'Wall-E': A stealth Michael Moore-style attack on America?

The great thing about broadly ambitious movies that strike a chord with mainstream audiences is that they often inspire equally ambitious critical theories about their message and themes--or, in some cases, about how the critical establishment has totally missed the boat about what's going on. One of my favorite bloggers, Bill Wyman at Hitsville, has now weighed in with a wonderfully provocative post, posing the question: What if Pixar released a ferocious charge attacking the American way of life and the movie reviewers didn't notice?  Here's a snippet:

"If Michael Moore, or Oliver Stone, or, God forbid, some effete French director, had crafted a feature film that was a thinly disguised political broadside portraying Americans as recumbent tubbos who moved around on sliding barcaloungers with built-in video screens and soft drinks always at the ready, don't you think there'd be some sort of notice taken? But Pixar does it and the reviewers barely mention it.... I'm no film theorist, but I think what director Andrew Stanton is trying to tell us is that we humans eat so much and limit our movements to such a degree that we will soon become immobile whales unable to focus past the video screens permanently affixed in our field of vision."

I think Wyman is being a little too dismissive of the critical response, since even he has to acknowledge that some critics, notably the New York Times' A.O. Scott, managed to see the point quite clearly--and I'd argue that our Kenny Turan made note of it as well--but Wyman's larger argument is worth considering. Sometimes the most pointed cinematic social criticism goes unnoticed because it is disguised by the genre elements of a film or, in this case, perhaps because we view Pixar films (and animated films in general) as being triumphs of visual style and storytelling, not social commentary.

Want to see a classic example of the critics initially ignoring a film's underlying message? 

 

Go back and watch Don Siegel's 1956 classic B-movie thriller, "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." Made at the tail end of the Red Scare, it was initially viewed by critics as a cheap but effective horror film about a small town where residents are being secretly replaced by duplicate "people" hatched from alien pods. I saw it on TV one night as a kid and had to sleep with four lights on in my room for about a month afterward.

In recent years, the film has inspired heated critical debate. Everyone agrees it was a sly political allegory, but no one agrees on just what. Liberals see the pod invasion as an allusion to McCarthy-era paranoia and conformity; conservatives see the pods as a symbol for communism, where everyone would be forced to think alike. (Go here for an especially meaty essay on the subject by John Whitehead.)

I think Wyman will be proved right (that there's more going on in "Wall-E" than meets the eye) and proved wrong too. If "Wall-E'' keeps drawing crowds at the multiplex this summer, I'm betting that coverage of the film will migrate to the op-ed pages as critics, and a host of other commentators, head back for a second viewing. The good news: Unlike most summer movies, "Wall-E" is laced with a quietly disturbing message that offers plenty to ponder.

"Wall-E" photo from Disney/Pixar

Comments

[steve kindel]

If reviewers missed the social commentary in Wall-E, it's probably because they didn't see the movie. The dirty little secret of movie review journalism is that the overwhelming majority of reviewers watch EPKs -- electronic press kits -- of the films, and thus see only what the studios want them to see. I have been reading reviews and listening to commentators on television for years, and then going to see the movies being commented upon--and it is often clear that the reviewer has not actually seen the movie. Back in the 1980s, when EPKs first became prevalent, I used to get them all the time. I went to a lot of screenings in New York, and was always fascinated by the fact that I'd show up at the screening, see the journalists I knew, and then read reviews he following morning or afternoon from journalists who had never attended the screening. After asking various film publicists, I got the answer -- electronic press kits. It's lazy and dishonest, but why should journalists be different from anyone else in this often lazy and dishonest world?

[greg]

I went to see the movie with some older folks who were offended by it and "didn't see the point of it". They said it was the second family movie this year to portray cruise ship passengers as stupid or fat. (the first being Nimm's Island)
They, of course, are overweight "cruisers" themselves. The rest of us loved it.

[James]

MIchael Moore's name is now a 'demonizing' adjective used by the 'righteous' much as the word 'liberal' was vilified by republicans in the 80s. Cast stones in our American glass house at all of our peril. If we take a moment to look at why this recent phenomenon exists, we'd have to ignore the merits of Mr. Moore's actions. In 1989, he released the documentary Roger and Me in a Don Quixotic attempt to ask General Motors CEO why he destroyed his hometown in Michigan to open plants overseas at the expense of American workers. The answer - shareholder profits and over the top Executive compensation....Did America listen? His next project examined why America is such a violent society in Bowling For Columbine. In a country with per capita gun ownership equal to Canada, why are we so violent. The answer - Infotainment news focused on scaring and titillating it's audience, media ownership by the defense industry and lobbyists in the gun and prison industries....Did America care? Next was Fahrenheit 9/11 which examined why the Bush Admin was obsessed with going to war using lies and manipulation to fill the coffers of their biggest cronies - Defense Companies. Will the men and women of our military ever trust our leaders again? And finally, Sicko, why can't a country as wealthy and 'free' as ours not offer universal heath care to its people? Sadly, insurance and health care lobbyists still control the representatives of government who sit on their hands at the peril of their constituents. History will wonder why patriots who stand up to truth against insurmountable odds often are ostracized. Fortunately, our country was founded by such men of courage and we see through the power levers attack machine......by the way....the review forgot to say what a great movie Wall-E is.

[poliwog]

"... a thinly disguised political broadside portraying Americans as recumbent tubbos..."

Doesn't the movie depict *humans*, not *Americans*, as having destroyed the planet?

Projection -- it's not just for movie theaters anymore!

[Geezus]

It's a kid's movie, people!! Turn off your brain and don't overanalyze it!!

[Dev]

Many people don't realize the humans are not just fat because of the corporation, when you spend a long time in space you lose bone mass. Gravity on earth helps us retain bone mass, space? Not really.

Also anyone trying to read some politics other than "we need to get our crap together" needs to readjust their glasses.

[billsweet]

Did anybody notice that Wall E was just a cartoon version of Idiocracy?

[MoroccoMole]

Didn't both sides of the political aisle try to claim Forrest Gump for their own when that became the mega-hit of '94?

[Arye Michael Bender]

Social criticism is the highest form of patriotism. To watch one's nation come apart without speaking out is a crime against society. We cannot even begin to fix what we deny.

[Jon K.]

America is strong because we are self-critical. And that criticism and the debate surrounding it is what motivates us to positively evolve as a country. I don't fear social criticism in the slightest because I love America.