Toy Story 3 is an astonishing film – one of the most profound, beautiful and funny I have seen in years.
Please don’t think that it is just for kids. Sure, if you have children, or know any, take them along. But if you don’t, then just go and see it for yourself. Don’t worry – there will be other adults in the cinema without children accompanying them. You won’t look strange.
I’m not usually so directive in these posts, but here we go: You should see this film!
There are some minor themes and sub-plots: love, loss, friendship, bereavement, justice, forgiveness, family, childhood trauma, freedom, redemption, etc. (Only in a trilogy as sophisticated as this one could these be flagged up as ‘minor themes’.)
The deepest existential theme is one that has run through the whole trilogy: that of personal identity. I’m not giving any real plot away if I tell you the premise of the film, that Andy has grown up and is going away to college, having boxed up his toys for the attic. So the toys are caught between their desire to remain loyal to Andy, and their longing to find someone who would appreciate them for what they are: toys. It’s that irresolvable tension between past and future, between duty and desire, between living for the other and living for the self. And the whole film turns on the question of whether it is possible to do both.
It struck me that the situation of the toys represents, above all, the situation of parents when their children leave home. Parents, like the toys, are left in the empty nest. Their whole life has been defined in terms of their relationship with their children, who seem not to need them any more. They want to remain loyal parents, open to giving and receiving love. But they also need to discover some new sense of purpose, or at least a deeper and more expansive way of living that vocation to be a parent – one that is not defined by the immediate needs of their children.
Bridges and Tangents 
Father Stephen:
I haven’t seen Toy Story (any of them) but your last paragraph strikes a chord with me, but in a different way.
Having had my first (and only) child at age 50, my life had been defined in terms of ‘my’ self, which came to a screeching halt with the reality of feedings, diapers and the great weight of responsibility. Now a few years later I am enjoying the job of parenting even more.
I often think of the words of the mother of a friend of mine, a wonderful woman who, with her husband, reared two lovely daughters. She always said that she “just loved watching her girls grow up, that is all she wanted to do.” I use that to remember that I must give my daughter the tools and help her to use them, but as time goes on she will make her own choices and go her own way.
My whole life now is “defined in terms of [my] relationship with my [daughter],” but perhaps having had a career and a full life prior to this will help with the “letting go.”
I believe that it is possible to balance duty and desire, past and future. One must think realistically, be honest with oneself, and remember that each of us is an individual (even our own children!). It’s just like those salmon; you either get up the stream or you don’t.
Hi, Stephen,
Don’t know if you are the one who took my Chinese classes at Ga Tech more than a decade ago. Just to let you know that the movie is fantastic!!!
Xiexie,
Li
That wasn’t me – but thanks for the comment anyway.