Several days ago, Peter Suderman, at The American Scene, had a curious criticism of Pixar. He wondered, “Must Pixar be so kid friendly?”

[W]hat I wonder — and hope for (I think) — is whether or not Pixar will ever chuck the kiddie elements altogether and make a movie that specifically targets adults. Yes, yes, part of their genius is their cross-generational appeal, which they really do pull off better than any other filmmakers. But these days, I also think the folks at Pixar are making better mainstream entertainment than nearly any other creators in any other medium, and given the paucity of satisfying adult drama in theaters these days, I’d love to see them work on a project that didn’t have to entertain the six year olds in the audience, that didn’t have to merely hint, however compellingly, at the sadness and joys of adult life.

On reflection, it’s a perfectly understandable response. I can’t remember the last Pixar movie I saw that I didn’t leave the theater raving about they were the last great story-tellers in America.

That being said, I’ve never had Peter’s reaction. Part of that is clearly is the simple fact that animation is overwhelmingly a tool for kid’s stories: no impressive “serious” CGI films  spring to mind. But what does spring to mind are disasters like Beowulf (disaster to my mind, anyway). I can’t help wonder that perhaps Suderman underestimates the predisposition of the medium to delivering a “family-friendly” message.

Consider the Muppets. No rule of cinema forbids outlandish puppets conveying serious themes, but that doesn’t mean it’s easy. And Jim Henson certainly tried. Besides The Dark Crystal and Labyrinth (movies that terrified me as a very small child), he also tried to tackle (somewhat) more serious themes on the Jim Henson Hour and The Storyteller. The result was hardly smashing: both shows got canned almost immediately, Labyrinth was a box office flop, and none of the efforts moved outside the realm of fantasy or a Muppet Show-esque humor.

Pixar’s animation-style, admittedly, is rather more flexible than even Gonzo. But the history of animation of all kinds suggests that insofar as artists want to grapple with serious stories, they have to do so indirectly. Someone needs to get nailed by an intrinsic field subtractor, rape a muse, or kill a lot of people and blame it on the Illumnati, to judge from celebrated works of animation in print and on screen.

That’s not the most shocking of claims, but even if it were wrong, I’d still want Pixar to stick to family films. Pixar’s stories are wonderful in large part because they only hint at the “sadness and joys of adult life.” Any backyard astronomer knows that if you look directly at a star, it appears dimmer. Looking just to the side of it or by establishing it as part of a broader constellation, it’s easier to pick out even faint stars and give them a place in the vast night sky. Pixar’s movies keep you engaged in the story, but it really is drawing the connections between those poignant points in life, and making them more meaningful.

I’m certainly looking forward to Brad Bird’s 1906, if it ever gets off the ground, but I wouldn’t mind if Pixar kept tiptoeing around seriousness.