This morning, I finally watched Monsters University, the prequel to Monsters, Inc., and I was surprised to find that it has a sociological message that is either true and important or dangerously false, and I'm still not entirely sure which it is. In Monsters University, the irrepressible Mike Wazowski tenaciously pursues his dream of becoming a Scarer, but while he absolutely masters the theory of scaring, he repeatedly faces setbacks when trying to apply the practice of scaring. Throughout the movie, even at the end, he is told that he can never be a Scarer because he, simply, just isn't scary.
I take umbrage with this assessment for several reasons. Firstly, scariness is subjective. That which isn't scary to one person may be horrifying to another. The movie even points this out by mentioning the fear of chopsticks (Consecotaleophobia) which is, apparently, a real phobia that some people have. Most people aren't scared of chopsticks, but it would seem that some people are. Most monsters aren't scared of Mike Wazowski, but maybe some humans would be. Granted, Mike is a round, green creature with a single, large eye, and roundness, big eyes, and the color green tend to put people at ease, but if people can be afraid of chopsticks, there must be people who are afraid of round, green things with big eyes, like ommetaphobiacs and scopophobiacs, for example.
Second (and more importantly for the purpose of this blog post), even without any natural scariness, Mike can (and arguably does) become scary over a long period of study and practice. He uses his knowledge of the human psyche to identify and exploit weaknesses, and he uses his claws to make an intimidating scratching sound to drive up tension, without having to show his supposedly unintimidating face. I am certain that, given enough time, Mike could drive a person close enough to the edge of terror that any startling apparition, even something as cute as a kitten, could drive a person to produce a decent amount of Scream.
That's where I think this movie goes dangerously wrong: it suggests that a person without a natural talent for a given skill will never gain proficiency, let alone excellence, with that skill, which is patently false. There are many people who are great at their chosen skills specifically because they trained hard and worked hard to overcome weaknesses in those areas. I hope to become one of those people someday.
However, this movie's message is admittedly, importantly true in the area of physical limitations. I cannot fly, and no amount of training and practice can change that fact. Sure, I could learn to pilot an aircraft, but that's the skill of operating a machine that can fly. Without such a machine, I personally cannot fly, and it would be foolish of me to invest a good deal of time and energy into trying to learn how to fly. There are many physical limitations that people cannot overcome, and this is especially true for people with disabilities. Certainly, people can practice skills to help them overcome their limitations, like how learning to pilot an aircraft can help someone overcome the limitation of gravity, but no amount of training will allow an unaided human being to fly, and accepting that fact can save people a good deal of time and frustration. If scaring others was physically impossible for Mike Wazowski, then his detractors would have been right in encouraging him to seek a different path.
That's why I can't nail down whether the message "You can't do this; give up" is true or false. It depends on the situation. In general, I'd say that the message is usually false, especially if we allow for the use of tools and machines, but if what a person is attempting is literally impossible, they'd be better off applying their efforts elsewhere.
In Mike's case, despite the movie's conclusion, I don't think he should have given up his dream of becoming a Scarer. True, he made a better Scaring Coach than a Scarer, but he could have been a decent Scarer too. There was no physical limitation that made it physically impossible to scare people. He could have succeeded, and, in my opinion, he nearly did. Some people probably should give up on impossible dreams, but Mike's dream wasn't impossible, and I think he shouldn't've quit.
No comments:
Post a Comment