In other words…
Christianity Today film critic Josh Hurst *loves* WALL-E!
It’s more than a little ironic, then, that the studio’s greatest achievement to date is a movie that is, on one level, about technology, and that the picture it paints is not a pretty one. WALL-E, from director Andrew Stanton of Finding Nemo, is arguably the purest work of hard science fiction to appear on the big screen in ten or fifteen years, and the world that it creates is bleaker and more dystopian than in any American animated film you care to name.
…
This is science fiction the way science fiction is meant to be. It creates a world that’s clearly not our own, but it’s totally believable as the place we’re headed, maybe a hundred years down the line. But it’s not cynical or misanthropic; like the best sci-fi, it uses these imaginative conceits to ask big questions about our world and our humanity. It’s a movie about love amidst chaos, about the dangers of unchecked greed and the forces that overcome it.
…
And it is absolutely not a political movie, no matter how hard a small faction of political bloggers might try to pin it as one. Yes, it has a message about the environment — take care of it. And yes, it has a message about capitalism—too much of it can be sinful. These aren’t political points; they’re very basic moral ones, and no rational Christian has any grounds on which to object to them.But even more than a great work of sci-fi, this is a great work of cinema. WALL-E is Pixar’s boldest, bravest film yet, opening with half an hour in which no dialogue occurs. Much of the story is told, then, only through images, and in this regard, it’s the most sophisticated and subtle film Pixar has yet made. There are moments of inspired visual humor, and of poignant visual metaphors. There are small gestures and little moments that say more than a script ever could. It’s so gloriously evocative, surely it deserves to be called poetry.
P.S. Okay, my headline was just a joke. If it makes any sense at all for Focus on the Family’s blogger to read CT’s mixed-review of Sex and the City and respond with the headline “Christianity Today Relishes Sexual Perversion,” well, then, the same logic would lead to this headline…
Methinks Josh may be slightly overstating the “it is absolutely not a political movie” line. Aside from the fact that he seems to ignore the “stay the course” controversy altogether — and aside from the fact that he seems to be either ignoring the film’s left-leaning critics or lumping them together with the right-leaning ones in the “small faction of political bloggers” to which he refers — there is the simple fact that “moral” themes will always have “political” implications, especially when they apply to an entire society as they seem to do here.
Jeffrey, getting pretty close to trolling there with that headline aren’t you? 😉
Well, I “ignored” the “stay the course” controversy because there’s nothing in the film that merits such a controversy. It’s a non-issue, as far as I can tell, that’s been blown way out of proportion, for reasons that Jeffrey and others have already gone into.
And yes, I ignore the left-leaning critics largely because I don’t anticipate that many of our readers will be aligning themselves with said critics. In a different sort of publication, I might have addressed it, but didn’t see a need to here.
As for the final comment, yes, the moral themes apply not just to individuals but to a society as well, but, at the same time, I think the movie suggests that any kind of societal change must begin with individuals (in this case, with John/Mary, or perhaps even Wall*E/Eve). Moreover, I don’t think that any of the issues are “political” in the sense that they involve any kind of political rhetoric or fall along partisan lines, etc. That is to say, I don’t think the themes addressed here have much to do with any particular party of clique.
Gosh, Peter– even when I shut down my blog, I still can’t get away from political debate with you! 🙂
And I’m not going to let any of my blog posts on WALL-E get bogged down in debate about such a throwaway line… a line that’s been used by three presidents so prominently that it’s been a common, comical “presidential punchline” for more than a decade. So let’s discuss the film as a whole, not drag it down with speculation about that one line. I want people to enjoy the movie, not go in with misconceptions about any kind of political agenda.
And I mean it. I will block posts. There are plenty of other blogs where people are deciding to dwell on one tiny speck instead of the grand tapestry. This isn’t going to be one of those.
What controversy?
I can’t wait to see this movie! From everything I’m hearing, and especially after reading this review (thanks Jeffrey!), this is at the top of my list for the weekend.
Well, I “ignored” the “stay the course” controversy because there’s nothing in the film that merits such a controversy.
Well, apart from the line itself, at any rate. I certainly don’t want to blow things out of proportion, myself — especially as I haven’t seen the film yet — but your use of the word “absolutely” is what seemed to go a little too far, to me. You might even say that, as a rebuttal, it was disproportionate! It protested too much against the people who protested too much. Is there really not even just a teensy-weensy bit of political content there, given what Fred Willard has said about his delivery of that line, etc.?
And yes, I ignore the left-leaning critics largely because I don’t anticipate that many of our readers will be aligning themselves with said critics. In a different sort of publication, I might have addressed it, but didn’t see a need to here.
Huh. I don’t make any such assumptions about CT’s readership — especially given the track record we seem to have established in their eyes!
The fact is, people like Todd McCarthy of Variety have said the film is “pushing” an “agenda” — and they say this approvingly — while people like Devin Faraci have affirmed the agenda and criticized the ad campaign for betraying it on some level, and people like Jeffrey Wells have praised the film for its political message while complaining about the “lie” that the marketing campaign is forcing the filmmakers to tell the public, etc., etc.
And no, none of these people are talking about “stay the course”, they’re all talking about the “grand tapestry” — the environmentalist message, the anti-consumerist message (which is, I think, a slightly different and perhaps less-political thing than an anti-capitalist message), and so on.
So … do you think all those people are wrong, too? Is the film a lot less political than the people who embrace the movie’s politics say it is?
(I would provide links, but I think the comments get held up or something if you provide too many, so I won’t.)
Moreover, I don’t think that any of the issues are “political” in the sense that they involve any kind of political rhetoric or fall along partisan lines, etc. That is to say, I don’t think the themes addressed here have much to do with any particular party of clique.
Ah, well, my understanding of the word “political” is a bit broader than “partisan”. Maybe because I come from a country with a four-party — as opposed to two-party — system, where it is a given that on any given issue, you will probably find at least two parties on the same side.
Right now we have the odd spectacle of the right-wing party in my province imposing a carbon tax against the objections of the left-wing opposition party, while the right-wing party at the federal level is opposing a similar measure that has been proposed by the main left-wing opposition party. It’s political however you slice it, even if you can’t easily say which side of the issue either wing will come down on.
Gosh, Peter‚Äì even when I shut down my blog, I still can‚Äôt get away from political debate with you! 🙂
Maybe we should get a room. 🙂 (Gah, I have no idea where that came from!)
Its been called “one of the great movies of all time” by (Dr.) Ted Baehr.
You fellas go “get a room.”
Most people will see what they want to see in the film. If they only look at it through a “political” lens, they’ll see politics. If they go in thinking about Dubya, they’ll find Dubya.
Me, I want as many lenses as possible with which to appreciate the film, and it succeeds on so many levels, I don’t want to be preoccupied talking about what we see with just one little variety of lens.
So that’s all about agendas and politics. Let Todd McCarthy stick with that if he wants too. Let’s talk about characterization and storytelling and animation and sound effects and creativity and musicals and 2001 and Charlie Chaplin and Jacques Tati and what happens to human bone structure after extended time in space… and what the film has to say about the irrationality of love … between machines!
It’s a single line. I pity people who can’t enjoy a movie because of one line of dialog. I suppose the “moral” of the film can be political in so much as there is a silly debate in the west that casts giving any kind of concern to rampant consumerism and the environment as the domain of raging liberals. But that’s the foolishness of political partisans. Josh is right that treating the environment with care is not something that a reasonable person (and especially Christians-who believe this is little world is part of God’s handiwork) should oppose.
I wish I could was thoughtful about the movie more directly, as I certainly am anxious to see it. Jeffrey, Josh and SDG (I would include Ebert, but I don’t want to read his review before I see the movie…so I do not know how thrilled he was with the movie) and others overwhelming love for the movie is infectious. Plus, really, even my least favorite Pixar films have been far more enjoyable than pretty much every other computer animated cartoon. I suppose if there had not been films such as the Shrek films (which I found entertaining, but highly forgettable), maybe I would think less of Cars or A Bug’s Life. But when those are a studio’s worst films? They have a pretty good batting average.