Zarban wrote:I think the first film especially explores a child's fear of abandonment (children empathize with the toys, of course; but Buzz is essentially a new baby brother) and ultimately says "Don't worry. You will always be loved, even if you aren't getting all the attention you would like." Adults, meanwhile, recognize themselves in Andy, for whom the theme is "We don't stop loving our toys/friends just because we don't play/hang out with them anymore."
Your problem, I suppose, stems from your judging the toys as if they were rational adults reacting to the universe, a reading which was meant to be invalidated by the childish nature of the toys.
Yes, I think you're definitely right in terms of where the harshness of my reaction is coming from, but I'm not entirely persuaded that I'm wrong about that (not that I have to be, of course). In other words, I'm maybe not willing to let the toys (and perhaps by extension the film) off the hook so easily.
I'm not sure I can quite put this coherently, but while the universe the toys are in is a child's universe, the toys are themselves not 'children' within that universe, in the sense of being inexperienced, needing guidance, or not being full participants in that universe. From their point of view, their universe has rules, and that includes a "higher power" that ministers to their deepest emotional needs as beings in that universe -- toys that desperately want and need to be played with -- which they have a great deal of experience with. So this is different from, say, replicants in Blade Runner. Replicants are, in an emotional sense, precisely children in an adult's universe. So I think it's fairer to see the toys more as adults within the context of that, and therefore expect at least the 'hero' toy to have a more 'experienced' or 'mature' reaction. (We of course all know from Contaigon, The Towering Inferno, every-war-movie-ever-made that adults don't always, and maybe often don't, react maturely or rationally, but in a mainstream drama Our Hero is supposed to.)
The other point too is that I think Woody's faith is universe-internally irrational, given the reactions/apparent knowledge displayed by the other toys. And therefore it's intellectually dishonest of the film to support it (if it indeed does that). So in addition to the fact that, as far as they know, Andy himself (or someone with Andy's approval) has put them in a box marked "Garage Sale" or "Daycare Center" or whatever, the other toys know something's up/have heard rumors about kids who put their toys aside, etc. etc. So clearly it's not that the issue is unknown, or incomprehensible or anything.
Floating around here also I think is the difference between sympathy and empathy. We can sympathize with the replicants (and their emotional/psychological plight), but we don't empathize with them in the sense that they're not an audience substitute. We understand what they don't understand and why they don't understand. But to the extent that the intention is that the children empathize with the toys, and Woody specifically, the film's message regarding the inciting incident of the drama seems to be "just have blind faith, contradicted by virtually all known experience given the changed circumstances." It's exactly what people complain about with respect to Prometheus, and it's not a message I'd want my children to take away from a film.
Anyway, I'm not sure if I made any sense, or actually said anything different there, but I think this is all really interesting. It does seem like something unusual is going on with these films. Or it could just be me.