Day 153 - 6/2/09 - Movie #153
BEFORE: Yes, this counts as an apocalyptic film. Who says they can't feature lovable animated characters?
THE PLOT: In the distant future, a small waste-collecting robot inadvertently embarks on a space journey that will ultimately decide the fate of mankind.
AFTER: This is a great illustration of the point I was trying to make yesterday. This movie was universally loved by audiences, made a kajillion dollars at the box office, and was listed by many critics as one of the top movies of 2008 - so why did it rub me the wrong way?
First, it's very preachy - those irresponsible humans polluted their planet so much, they had to leave it and go into space. There go those Hollywood liberals again, with their hybrid cars and their recycling bins...the politics of the filmmakers are very transparent.
Second, there's the portrayal of all the humans as fat, lazy, tech-addicted morons. Suggesting a link between a big gut and a low I.Q. - as a person of above-average waist size, I think I'm offended. And as a filmmaker, I have to question the wisdom of ridiculing humans - you do realize they make up the majority of your target audience, don't you? Do you think that fat kids are so dumb they won't realize that they should go out and exercise unless you exaggerate it to the extreme and place it in a parable with some goofy robots? If anything, overweight people are SMART - it's the muscle-bound exercising jocks that are dumb, as long as we're stereotyping.
Third, we come to a common problem in animated films - the over-slapstickification of the robots' actions. A lot of falling down, falling over and bumping into things is not a good-enough substitute for proper dialogue and characterization, in my opinion. The ro(bot)mance between the high-tech WALL-E and the higher-tech EVE was interesting and charming, but since their only communication seemed to be saying their names to each other, over and over (with slightly different inflections, I'll admit), it's too repetitive to be considered some kind of ground-breaking minimalism.
You can disagree with my rating, go ahead, that's what makes this country (and planet) great. But I have to give it a...
RATING: 6 out of 10 compacted trash-blocks (I was all set to give it a 4, but I'm a sucker for a happy ending)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
First, it isn't preachy at all. The concept of burying the Earth in trash is given just enough bones to establish why the Humans left and why WALL*E was there. It's very much a little kid's version of a planetwide apocalypse.
ReplyDeleteSecond, the humans aren't stupid. They're just unchallenged by their surroundings. The captain's upset when Otto fails to wake him for the morning announcements because "it's the only thing I get to do." And the moment something new and different hits the bridge, he's on it like a mongoose on a snake.
That's the whole point of the movie: WALL*E realizes "there must be something better out there." The Humans had been cruising for so long that they'd sort of forgotten that but were easily roused. John and...er...the other human. They're jostled out of their Space Rascals or whatever and they're instantly roused into curiosity and wonder.
Fat? Fair cop. But I hardly think they were slamming fat people in general. 700 years of reduced gravity and reduced activity will do that to a human population.
Third, if you think WALL*E and EVE were under-characterized...good God, man. It's a master class in moviemaking, specifically because the bots' vocabulary is minimal.
EVE has two lines: "Directive" and "Wall-E." They mean hugely different things at the end of the movie than they did at the beginning.
Fourth: you've already lost my sofa, that's for sure. I'm just trying to decide whether you'll be sleeping in the basement or the garage when you visit this weekend.
If I make a movie about a politician who's corrupt, the language of film suggests that I'm saying ALL politicians are corrupt, unless I also include an example of a non-corrupt politician for balance. If I show a high-school boy who's shy around girls, same thing.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard NOT to take the depiction of humans in WALL-E and apply it to the humans of today - to take it as an example of what WILL happen (in the writer/director's opinion) if kids keep eating the junk food, staring at computer screens, and polluting the planet.
In that sense, the movie is nothing BUT preachy - we're supposedly digging a hole for ourselves that only the robots can save us from. Well, I'm sorry, but I've got a little more faith in my fellow humans than that.
I've been on 2 cruises - in the Caribbean, not in space - and yes, people tend to be larger and more inert, especially after a trip to the buffet. But they still swim, and play shuffleboard, and jog around the deck. To have characters so stupid that they say "There's a pool?" seems excessive and borderline offensive.
OK, WALL-E wasn't undercharacterized, but he was "Chaplin-esque". I hate things that are "Chaplin-esque", including Charlie Chaplin. There, I said it...
ReplyDeleteLet me put it this way - this film is like an umbrella on a rainy day - and a lot of people seem to like umbrellas, and are fairly satisfied with the way they work.
ReplyDeleteMe? Not so much. As mentioned above, I'm above-average on the BMI index - so I either need the super-huge obnoxious umbrella that pokes other people in the eye, or I use a regular-size one that causes water to drain into my backpack or down the back of my shirt.
I'm clearly unsatisfied with the way umbrellas function - and if I keep buying them, I'll be supporting the Big Three umbrella makers, and there's no motivation for them to develop some new kind of Personal Rain Protection System without those obvious flaws.
I can see the flaws in an umbrella, why am I the only one who's unsatisfied with how they (fail to) work? Look, scrap the whole concept, come up with a new way to keep me dry, and we'll talk.
Same way with "WALL-E", I can see the obvious flaws in the storytelling. Yes, it charmed me - but sometimes that's just Not Good Enough. I'm pissed off at the whole concept.
One more thing - after watching some horrid Don Bluth animated films earlier this year, where long stretches of dialogue consist of "Papa!" "Fievel!" "Mama!" "Fievel!" and so on ad infinitum...
ReplyDeleteIf this movie contains just "Wall-E!" "Eve!" "Wall-E!" "Eve!" back and forth, I'm hard pressed to say that there's much difference there.
Also, when you consider who I work for, I've come to view filmmaking with minimal lip-synched dialogue as a cost-cutting measure rather than a bold experiment in storytelling.
Naw, I don't follow you. I don't think the "language of film" dictates that at all.
ReplyDeleteI think the director is pretty clear. He isn't saying "See? SEE?!? This will be US, if we keep going the way we've been going!" He's taking a made-up situation to an absurd extreme for the purposes of entertainment.
If he wasn't clear in the movie (as far as you're concerned) he's been explicit in interviews. He said he wasn't telling an ecological tale. The Earth turns out the way it does because "The planet is covered with a miles-thick layer of trash" is a little-kid's vision of the end of the planet.
If there's a message to the movie it's "Dare to dream, dare to do." It applies to the humans and the robots alike.
I don't think I need to bother Googling the phrase. I can confidently say that you're the only person on the planet who's ever associated the term "cost-cutting measure" with a Pixar release.
ReplyDeleteI'm 100% certain that they've never made a creative decision based on anything other than "this serves the story best." C'mon, man...we're not talking Clutch Cargo, here.
Bottom line: I was 100% satisfied with the story. 100% satisfied with the characters' performances and 100% annoyed that "Kung Fu Panda" -- a perfectly fine but manifestly ordinary movie -- won the Annie award instead of WALL*E.
I am willing to bet on two things. I bet that the director of "Wall-E" has a pre-teen or teenage child who eats too much junk food, sends too many text messages, and never picks up after him-(or her) self. Because if this isn't a preachy message to humanity, then it's a thinly veiled message to that kid.
ReplyDeleteI also bet that when I do watch "Kung Fu Panda", I'll give it a higher rating.