse watch of yesteryear, means that we can interpret the clock as a piece of Andre & Wally-B merchandise, casting those characters as fictional characters within the diegesis of Red’s Dream. We could take the appearance of the clock as evidence that the unseen Bicycle shop owner is a fan of Andre & Wally-B and has bought this piece of memorabilia; making the clock a depiction (within the cartoon) of a depiction (on the face of the clock) of a depiction (of the original character). Andre & Wally B therefore is both a film in its own right and a story-within-a-story as part of Red’s Dream.

This approach is continued in the first computer-animated feature film, Toy Story. When Woody gathers everyone around to discuss the impending influx of new toys on Andy’s birthday, we can make out behind him the spines of several books – including Andre & Wally-B, Red’s Dream, Tin Toy and Knick-Knack. Once again, this is an inside joke that renders all of these earlier works as fiction within the world of Toy Story. Red the unicycle is not a diegetic character, but rather a doubly-fictional character akin to Buzz Lightyear.

When I say Buzz Lightyear, of course, I am not referring to the character of Buzz who we follow through the film, but the concept of Buzz Lightyear, the character that Buzz thinks he is, the – as Woody puts it at one point – ‘Real Buzz Lightyear’. Initially, much of the comedy in Toy Story stems from this confusion in terms of depiction and fiction. Buzz thinks that he is the real thing, not a depiction of the real thing. The ‘real’ Buzz Lightyear is a doubly-fictional character within the world of Toy Story, the main character of the Buzz Lightyear Of Star Command franchise (which begins life as a fictional franchise, but then became an actual franchise when Disney produced an animated series by that name). This is true of most of the toy characters appearing within the films.

Woody differs from Buzz because he knows full well that he is a toy, a depiction of a generic Old West Sheriff. But this in itself becomes a complicated point in relation to how we understand the diegesis of the franchise. In the sequel, Toy Story 2, we learn that Woody is actually a depiction of a specific character from an old puppet TV serial Woody’s Round-Up. Woody therefore becomes a depiction of a toy, which itself is a depiction of a TV puppet, that is a depiction of the fictional Woody. But, unlike Buzz, Woody is initially ignorant of the fiction that he depicts; he only knows that he is a depiction. How is it possible for Buzz to know his fictional back-story so well that he actually believes it to be true, while Woody is oblivious to the fact that he is merchandise from a TV show? Why does Woody define himself so overtly through his relationship to Andy when, as a toy from the 1950s, he must surely have had owners decades before Andy was ever born? These texts-within-texts complicate how much sense the story makes.

In a later Toy Story short Small Fry we are treated to a slew of new characters that exist, seemingly, to indulge the filmmakers’ love of ridiculous puns. Sidestepping the glorious silliness of Tai-Kwon-Doe or Beef Stewardess for now (though I’m sure I’ll return to them in a future post), let us focus on the fact that each of these characters have been given the same kind of doubly-fictional contexts. In the audio commentary, director Angus MacLane states that every toy appearing in the ‘happy-meal’ toy support group belongs to a franchise that, like Woody’s Round-Up, only exists within the world of Toy Story. For instance, Franklin is a depiction of a character from an animated film that tells the history of America using anthropomorphic birds. On the level of fiction, Franklin is simply an abandoned toy that can’t understand why he doesn’t appeal to kids. But on the level of depiction, the character is infinitely more complex because of this context. Franklin is a depiction of the Pixar character, who is a toy depiction of a non-existent animated character, who is a depiction of the fictional character of Franklin who – we might surmise – is supposed to be Franklin D. Roosevelt (or maybe even Franklin Pierce), the real historical figure depicted as a bird.

This idea of depicting characters as something introduces yet another layer to our understanding of depiction and fiction. The world of the Cars franchise is more complicated than that of Toy Story; the toys exist within a human populated world, they are created objects that lead a secret life of their own. But the cars and other vehicles exist in their own world that functions on its own laws, it is much like the real world but seen through a kind of ‘car-o-vision’ (in the same way that Franklin is Roosevelt seen through ‘bird-o-vision’). This makes Lightning McQueen and Tow Mater double-depictions, but in a different way to Woody or Buzz. We understand the characters as people, but we see them as cars. In Cars 2 we glimpse John Lassetire, the ‘car-ified’ version of Pixar founder John Lasseter, a perfect example of a ‘real’ person that we see depicted as a vehicle.

The first Cars provides us with clips from A Bugs Life, Monsters Inc. and Toy Story, but with the characters all reimagined as cars. Unfortunately, Lassetire is not introduced as a maker of animated films within Cars 2, so we can’t attribute these movie clips to him, as productions of PixCar studios.

But nevertheless the appearance of Woody and Buzz as toy cars is particularly interesting, when we consider the fact that these characters were released as toys in the real world.

So: The character of Woody is a human sheriff living in the Old West, thwarting villains that poison the waterhole and so on, but he is depicted by a puppet in the show Woody’s Round-Up. This puppet is then depicted by the toy of Woody that we meet in Toy Story; and because this toy is also a character with its own distinct personality he is both a depiction and a character. But because he is an animated character he is still yet another depiction (a depiction of the Pixar character). In the Cars clips, the characters are seen through the ‘car-o-vision’, making them depictions of the depictions of the Pixar characters. And in the real world, therefore, the Woody Wagon and Buzzmobile toys are toy depictions of animated depictions of car depictions of animated depictions of toy depictions of puppet/animated depictions of fictional characters…

Phew!

                                                                                                                        - P. S.