Toy Story 3
Contains mild spoilers and, in an attempt to avoid more mild spoilers, treats the reader as if they’ve seen the film and know what I’m talking about. See the film!
I never know whether to review modern films or not. They’re a part, albeit a small part, of my film-viewing experience, and therefor theoretically grist to the mill of Shadowplay. Too much of current releases would erode what’s individual about this place, I feel, but there’s little danger of me seeing enough modern films for that to happen. Unless you think even one a month is too many?
TOY STORY 3 seemed to me just as good as its predecessors, which I like a whole bunch — I can’t really see any aesthetic standard by which the best modern CGI toons can be considered much inferior to their Golden Age predecessors from the Disney stable. But I’m not an animator, of course. (I’ve dabbled, but so half-heartedly I’d be ashamed to enumerate my experiences.) It’s pretty unusual for a series to spin to three installments without losing quality, and perhaps the fact that this edition feels very much like a final chapter is part of the secret: they’ve thrown everything at it, on the assumption that they might not be doing this again.
The humans are still the only weak point: remember how clunky Andy and his Mom are in the first film? And the Toy Collector in II was grossly overdetailed and unpleasant. Andy is now a teenager (seeing him and his sister and dog age in approximately real time between films is one of the strange pleasures afforded by the films’ long schedules) and rather a bland figure, like a junior Ken doll himself, although to compensate there’s a very nicely observed little girl.
I was entertained but not blown away for the film’s first half, but once the toys get separated and we meet a new batch of characters, things brightened up. For one thing, I could appreciate how insanely off-base this article in the Independent newspaper is, which was diverting. The movie actually has a rich and affectionately observed range of female characters, and the jokes about Ken seeming a bit gay are pretty far from homophobic. For one thing, Ken (spoiler alert) turns from villain to hero, his love of fashion unchanged. He’s not gay, anyway, just unconventional, a male who doesn’t conform to gender expectations, and the film says that’s OK.
I don’t really think the toys have sexuality anyway, as we know it. They draw their consciousness from human kids, is the way I see it, so they have a child’s idea of relationships and can form into couples, like Mr and Mrs Potato Head or, in a Han-and-Leia twist, Buzz Lightyear and Jessie. But we know what Ken and Barbie look like naked, and conventional sex doesn’t look to be on the cards for them. (That said, the heartrending “When She Loved Me,” in TOY STORY 2 is the most moving same-sex expression of love you’re likely to find in a kids’ film.)
(But it really needs the image track in order to fully rip your heart out.)
The most striking thing for me in this one was the very dark, very distressing scene of group jeopardy at the city dump, where the heroes find themselves on a conveyor belt towards incineration. This gives us one of the great conflicted-response gags I’ve always enjoyed in this series (see also: Buzz’s discovery that he’s a toy in part 1: heartbreaking AND cruelly hilarious). The line “I can see daylight!” delivers just the right kind of laugh-before-the-storm. The apocalyptic, indeed positively holocaustic threat our plastic pals face next seems to me the closest scrape with convincing extinction a cartoon character has faced since Bambi’s mom. Does the film earn such strong stuff? It’s hard to summon up a cogent argument in the face of something so powerful, either for or against — I found it powerful and deeply distressing, and very moving, taking the series’ ongoing theme of the value of friendship all the way to the end of the line…
Interestingly, there were no screams and tears from the little kids attending, which one might have expected. My theory to account for this is that kids are fundamentally selfish, so the things that upset them in movies are not those which menace the characters, but those which seem to menace THEM — Cruella DeVille coming out of the screen to take their puppies away, for instance. Despite the immersive, 3D nature of TOY STORY 3, the kind of empathic response evoked by the furnace of doom scene are inherently more upsetting to adults, who not only care more about the characters, they get the reference.

August 7, 2010 at 10:48 am
My three-year-old daughter has been to see this twice now – once with me, once with her mum – and has evinced not the slightest disturbance either time, while we were, individually and separately, reduced to puddles of terrified jelly. I have been thinking about the same thing as you, and my conclusion was slightly different – the innocence of children resides partly in their lack of understanding that life is finite and non-existence is inevitable. If you don’t know about death, then the story is just a wild rollercoaster ride. Therefore adults and kids are able to watch the same, gruelling events unfold while experiencing distinctly different emotions. For me, the seemingly endless moment where the toys joined hands and prepared for death made me feel horrified and elated in equal measure, moved beyond words by the expressions in their eyes. My daughter just munched her popcorn and waited to see what happened next, and came out laughing, while the adults kept their heads down and tried to avoid showing their shellshocked, bloodshot eyes to each other.
On the other hand, there were some signs of Pixar’s ‘script-by-committee’ method that didn’t work terribly well – wasn’t Lotso just a cuddlier, strawberry scented version of the Prospector from TS2, and Big Baby a one-toy re-run of the freak circus from TS1? These seemed less like references and more like boilerplate script elements, re-used for convenience. Also, the deus ex machina rescue from the incinerator, though very welcome, wasn’t terribly convincing.
I read the ending as a possible comment on the Hollywood tradition of ‘rebooting the franchise’ for a younger audience – Andy gives Bonnie a synopsis, but the new adventures of Buzz, Woody etc – with added characters familiar to a new generation – will undoubtedly be different to the ones they had under Andy. Not sure if I’m reading too much in here, but with Pixar you never know.
August 7, 2010 at 10:59 am
The deus ex machina was at least accompanied by a very nice joke.
The villain this time was an interestingly complicated figure, and I wasn’t totally satisfied by his fate. When a character is embittered by life experience, it’s hard to hate him and want revenge. Up had a different issue with its bad guy, but I felt neither quite nailed it. You could probably swap the nature of their comeuppance around and I’d like it better.
I was also thinking that kids’ different experience of time might be a factor in their response to the furnace scene. A slow creep towards destruction is alarming to an adult, but a kid might think “It’s going to take thirty seconds to get there? That’s MASSES of time! What are we going to do while we wait?”
August 7, 2010 at 11:09 am
That assessment of the toys’ sexuality is spot on. I enjoyed 3 but still think everything really interesting about being a toy was said in the first film. From then on the fact that these characters are capable of independent action but choose to remain inanimate gets a bit creepy (and they all move so FAST). Sorry, the “When she loved me” sequence has always left me totally cold, and yes quite a few people have said this makes me a monster, but of course you’re going to get dumped if you’re a flaccid object. “Quick the love of my life’s coming, I’m going to pretend to be totally inanimate.” In 3 it’s more clear we’ll be looking at Toys as Parents but until we got to the furnace it’s still quite unclear what – in toy terms – is so bad about their lot in the playgroup. Is there really a RIGHT way to play? Is Pixar solely relying on embittered wackos to power its plots now? (And is pulling toys apart to make new ones really verboten?)
But the furnace scene was outstanding; I was perfectly willing to believe this was the end for them, that’s quite a feat.
August 7, 2010 at 1:18 pm
I read the linked Independent article, and I was left with the distinct impression that some people have a lot (like, alot) of spare time: and, well, being a goil and all, I tend to be sensible to these issues, but, honest, some people sometimes should just relax and enjoy things!
As for the furnace scene, well it was terrifying, but I must say that one of my nieces (yes ,I used them as an alibi to see the film) actually felt like holding my arm fast at that moment, so I guess that she must have sensed that this could be the end for the toys.
BTW, I tend to dislike Stereotyped Latins in Hollywood films but Flamenco Buzz was a riot! It may have helped that in the Spanish version his Andalousian mood was dubbed by an actual Flamenco singer: Diego “El Cigala”… It was much very like the real McCoy!
August 7, 2010 at 4:07 pm
I wondered if they used the Spanish voice of Buzz from previous films… but maybe this would make the sequence less comprehensible in Spain?
Simon, I like the idea of the toys being like Victorian brides! “Lie back and think of Toyland.”
Glad to hear some kids ARE a bit freaked by the furnace. What an amazing scene that is.
August 7, 2010 at 4:22 pm
A fine piece, David. I enjoyed the film but I have to say I didn’t feel as attached to it as others. I wonder how much of that has to do with extra-filmic circumstances, i.e. a certain reluctance I have to join the communal experience that drives the success of the Pixar films. Movies like Burton’s ALICE IN WONDERLAND make in the neighborhood of billions worldwide but you’ll search far and wide without finding someone who feels close to it, or felt like they were joining a universal, nirvana-meld in their appreciation for it. (Heck, you’ll just have a hard time finding someone who LIKES it.)
TOY STORY 3, on the other hand – moreso than UP and WALL-E and RATATOUILLE (better films to my mind) – with its now pan-generational genealogy, is the closest a lot of folks have to “Le Marseillaise.” Which in itself is sad, but I don’t want to overstate my point.
My friend, critic Michael Sicinski, wrote a long, personal, and extremely well-observed piece on TOY STORY 3, one that I think addresses much of the good works done by the film (and the trilogy), and also speaks frankly to its oversights, which are not easily dismissed. How he relates the cultural significance of the film with his very young daughter’s own experience is particularly fascinating.
http://academichack.net/reviewsJune2010.htm#Toy
August 7, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Great piece. I like how his daughter has reworked the story to suit her own requirements, like Melina Mercouri with her Greek tragedies in Never On Sunday. “And they all go to the beach and have ice cream!”
The phenomenon of adults being unable to face criticism of popular movies, almost like religious zealots facing unbelievers, is sad but not new, and I wouldn’t hold it against the filmmakers.
August 7, 2010 at 9:50 pm
I’m not the first person to mention this, but the “conveyer belt of doom” seems inspired by/ripped off from THE BRAVE LITTLE TOASTER, based on a story by the great sf writer Thomas M. Disch, an animated film which does for household appliances (a toaster, a lamp, an old radio, an electric blanket) what the TOY STORY series does for toys.
August 7, 2010 at 11:03 pm
I wouldn’t hold it against the filmmakers either – in fact, I don’t want to conflate my comments about not wanting to join the love-ocean whenever a new Pixar masterpiece comes out* and Mike’s discussion of the lunatic fringe of said love-ocean. Those people are creeps. Most people who think TOY STORY 3 was at least very moving, if not absolutely great, are quite reasonable and adult. Like us.
But there’s something unsettling – our artist friend TD touched upon this when we visited her space last month – about Pixar’s mode of operation, in that (in a development that does not go entirely without some measure of my gratitutde) they have supplanted the “instant classic” mantra of ’90s Disney, beginning with THE LITTLE MERMAID in 1989 (which is credited for kicking off the Mouse House resurrection) with the “instant masterpiece.” It’s kind of the same deal, but for the Google age, where the studio system is no longer satisfied making films that “appeal to both children and grown-ups” (because, lord knows, movies still have a hard enough time appealing to one or the other), but also critics, and cinephiles.
It’s hard to complain too loudly when the Kool-Aid is so delicious and refreshing, but there it is…
* I think WALL-E and UP are terrific and I care a lot more about them than TS3. And RATATOUILLE may be greater than the sum of all of the subsequent Pixar films, and an auteurist triumph to boot.
August 8, 2010 at 1:50 am
“The apocalyptic, indeed positively holocaustic threat our plastic pals face next seems to me the closest scrape with convincing extinction a cartoon character has faced since Bambi’s mom”
I would respectfully disagree. These particularly come to mind as particularly harrowing ‘extinction’ animations:
August 8, 2010 at 1:52 am
More “instant masterpieces” please. If only more films in the studio system paid as much attention to the script. (How To Train Your Dragon though now I think of it was pretty much perfect. No it was.)
And it’s become a cliche by now I know but it bears repeating, once again the supporting short was worth the entrance fee alone, no?
August 8, 2010 at 1:54 am
I could never bear the way the Little Mermaid’s features swam about in her face. Later I learned from Jon Kricfalusi’s blog that the problem is artists untrained in construction. They draw outlines and fill them with stuff, rather than working from the skeleton out.
I was quite impressed with some of the later Disney’s, but Pixar always seemed to be in a class of their own. One could hear the collective relief of critics when Cars proved to be underwhelming: at last they had something they could say, that wasn’t just a collection of superlatives AGAIN.
August 8, 2010 at 2:11 am
And here’s that Bowie title song for When The Wind Blows, the previous holder of the Most Heartbreaking Song In An Animated Movie before the one from Toy Story 2 became the new champion:
August 8, 2010 at 2:38 am
Bowie. That was British cinema’s answer to everything back then. (These are great!)
August 8, 2010 at 3:19 am
In my mind When The Wind Blows is up there with Atonement for a film that sees the fetishisation (and ‘ultimisation’ of there being no greater horrors, or triumphs) of the past, and in particular World War Two, and completely subverting this blinkered nostalgia. There’s empathy there for those characters who retreat into their memory (especially when there is no way of coming to terms with their current situation), but also a sense of delusion even before the bomb drops and the radiation sickness sets in.
Funny story: When I recorded this from the television the first time years ago my tape ran out about 15 minutes before the end, right in the middle of the couple having their reverie about the ‘Blitz spirit’. So for about five or six years, before I finally saw the bleakest of bleak animated endings, I actually thought the film was quite uplifting!
August 8, 2010 at 10:42 am
I saw this with the filmmakers introducing it, and was slightly put off by the fact that they’d never heard of The Bed Sitting Room. But it’s a pretty remarkable movie to have happened, I guess made possible only by the success of The Snowman, which is bizarre.
The voice casting of Mills and Ashcroft was spot on.
I may have to be a traditionalist and opt for “Baby Mine” in Dumbo as being the record-holder for most soul-wrenching song.
August 8, 2010 at 2:08 pm
“I wondered if they used the Spanish voice of Buzz from previous films… but maybe this would make the sequence less comprehensible in Spain?”
No, even if the guy dubbing Flamenco Buzz was the same (and not El Cigala), we would get the joke, as in his “standard mood” Buzz speaks in a neutral (or “Valladolid”) Spanish, while Flamenco Buzz speaks with a very (VERY!) thick Andalousian accent.
I may be alone in disliking the short? I quite liked the shorts preceding other Pixar films, but not this one: it was too heavily self-consciuously and “Symbolic” in a way that the feature after it is not. It reminded me of the Halas-Batchelor “Foo Foo” series and this isn’t meant as a compliment
As for Lump-in-the throat moments in animated films, Isao Takahata’s Grave of the Fireflies is for me the one containing the most.
August 8, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Grave on the Fireflies is the animated film that has me sobbing from the start all the way through to the end – it’s a brutal thing to watch unprepared!
And that final shot of the ghosts watching over the modern 1980s city is just devastating in the implied idea of how progress tramples over the weakest.
Barefoot Gen is the film more specifically about Hiroshima and the horrors in the wake of the dropping of the bomb there. Another truly harrowing film.
August 8, 2010 at 3:05 pm
I just cannot watch this film in company… Just one minute of that clip and I was shamelessly crying myself silly.
Barefoot Gen I remember as a good film: The daily struggles the days after the bomb are detailed and ring true (but of course the author of the original strip was a first hand witness)
August 8, 2010 at 3:24 pm
In Japan they released Grave of the Fireflies as a double-bill with My Neighbour Totorro, which makes no sense to me, great though both films are (I’m not sure I’d want to see any two films as good as those back-to-back, come to that).
GOTF is indeed a wrenching experience right from the off.