Why “Inside Out” Is Everything That’s Wrong With Us
I’m probably going to upset every single person who reads this, but I have a bone to pick with the Academy Award-winning 2015 animated film “Inside Out.” Actually, several bones.
Having had this film summarized to me in excruciating detail by my nieces; having heard the nearly universal, gushing praise heaped upon it by every single adult I know who has seen it and chosen to comment upon it; given the flood of hyperbole surrounding this film in the press, among the general movie-going populace, as well as film critics; and given my natural anti-Pavlovian skepticism toward anything which is hyped to the extent that this film has been; I did something I rarely do: I ponied up the dough and sat through this turkey. And what I saw was alarming on nearly every level I can think of.
Bear in mind that, having studied cultural anthropology in my younger days, I tend to analyze works of art/entertainment as cultural artifacts. Thus, my analyses can tend toward the clinical. But lest anyone conclude that I’m a heartless, reptilian Grinch, I must confess that the second movement of Beethoven’s Seventh has frequently brought a tear to my eye, as has the conclusion of Charlie Chaplin’s “City Lights,” among other works of art. If you cut me, do I not bleed?
Viewed purely as a piece of cinema, in the abstract, it’s hard, in fact, to find much fault with “Inside Out.” It is well-written, well-acted, well-directed, and well-produced. So my criticisms are not based upon the film as film, per se. No, my objections have to do with the manner in which this film reflects our cultural values, and on that count it is about as abominable as it can be. Here, in my probably less than humble opinion, are its most glaring flaws:
Let’s start with the film’s premise, which is based on the research of psychologist Paul Ekman. Leaving aside the fact that his theories on human emotion have hardly enjoyed universal acceptance, and that, in fact, they are only theories, let’s concede the validity of his work just for the sake of argument. We still have a film that reduces the complexity of the human psyche to discrete mechanisms which function in a deterministic manner. In short, the film makes claims not just about human emotion, but about human consciousness, claims which are largely unsupportable fantasy. It would be easy enough for adults, within the context of this seemingly innocuous confection, to buy into this materialistic tripe, but just imagine its effect on impressionable children. One can easily imagine how this depiction of the human mind might result in the dis-integration of a child’s psyche. We’re telling children that their minds are made up of cute little people and quaint little locales which function according to simple, well-defined, perfectly understood rules. This is simply not so. It is not just a misleading depiction of human consciousness, but it is a simplistic and potentially harmful one.
Then there’s the world view the film depicts. I have heard many people describe “Inside Out” as “so true to life.” Yes, but whose life? The over one-billion children living in poverty across the globe? Or just the 20-some-odd percent here in the U.S.? The fact is that the conflicts presented in “Inside Out” are, without exception, First World problems. Riley’s tragedy is that she has to move from one single-family home to another; from one fully-funded school to another; that she has to cram pre-processed food down her throat in one city as opposed to another; play hockey, loaded to the gills with all of the necessary equipment, in one rink instead of another. Her father’s big gripe is that he’s worried about whether he can find sufficient investors for his new business. Her mother, on the other hand, does not appear to need to work at all. And their collective emergency is that they have to tough it out for a few days before the moving van arrives with their belongings, a state of affairs which only underscores their economic capacity to afford to pay movers to begin with. Are they starving? And they suffering from major diseases or malnutrition? Are they uneducated? Do they live under a repressive regime? Are their basic human right curtailed? Do they lack clean water, warm shelter, clothing, electricity, or access to information and technology? Of course not. And this is to be expected, since the target demographic for the film is exactly that segment of the population for whom such “problems” appear to be “so true to life.”
Next up, it should be noted that in a year in which prominent members of the African-American community boycotted the Oscars in protest of Hollywood’s continued lack of racial diversity, the only black character of any note was Riley’s teacher. A pink elephant made out of cotton candy was accorded an order of magnitude more screen time, speaking lines, and character development. In addition, the character of Joy was the only one of Riley’s emotions who was depicted as conforming to mainstream society’s standards of beauty, whereas Sadness was depicted as under-height, overweight, weak, lazy, and suffering from poor eyesight. Not only does this smack of a lack of diversity, not only does it reek of intolerance, not only does it exude the most fatuous superficiality, but, by presenting it in a “heartwarming” context, it commits all of these atrocities in a manner which nearly guarantees that they will be perpetuated for at least one more generation.
Although I could drill down on many details which I found equally abhorrent, I’ll limit myself to one last major gripe, which has to do with the laxity with which Riley’s access to technology is portrayed. I realize that, not being a parent, there are those who will protest that I have no right to offer up an opinion on this issue. However, inasmuch as I, myself, was a child at one time, and a conniving one at that, and given that I am an uncle to two young nieces, not to mention enjoying avuncular relationships with my best friend’s children, my response is: Nuts to that! In a very important sense, the well being of the next generation is everyone’s responsibility, and if I were to save your child from being hit by a bus or abducted by a lunatic, I guarantee that my opinions on child welfare would be of central concern to you. Thus, I have to wonder why, in “Inside Out,” Riley is afforded such easy access to technology that she is able to go online, purchase a bus ticket (with a credit card stolen from her mother, no less), and, for all intents and purposes, disappear off the face of the earth, even if only for a few hours? If the response to this question boils down to “kids will be kids,” my retort is that we have grown far too lenient, complacent, and selfishly lazy about restricting their access to such patently dangerous tools. The fact that a major Hollywood family film concedes this point speaks for itself. We are failing the next generation, and “Inside Out” only proves it.
So… tell me again why this film is so great?
