Kids’ Movies, For Adults

Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


A recent BBC Magazine article ponders a bunch of kids’ films that keep grown-ups interested with references to the adult world. The article seems to suggest that adults will only sit through a movie made for kids if it slips them an occasional allusion to classic film vocabulary or pop cultural effluvium. It eludes the wee ones, but tickles their parents pink! So the theory goes.

Finding Nemo, for example, has a scene with seagulls that echoes Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds. (On that note, Mr. Hitchcock would like to say a few words to you.) In Wall-E, the trash-compacting robot in question has a boot-up sound like that of the Apple Mac. (Strangely, there’s no mention of his system crashing and requiring replacement every two years. Sequel?) The first Shrek movie was liberally peppered with self-conscious references that reviewers found notable. (The two-minute trailer alone cites Pinocchio, Snow White, Little Red Riding Hood, Tic Tacs, 360-degree action movie camera pans, and Otis Redding’s version of “Try a Little Tenderness.”)

Even still, the idea put forth in the article—that today’s children’s films require a “smorgasbord of appeal” to keep adults interested—seems a bit of a stretch. As an adult I’ve re-watched many of the Disney movies I saw as a child in the 80s, and every one of them trafficked in some kind of macrocosmic mythic theme. Both Lady and the Tramp (1955) and The Aristocats (1970) revealed themselves as stories about troubled romances between the upper and lower classes, pitting WASPy haute bourgeoisie against jazzy, ghettoized immigrants. Today, kids’ movies still appeal to me: I cried while watching Shrek (somehow, I became very emotionally invested in whether the Mike Meyers-voiced ogre would get to be in a committed, long-term relationship with the Cameron Diaz-voiced princess), and most definitely cried at Up. That Shrek included endless outside references to popular culture, or that Up‘s old codger was modeled after Spencer Tracy and Walter Matthau were hardly essential to keeping my attention. Rather, both movies were driven by stories that offered catharsis by addressing time-honored human themes in an emotionally manipulative way that’s lots of fun for everyone. That, and talking animals: Always talking animals.

So, dressing up your children’s film with tinselly allusions to the adult world might be good for a few cheap laughs, but it has nothing to do with how well the film will stand the test of time. Check out Matt Zoller Setiz’s Salon article contrasting Pixar and Hayao Miyazaki yesterday for more on the difference between mesmerizing people and blowing their minds.

Follow Evan James on Twitter.

 

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate