Of all the Pixar films, the one that has had the strangest life after its release is A Bug’s Life. It is remembered by many but tends to be brushed aside when discussing the golden period of the studio’s life. Being the studio’s second film and sandwiched between two Toy Story films might have put some distance in terms of public perception since it tends to be clouded out by almost every other film the studio made in the 2000s. It was propped up in marketing by Disney for a few years, including a land at California Adventure, but all of that faded away once films like Monsters Inc and Finding Nemo became even bigger hits. However, while this isn’t one of Pixar’s masterpieces, it is a very strong film, and I feel that its themes and messages are continually relevant.
A Bug’s Life is a movie about rising against oppression and recognizing how systems can control groups under coercion and threats. The basic outline is taken from the classic Kurosawa film The Seven Samurai, and it isn’t the first or last to do so. However, I do think that one element of the film is truly distinctive and exceptional, and that is its villain. While the characters in this movie are all enjoyable and well-performed, they aren’t the deepest or most memorable. Hopper is another story. In my mind, he is probably the most underrated villain in any Disney film, not just because of how much of an active and menacing threat he is, but also because of what he represents.
Hopper’s goal in this film is simple: to get food from the ant colony and maintain the status quo he has built under any means. When he finds the food is missing due to Flik’s mistake, he demands that the colony spend the summer months picking twice as much food as usual. When the ants don’t provide, he takes over the colony to let his gang eat all of their food and then kill their queen as a show of power. While some may just perceive this as simply antagonistic bullying or aggression driven by desires of egomaniacal power, Hopper’s motivation and perception of his power are honestly quite interesting. He isn’t a megalomaniac or a figure driven by the rush of conflict but a genuine portrayal of what an oppressor is. He comes every Spring to the ant colony under the pact that as long as the ants provide food, the grasshoppers will protect the ants from outside insects. This a clear protection racket where the grasshoppers claim they are protecting the ants while only enforcing it through force while not doing anything to help them. The ants also recognize the unfairness of the system but continue to move forward, believing that they are too weak to run Hopper and his gang out.
This observation about the ants ties into Hopper’s motivations, which are laid out in the best scene in the film. It involves Hopper at his gang’s hideout and is the first time he shows up since early in the film. Here, it is established that most of the members aren’t that willing to go back since they have enough food here and feel that it would be a waste of time. Hopper, however, kills the guys who suggested the idea and scoffed at how one ant, Flik, stood up to him. Hopper counteracts this idea and says out loud why they keep going back to the island and demand even more food after the first batch is destroyed by Flik. The food isn’t the point; the point is to maintain the system of control he has in place. He knows that his control over the ants is fragile since they outnumber the grasshoppers easily and that they have to keep asserting dominance over them to keep them in line. The ants themselves know this system is unjust, but the continual fear that Hopper places in them ensures that they don’t step out of line. Flik stepping out is small, but Hopper points out how one act of defiance can lead to everyone else rejecting the system in the right circumstances. He demonstrates this with grain pieces which parallel Flik’s conversation with Dot at the start of the film to show how a small seed can grow into a giant tree. It’s an interesting parallel between both characters that presents a similar framing of opposing worldviews. They both recognize that small things can grow large over time. Flik sees optimism and potential in the smallest things, which is what drives him as an individual in contrast to the rest of the colony, who feel trapped in the system. Hopper, meanwhile, sees small acts of dissent as a potential threat to the system he has set up and that it must be stomped out to ensure that it doesn’t alter anything.
Even when Hopper comes back, he focuses on asserting that ants are beneath him and that Fliks initial failure with the fake bird is a sign that moving away from the system is a bad idea. He tells the ants that they are intrinsically weak creatures whose only purpose in life is to serve grasshoppers. Flik counters this by standing defiantly alone to pull apart Hopper’s assertions. Hopper is the one who needs the ants to make his system function, and the ants are strong, and he knows that. The bird plan and the colony coming together to build it show how a large group can come together to make a difference. The threat of Hopper coming back and the colony’s fear of returning, when they realize the bugs Flik got were circus performers, erode that initial confidence. Only when Flik defiantly stands alone against Hopper and points out all of the contradictions in Hopper’s philosophies does his kingdom crumble.
For how simple his goal is, Hopper is a great entry-point character to show how real-world oppressors can operate. Systems driven by control and aggression are perpetuated under continual threats, pushing down any sense of individuality and minimizing or recontextualizing the strengths of a group to ensure that they retain a lack of confidence to defy said system. Even if what Hopper wants from the ants is simplistic, he treats it as seriously as any other ruling figure would to their domain. There is a similarity in Hopper’s traits to another Pixar villain, Lotso from Toy Story 3. Both use a system built on coercion and oppression to maintain their perception of the status quo and have their worldviews play into their motivations. Hopper, however, might be scarier in the sense that there’s no tragic backstory like Lotso that explains why he does what he does. Lotso is driven by being mentally broken from being replaced and sees his existence as a toy from a nihilistic angle as a result. He views the life of a toy to be meaningless and uses his system to justify his mindset while maintaining control over others to compensate for his losses. Hopper, however, just wants power in a more traditional sense. He threatens and coerces others to gain something out of it, but his justification is self-serving and more centered on control in general for no real reason other than for the sake of it. Most kid films have their villains either be cartoonishly evil or have a tragic sense in their motives. Hopper reflects real-world perceptions of oppressive control in a manner that wouldn’t feel out of place in more adult films. He represents a realistic evil in the sense that he doesn’t have any tangible motive aside from being atop the pyramid in his world and maintaining said position through any means. He is also realistic in not underestimating the group he oppresses or making blind mistakes. He knows that the ants could overturn the system at any time, so he makes sure that he enforces it at any cost and leaves nothing to chance. He only loses when Flik shows he is willing to lay down his life for the sake of taking his system down rather than from a personal mistake. No fluff or over-exaggeration, just someone who asserts dominance over others and only continues it to ensure that his system never changes.
There is one unfortunate aspect about Hopper, though, and that is his actor. I won’t dwell on the fact that Kevin Spacy plays this role too much, but I feel that I have to acknowledge it for necessity’s sake. Even so, it makes Hopper even more easy to hate knowing that a real-life individual who is just as immoral is performing him. He does give a good performance and it shows his talent for playing villains. It’s just a shame that he decided to use his fame in the way that he did. Again, I am not going to go into too much detail about this, but I feel that mentioning him is necessary at some level. Plus, the writers, director, and animators who all worked on the film deserve a lot of credit as well for giving life to Hopper both in movement and in dialogue.
In the grand scheme of things, Hopper is one of the most interesting elements of the film he is in. I have grown to appreciate when animated films go into more aggressive territories with their themes and ideas. Not every villain is going to be someone who loves being evil or is motivated by their past. Sometimes, evil comes through a desire for control and allowing kids to realize this is needed at some level. A Bug’s Life is a film I feel more should give attention to. While it isn’t as polished or refined compared to other Pixar films, it’s still a very interesting film to watch and analyze both in terms of the history of the studio and the themes presented within. Hopper is a genuinely fascinating character and is one of the reasons I feel that this film deserves a bit more attention.
