I saw Wall-E for the second time over the weekend. Watching movies twice is something I often do. Since I know how the story itself unfolds the second time, I usually look for some of the more subtle elements of theatrical storytelling: the music, the technical aspects, the cinematography, or even searching for some sort of between-the-lines meaning that floats underneath the plot. Wall-E is most certainly not without deep and meaningful truths.
Caution: If you've haven't seen Wall-E yet, save reading this blog until after you've seen it. You really owe it to yourself to see this movie without any kind of preconceived notions. Really, go see it now.
Now that we got that out of the way, let's first give those geniuses at Pixar their due; it's truly a visually captivating film. There's not one frame in this 132-minute epic that isn't spectacular. I am continually impressed by the imagination of these guys. And might I point out that so many of the names in the end credits got their start on "The Simpsons": Brad Bird and Jim Reardon, to name two. The first half-hour contains no dialogue whatsoever, telling a story in a Charlie Chaplin-esque style to which most modern moviegoers are not accustomed. Allusions to other literary and cinematic works, most notably 2001, are sprinkled throughout.
But the technical brilliance of Wall-E is merely the beginning. The depth of its story and the gravity of some of its implications overwhelm you as you're watching it. It's nearly impossible to sum the premise this film up in five sentences, but in the interest of further analysis, I will try. Earth has been completely trashed by its inhabitants; not by greenhouse gases or nuclear waste, but literally with trash, as fueled by an ultra-consumerist government/corporation hybrid that really depends upon technology for everything. While robots are left behind to clean up the mess (one of which is Wall-E), all of Earth's inhabitants are sent to space on a five year uber-vacation where robots tend to humans' every need. Small problem: Earth actually has become so toxic that it's become uninhabitable, so the vacation turns permanent. Humans don't really seem to mind, as they're perfectly happy in an environment where their needs are always immediately fulfilled and all work (including walking) is eliminated. But, as the story unfolds, humans eventually rebel and prevail over the oppressive (not in the usual sense) regime of the ship's robotic auto pilot, Auto.
And of course, analysts on various 24-hour news networks stooped a little low and stirred up controversy around this movie. (Which shocked me, given the depth of their usual programming. I'm kidding.) Is Wall-E just tree-hugging environmentalist and anti-consumerist propaganda? Is it a criticism of liberalism, saying that big government will eventually choke the individuality out of us?
I believe that if you're making such an argument, you're kind of missing the point, and you're only trying to use the themes presented in this film to discredit those whose opinions don't match you're own. That's not to say that there aren't important lessons here: it's conceivable that we could end up as brainless and over-pampered blobs who must always have our eyes pasted to some sort of computer screen. And that's pretty undesirable.
Wall-E teaches us that humanity is unbelievably important and is something we cannot lose. The irony of Wall-E lies in the fact that the robots are the most human entities in this movie (at least until the end). The love story between robots Wall-E and Eve only can develop when they transcend their internal programming and circuitry that should compel them only to accomplish a certain set of tasks. Also, it seems to me (and some other columnists and bloggers) that Wall-E is easy to connect to because he (or it?) is charged with the relatively menial task of collecting and compacting trash. There's something awfully human about hard work.
I was pleased to read some approving columns from both sides of the political warzone. New York Times columnist Frank Rich wrote some interesting things in his column. To continue my Jon Stewart-esque criticism of 24-hour news, "While the real-life grown-ups on TV were again rebooting Vietnam, the kids at Wall-E were in deep contemplation of a world in peril — and of the future that is theirs to make what they will of it. Compare any 10 minutes of the movie with 10 minutes of any cable-news channel, and you’ll soon be asking: Exactly who are the adults in our country and who are the cartoon characters?"
And conservative columnist Rod Dreher provided some interesting analysis as well: "Wall-E says that humans have within themselves the freedom to rebel, to overthrow that which dominates and alienates us from our true selves, and our own nature. But you have to question the prime directive; that is, you have to become conscious of how the way you're living is destroying your body and killing your soul, and choose to resist. Wall-E contends that real life is hard, real life is struggle, and that we live most meaningfully not by avoiding pain and struggle, but by engaging it creatively, and sharing that struggle in community." (Full column at, yes, beliefnet.com)
The bottom line is that Wall-E is just a great story with lessons that we should all repeat to ourselves occasionally. (And by the way, even if it is "environmentalist propaganda", is that such a terrible thing?) But one thing is for sure: the fact that Wall-E has the depth to allow for such discussions, when compared to the usual fare in the animated film industry, let alone its technical brilliance, is reason enough to convince me that it should at least be in the running for Best Picture at next February's Academy Awards.
Anyone still reading? Didn't think so.
No comments:
Post a Comment