Toy Story 3

Having only vague memories of the first Toy Story and absolutely no memory of the second (as I did not watch it), I was interested to see how the third and final (?) installment of the most popular animated series of movies in recent history could be nominated for Best Picture.

I guess it’s not that surprising.  There has been an increasing public outcry from the animated community that their films aren’t getting any respect.  And as one intended result of expanding the Best Picture category to ten films was to include deserving films that might otherwise be overlooked, this seems to be the perfect time.

It helps that the Toy Story trilogy is one of the most popular and well made animated series of all time.  It also helps that it was made by Pixar, seemingly the only game in town when it comes to animated films.  But allow me to play Devil’s Advocate for a moment.  Would this exact same film have been nominated if it hadn’t been the third in a trilogy (it’s not like the plot was dependent on the other two), or was it nominated because it had the most gravitas of the most recent animated films and was chosen as more of a representative of the genre?  Was it simply the Best Animated film and thrown in there to shut up the cartoon gestapo?

There are those who will agree, but it is important to think about what this film was trying to accomplish.  The tear-jerker scene at the end wasn’t meant for people like myself who only saw part or none of the previous two films.  It was meant for those who had invested themselves in the series, in the outcome of the characters whom they’ve seen develop and change over the years.  It was meant to be an acknowledgment of the inevitable passage of time and expiration of life, while reminding us of our ability to look back at times past and remember what we once had, that we might have some version of it again.

But that brings us to the big question tonight: does a film need to stand on its own to be considered for the Big Award?  Or is it okay for a film to sit on the shoulders of its predecessors, a seemingly unfair advantage to the other films?  The answer lies within our expectations of the viewers.  The Return of the King was not the best Lord of the Rings film and wasn’t the best film made in 2003 (the others being Mystic River, Master and Commander, Lost in Translation and Seabiscuit). But it was overpowering in its scope and depth of storytelling when matched with its two predecessors.  To watch The Return of the King without having seen the previous two is to watch a passable action film with great special effects, beautiful cinematography but bad acting.  But our viewer would have no appreciation for the characters’ journeys, the weight of their struggle elemental in what made the last episode so powerful.  The Lord of the Rings trilogy wasn’t really three separate movies, but more like a feature-length version of a mini-series; a continuous story wherein the three sections were dependent upon each other to tell a bigger story.

There is nothing in the Academy’s rules that says a film must stand on its own  (this is actually a blind assumption, I haven’t read the rules).  And perhaps it is best that we do ask that of our viewers.  Times change and making deeply involved stories is a good way to reintroduce nuance and an attention to detail to a generation that hasn’t been reading as many novels as its ancestors.  One need only look at the most popular television shows today to see that long-drawn out plots that evolve over an extended period of time have been succeeding over the Law & Order model where a storyline lives and dies within its 60-minute allotment.

We have also seen that you can’t make a shit series of movies and hope that the fact it is an intricate, extended story gets it any Oscar consideration.  The Matrix trilogy never got that love, and rightfully so.  It consisted of one great film and two awful ones that should have never been made.  The godfather actually achieved the opposite, getting two Best Picture nods, and then forever tainting its legacy with a god-awful attempt at tying up loose strings that didn’t need to be tied.  Go figure.

So where does Toy Story 3 figure in to this argument?  It’s definitely better than the third Matrix film, but not quite as good as Return of the King.  It won’t win because in the end it’s a children’s story and therefore rather simple and at times cheesy.

(This, of course, brings us back to the argument of whether a film’s initial goal is to be taken into consideration.  Toy Story 3 might be the best children’s film there is, and therefore a very good film, but does the fact that it speaks most effectively to pre-adolescents keep it from getting the big award?  It is adults after all voting for the award and the Best Picture, being the last one aired on the big night, is usually aired after bedtime.)

But I do think it’s okay for this last (?) film to be boosted up by its forbears.  It speaks to an attitude that we as viewers should embrace more in the future: that investing more time in a story yields exponentially greater reward.  To understand the nuance of a story, one must be familiar with the details.  And it is in nuance where we find real drama.  We see insecurities, imperfections and infidelities on a much more personal and real level.  Hearing others speak of Toy Story 3 makes me wish I had seen the first two (or at least paid better attention).  I would have liked to appreciate that final scene more.  It could have been  rewarding to truly understand what it meant that this kid had grown up and was moving on with his life, casting away that which he could no longer relate to, but was still capable of appreciating how informative those times were on his life.  I think I would have liked it a lot more.  But there are only so many hours in the day.

I have six days to go, the same amount of time it took my next subject to summon the balls to cut off his own arm.  Surely I will accomplish a feat no less impressive in that time.  Until then…

Alouishis