Realism in a Formalistic World: Monster’s Inc.

Within the cinematic worlds, two ideologies stand on opposite ends of the spectrum--formalism (based more on ideas) and realism (based more on reality). Most Hollywood films tend to fall in the middle (Lilia Melani) with some going way off in either direction. At first glance it would seem as though something like Pete Docter’s 2001 film Monster’s Inc. with its giant monsters would be off the deep end on the formalist scale. But in the highly formalistic world of monsters, Docter and his team manage to squeeze in just enough realism to relate the audience to the themes of corporate culture, friendship, and doing the right thing through his use of sound, cinematography, editing, writing, character design, and mis en scene.

For the sake of clarity, let’s define formalism and realism more clearly so that by the end of the essay, we’ll be able to clearly see how the film  has elements of both in specific scenes. Strictly formalistic films are more fantastic in the least subjective way possible.They “offer the filmmaker the opportunity to manipulate and distort our everyday experience of reality for artistic end” (“Formalism and Realism in the Cinema”). That means that to accomplish this they can use crazy angles and editing (“Formalism and Realism in the Cinema”) in a highly stylized way (Melani). The characters and events are usually extraordinary, and the story is manipulated and uses patterns to make a point (Melani). On the opposite end of the spectrum, realist films are more concerned with, well, reality. In its most extreme and pure form it simply records events with “long take[s] and deep focus camera shots” (“Formalism and Realism in the Cinema”). They are meant to be a “reflection of reality” where rather than form, “the story is generally of primary importance”(Melani). In short, formalists are more concerned with manipulating reality and realists are more concerned with depicting it as it is. 

Beginning with corporate culture, one of the first scenes in the film is perfect to discuss it. In the first scene where the audience is taken into Monsters Incorporated - the place, not the film itself - there are many things, both formalistic and realistic that lend itself to this idea of corporate culture. 

First the sounds: on the formalistic side of things, the sound team had assembled quite a selection on monster noises: how they walk (or just move) and the noises they make. None of these creatures actually exist and so all the sounds are totally manipulated, but they’re not so weird and out there that they are distracting, so we buy into it as part of the culture. On the realistic side of things, the doors sound the way doors do, and the phone ringing sounds the way a ringing phone would normally. Sure, it was all done on a soundstage, but it’s not like Star Trek where the doors whoosh open and the “phones” beepbeep. It’s a noise we recognize as something that would be at a corporation. Now the music since it’s non-diegetic, it’s automatically formalistic. (Unless you have Randy Newman and a full orchestra that follows you around, in which case that would be diegetic and realistic.) But the music itself is almost like elevator music. None too memorable, light, comfortable, nothing spectacular about it--it’s just there and lends itself to the sort of normality of a corporate culture along with the rest of the sound.

Second, the cinematography and editing: since this isn’t a documentary or a single shot of a train coming into a station, the cinematography and editing are very formalistic in nature. Multiple shots per scene, per sequence, the characters directing the camera movement--things like that. Specifically, there are a couple shots, after we see Mike (Billy Crystal) and Sully (John Goodman) walk into the lobby, that highlight the “Scarer of the Month” pictures and then introduce us to the two members of the janitorial staff. The evenly paced editing and pointed direction of the cinematography enhances this sense of corporate culture further by showing the MI (Monsters Inc.) version of an “employee of the month” section. There is some realism in this scene though: when the boys first enter, there is a 6.5 second, deep focus tracking shot that just lets us observe the pair entering the building. Before that, there is an establishing shot from the point of the view of whoever is walking into the building that allow us to see the normalcy (within reason) of the corporate culture. We see people walking around, a receptionist, hallways leading off the foyer to different parts of the factory--normal sort of corporate things. The POV shot is formalistic, but to a serious extent, the tracking shot is much more realistic.The editing is entirely formalistic, but not so formalistic that the audience isn’t allowed to relax into the film, unlike in the high formalistic world of Michael Bay editing.

Third, the dialogue: it would be silly to say that it is anything but formalistic. It’s scripted and therefore formalistic. However, there are hints of realism within the scriptedness of it. Mike and Sully know a lot of the monsters they run into and are friendly with them--normal corporate culture.

RICKY: Morning, Sully!
SULLY: Morning, Ricky!

JERRY: Hey, it’s the Sullster!

SULLY: See you on the scare floor, buddy!

MIKE: Hey, Marge. Hey, how was jury duty?

(Goodman, pref., Steve Susskind pref., Crystal, pref.)

It’s not so out there to imagine seeing something much like this happening and the camera just being there to record it.. So it is formalistic, but with a hint of realism. 

Fourth, the mis en scene: in a very narrow and strict definition is it completely formalistic, if we can move past the fact that all of this is entirely computer generated, then we can see some of the realism. The lighting is very straightforward sunlight coming in from the massive windows in the foyer. There’s a reception desk. Unlike other things in the movie (lamps, stereos, wall hooks, rugs) there is nothing particularly monstrous (in the nicest way possible) about it. It looks industrial, and fits in with the rest of the decor; there’s even a company logo behind it. Very standard. There are normal looking, analog clocks above the various hallways. The janitorial staff has a normal mop and a very standard grey trash can. Simple--nothing fancy, nothing monstrous, just things you’d find in any business in America. Even the frames for the “Scarer of the Month” wall are plain jane black frames. Granted, the dress (if you look closely at the shoulders, it very much looks like a dress) Celia wears has scales and fur and so isn’t standard receptionist wear. And it’s inhabited by monsters. And the colors are also very bright--they’re almost all primary colors, something that, unless you work at Google, you wouldn’t normally find in a massive corporation. So while the style may be more on the realistic side of things, the mis en scene is formalistic.

On the whole, opening scene in MI is very formalistic, but there is enough realism to really get across this idea of corporate culture that exists within the film. 

Moving on to the theme of friendship, the second and third scenes in the film are a great place to look for how formalism and realism contribute to a theme. The two scenes - the first scene in the apartment and the walk to work - work together in harmony to set up the fun and genuine, but still work related, friendship between Mike and Sully. 

First off, let’s examine the sound: as far as it relates to their friendship, the sound goes both ways. A sound like the air horn when Mike wakes Sully up is a realistic sound. (Granted, it’s not as loud as a real one, but having Sully’s ears bleed in the first scene would sort of ruin it for the kids.) The sound of the car beeping is realistic. And both of those noises are associated with Mike implying that, in the friendship, he is a louder one. When Sully growls, it’s on command and for work; Mike is just always loud. On the formalistic end of things, their movements are not real namely since no creature like either of them exists so the sound is entirely manipulated. Once more, the music is formalistic. In the apartment, it has a marching vibe to it, but it’s not a serious march. There is too much treble in the sound with the bells and lack of seriously deep bass for it to be. On the walk to work, the music is jazzy and playful. The music indicates that the pair have a puckish, good-natured relationship that still involves work. The sound is namely formalistic, but both types of sound add to the friendship. 

Second, the cinematography and editing: again, it is formalistic. The apartment scene is really a montage and the walking to work scene - while some shots linger both before and after the boys are on screen to give the audience a sense of the world - still has cuts, it focuses on specific things for specific reasons, and it still manipulates our perception of the world to ensure that we like the boys and understand their friendship. The formalism of the camera movements makes sure that Mike isn’t dwarfed by Sully despite Mike’s significantly smaller stature. Even so, like the other scene, there are realistic elements in the cinematography. Namely that there are long takes, mostly static shots, and deep focus even during the montage. In fact, prior to the part with the television ad, there is only one series of cuts where something like the dialogue really changes the camera’s angle; otherwise the camera sits and moves ever so slightly allowing us to really just observe the friendship. It even shakes as if it were actually in the room with them when Sully drops from doing his inverted crunches which adds to the humor of the scene. Because of the montage and because the film is trying to tell a story in a timely manner, it’s formalistic, but Docter and his team still manage to fit in some realism to let us laugh with the friends. 

Third, the dialogue: as before, this is a scripted film and so it’s going to be formalistic, but lines like, “feel the burn,” “you’ve been jealous of my good looks since the 4th grade, pal,” (Crystal) and the exchange of  “Give it a rest, will you, butterball? Come on, you could use the exercise.” “I could use the exercise? Look at you! Y--y--you have your own climate!” (Goodman and Crystal) all are things that two best friends who’ve known each other for years would feasibly say to each other. More formalistically, Mike’s lines like “scary monsters don’t have plaque” and “I don’t know but it’s been said, I love scaring kids in bed” would never be said by anyone in their right mind during a morning workout, but add very nicely to their friendship. It’s formalistic, but there are hints of realism to the dialogue.

Fourth, the character design itself adds to the friendship. This is all formalistic, but it’s important to design them to that they complement each other. It’s very simple too: Sully is a big cuddly sort of guy and Mike is a short, tough guy. Being opposites makes for a more entertaining the beneficial friendship both in the world of the film and in our watching the film.

And fifth, the mis en scene: while there are a lot of really fun design elements in these two scenes, there are three really significant ones that play to the boys’ friendship: the chairs in the apartment and the door on the street, both are formalistic, and the lighting, which is more realistic. The chairs are great about showing their friendship. They match the person who is supposed to sit in them and if one tries to sit in the other’s chair, namely Mike in Sully’s, it would leave the other in an awkward position. (Just try imagining Sully fitting into Mike’s chair.) They represent the two and how they both have a roll in the friendship. Likewise, the door shows how the two fit together--literally. It has two parts, a door for Mike which actually fits into Sully’s door signifying that the two are a match set. The smaller door would have no place with fit without the bigger one and the bigger door would be missing part of itself without the smaller door. As far as the lighting goes, it’s very warm, very evenly spread, simple mid- to high-key lighting. Nothing dramatic, nothing crazy, much like the friendship. We do see the light change in the more dramatic sequences, but in the establishing moments of the film, the lighting clearly shows a good, solid friendship much like the rest of the mis en scene.

The apartment and the walk to work scenes are formalistic, but there’s realism enough to show an identifiable, loving friendship.

Finally, we come to the theme of doing the right thing. Docter uses the main character, Sully, to show this. This personal growth-esque theme is all throughout the film, but the turning point for Sully is the scene in the ice cave. It’s this moment when Sully actively decides to change from being a workaholic who only cares about the company, which they set up earlier in the film with lines like “there’s more to life than scaring” (Crystal), to someone who is going to do the right thing and save the kid, Boo (Mary Gibbs, pref.), no matter what. 

First, the sound: while there are the entertaining sounds of Mike shivering and “lemon” flavored snow balls hitting Sully, the only sounds that are really important in the scene are the howling of the wind, which, even though it’s created on a soundstage, like everything else in the film, is more on the realistic side of things, and the ding of the icicle on the ski pole which is more formalistic. The wind is a cold, empty, harsh, low-frequency noise in the background that symbolizes Sully’s inner feelings. That’s on the realistic side of things because you’d actually hear a blizzard howling from inside a cave. On the other side, the ding is formalistic. Sure, it’s a realistic sound, but it’s timing is formalistic. It’s the ding of the light bulb in his head that goes off when he sees the equipment he needs to get down the mountain. It is interesting to note that there is no music in the scene until Sully actually leaves. It highlights his feeling of failure. The sound and lack of music really contribute to this theme of doing the right thing by sounding his pensive feelings.  

Second, the cinematography and editing: this time it’s all formalistic and very deliberate. That’s not to say that the rest of the film isn’t, but this is one of those scenes were the cinematography and framing are not just about telling the story, but for really conveying the emotions too. The way it works in the whole scene, as far as Sully is concerned, is very much reflective of his mental state. It starts with a long shot of Sully: he’s fairly centered, but he’s very small, much smaller that he’s been in most of the rest of the film. When they go to the reverse shot, he’s still smaller than normal and still off center. This is to show that he’s at his lowest point in the film. There are other shots where he’s smaller - like in the door sequence - but that was to show the magnitude of the room and not his emotional state. Couple the cinematography in this scene with everything else and it adds up. Plus, the editing here is slower to let the moment breathe, and to give the audience and characters time to process it all. The moment that the Abominable Snowman (John Ratzenberger) tells him about the village, Sully is now bigger and centered on screen. Unless another person is on screen with him, for the rest of the scene he is large and centered with the exception of one shot--when he realizes that Mike won’t join him on this one. Even when he does share the screen, he’s not dwarfed by anyone or thing; especially when he walks by Mike--he makes Mike look as small as he really is, if not smaller, to emphasize that now he is going to do the right thing even if he has to do it alone. There is very little realism in this scene, if at all. But the formalistic cinematography and editing both contribute to this theme of doing the right thing.

Third, the dialogue: again, formalistic, but still necessary to show growth. The most important bit is when Sully says to Mike, “None of that matters now” in reference to work and the scare record. It’s borderline realistic, but it’s placed in such a way that it’s formalistic. That line really sums up the theme of doing the right thing because it shows a pivotal moment in Sully’s growth.

Fourth, the mis en scene: there’s ice everywhere with abandoned materials, a blizzard just outside the cave, and a singular source of cold (in color temperature) light that, despite reflecting through and off the ice, casts shadows to create some of the film’s more dramatic lighting. The cave itself is realistic; there’s probably a cave like that somewhere. And there are blizzards in the world. However, the abandoned materials, while plausible, are far too convenient to be realistic. The environment may be realistic, but what’s in it has been manipulated. The same goes for the light. Sure, the light coming out of the lamp might be cold, but it probably wouldn’t illuminate the cave that well--it’s formalistic. Granted, all of it really creates this barren, almost bleak feel for Sully’s lowest point and his change.

And fifth, the timing: when you take the end credits out of the run time, the film goes from 93 (according the the film’s jacket) to 85 minutes. This scene starts at 58 minutes in. That’s just over 2/3rds into the film, or approximately 68%. Blake Snyder, who was until his death “one of the most popular writing mentors in the film industry” (“Blake Snyder”), in his book Save the Cat explains that in a movie there comes the “dark night of the soul” where the character is at his lowest and that for that moment to really hit home it must come 68% into the film--just over 2/3rds. This is completely formalistic. In fact, it’s about as formalistic as it gets. This timing is critical for the pacing of the film because Sully has to have this moment at this time. The actual structure of the story contributes to the theme of doing the right thing because this theme is Sully’s character arc and it has to be done right. 

The scene in the ice cave is the defining moment for the theme of doing the right thing and all of the formalistic and realistic elements in the film make it so. 

Let’s be honest--Monsters Inc. is a formalistic film. You’ve got monsters, you’ve got monster looking cars, you’ve got monster looking lamps, you’ve got monster looking stereos for goodness sake! And the formalism helps the themes of the film.But even then, Docter and his team and have weaved in a good helping realism to solidify them. From the music to the dialogue, from the cinematography to the mis en scene, and even down to the script itself, the filmmakers have managed to drive home the themes of corporate culture, friendship, and doing the right thing by keeping the film nearer to the center of the formalism/realism spectrum than first meets the eye.


Works Cited
"Blake Snyder." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 4 Dec. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blake_Snyder>.

Docter, Pete, dir. Monsters Inc. Perf. John Goodman, Billy Crystal, Steve Susskind, Mary Gibbs, and John

Ratzenberger. Pixar, 2001. Film.

"Formalism and Realism in the Cinema." Creative Learning in a Digital Age. NIFTC, the Nerv

Centre, CCEA, n.d. Web. 4 Dec. 2012. <http://www.digitalfilmarchive.net/clda/docs/mia/film_lesson_plans/Formal%20Realism%20in%20the%20Cinema.pdf>.

Melani, Lilia. "The Formalist-Realist Scale." The Formalist-Realist Scale. Brooklyn College, n.d.

Web. 4 Dec. 2012. <http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/film-and-lit/formalism-realism-hnd.pdf>.

Snyder, Blake. Save the cat! : the last book in screenwriting you'll ever need. Studio City: Michael

Wiese Productions, 2005. Print.