[ad_1]
While the first Inside Out was a patently anti-San Francisco movie, the sequel has proven to perhaps be even less generous—dare one even say, actually crueler—toward the city by choosing to ignore its presence altogether. Although San Franciscans might have thought the presentation of their city couldn’t possibly be worse in the second movie than it was in the first, it has to be said that the full-stop refusal to acknowledge its existence is probably even more insulting. Because, apparently, so “non” is San Francisco at this point that the Inside Out 2 creators and animators—based, by the way, right near San Francisco “suburb” Emeryville—could barely bother to provide a few background scenes of the milieu as Riley Andersen (Kensington Tallman) is on the way to a weekend hockey camp.
And yes, for the rest of the movie after that brief scene of Riley’s parents, Mrs. Andersen (Diane Lane) and Mr. Andersen (Kyle MacLachlan), driving her to the camp with her friends, Grace (Grace Lu) and Bree (Sumayyah Nuriddin-Green), there is nary a sign of San Francisco anywhere. Unless one grasps at the straws of Riley wearing a “Bay Area Skills Camp” jersey. Although one might have anticipated more play for SF now that Riley is a teenager and is theoretically supposed to be coming into her own vis-à-vis exploring the city a little bit more independently than she used to, Inside Out 2 totally misses the opportunity to, at the very least, employ San Francisco for the task of ramping up Riley’s latest emotion to enter her puberty-fueled headspace: Anxiety.
Of course, this being a “kids’” movie, co-screenwriters Meg LeFauve (who also co-wrote the first movie) and Dave Holstein likely didn’t want to rock the boat too much in terms of what types of “stimuli” might prompt Riley to have an anxiety flare-up. Like, say, the sight of some zombie-esque homeless people hobbling toward her at a steady clip on the sidewalk. Or overhearing her parents talk about the unaffordability of the city and how maybe they, too, should join the others who supposedly comprise what is called the “California Exodus.” Indeed, that latter threat would surely send Anxiety into overdrive, seeing as how Riley has finally gotten her bearings in her formerly new city. The last thing she would want to do now is move to Austin, Texas (where all the Californians have reportedly disappeared to).
The total absence of any sense of place in Inside Out 2 is what marks the most noticeable change in the film’s “setup” after almost a decade has gone by. What it says probably has less to do with San Francisco and more to do with the fact that our entire existence is increasingly “lived” solely in non-places. This being the term coined by French anthropologist Marc Augé in his seminal work, Non-Places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. It is in this work that Augé discusses the characteristics of the average non-place (e.g., supermarkets, airports, hotel rooms, metro stations and, in this case, hockey rinks): cold, clinical, lacking in any unique identifying characteristics. In short, it is a transitional space (sort of like adolescence itself) designed to evoke no sense of belonging whatsoever due to being devoid of any personal touches—what is known as “having character.”
When applied to the feeling—or, rather, “non-feeling”—that San Francisco evokes in Inside Out 2, it can perhaps be interpreted “poetically” in that Riley has never truly felt as though she belongs there. And now, with her only two friends abandoning her after the summer to attend a different high school, Riley is panicking all the more about her “sense of place,” about where, exactly, she’s supposed to fit in.
While some might say that San Francisco’s absence is “nothing personal,” or that the storyline of the sequel is intended to be less about the city and more about Riley’s fresh trials and tribulations as a teenager navigating the increasingly murky waters of friendship, it cannot be overlooked that where one lives as a teenager is a large part of what forms their emotions and identity. Needless to say, Riley would be a totally different person if she had remained in Minnesota. Excluding the more urban landscape of San Francisco from this new “snapshot” of her teenhood is, thus, an odd choice. Others still would posit that because the mind itself is the milieu in which Inside Out and Inside Out 2 take place, there’s not much need to incorporate a “real” environment. Fine, keep it “minimal” then—but don’t oust a tangible setting altogether. But, again, this likely doesn’t register with or bother that many people when taking into account that the majority is, at this juncture, well-accustomed to seeing and experiencing non-places. It just comes across as particularly shade-throwing that, now, San Francisco is a “non-place,” too. Not even worth making fun of anymore, as far as Inside Out 2 is concerned.
In the past, there would have at least been the usual mockery about how “generic” the city has become, how “corporatized.” Not just thanks to the long-ago tech infiltration, but as a result of the collective adherence to globalization itself. Everywhere is everywhere. But, in all honesty, that’s not really true of San Francisco, which still possesses its unique, indelible aspects—not least of which is its signature topography and landmarks. And, as the usual haters would waste no time in parroting, “All the homeless people!” The seemingly lone condemnation that detractors can think of to consistently lob at the Golden City (and yes, it is golden, despite what the naysayers might quip about that gold being of the “fool’s” variety). Either that or, where conservatives are concerned, it’s “too gay.” In fact, one of its other rotating nicknames is Gay Mecca. This perhaps being yet another reason that Inside Out 2 opted to shirk San Francisco altogether during Riley’s teen years. After all, what if Riley is a lesbian? San Francisco is the perfect place to unearth such a sexual revelation. But, in terms of including SF in all its (gay) glory for a teenager, Pixar seemed to be channeling Regina George insisting, “I couldn’t have a lesbian at my party. There were gonna be girls there in their bathing suits.”
Whatever the reason (or “non-reason”) for choosing to give San Francisco absolutely no play apart from tacking on three arbitrary exteriors (including, of course, the Golden Gate Bridge) during the credits, it seems that the opinion of the town is so low at the moment that Pixar favored largely disavowing its presence entirely. And, as Oscar Wilde said, “There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.” Thus, San Francisco’s (non-)representation in Inside Out 2 is what makes the movie even harsher toward the city than Inside Out.
[ad_2]
Genna Rivieccio
Source link
