Inside Out (Pete Docter, 2015)

[hearthesilence]

I finally saw this, and I was actually disappointed. Just a few minutes in, the incessant cloying tone really started to grate, and just as bad was the blandness that seem to infect everything - not just the serious exploration of adolescent feelings but even the imaginative set pieces. Sometimes it all worked - one scene that stood out was the dinner argument which was hilarious, but when they return to that idea towards the end, it doesn't work nearly as well (except for that one moment where Riley picks up that bottle for the boy). I did like some surreal bits involving the way Riley's memories are maintained as well as the gag with that inane commercial, Lewis Black (the pizza joke was a very amusing throwaway) and the whimsical abstract thought chamber. Some moments looked stunning - the wide shot of Riley walking alone up that foggy SF street, another high angle wide shot that pans from the bus to the network of highways filled with cars - so Pixar hasn't completely lost their knack for visuals, but it's strange how those look more impressive than anything that took place inside Riley's mind, which in retrospect seemed like a slick version of a board game. I'm glad they've gone back to making original material, but it felt like Pixar's greatest strengths have either ebbed away or turned formulaic, and their worst traits have become much more prominent.

[Michael Kerpan]

hearthesilence -- I pretty much agree. I was all prepared to like this -- but it didn't take long for this to start annoying me. There were a few nice moments here and there, but all in all I found this a major fail.

[Lost Highway]

I didn't like this either. The film casts on it's premise with dull characters who keep explaining the premise to each other. It lacked the wit and inventiveness of the best Pixar films, this inner space was surprisingly dull. It was a little like someone telling you their dream.

So why is this film so admired? Are people overreacting to a mediocre Pixar film after a few bad ones ?

[therewillbeblus]

I use it in my work too. I even have the Mondo poster in my classroom, but it being useful in pedagogy and therapy does not make it good. I found it undermined by an insecurity on its rather good idea of all emotions being useful as well as being trite in its narrative development.

Certainly its utility does not make it good, but the concepts resonating with people on an emotional level and working to internalize this view six years later speaks to the effectiveness of its narrative for them. What do you see as an insecurity the film has about all emotions as useful? I felt like the 'parts' collaborating showed an accessible way for them to function in the moment, and the idea that as we process recontextualized universal- yet specific- losses in our own development, was an effective visualization of how our experiences become more complex emotionally with nostalgia. It's like the optimistic version of feeling broken as you age due to small traumas adding up from participation in the world.

The narrative development took an isolated incident, yet acute milestone, in this girl's life and demonstrated how her psychological mechanics would operate, while attending to the social and environmental triggers as well. Maybe everything condensed into this brief period was unrealistic for some people's experiences, but not for me (I'll never forget the Halloween when I had an almost identical sobering revelation to the protagonist here). Almost nothing in movies makes me cry as hard as the loss of her stuffed animal or sitting alone at a new school eating, the latter of which hits too close to home. For this girl, or me in my instance, her/my narrative was that isolated incident, so I think it's a testament to Doctor and everyone involved that the singular moment is given sole attention, as it's so powerful that it's all that matters to her.

I also love how the binary Happy and Sad parts go on a journey to 'fix' the issue, traveling through the past for strategies and memories that are no longer relevant, and as a consequence of their own desperation, they see that emotions and strategies occur on a spectrum of mostly mixed states and novel tools that present themselves concurrently with the experience a la resilience. I've never been a particularly visual person in this regard, which may come across as trite in its specific symbols, but I'm always amazed how many people do create these imaginary compartments like we see in the movie to store their signifiers and help define a relationship between them. I'd say the same for this admittedly familiar pattern of adventure- sometimes in real life this is how our minds/our actions operate! A good example that I always relay is the "It's not your fault" scene from Good Will Hunting, which I always rolled my eyes at before working with abused kids as a therapist, and every year I stay in this field and do different kinds of therapy, it only becomes more honest. What I assumed to be a trite and melodramatic climax is actually also an effective and intimate intervention that people have used and continue to use outside of the fantasy of cinema.

[knives]

Oh dear, I may have to watch this again to properly respond to you. Just from memory I was put off by the film’s seeming Freudian approach to emotional development where you need just one bad day. Even worse, in my view, is the basic failures in world building so that the story doesn’t withstand basic examination. We’ve got the famous question of why does Riley have such diverse characters as emotions whereas even people her age do not seem to, but also basic stuff like how are the variety of emotions shown by the emotions representative of the core happiness (this question is actually my most useful one with the kids as we talk about the sadness in happiness and joy in anger etc)? I admire the film’s ambitions, but do not believe it succeeds in meeting them leaving the film somewhat jumbled.

[therewillbeblus]

I think it may be worth a revisit. To address your points: I don't see a Freudian approach to development at all (and don't know how "you need just one bad day" translates into Freud?)- in fact if you look at Freud's examination of child development, it's probably the last point of comparison, a simple set of stages that really didn't interest him. There is a focus on 'insight' as the most crucial element to change, per psychoanalysis/psychodynamic modalities which he was the father of, but it's far more complex than that. The film captures a very acute incident of layered stressors working to disrupt someone's stability, which becomes a bridge of sobriety into maturity. This is where I'd suggest the lack of world-building is actually a strength- if we were offered too much of a thorough detailing of Riley's life and family dynamics we would see her experience as a product of her specific history and miss the universality of this crisis' relationship with our own experiences, as well as comprehend that in the present crisis none of that matters- what matters is how she feels in this moment right now (and all the information we need to know about the Big Things she's processing the loss of, is all there). Same goes for the emotions as developed- Who says that her peers don't have as diverse characters as their emotions? We are only seeing Riley's emotions in thoroughly developed states, and what the film gets so right to me (and which is such a critical point to IFS therapy) is how our internal parts are more developed and active than we consciously realize, we just may not have a close relationship or comprehension of all of them and their inner-workings.

I can appreciate the critique that each emotion in its purist form doesn't rest on the spectrum. In reality there might be several shades of Happiness, Sadness, Anger, etc., but that would complicate the film too much and would likely take away from its thematic impact. Though if we see these emotions as less the literal emotions we have, and more of our internal 'parts' (the simple rule of thumb is 'any thought and feeling we have is a part), then Happiness can have a relationship with Sadness, or Anger, and change and morph and grow as a result, but still stay the same part. Under IFS logic, the film makes a lot more sense than, say, CBT, where you could poke holes in the core emotions' simplicities independently- though it's not about them independently, it's about symbiosis between them breeding development.

[knives]

To clarify the world building I was referring to was only for the world inside people’s heads. The real world I would agree is developed enough for its purpose. What I meant by Riley’s difference, which is a critique I was wrong to assume was universally known, is that for all of the other characters inside their heads their emotions are all shown to be a version of themselves whereas Riley is given unique characters that have many distinctions between them physically and personality wise. Just compare the skater boy’s mind. Even the diversity of gender is a potentially interesting idea which as is seems to be not thought through by the creators.

I also agree with you that a thorough exploration of degree of emotion and their interrelatedness like maybe Hubley may have given would fly over the heads of the intended audience, but we do see Sadness relieved in the movie and Joy is spurned on by jealousy. Acknowledging that sometimes Joy is sad and Sadness is joyful might better explain the complexity of our characters which of course need to be characters for the drama to work. Joy in the film as is is more than just the embodiment of joy so it would only benefit the film to lean into that.

Though I think you might have discovered a cause of our different views as I’m definitely more comfortable with CBT than IFS, though Vygotsky will remain my guiding light.

[Mr Sausage]

If the emotions in your head have their own emotions, do they also get little sets of emotions of their own in an infinite regress of emotion-figures working control panels? This is the dumbest post I’ve ever made.

[therewillbeblus]

To clarify the world building I was referring to was only for the world inside people’s heads. The real world I would agree is developed enough for its purpose. What I meant by Riley’s difference, which is a critique I was wrong to assume was universally known, is that for all of the other characters inside their heads their emotions are all shown to be a version of themselves whereas Riley is given unique characters that have many distinctions between them physically and personality wise. Just compare the skater boy’s mind. Even the diversity of gender is a potentially interesting idea which as is seems to be not thought through by the creators.

This is a fair point about the distinctions between people, though I think to go back to my earlier point, the 'world building' during their adventures to all the different islands translates pretty well to how many people I know make sense of their psychology visually. It's not how I do, so I can understand why some may see that as trite in following other adventure stories or whatever, but I know I'm not necessarily in the majority here.

I also agree with you that a thorough exploration of degree of emotion and their interrelatedness like maybe Hubley may have given would fly over the heads of the intended audience, but we do see Sadness relieved in the movie and Joy is spurned on by jealousy. Acknowledging that sometimes Joy is sad and Sadness is joyful might better explain the complexity of our characters which of course need to be characters for the drama to work. Joy in the film as is is more than just the embodiment of joy so it would only benefit the film to lean into that.

I hear what you're saying and I suppose that we just see the character of Joy differently (probably due to the IFS gap, which is a more difficult worldview to comprehend- and I don't say that with superiority, but as someone who has personally struggled to grapple with its more abstract nature for most of my life). Joy in the film wants to default to a joyful state because it's more comfortable to her identity, but finds the change that she is more than a 'pure' embodiment a shock to her complacency and a struggle, yet a necessary one to develop, just like Riley's disruption of place. So to answer Sausage's half-joking post, yes, I would argue that the core narrative is that we are observing Riley's parts work through and recognize their diverse parts, but this is done through social engagement with the other parts, i.e. her peer, Sadness (rather than delving into their own little emotions), which Riley ultimately is affected by as well- her immediate family is what consoles her and reminds her that everything will be okay and this is normal development. Her internal parts help, but it's the willingness to be teachable and affected by your social environment while developing internally in a concurrent symbiosis that perpetuates growth. Joy's journey mirrors Riley's in that she operates on self-will and a refusal to engage with change, and ultimately- through adventurous interactions with obstacles that wear the will down and expose the futility in its pure powers- finds a bittersweet surrender just as Riley does, in allowing herself to be influenced by her social context.

[knives]

I must say all of that is perhaps why I am so harsh on the film. It offers in potential and actuality so much greatness that it stalls out for me leads to a greater disappointment than if it settled for mediocrity.

If the emotions in your head have their own emotions, do they also get little sets of emotions of their own in an infinite regress of emotion-figures working control panels? This is the dumbest post I’ve ever made.

I was actually thinking of that as a sort of anti-atomistic thing, but also dismissed myself for being terribly silly.

[DarkImbecile]

Disney announces a sequel with Amy Poehler coming in 2024

[therewillbeblus]

Wow, so much potential to go deeper into IFS, and so much potential to ruin a good thing

[Monterey Jack]

I honestly hoped Pixar was past the "crank out an unnecessary sequel" phase (especially considering how much money Lightyear lost). I've liked more of these unnecessary sequels than I haven't (Monsters University and Finding Dory were a lot of fun), but it's depressing that the three original movies they did prior to Lightyear got dumped on D+.

[knives]

Apparently Disney kaboshed Inside Out being explicitly gay for stupidest reason ever.

[beamish14]

Apparently Disney kaboshed Inside Out being explicitly gay for stupidest reason ever.

It didn’t work, as many critics and fans very quickly picked up on a queer subtext in the film.