Animated Villainy: Pixar’s Use of Antagonistic Characters

We’ve already had a discussion on NR concerning Wall-E, so I won’t go into a detailed account of the various opinions, but what I will say is that Stoker’s assertion that Wall-E contained no “classic” villain character is hard to refute. It was, in fact, a thought in the back of my mind as I watched Up. The more I thought about the various Pixar efforts, though, it occurred to me that nearly none of them have such a character.

For the sake of simplicity, consider the classic animation films of the past (read: Disney). Many of them have a character who is actively trying to kill/stop/harm/subdue the protagonist; Snow White’s step-mother, Maleficent, Cinderella’s step-mother (not sure what the deal is with step-mom’s…I mean, I hated mine but she was abusive…), Cruella De Vil. That’s not to say that every early Disney film had a “villain.” Pinocchio, for instance, is more or less the “villain” in his own story. Yeah, he runs across a number of a-holes who try and exploit him, but he is his own worst enemy by being continually seduced into temptation (OK, at one point he’s basically kidnapped), but there is no one character out to chop up Pinocchio into firewood, just a bunch of people looking to exploit him.

What is fascinating to me is that Pixar seems more interested in telling stories in the Pinocchio mold, as opposed to using the Sleeping Beauty formula. By that I mean that, in most Pixar films the protagonists create situations…by some flaw in their thought or actions…and then must figure out how to deal with the repercussions. Now, of course, the films always do include some kind of antagonistic character(s). As Stoker pointed out, the shipboard computer in Wall-E is, essentially, the closest thing to a villain. The computer, though, is acting purely on its programming. It is not acting out of an inherent desire to cause harm and death…like, for instance, a sorceress who calls on all the powers of hell before turning into a 50 foot tall, fire breathing, dragon.

Consider the other Pixar efforts, though. Is there one that has a specifically evil intentioned villain bent on the destruction of the protagonist(s)? Well, there’s one, but I’ll get to that.

Let’s just go chronologically through the list of Pixar’s feature length efforts.

1. Toy Story

The main source of antagonism in this film is between Woody and Buzz, and really, it’s a one-sided sort of antagonism in that Woody hates Buzz, and Buzz lives, initially, in a fantasy world. Of course, the neighbor kid Sid, who delights in maiming innocent toys, acts as a villainous force. All in all, however, Sid is really nothing more than a very useful plot device. He is not the source of narrative action, that all comes from Woody’s own insecurity. Sid is merely a problem to be overcome in the third (or fourth, it has been a while since I’ve seen the film) act. The “Sid phenomena” is something that Pixar is fond of, in fact; using a villainous type of character to move the narrative along but not as the prime motivator for overall narrative action.

2. Bug’s Life

In this one, the ants certainly appear to have a true villain in the character of Hopper, and his hoard of grasshoppers. But, this is not the story of the colony as a whole. The fate of the colony is at stake, yes, but the actual narrative is centered on just the character of Flick. As such, what motivates the action are Flick’s dichotomous attributes of ingenuity and clumsiness. His story is a search for redemption and approval. Strictly speaking, no villain enters into such a story. In a story like Sleeping Beauty, for instance, the victory is achieved when Maleficent is killed. Flick’s redemption comes by way of defeating Hopper, yes, but the true win comes not in defeating Hopper, but in showing the ants that they can defeat Hopper.

3. Toy Story 2

Again, we have a character whose villainous action is a motivator for action but not the end resolution. This film is interesting in that the abduction of Woody (by the toy store owner Al) appears, at first, to be what the film is; a rescue mission led by Buzz. What it is actually about, however, is a revisit of Woody’s previously exposed low confidence/self-esteem in the guise of Jessie and Stinky Pete. These two are able to, temporarily, convince Woody of his unimportance in Andy’s life. Now it is true that Woody would not have been able to be convinced were he not abducted, but the abduction itself is only the catalyst for Woody’s emotional journey (and, eventually, the redemption, of Jessie).

4. Monster’s Inc.

Randall is pretty close to a villain, probably as close as Pixar gets to a villainous character without actually being a true one. Does he hate Sulley? Yes. Does he actively try to destroy Sulley? Yes. Is he a true villain? No. Randall’s main goal was not to destroy Sulley, per say. He wanted fame and recognition. It just so happened that Sulley was a better scarer than him, but it wasn’t a specific hatred of Sulley that motivated Randall, but a hatred of what Sulley was. Again, to bring up Maleficent, she wants Princess Aurora dead because she despises her. If a different monster had been better than Randall, then that monster would have been the target of Randall’s hatred. Consider, too that, moral questions about the scream extractor aside, Sulley and Mike are pulled into the fight against Randall and Waternoose purely by accident. If Sulley hadn’t stumbled upon Boo’s door, then there would have been no film. Randall did not go out of his way to engage Sulley like a classic villain.

5. Finding Nemo

This one, really, speaks for itself. It’s man against the world…or fish against the ocean. Sure, kids should listen to their parents since it’s Nemo’s disobedience that is the catalyst for the narrative, but there is no one character or villain working against Marlin and Nemo here, just their own fears and insecurities and the vastness of the deep blue sea.

6. Cars

Similar to Finding Nemo, what is working against Lightning McQueen in this story is his own arrogance. It’s a story of self discovery, pure and simple.

7. Ratatouille

This is a fairly complex story, considering it showcases both human and rat protagonists and each has his own specific obstacles to overcome. Skinner acts as a villainous presence for both Linguini and Remy, but only insofar as Linguini’s presence (and by extension, Remy’s) threatens Skinner’s own previously laid plans. In the same sort of way that Sid and Hopper worked against their respective protagonists, so to does Skinner, but only as a means for the protagonists to further understanding of themselves.

8. Wall-E

This one, I think, is much like Finding Nemo. It’s more about personal discovery on a character by character basis; the Captain, EVE, and Wall-E all coming to understand themselves better over the course of the story.

9. Up

This latest Pixar effort is again in the mold of Nemo and Wall-E. Carl is a character who believes that that can happen in his future can compare with what occurred in his past. As such, he feels forced into acting rashly and sets his house afloat by using thousands of helium balloons. The character of Charles Muntz (again in the pattern of Sid) acts as a device by which Carl must decide if he will stay true to the promises he made to Russell. Just as in Monster’s Inc., Carl and Russell, more or less, stumble into Muntz’s world and only they are they pitted against Muntz.

Astute readers will notice that I left out one film: The Incredibles. This is the one exception that Pixar has to its use of “villainous like” characters. Buddy Pine/Syndrome is actively seeking to destroy Mr. Incredible (and later, his whole family). That is the story. Sure, Mr. Incredible and the rest of his family go through a series of self-actualized steps in trying to understand/deal with their uniqueness in a world that does not want them to be unique. If such character development had not occurred, though, it would have been a terribly flat story indeed. Not only is Syndrome the catalyst for the narrative, he is the prime motivator for all of the narrative action, and his entire motivation for action is the destruction and humiliation of his nemesis, Mr. Incredible. That is the classic villain in a nut shell. The two best examples from early Disney films are the previously mentioned Maleficent and the queen from Snow White (with Cinderella’s step-mother running third) and we see similar traits in them that we do Syndrome; hatred for the protagonist and a desire, above all other things, to destroy the protagonist. I think that, really, the only reason this Pixar film includes a villain in the classic sense is that it is also a film that deals specifically with the classic idea of superheroes. No one would automatically think of a clownfish as a superhero, and so, the clownfish doesn’t need a classic villain, could not, in fact, work in a story with a classic villain. But a super strong man known as Mr. Incredible who fights crime in tights and a mask…well, he must have a classic villain. Our understanding of the superhero genre wouldn’t allow it to be any other way.

In general, I think that the use of non-traditional villain types is why Pixar has been so successful. The superhero needs a villain. The small, frightened fish, though, just needs the vast expanse of the ocean. The toy, defined by joy he brings his “child,” needs nothing more than his own insecurity. Pixar, time and time again, has demonstrated a very deep understanding of character and what necessitates an appropriate villain type for every protagonist they have created.