Left Field Cinema

Warning: contains possible mild spoilers

Is Monsters Inc a political commentary?

Pixar’s recent films WALL-E (2008) and Up (2009) have impressed critics and audiences with their intellectual and emotional substance which previous computer animations have apparently lacked. WALL-E offered a dystopic vision of Earth abandoned by obese, disconnected humans and presented a thoughtful, if obvious environmental message, while Up’s opening left many grown adults in tears. However previous Pixar works, while not as evidently mature, possessed equally interesting qualities. 2001’s Monsters Inc. is sometimes overlooked within the Pixar canon, seen to be aimed at a younger audience or simply not at the same standard as the seminal Toy Story and Toy Story 2 which preceded it. Despite this, the film is not a dearth of interpretive possibilities; indeed, it offers a possible critique of the Bush Administration and its foreign policy.

The film takes place between two parallel universes, our normal human world, and the ‘monster’ world filled with a variety of humorous creatures- all of which speak English and with a society which operates like our own. These two worlds interact through the closet doors of human children- the ‘monsters’ in the cupboard or under the bed are real. The monsters’ world relies on scaring children to generate the electrical power it needs to function. Ironically, the monsters themselves believe that “There's nothing more toxic or deadly than a human child. A single touch could kill you.” As the head of the power company Henry J. Waternoose (James Coburn) states in an early exposition scene. This is the first and most significant link to the political climate of the early 2000s, the monster world symbolises the United States and its developed allies, reliant on Middle Eastern oil however extremely fearful of the dangers posed by the Islamic world- arguably with some reason. Debate as to the causes of the events of September 11, 2001 and the political justifications of involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq are too vast for this discussion. In Monsters Inc., the monsters’ fervently try to prevent human presence, a “23-19”, led by the CDA (Child Detection Agency). The response to the presence of human material mirrors a military response to a terrorist threat or biohazard emergency arriving in vans and helicopters, swinging through windows and proceeding in a blisteringly quick fashion. As an audience the scenes are amusing because of the apparent overreaction of the monsters- their reactions to the appearance of Boo, a young girl, parody media responses to modern crises, sensationalising the events – “the kid flew right over me and blasted a car with its laser vision.” or inciting hysteria “It is my professional opinion that now is the time to panic!”. However these are essentially background images, unnecessary to the plot and unlikely to be consciously recognised by the younger target audience of the film as we follow the protagonists, disillusioned scarier Sully (John Goodman) and manic Mike Wasowski (Billy Crystal) in their efforts to return Boo to the human world.

Monsters Inc. does move in a dark direction, with further parallels to modern attitudes, before its typical happy ending. As Monstropolis (the monster city) moves further into a power crisis due to modern children’s desensitisation to horrors, the menacing reptile Randall (Steve Buscemi) concocts a new sinister method of obtaining power, the kidnapping and torturing of human children. The proposed use of the hideous “Scream Extractor” to be used could be seen to represent the interrogation (read torture) techniques of Guantanamo Bay and other facilities, or as the potential invasion of Iraq. Once passive scaring of children, diplomacy, is unable to secure the necessary power, or oil, the use of force is advocated by Randall, who could represent the proponents of the both Guantanamo and the Iraq war, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, though there is little evidence within the film to support this claim. As Sully and Mike attempt to prevent Waternoose, who would “do anything” for Monsters Inc. even “kidnap a thousand children”, and Randall from torturing Boo, they discover that in fact, “laughter has ten times the energy of scream”. Positive co-operation, with smiles rather than snarling teeth, will in fact provide the monsters with all the power they need.

Of course, there is one key flaw in this interpretation of Monsters Inc. : historical context. The film was first released in late October 2001, after the terrorist attacks but the timing was essentially coincidental. A first draft of the film’s screenplay was written in 1997 during the Clinton Administration and well before the ‘war on terror’ and the film was produced in 2000. Clearly the writers and directors were not attempting to comment on the energy crisis, the relations between the Islamic and Western worlds or the Iraq war- unless they were unusually prophetic. Does this render this interpretation invalid without resorting to a ‘death of the author’ justification? Not entirely. Instead, consider the idea that the background of Monsters Inc. – the CDA, the media response and the “Scream Extractor” are a collage of typical modern images. Police and military overreactions, media hysteria and torture were all present in society pre-‘war on terror’, but have simply been ingrained more profoundly in society since Monsters Inc. Or perhaps, rather than art or bad television, life mirrors children’s animations.

Andrew Beech Jones