Careful and Cool
"WALL*E pushes an agenda that could, and no doubt will, be interpreted as 'green,' or ecologically minded," writes Variety's Todd McCarthy in his just-published positive review. "It's a theme that is certainly present, at least as pertains to what forced humanity off the planet in the first place.
Charles Chaplin in The Great Dictator (1940)
"But in a bigger sense, the picture seems to be making a quiet pitch for taking clear-headed responsibility for the health of the planet as well as one's body and mind. The adages about how you must lie in the bed you make, and you are what you eat -- both would seem to apply here."
Notice the respectful but emotionally arm's length tone in McCarthy's words? A slight but detectable tone of formality and neutrality in his acknowledgment of the film's green (i.e., liberal, Al Gore-ian) sensibility? You can almost hear him clearing his throat as he sits up straighter in his seat and tugs on his jacket lapels. I'm sorry but I find that a little bit queer, somewhat. Each and every one of us is contributing in various ways to the ruination of our planet, and well over half of today's American adults look and act like the immobile Tubby Tubas satirically depicted in the film, and yet a film pushing the idea of reversing the downward ecological spiral is regarded as...partisan.
Imagine the following Variety review of Charles Chaplin's The Great Dictator ('40), to wit: "The Great Dictator pushes an agenda that could, and no doubt will, be interpreted as 'anti-Nazi' or 'anti-Hitler.' It's a theme that is certainly present, at least as pertains to what brought post-World War I Germany into a state of total economic ruin in the first place. But in a bigger sense, the picture seems to be making a quiet pitch against conquering neighboring countries or murdering Jews en masse. The adages about how you must shy away from German fascist doctrine by respecting other cultures and ethnicities, and that the proliferation of swatztikas can lead to catastrophic events -- both would seem to apply here."
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on June 26, 2008 at 8:52 AM
comment #1
Joe Leydon
says ...
Something odd about The Great Dictator: Before I showed it to my students Tuesday night, I also showed them a Three Stooges short -- You Nazty Spy -- released several months earlier in 1940. And... well... all of us noted a few, ahem, similarities between the two films. Now I am not ready to suggest that Chaplin swiped ideas from the Stooges, but... Well, the effect was more than a little jarring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Nazty_Spy!
Posted by Joe Leydon
at June 26, 2008 9:49 AM
comment #2
Mark
says ...
Hilarious. Please email that to McCarthy.
Posted by Mark
at June 26, 2008 9:50 AM
comment #3
bb
says ...
Wells, when you regale us with stories and pictures from the various festivals and screenings around the world, are we to assume you're scooting off everywhere on the Schwinn?
Posted by bb
at June 26, 2008 10:07 AM
comment #4
York "Budd" Durden
says ...
Being ecologically minded should be anything but a partisan issue--you may not believe in climate change (it's happening, but then it always is), but the idea of being more respectful of our environment by limiting the burning of fossil fuels, etc etc etc is win-win for all humanity.
Oh, never mind--just let the free market decide everything and all will fall into magical balance.
Posted by York "Budd" Durden
at June 26, 2008 10:15 AM
comment #5
thorsen1nk
says ...
Thanks for the awesome meta-game, Jeff:
Imagine the following Variety review of Tim Roth's The War Zone ('99), to wit: "The War Zone pushes an agenda that could, and no doubt will, be interpreted as 'anti-Incest' or 'anti-ass-raping-your-teenage daughter.'"
Imagine the following Variety review of Terry George's The Hotel Rwanda ('04), to wit: "Hotel Rwanda pushes an agenda that could, and no doubt will, be interpreted as 'anti-genocide' or 'anti-hacking-your-neighbor-to-death-with-a-machete.'"
McCarthy is an imbecile. How can the Ansens of the world get forced into retirement with hacks like him and Bunghola Dargis still get ink?
Posted by thorsen1nk
at June 26, 2008 10:17 AM
comment #6
Efron
says ...
Isn't the ecological message really secondary to the anti-consumerist message? The piles of trash that have accumulated on planet earth in the movie are post-consumer waste. It's the Buy-N-Large Corporation --a kind of WallMart stand-in that's makes the stuff and the fat (read: overly consumptive) humans responsible for casting off the stuff and suffocating the planet.
Posted by Efron
at June 26, 2008 10:47 AM
comment #7
gruver1
says ...
Wells to bb: You've nailed me to the wall! I'm done...finished! The fact that I take commercial jets to film festivals puts me in the same exact same boat as all the other fossil-fuel users and abusers, which makes me a hypocrite when I talk about the evils of global warming so why don't I just shut up and hang back and pop open a brewski and stop pointing fingers...right? Thanks bb, for setting me straight. A little voice was telling me that being a green guy made me a phony and a posturer, but now that you've pointed this out in so many words I feel cleansed, purged....I've seen the light! Tell me which global-warming-denying candidates should I sent contributions to? What kind of Cadillac Escalade SUV should I buy? You're my guru, man. You lead, I follow.
Posted by gruver1
at June 26, 2008 11:29 AM
comment #8
Richardson
says ...
"Isn't the ecological message really secondary to the anti-consumerist message?"
I really don't see how the two are mutually exclusive in any way.
Posted by Richardson
at June 26, 2008 1:04 PM
comment #9
Undercover Brother
says ...
Don't know why being 'green' is being construed as some kind of negative agenda and why Stanton is dodging it. The last time Hollywood came out with a 'green' movie was "The Day After Tomorrow." That film was openly pro-environment and hugely succesful (and as dumb as a bag of hammers).
Posted by Undercover Brother
at June 26, 2008 1:10 PM
comment #10
Richardson
says ...
UB - The thing is that if you talk about something like that as part of the pre-buzz, people go into it with a pre-formed opinion about the movie, or may not go at all. If you boil the entire 100 or so minute movie down to, "Oh, it's a pro-environment movie", it makes the movie itself seem simplistic, because people won't realize that it's the description itself which is simplistic and reductive. I personally think it's better to let the movie speak for itself and inspire people to take their own individual message from it, rather than have the filmmakers spell out in words what they were trying to say with cinematic images.
Posted by Richardson
at June 26, 2008 1:31 PM
comment #11
Efron
says ...
Richardson: I don't mean to suggest that they are mutually exclusive, as one begets the other. I'm suggesting that putting the emphasis on an environmental message (if indeed there is one) is to dwell on the effect not the cause. Especially in the current political climate. My take on the movie --which I've seen already-- is that its more interested in the former than the latter. Hairsplitting, perhaps, but I find the inflection is there.
Posted by Efron
at June 26, 2008 2:10 PM
comment #12
Jimmycrackcorn
says ...
"Don't know why being 'green' is being construed as some kind of negative agenda and why Stanton is dodging it. The last time Hollywood came out with a 'green' movie was "The Day After Tomorrow." That film was openly pro-environment and hugely succesful (and as dumb as a bag of hammers)."
You just answered your own question, didn't you? Yes, "Day After Tomorrow" did well, but think how it would have done if people actually liked it. If you took a poll and asked how many people have fond memories of the movie, what do you think the results would be?
Stanton and company are being just a little disingenuous in playing down the intentional message aspects, but they're not lying when they say it really does come out of the story.
Does anyone feel like "Stop Loss," whatever else it had going for it, was story-driven first and foremost? I know environmentalism is not quite as toxic (metaphorically speaking) as the war, but there's hardly a recent history of overt message movies that have worked for an audience. So obfuscate away, I say.
Posted by Jimmycrackcorn
at June 26, 2008 2:19 PM
comment #13
bb
says ...
"Wells to bb: You've nailed me to the wall! I'm done...finished! The fact that I take commercial jets to film festivals puts me in the same exact same boat as all the other fossil-fuel users and abusers, which makes me a hypocrite when I talk about the evils of global warming so why don't I just shut up and hang back and pop open a brewski and stop pointing fingers...right? Thanks bb, for setting me straight. A little voice was telling me that being a green guy made me a phony and a posturer, but now that you've pointed this out in so many words I feel cleansed, purged....I've seen the light! Tell me which global-warming-denying candidates should I sent contributions to? What kind of Cadillac Escalade SUV should I buy? You're my guru, man. You lead, I follow."
Wells, maybe you should start with getting back on your meds so you don't expend so much wasted energy on flipping out.
The fact is you have taken the strident view that the filmmakers are somehow copping out on this movie because they don't have the balls to stand up on and shout from the ramparts the desperately critical message that people are destroying the world with greenhouse gas (and their fat asses).
Evidently you aren't aware that the people in your camp also vilify those that fly all over the world and contribute exponentially more greenhouse gasses than the average person. I'm not one of those people so I don't really think you are actually destroying the world but a lot of people on your side of the issue do. So take that up with them.
They're already vilifying you now unless they give you a pass like the Hollywood elite...and Al Gore.
Get over yourself. If you are going to take that side, live the lifestyle that that side demands. Otherwise shut your trap about it.
Posted by bb
at June 26, 2008 6:14 PM