The after and before life didn’t have morality. Mentors weren’t supposed to be good people; they were strong-soulled people.
I think that points to a basic disconnect the movie had. Many people expect some morality and ethical messaging from the afterlife. This movie didn’t have it. The movie was mostly the characters furthering their motives while navigating the rules.
Ouch.
The best movies and shows I’ve seen about the afterlife (or in this case the prelife) were pretty devoid of morality lectures. From Heaven Can Wait to The Good Place (okay ethical philosophy there) to Defending Your Life to Coco.
That reviewer seems off base to me.
First guess what? The lions share of personality IS what we are born with.
And no it did no such implication about near death. He’s apparently the only one who managed to fall into the prelife, by chance.
Even the Julia Child aside is ignorant. The woman was a freaking SPY in her early adulthood and helped create shark repellent. Pretty successful before her late 40s.
This is the kind of movie that I would’ve scored about an 8/10 immediately after I saw it (amazing music and visuals ) but after I’ve thought about it for a few days and its messaging, I’m down to about a 4/10 and still falling.
I don’t disagree with you, but do they actually says that or are you inferring it? If they do say it, then I missed it completely.
That said, I find the idea that they’d have people like Hitler, Pol Pot, John Wayne Gacy etc as mentors just because they had “strong souls” to be absolutely repugnant.
I know this isn’t a GQ, but where are you getting that? I’ve never heard that before. In fact, everything I’ve ever heard is that the lion’s share of personality is driven by nurture, not nature.
You DNA gives you potential, but your upbringing, your life experiences (good and bad): your family, friends, educators, mentors, role models are what drives our personality and who we become.
Even Aristotle recognized that a couple thousand years ago: "“Give me a child until he is seven and I will show you the man.”
Yes more GQ or GD but a good place to start for a review of the extensive literature is Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate. Also the huge literature on the consistency of temperament from early childhood on maybe beginning with Stella Chase’s work.
As parents we can do our job to provide a safe and loving home, the soil and other conditions that best allow our children to grow into the best version of that, or we can get in the way of the blessing so to speak, stunt them. With effort. But no what you’ve heard has little basis in the science.
Anyway, I wouldn’t look to a Pixar movie for more than superficial philosophy. The Good Place it ain’t. Why are we here? Simple Pixar answer: not for any grand purpose so don’t take yourself too seriously but do appreciate that you get to be here. Enjoy a little. Deep? No. But don’t think too hard about the Toy Story messaging either!
I’m a jazz singer/fan, but what kept me from loving this movie is that no one ever corrected Joe’s idea that his “original” life was meaningless just because he’d never gotten anywhere with jazz…even though he taught music, and probably influenced dozens of kids. There was the one really talented band student, but her playing affected 22; not Joe. I kept waiting for the “OMG THE KIDS” moment, but it never came. Not a great message, IMHO.
Heh–I’m a teacher, and I didn’t think that idea needed to be corrected. It’s not that his life was meaningless, it’s that it wasn’t making him happy.
The movie’s ending was completely ambiguous. Would he, having seen the effect on the trombone girl, find fulfillment in teaching? Would he, having at last played a killer gig with a jazz legend and not having entered paradise thereby, still find fulfillment in gigging?
Some people aren’t cut out to be teachers, and that’s okay. Even though he influenced that girl (and that other guy) pretty profoundly, that doesn’t obligate him to keep doing a job that’s not working for him. If going on tour is where his heart is, that’s okay. It’s not purpose he needs, it’s the ability to delight in the moment.
I thought the word “meaningless” was actually used in the movie – or, at least, something very close to it. Maybe not. 
He definitely saw his life – in retrospect – as being pretty empty, but we watched him learn about seeing his mother and barber as actual people, and some other lessons. Of course not everyone is cut out to be a teacher, and I didn’t need it to be his raison d’être, but there wasn’t any effort by the movie to point out that teaching music is a positive/worthwhile thing. And especially for that character: among jazz musicians, jazz educators are (generally) pretty well respected. It’s seen as a duty to pass along some knowledge if/when you can.
I think I inferred it. I’ll need to rewatch to see if was implied at all or simply in my mind from the lists of mentors.
And not just the ending. The whole movie is ambiguous. The after/before life rules are only there to be broken. The characters pursue what they think they want, but they don’t know what they really want.
I think the comments about mixed messaging are spot on. The movie isn’t about a message. It’s a character study of the two characters.
Whether the movie works for an individual viewer is going to be a matter of taste.
Apparently they considered and rejected it.
I think it would have been a better ending myself.
There was a key scene near the end where he complains to Gerry that 22 didn’t find a purpose, and Gerry was all “Purpose? Asshole, ‘spark’ isn’t purpose. Y’all are basic bitches.” (paraphrasing from memory here).
Between that scene and the fish-seeking-the-ocean story I took the point that the Powers that Be think that pursuing a singular meaning is rather missing the point. His epiphany at that point was that he needed to stop seeing music as a Goal For Which He Was Made, and start seeing it as Something He Could Do That Was Fulfilling.
Yeah, I’m not talking about that part; “purpose” is definitely being excited about living. I mean near the start of the movie, when he and 22 watch the retrospective of his life, I remember him describing it as meaningless or empty (or something like that). Plus, the retrospective was all scenes of him sitting around eating or watching TV alone; never any teaching. Anyway, I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying. I’m not making my point very well, but I can’t think of another way to try to state it. It’s not that important.
No, that’s cool. I think you’re right that he has that attitude at the beginning of the movie, but I also think part of the point of the movie was showing that he was wrong to have that attitude: even though he was a powerful teacher, his belief that his Purpose was to play in a band was blinding him to that.
Just watched Coco for the first time last night.
I thought it put Soul to shame. Fabulous film.
I disagree. I’m not the type to see race in everything, but I do think it would have been a huge misstep (especially in today’s political and social climate) to have the very first Pixar movie featuring a Black lead ending with him sacrificing his life and dreams to further the ends of an annoying middle-aged White woman. (Yes, I know that wasn’t what 22 was supposed to be, but they chose Tina Fey to voice her, so that’s the way she comes across.)
Honestly, my opinion of this movie has been decreasing over the last week since I saw it. Not for the racial issues (I loved the parts with Joe and his life, and wanted to see more of them) but for the muddled message. I thought “Inside Out” was one of the best-ever Pixar movies, and I felt like “Soul” was trying to do something similar, but the more I think about it, the more it just didn’t work for me.
I had not considered that lens.
To me it was a forced happy ending for the kids instead of embracing the bittersweet that lives end … but having him find actual happiness and satisfaction teaching in the Great Before, paradoxically having a great purpose that he never had in life. Of course I would have preferred the Beast to have stayed dead too …
But I can see the optics now that you point it out.
The other thing I was thinking while watching it was that there is no way a kid under the age of 16 would enjoy this. Kids under the age of 10 would have no idea what’s going on and the older kids who did get it probably would be bored by the adult themes.
Pixar was originally known as making great kids movies that adults could enjoy. This was nothing near a kids movie. And as a movie for adults was rather muddled.
MY 15-year-old loved it. She is an artist, and thought the animation was the best she’s ever seen.
Personally, I thought it was a masterpiece, and its ambiguous message that doesn’t easily fit into being exactly what people want is part of its genius.
My 8 year old and 11 year old loved it. The younger kid absolutely sobbed when 22 and Joe said goodbye.
Coco was a wonderful film. And it was a completely different sort of film, one that by the end had a clear hero and a clear bad guy. Viewers get to solve simple mystery. Reveal. Bad guy gets just desserts. Happy ending pretty much.
Soul doesn’t have a hero. It doesn’t have a villain. Ending needlessly pat and happy all around for the movie it was for my taste but the bulk of it much more nuanced with mixed motivations, some just hinted at and better for leaving it blank a bit.
The assessment that no kids would enjoy Soul is clearly off, but just as clearly Coco was more a kids movie that adults could enjoy and Soul more an adult movie that kids could enjoy.