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.
