Pixar's Turning Red and "Controversy"

muichimotsu said:

*sigh* It's not a Hindu temple and the worship aspect is within the story, it's no more encouraging kids to engage in the occult than Harry Potter. And it barely factors in, you see temple related stuff a handful of times, and the ritual only factors in at the end. The opening stuff is as much about Mei and Ming cleaning the temple as the maybe minute or so scene of paying tribute to Sun Yee.

Click to expand...

LOL...maybe it's encouraging North American kids to become ancestor worshippers...but venerating their ancestors is the very last things North American kids are ever going to do!

LeafByNiggle said:

Other than the one misunderstanding Mei's mother had, prompting her to question "Did the red peony bloom?", the movie Turning Red had nothing to do with the menstrual aspect of puberty. It was all about the psychological, hormonal, cultural, and personality aspects of that phase of life for a young girl.

Click to expand...

Yes. Mei never actually has her period in the movie. OTOH, her friend Priya is subtly shown to already be menstruating (she has deodorant, pads, and the only budding figure of the group).

But the movie states outright that the red panda represents the emotions and assertiveness that women in general and Asian women in particular are taught to repress. It was given to them to fight bandits while their men were away...that's clearly not menstruation or even an analogy or metaphor for menstruation. Also, Meilin's clearly menopausal Grandmother Wu still had her red panda. Not menstruation.

We can remove the red panda entirely from the story, and all the essential aspects are still there:

Mei, as a young teen, is already living a secret double life. Her social life includes friends her mother wouldn't approve of, she likes boys, she likes dancing, she likes loud music.

She is certainly heading for a confrontation with her over-controlling mother, and that confrontation holds the possibility of creating a permanent rift that neither of them wants.

As loving (but over controlling) as Mei's mother is, Ming still fails to talk to Mei about what happens growing into puberty. Here was a telling part of the movie to me:

Jin: "What has your mother told you about her panda?"
Mei: "Nothing."

Of course, the reaction of most viewers has been incredulity that Ming had not far earlier told Mei that red pandas ran in the family...but parents fail to share with their children their own experiences of the stress of puberty all the time.

Actually, I believe the intended audience for this movie are Millennials who were young teens in the early 2000s and have pre-teens themselves right now. The movie pointedly evokes the memories of these Millennials of their times and experiences in those years and warns them: "Start talking to your children now about the awkwardness, the stress, the emotions (yes, and girls' periods) they are about to meet.

As a Christian, there are a couple of bible verses that I was reminded of:

"Parents, do not provoke your children to anger."

That battle scene between Mei and Ming was somewhat funny, but also very uncomfortable. Mei had been overcome by her anger--anger provoked by Ming. Such anger and the inability to manage it is characteristic of puberty. Mei was so overcome by her anger that she essentially lost control, doing everything she can to strike Ming, and in doing so, risked permanently damaging her relationship with her mother, which the audience knows she does not want to do.

And the audience realizes this is a replay of the battle that Ming had had with Grandmother Wu, which had been so ferocious in unbridled anger that Ming had physically scarred Wu and had destroyed their relationship. That was the real generational curse that was being threatened to extend to yet another generation.

Mei never intended to be a rebel. In the beginning of the movie, she wanted to be a good girl for her family, and at the end, she still wanted to be a good girl for her family. But she was growing up and needed room to grow, yet she was still willing to grow in ways that kept her close to her family.

Also, "Train up your children in the way they are to go, and when they are older, they will not depart from it."

Christians may not have liked it, but the movie displayed parents who were very deliberate and consistent about making their religion real every day in their own family life and inclusive of their children. Religion was not a once-a-week thing, and it wasn't something where adults went one place and kids were gathered somewhere else. Religion was a family thing, an every day thing, real enough that it guided the way their parents viewed the world.

RDKirk said:

. "Start talking to your children now about the awkwardness, the stress, the emotions (yes, and girls' periods) they are about to meet. ]

Click to expand...

I did the specific sex/puberty talk the summer before 3rd grade using a book

none too soon as neighbor kids were talking about sex later that summer
all the girls were gathered on our front porch & I could hear them through the door

at school in 5th grade, some boys asked my daughter if she knew about sex
so if parents don't discuss, kids will at school

mama2one said:

I did the specific sex/puberty talk the summer before 3rd grade using a book

none too soon as neighbor kids were talking about sex later that summer
all the girls were gathered on our front porch & I could hear them through the door

at school in 5th grade, some boys asked my daughter if she knew about sex

Click to expand...

It's more important now than it was in 2002. Children are regularly being exposed to hardcore pornography by eight or nine.

Christians who complain that Turning Red "sexualizes young girls," first, don't even understand what the phrase means. The movie "Cuties" sexualizes young girls. Children's beauty pageants sexualize young girls.

Turning Red points out that by age 13, kids will naturally start feeling sexuality...and there is no way for parents to prevent it.

Kids watching the movie are either going to be so young that it all goes over their heads, or they're going to know just enough to ask questions. If they know enough to ask questions, then parents need to have those discussions...because it means they're already privy to discussions in the hallway.

speaking of emotions, they is a huge change going from the school (grade 3,4,5) to middle school (grade 6,7,8)

the girls AND boys are emotional
boys are fist fighting at school
several bullies have emerged- both girl & boy bullies
girls are crying in classroom & bathrooms
kids are skipping school/staying home i.e. taking mental health days

redundant

I think Turning Red is my favorite Pixar movie for a couple of reasons.

For one, it has the greatest amount of significant social issue that bears continued discussion. For the second, it has such rich graphic texture that it bears repeated rewatching just to catch all that is going on in the frames. It even helps to freeze the frame sometimes.

Here is something: Mei's mother Ming pointedly doesn't like Mei's friend Miriam Wexler. She calls Miriam "odd" and proposes that Miriam is not intellectual enough to keep up with Mei and her other friends. But take note: Miriam is Mei's only white friend (well, Jewish. Her other friends are Korean-Canadian and Indian-Canadian). Nothing in an animation is accidental...every element is a deliberate decision--and probably a group decision. It was a conscious decision to give Mei one white friend, and it was a conscious decision to make that character the friend that Ming didn't like. I'm not suggesting the writers are racially prejudiced, but I do think it was their intention to suggest that that Ming is. By the end of the movie, Ming has accepted Miriam...and that's a subtle additional point I think they're making about Ming's arc.

muichimotsu said:

Curious where there's establishment or allusion that Miriam's Jewish beyond possibly her surname.

Click to expand...

"Miriam Wexler" is a very Jewish name. Both parts. It's like doubling down on Jewish names. "Wexler" is Yiddish for "money changer," which is even stereotypically Jewish. As I said, everything in an animation is intentional.

I wouldn't be shocked if that was intentional in one form or another, I even noticed it slightly the first watch, second watch really set in some stuff I didn't notice before, like the moments where Mei has an outburst, her eyes always go red, very intentional choice in the animation

Click to expand...

As I said, everything in an animation is intentional.

Miriam also has been speculated by some to be a trans girl, which would need to be confirmed in terms of the story by writers and/or directors, but that's based on a casting call for a Pixar movie that may not have been Turning Red anyway

Click to expand...

The story is set in 2002, and she's 13.

muichimotsu said:

Doesn't mean Miriam couldn't be, pretty sure trans affirming care would've existed, and her being 13 is hardly relevant to that, because there's puberty blockers and such that would assist. Even if the only thing is presenting more feminine, that could fit, but I take it with a grain of salt on that. Similar to those that ship Miriam and Mei, which I could understand, since there could be a vibe that Miriam is more than a friend in her feelings towards Mei, but it's not 100% certain

Click to expand...

Why are you talking about puberty blockers being given to a child in 2002?

.

muichimotsu said:

Doesn't mean Miriam couldn't be, pretty sure trans affirming care would've existed, and her being 13 is hardly relevant to that, because there's puberty blockers and such that would assist. Even if the only thing is presenting more feminine, that could fit, but I take it with a grain of salt on that. Similar to those that ship Miriam and Mei, which I could understand, since there could be a vibe that Miriam is more than a friend in her feelings towards Mei, but it's not 100% certain

Click to expand...

So which way do you want to call it?

Is Miriam being claimed as a trans boy or a trans girl?

If Miriam is a trans girl and had been administered puberty blockers (in 2002? I don't think so) to present a feminine appearance, why would she wear boyish clothes?

If she were a trans boy, why does she crush for boys?

Or are you saying now that Miriam is lesbian and has romantic feelings for Mei? That's not the same thing as trans, which lesbians will quickly point out. And again, if that's the case why is she crushing for boys like the other girls (even more than Mei, for that matter).

The very slightly stronger claim would be that Priya might be lesbian because at the party she was dancing for a moment with the Goth girl. But that's still a stretch because 13-year-old girls commonly dance with other girls...because the boys are generally standing against the wall (at least back in those days) and also because Priya was also crushing for boys.

.

muichimotsu said:

Pretty sure Miriam is gendered woman to begin with, so not sure where you got hte idea I insinuated she was a trans boy, because that's a whole other discussion. The clothes are only gendered by society, they can be designed for teenage girls' bodies, same as with teenage boy's clothes.

A girl can wear boyish clothes and still identify as a girl, same as she can do traditionally masculine activities and still be a girl, I swore that was common knowledge in 2022

Never suggested trans boy and her sexual orientation identity is a whole other discussion tangential to the more immediate speculation of her gender identity

She can be a lesbian and be a trans woman, it's not precluded from each other, not all lesbians are TERFs, so not sure who you're listening to on that, it's more complicated

Then Priya could be bi or even pansexual, nothing wrong with that. Heck, I only learned a month or so ago a good friend of mine is pan (and seemingly poly too, since I believe he has a boyfriend and girlfriend at the same time)

Click to expand...

This is like a discussion I frequently have with Star Trek fans.

'Way back when the science fiction series "Babylon 5" was first airing, the primary writer J. Michael Straczynski also ran a group on CompuServe. Every Monday after the Sunday show, he'd discuss the episode with fans.

At one point, a fan asked him about what the characters did after one particular scene ended. Straczynski said, "The actors took off their make-up and when home."

"Turning Red" is not a true life story. It is fiction. There is nothing more than what was written and displayed.

There is no "can be" or "could be." There is nothing more to it than what was written and displayed.

If it wasn't shown, it didn't "happen."

RDKirk said:

It's more important now than it was in 2002. Children are regularly being exposed to hardcore pornography by eight or nine.

Christians who complain that Turning Red "sexualizes young girls," first, don't even understand what the phrase means. The movie "Cuties" sexualizes young girls. Children's beauty pageants sexualize young girls.

Turning Red points out that by age 13, kids will naturally start feeling sexuality...and there is no way for parents to prevent it.

Kids watching the movie are either going to be so young that it all goes over their heads, or they're going to know just enough to ask questions. If they know enough to ask questions, then parents need to have those discussions...because it means they're already privy to discussions in the hallway.

Click to expand...

Doesn't this amount to Hollywood or in general others thinking they need to raise other people's kids?

I talked to mine, and didn't want nor did I ask for Hollywood to be involved..

When my daughter and I had arguments, so that we weren't speaking in anger to each other, or saying things we may regret, we would write letters back and forth until we both felt the issue resolved and understood with one another.

That worked for us, but may not work for every child.. my son for instance thought it was crazy, and used to laugh at our "fights".

Honestly, it's not your job, nor Hollywood's, to tell anyone how to raise their kids. Go write a parenting book, those who want to read it and take advice from it will.

But movie's specifically targeting young kids (aka animated and cartoon) that are trying to raise other people's kids are.. intrusive and basically offensive.

Hazelelponi said:

Doesn't this amount to Hollywood or in general others thinking they need to raise other people's kids?

I talked to mine, and didn't want nor did I ask for Hollywood to be involved..

When my daughter and I had arguments, so that we weren't speaking in anger to each other, or saying things we may regret, we would write letters back and forth until we both felt the issue resolved and understood with one another.

That worked for us, but may not work for every child.. my son for instance thought it was crazy, and used to laugh at our "fights".

Honestly, it's not your job, nor Hollywood's, to tell anyone how to raise their kids. Go write a parenting book, those who want to read it and take advice from it will.

But movie's specifically targeting young kids (aka animated and cartoon) that are trying to raise other people's kids are.. intrusive and basically offensive.

Click to expand...

The target market for "Turning Red" isn't kids. The target market is Millennials who were young teens in the early 2000s and right now have their own pre-teens or young teens (arguably, adults are the target market of all the PG-rated Pixar movies). The central message of the movie is for them, not their kids.

If the movie had been targeted at today's kids, it would have been set in the 2020s. It's set in 2002 and tells the story of teens in 2002. For instance, it was a critical plot point for Mei to discover that her estranged friend Miriam had been keeping her Tamagotchi alive during their estrangement. Only people familiar with the constant demands of the Tamagotchi toy would understand how much dedication to the friendship that effort required. The rest of us could surmise it from the reactions of the characters, but the "Tamagotchi generation" would know.