Q&A with Pete Doctor, Kemp Powers, and Dana Murray

The following questions and answers are excerpted from a conversation that followed the NBR screening of Soul.

Can you talk about the design of the film and how it’s another evolution for Pixar both in the extremes of realism and surrealism that it achieves? It’s a New York film, but there’s also the astral plane.

Pete Docter: One of the big joys for me in working in this business is to embrace stuff that is perfect for animation. It’s a bit of a subjective term but it was the thing that drove me to think about the concept for Inside/Out… how do we personify emotions as abstract as that? In this film, we learned pretty quickly that souls generally are thought of by various religious traditions as ethereal and non-physical and vaporous and invisible. So this was a real challenge. I also think that, particularly in the U.S., we are conditioned to think of animation as something for kids. There’s no reason for that; you don’t go to a museum and say “oh, oil paintings, that’s for kids.” It’s capable of anything and we’re so lucky to work at a place that allows us to push the boundaries of that box. This film was definitely doing that for us!

Jazz is the perfect metaphor for the central themes of our film

Kemp, the story about how you came to co-direct this film is pretty remarkable.

Kemp Powers: Yeah, I was brought on as a writer about two years into the process. And I think that in the process of making Pixar films, there are often several writers that come on throughout—it wasn’t unusual. I think the fact that I got made a co-director was unique. A lot of that came from where the film was at that point. I was definitely looped into to lots of other elements of the film that writers aren’t typically involved with, everything from casting to character design and set design to our culture trust, both internal and external. It was probably eight months to a year into the process as the script was really getting tight that Pete and Dana actually asked me to become co-director and of course I asked “what does that mean?” and I found out that I had kind of been doing that the whole time! There were a lot of things that we learned in the process of making this film. This was a slightly unusual creative process even within the realm of Pixar films.

You mentioned this phrase “culture trust.” Can you expand on that?

Dana Murray: We have an internal culture trust which is a group of some of the black employees at Pixar that we bring along during the entire creative process of the film. We’d have screenings where we put the reels together, the storyboards, dialogue and music and all that and then we have typical notes session with our brain trust. But then we also have a notes session afterwards just with our culture trust, to see if there are things that don’t feel right or how we can make scenes feel more culturally authentic. They also review characters and sets as well and they really contributed quite a bit to this film. It was great because it was such a diverse group even within the culture trust. We wanted to make sure there was a lot of gender diversity and age diversity, a range of where people grew up. That was kind of the fun of it because everyone has a different opinion of things! Trying to figure out which direction to go after those note sessions could sometimes be tricky but was also really rewarding.

The music is so integral to the story. To me it was such an incredible sonic experience—it became apparent how tightly the Jon Batiste work was intertwined with Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross’s work in a way that’s not just score, but part of the story.

PD: Ren Klyce—who did our sound design—is amazing. It was through him we hooked up with Trent and Atticus. What we learned in working on their music with them is that sonically it’s not just played on speakers up front. It becomes part of the experience; you’re in this scene. The music becomes part of the sound design and the ambience of the world. So that was new, as well as the way they worked. We’re used to having our temp music up until the picture locks, and then you hand it off to the composer, and then they write to picture. In this instance, they were giving us cues as we were still re-writing and editing, so we would cut it in and do a lot of editing and mucking around and then return it to them to polish. They were much more involved in the process in a very organic way. And of course with Batiste, we needed to record him before the animation so we could match. That’s the way dialogue is done. You record the actors and then the animators listen and they’re looking for these ways to synchronize the sound with the picture that just completes this illusion that the sound is coming out of the character. By recording Batiste first, the animators could match every finger, every gesture and even push it further than real life. Music was a huge part of this movie. Maybe someone else wants to talk about the thematic elements of jazz.

KP: Jazz is honestly the perfect metaphor for the central themes of our film. Its’s improvisational, like life itself. You have to take whatever is thrown at you and turn it into something beautiful. Which was always a good argument to have whenever someone would ask “really, a kids movie about jazz?” and we always said no, we need it, it’s core to the central story we’re trying to tell. Fortunately, when we tested it out on kids, they really leaned in on the performative aspects of jazz. It’s alluring to children, seeing someone playing the saxophone and fingering or banging away on the piano keys. It actually really drew kids in.

Can you talk about developing the look of the film with your Cinematographer, crafting the lighting and camerawork, and also the contributions of the great Bradford Young?

PD: The way we work is that we have two DPs, traditionally. We had Matt Aspury, our DP of layout, and Ian Megibbon, who was lighting. Those guys came to us and said the ultimate New York films are those iconic ones from the 70s. So let’s try to approximate the same film stock, the same lens choice, so we had anamorphic lenses which you can kind of tell from the way it sort of blurs in the background. It was important and really fit into the overall design because we wanted the ethereal world to be clean and soft and fuzzy and this world is gritty and hard-edged. So there’s a really great opposition and contrast.

KP: Bradford is known, among many other things, for how well he lights black skin and black characters. We had a great variety of black complexions in the film so it behooved us to have him on board as a consultant, and Ian is a huge fan of Bradford. Bradford actually came in a few different times and didn’t just discuss lighting black skin but some other techniques of lighting that he uses that we hadn’t really used before. Like Bradford does this wonderful thing with single source lighting, where sometimes there will be light coming from a single source and it will cast a character in a shadow in a way that previously we wouldn’t have done in a Pixar-animated film. But he gave these great discussions about lighting and the subversive things that lighting can say about wealth versus poverty. He put this all into an incredible historical context. Our lighting team really took it to heart. It’s so funny because we hear people say that the film looks photorealistic, but it’s not. I think some of those lighting techniques are responsible for what appears to some people to be a photorealistic look.

What makes for a great voice actor? Is it just about the voice or is there something else?

DM: Our process is that first we design a character and spend a lot of time trying to figure out what they look like. Then as we get closer to needing to cast with the casting department, we ask them to provide a ton of voices but we don’t want to know who the actors are, so we can listen to these while we look at the character design. Sometimes you can tell, obviously, if it’s someone super recognizable. But for the most part you don’t know. You want the voice to fit with the design you have. I think what makes the best voice actors are the ones that can go in and not just deliver what’s in the script, but have fun and deliver lines that aren’t on-script, because those tend to be the funniest.  

Q&A with Jonas Rivera and Pete Docter

The following questions and answers are excerpted from a conversation that followed the NBR screening of Inside Out.

How did you develop the visual language of this film?

Docter: It was really challenging. There were things that we felt were important early on that ended up boxing us in. Even having primary colors for all the emotions was difficult. I’m not saying this is easy, but with Nemo or Cars, you at least had a picture you could use – a fish or a car. But with this film, you can’t take a picture of an emotion. We relied on some verbal idioms like I feel blue, I feel sad, I’m about to explode with rage, etc. We would use those to start and the artists drew thousands of drawings.

“We wanted them to look like how our emotions feel.”

Rivera: There are so many variables on what Joy could look like. I think it was Albert Lozano, our character art director, who was able to put forth what Pete suggested, that we wanted them to look like how our emotions feel. They came up with this very simple thing. Joy was a star, or a spark. Golden and illuminated. Sadness was a teardrop. So her shape and color resemble a teardrop. Fear is like a raw nerve, just a squiggly line, that’s why he’s tight. Disgust is the shape and color of a stalk of broccoli. And of course anger is a brick, immovable. So we put those shapes on the wall and that was the foothold and now let’s personify that. It just felt right to us. We didn’t want them to be little people. Pete said they should be made out of energy.

Where did this story come from?

Docter: When my daughter was eleven, she kind of went from being a happy, spunky little spitball of a kid to being . . . kind of quiet. So I was like, oh no! I remember that and this is a hard time. She was already tall and lanky, and then there was this mood change that made me wonder what was going on inside her head. At the same time I was playing with ideas of emotions as characters, which seemed perfect for what animation could do. Strong, opinionated characters that make animation fun.

Rivera: He gave a great, really simple pitch. He said “What if we told a story about a little girl, but instead of her being the main character, she’s the set. And we go inside and personify her emotions and it’s told through that.” It seemed like such a worthy setup.

Did it change much from original pitch? 

Docter: The original pitch was just, “here’s a concept.” Then we had to come up with an actual story and how to represent that dramatically with characters that grow and change. There were some definite side roads we took along the way. For Riley as a character, we wanted to talk about growing up and how best to represent that. You can’t have ticks on a doorway; you want to show it dramatically. So we ended up with moving as a metaphor. We started telling the story of a kid growing up, and then we realized we were actually telling a story of adults watching our kids grow up. Joy, as the main character, was originally paired with fear. For a lot of us, fear was a big motivating factor in junior high. We thought there would be a lot of entertainment possibilities. And there were, but three years in we started to realize that it wasn’t adding up to anything as a thesis statement. What was it about? So we stepped back. It kind of came to me when I realized the people I’ve been the closest with are the ones that I’ve gotten angry with, or shared loss with, and been scared for. It’s really those emotional moments that bring closeness with relationships, which are the most important things in our lives. That’s what made me go, “Okay fear has to go, and it’s about sadness bringing people together”. That was on a Sunday, Father’s Day . . .

Rivera: It was 10:30 at night and he calls, and we had a screening scheduled in three weeks, which is like five minutes in animation time. So we sat down with [co-director] Ronnie Del Carmen and Pete pitched this alternate version and we realized immediately it was the right way to go. It lead to a more beautiful ending and honored the original premise in a better way.

How do you balance making a film that works for both kids and adults?

Rivera: The movies we loved growing up have aged with us. I see Dumbo very differently now than I did when I was eight. Joe Grant was the head of story and hired by Disney in the 30s, and he was a mentor to Pete and by proxy I got to know him. He was this amazing guy, literally died drawing at his desk, we dedicated Up to him. He talked a lot about going beyond entertainment value and fun. He’d say things like “What are you asking the audience to take home with them when they leave the theater?” We feel so lucky we have these jobs where we get to make stuff and we try to make it personal. I think audiences do crave something with a nugget of truth, even in a fantastical film. Halfway through we started to wonder if it was getting too far out, but at a certain point you decide, we don’t care, we like it and we believe in it and it’s about our daughters. So we think that’s worthy and we’re going to make it as fun and as entertaining as possible.

Docter: And then add pie-in-the face and fart jokes.