Examining the Constructions of Masculinity and Femininity in Pixar Feature Films

“It’s Certainly Different But is It Better?”- Stover

Examining the Constructions of Masculinity and Femininity in Pixar Feature Films

We, as individuals in a certain society, internalize particular beliefs and norms to the extent that their ‘realness’ becomes accepted. ‘Social constructivism’ teaches us that people’s understanding of reality is partially, if not totally, socially situated. Since the early 90s these truisms of social constructivism have become the backbone to modern Gender Studies. In 1991, Judith Butler published, “Gender Trouble” in which she argued that, perhaps, ‘gender’ did not constitute a “natural fact” but a “cultural performance”. Since then, we now understand that while ‘sex’ may be a natural fact assigned to us at birth (male or female), both masculine and feminine identity are packaged, taught, and sold to us, creating the dominant ideas of the ‘right’ ways to be male or female. It is the theory of the social construction of gender that informs this investigation. In looking at the ways in which Pixar films construct gender on screen, we can investigate the ways that they construct and adhere to narratives in society about the ‘right’ ways to be male or female.

        If we learn to situate our gender in society, it follows that there must be formative years in which we are taught these narratives. According to Gender Schema Theory, once children have formed a basic gender identity they start to develop ‘Gender Schemas’. Children learn, from viewing the world around them, the particular performances that their society assigns to certain genders, and they use this in order to formulate their behaviour. While we all possess Gender Schemas, a child’s gender schema is less developed that that of an adult and thus will be more susceptible to influence from new sources and experiences^[1]. One of the ways in which Children construct their Gender Schemas is through the experience of mass media and particularly popular TV and Film. As H.A Giroux argued in 1995, “the significance of animated films operates on many registers, but one of the most persuasive is the role they play as the new “teaching machines”. He argued that popular animated films, particularly those of the Disney enterprise, were as important in socializing children as “public schools, religious institutions, and the family.”  It is of the upmost importance, therefore, that we ask ourselves what these films, films that children consume repeatedly, are teaching about what it means to be male or female.         

        Beginning in the 1970s and 80s many began to realize the need for this conversation to take place. In particular, critics pointed their attention towards the ‘disnification’ of youth culture and began to investigate what the Disney enterprise was teaching young children about sexuality, race and gender. For decades Disney had become a domesticated, household name. Walt Disney embedded himself and his stories into the hearts and minds of many Americans in ways that were seen as beyond critical analysis. Since the proliferation of Disney criticism, however, the subject has been exhausted. A university library search for the term ‘Disney’ brings back 99 physical copies, not to mention the thousands of digital articles. Contrary to the morals and family values most audiences had originally admired in Disney, these critics argued resoundingly that what children had been consuming was predominantly reductive depictions of race, sexuality and gender.

        It makes sense that Disney, such a powerful cultural force, received such a level of attention. Since the proliferation of the animated feature film, however, Disney is not the only animation studio at the cutting edge of the industry and yet the same amount of criticism is not being afforded to its competitors and colleagues. A university library search for the term ‘Pixar’ will bring back just 4 physical results. Most of these conversations tend to focus on the digital and technological capabilities of Pixar’s Computer Animation^[2]. Often, such as in the case of Lugo-Lugo or Jessica Birthisel, critical analysis of Disney or DreamWorks will include Pixar films but this does not do justice to the fact that they are separate enterprises, producing very separate products. The landmark deal in 2006 that saw Disney buy the Pixar studios has meant that the two company names have often been seen as synonymous. Crucially, however, in “a fascinating and uncharacteristic twist”, the Disney cooperation agreed to allow Pixar to be managed independently, and completely relinquished creative control. Pixar has long had the freedom to forge its own path creatively and thus we must understand the two companies as separate in the products they create. Since the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature was created in 2001, moreover, Pixar has won seven times, which is more than any other studio and clearly establishes Pixar as the best in the business. Arguably the release of animated films such as Wreck it Ralph, Frozen and Big Hero 6 have inaugurated a new age for Disney, but, of the 50 highest grossing animation films ever, Pixar still boasts the most titles out of any other animation studio.

        As a result, Pixar has too become a household name, and the Pixar characters have become embedded in the hearts of young children equally as much as Disney characters were for the generation before hand. It follows therefore, that we should be asking the same questions of Pixar that we have asked of Disney for decades. It was this that led me to investigate what gendered messages were being propagated by Pixar films. Thus far, Pixar seems to have suffered the initial fate of Disney in that the films we know and love have been seen as beyond scholarly criticism. Messages of love, friendship and adventure seem harmless, if not beneficial for our children. In examining constructions of “masculinity” and “femininity” in the narrative and stylistic features of Pixar feature films, however, I aim to illustrate that, while we may be a world away from Disney heroes and heroines, the gendered messages propagated by Pixar may not be as forward thinking as we initially observe. I will predominantly focus on the Toy Story and Monsters Inc. franchises that have spanned the Pixar career, but will bring in other movies from 1995-2015 in order to corroborate my arguments. When we situate these films into the 21st century culture of ‘Bromance’ that they rely on and fuel, we see that young boys are still being taught damaging messages of a compulsory heterosexual jock culture, while their female sidekicks watch in the wings, relegated to markers of heterosexuality and waiting for the moment their adventure might take centre stage.