Jump to content

Wall-E


Peter T Chattaway
 Share

Recommended Posts

I actually was rather fascinated by the concept of over-gratification and a "complete" consumerism. As far as I know, these people weren't holding jobs, they weren't handling money or any sort of trade-currency; they were merely consuming. I didn't find it a degrading view of humanity because it seemed to be more like a caricature of what really does happen when people become too absorbed with being entertained and over-gratified. I'm not even going to touch the issue of scientific "bone density loss" because it's not what I'm talking about at all.

Not to make this too deep or anything, but it reminds me of Francis Schaeffer's "civilization" cycle in "How Shall We Then Live?" I don't remember it exactly, and as I'm in the process of moving, the book is already packed, but the best I can remember it is: bondage > rebellion > revolution > independence > recovery > prosperity > overabundance > apathy > bondage. I'd appreciate any help or correction from someone who remembers it more clearly or has a copy of the book on-hand!

But yeah, the general view (more really, as Chattaway mentioned in jest, of Americans, but really any country that's got "more than it needs" than stuff for basic survival available right now) of humanity as self-consumed, clueless people made sense to me. It was exaggerated, yes, but I think more to make a point-- they needed to have their eyes opened to the joy of relationships and the value of work once more. All their things had blinded them to the blessings (even, actually, other material blessings like a pool!) that were around them.

And really, the complete consumerism instant-gratification concept unnerves and frightens me as much as it intrigues me.

Edited by livingeleven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 598
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I actually was rather fascinated by the concept of over-gratification and a "complete" consumerism. As far as I know, these people weren't holding jobs, they weren't handling money or any sort of trade-currency; they were merely consuming. I didn't find it a degrading view of humanity because it seemed to be more like a caricature of what really does happen when people become too absorbed with being entertained and over-gratified.

Is that really a social problem though? Do we have such a large number of people who don't work and simply become over-gratified and entertained? Seems to me, everyone has to work for a living and that just isn't a real big social issue. I'm more inclined to believe that fantasy is something made up in the minds of thin people who don't like fat people. Everyone I know, especially the overweight people work darn hard for a living trying to earn enough for a few luxuries in life. And I don't think you can fault middle class America (even overweight America) for wanting to spend time more with their families at movie theaters and Disney Cruises on occasion. I just think that caricature is more insulting than it is accurate.

But yeah, the general view (more really, as Chattaway mentioned in jest, of Americans, but really any country that's got "more than it needs" than stuff for basic survival available right now) of humanity as self-consumed, clueless people made sense to me. It was exaggerated, yes, but I think more to make a point-- they needed to have their eyes opened to the joy of relationships and the value of work once more. All their things had blinded them to the blessings (even, actually, other material blessings like a pool!) that were around them.

And really, the complete consumerism instant-gratification concept unnerves and frightens me as much as it intrigues me.

I kind of think the opposite. I really don't think our society overvalues consumption to the detriment of relationships but instead it overvalues *work* to the detriment of relationships. In fact, it is in consumption, play, vacation, or whatever you want to call it where relationships get recharged from their neglect. If Axiom were not so hyperbolized there would be a lot more babies on that ship because there would be a lot more, uh, gratification going on. Now contrast Star Trek's Enterprise where that ship is all about work, there aren't many babies being made there. It is considered a positive thing in our society when someone works 70hrs a week and pours his/her life into his/her job instead of spending that extra time on their family at home. In fact, with few exceptions society is structured such that one *has* to do that in order to be successful. The protestant work ethic has run amok and employers are only too happy to let it. Now there is a critique on capitalism that would be worth seeing. Letting robots do the work should be a good thing.

Sorry, don't mean to sidetrack the thread with something Stanton stated he didn't intend for his movie, but it obvious many people interpreted it such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Denny Wayman wrote:

: Not a fan. I agree the creative genius is there but I really do think this is an exagerated and degrading view of humanity.

Nah, only of Americans. Other humans don't even seem to EXIST in this world. ;)

We just took over once we got on the Axiom. Actually,

I got the impression there had been many ships that left the Earth....

what happened to them?

"You know...not EVERY story has to be interesting." -Gibby

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that really a social problem though? Do we have such a large number of people who don't work and simply become over-gratified and entertained? Seems to me, everyone has to work for a living and that just isn't a real big social issue.

I'm not entirely sure I consider it social commentary, to be honest. I think there's definitely a problem with people working too much, and there's definitely something healthy in getting away and enjoying life. I don't think I found it insulting because I was viewing it more as social theory, if that makes sense. It was kind of like reading 1984 by Orwell, or Brave New World by Huxley; The Giver by Lois Lowry or watching Gattaca. I wasn't insulted because I didn't think it was so much a movie about where things are headed as much as it is a movie about how things might be. How much would most of humanity truly and honestly function if the work model was removed? If people weren't even given the option of work, if they were denied the basic function of work, how well would people cope, in the face of everything being available to them?

I hope that makes more sense. :) I'm sorry I didn't clarify that more in my previous post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I found it insulting because I was viewing it more as social theory, if that makes sense. It was kind of like reading 1984 by Orwell, or Brave New World by Huxley; The Giver by Lois Lowry or watching Gattaca. I wasn't insulted because I didn't think it was so much a movie about where things are headed as much as it is a movie about how things might be. How much would most of humanity truly and honestly function if the work model was removed? If people weren't even given the option of work, if they were denied the basic function of work, how well would people cope, in the face of everything being available to them?

I hope that makes more sense.

Yes..it does, thanks for that clarification. I can accept that and I think it gives me a better perspective with Wall-E as a science fiction film. Perhaps I was too harsh in my judgement and took offense too easily. (Although I'm sure I'm not the only one who did). Perhaps 50-100 years down the road this will indeed be a social problem...just as Brave New World and 1984 seem more applicable today than they did when written...or perhaps not.

Edited by Thoreau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thoreau wrote:

: Sorry, don't mean to sidetrack the thread with something Stanton stated he didn't intend for his movie, but it obvious many people interpreted it such.

That's okay; the director's intentions only count for so much. Art tends to be full of lots of UNintentional stuff, too. (Remember how George Lucas kept saying there couldn't be any racist stereotypes in The Phantom Menace simply because he didn't MEAN to put them in there? It doesn't change the fact that they were THERE, in a way that they had NEVER been in the original trilogy. As with Lucas, so with Pixar -- you have to wonder if it is really possible that NO ONE brought up these matters during the three to four years that they spent making these movies. And, if no one did, then you have to wonder if the artists have become surrounded by yes-men who have learned it is better for their careers if they never question the masters. And so we are back to those comments Greg and I made, earlier in this thread, wondering if the filmmakers have become so "out of touch" that they don't realize the implications of their own work and no one felt like pointing it out to them until it was too late.)

: Perhaps 50-100 years down the road this will indeed be a social problem...just as Brave New World and 1984 seem more applicable today than they did when written...or perhaps not.

FWIW, comments like these, in this context, remind me of the criticism that has been leveled at Lucas for THX 1138, where he apparently muddled the dystopian elements by having people live in an Orwellian world and a Huxleyan world SIMULTANEOUSLY. Lucas has never been one for philosophical consistency. (For a better depiction of the Orwellian and Huxleyan dystopias -- and a better distinction between them -- I usually recommend Watership Down, where the rabbits looking for a new home encounter different warrens, including one that is Huxleyan and one that is Orwellian.)

It is not clear to me whether WALL*E has a similar philosophical muddledness, but to be honest, I haven't thought about it much in those terms yet. Right now I'm more interested in how some aspects of the film detract from other aspects on the level of STORY-telling.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Denny Wayman wrote:

: Not a fan. I agree the creative genius is there but I really do think this is an exagerated and degrading view of humanity.

Nah, only of Americans. Other humans don't even seem to EXIST in this world. ;)

Yes, there are so many things missing from this for me - as a lover of science fiction. that is only one of many things. One cockroach? No plants? One city? The story is just so weak in so many ways.

Denny

Since 1995 we have authored a commentary on film, cinema in focus. Though we enjoy cinema as an art form, our interests lie not so much in reviewing a film as in beginning a conversation about the social and spiritual values presented. We, therefore, often rate a film higher or lower due to its message rather than its quality of acting or film-making.

Cinema In Focus Website

Free Methodist Church of Santa Barbara Website

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kind of think the opposite. I really don't think our society overvalues consumption to the detriment of relationships but instead it overvalues *work* to the detriment of relationships. In fact, it is in consumption, play, vacation, or whatever you want to call it where relationships get recharged from their neglect.

Yes - this view of humanity - especially of Americans - is reversed - it greatly weakens the film. You don't find this kind of agenda in his other films. I was very disappointed.

Denny

Since 1995 we have authored a commentary on film, cinema in focus. Though we enjoy cinema as an art form, our interests lie not so much in reviewing a film as in beginning a conversation about the social and spiritual values presented. We, therefore, often rate a film higher or lower due to its message rather than its quality of acting or film-making.

Cinema In Focus Website

Free Methodist Church of Santa Barbara Website

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This movie is a masterpiece. I don't know how Pixar does it. Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful.

I had to go to the bathroom around 30 minutes in, but didn't want to miss a second, afraid I'd lose out on 4 or 5 or 6 great visuals/gags/moments in the 3 minutes I'd be gone. I held on for 15 minutes, then went. I'm sure I missed some great stuff, but I'll definitely be seeing this one again. I've already promised my girls we'll go see it when it comes to the second-run theater.

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad you liked it, Christian!

I'm thinking of it as a fable or a fairy tale, which is certainly what it seems like it wants to be. And fables and fairy tales always have huge implausibility problems, or could be interpreted in unsettling or offensive ways. (Is Snow White and the Seven Dwarves making fun of short people?) Auralia's Colors started as a short fable, and the more I re-wrote it for detail and depth, the more implausible the central storyline became, so I kept having to find ways to change the story so that it could still be taken seriously. I can see how WALL-E posed the storytellers some challenges, but I think it works beautifully. Can't wait to see it again.

Bring on the contrarians! ;)

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Is Snow White and the Seven Dwarves making fun of short people?)

It would be if it portrayed them as fat lazy slobs who couldn't even stand up to give a "hi ho off to work we go". :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Is Snow White and the Seven Dwarves making fun of short people?)

It would be if it portrayed them as fat lazy slobs who couldn't even stand up to give a "hi ho off to work we go". :)

But they are portrayed as lazy slobs who can't even clean up after themselves.

Hey! I'm short, and I can clean my house! Maybe I should be offended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Is Snow White and the Seven Dwarves making fun of short people?)

It would be if it portrayed them as fat lazy slobs who couldn't even stand up to give a "hi ho off to work we go". :)

But they are portrayed as lazy slobs who can't even clean up after themselves.

Hey! I'm short, and I can clean my house! Maybe I should be offended.

Not sure about the lazy part. It's been a while, but I seem to remember an "off to work we go" sequence which implied that at least they worked for a living. Mining is pretty hard work. Ironically enough, last week I spent a 1/2 day at a diamond mine in Arkansas hunting gems. That was vacation and that was still very very hard work.

If anything, it was probably their maleness not their stature that was being made fun of as slobs, as they obviously needed a young beautiful maid to clean up after themselves.

But I'm belaboring an already over discussed point, and I appreciate Overstreet's perspective as a writer creating stories. Being easily offended is no virture but writing creative original stories certainly is. I do consider this a minor flaw in an otherwise wonderful film (FWIW..I gave Wall-E 4 stars!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure Wall*E portrays it's people fat, lazy slobs. It portrays people following their programming until the veil is lifted and they in fact start becoming active-disrupting their programming. I can't help but Marvel when Christians complain about negative portrayals of human kind...a negative view of man is kind of a core belief system for us...a movie actually acknowledges our ability to be sheep following whatever tickled our ears and becoming comfortable in bondage and this is something we complain about?

"You know...not EVERY story has to be interesting." -Gibby

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wading in very tentatively here... Have any of the critics of this film's depiction of the overweight guy who falls off his hovercraft and can't get up had a relative who used one of those scooters to get around in old age? Forget the science of NASA says might happen to our legs if we were to go into orbit full time. Just look at people in an old-age home who get around on scooters, and then try to walk. It takes months of physical therapy to restore that ability (I speak from the experience of having seen this in a relative's life.)

When a person falls off a hovercraft in this film and can't get up, that's not derision, that's not "making fun of." That's reality. (BTW, I didn't hear laughter in my theater during this scene.)

When it comes to basic muscles and movement, it's a use-it-or-lose-it proposition. Sit in a chair all day -- or ride around in a hovercraft -- then don't be surprised if you fall off and can't get up.

Jeffrey: So Stanton has read your book! It just occurred to me that, based on "Finding Nemo" and "Wall-E," a serious case could be made for Stanton as one the greatest filmmakers working today.

And he's read your book!

Dude ... what an honor.

Edited by Christian

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overstreet wrote:

: I'm thinking of it as a fable or a fairy tale, which is certainly what it seems like it wants to be.

Well, yeah, obviously. But a fable about WHAT? The filmmakers have gone out of their way to disavow some of the more obvious readings of this fable, while at the same time setting up websites that support those readings. And the fact that the human race is brought in as a prop to WALL*E's story, when arguably many viewers are going to see WALL*E as a prop to humanity's story, kind of confuses things further.

Nezpop wrote:

: I can't help but Marvel when Christians complain about negative portrayals of human kind...a negative view of man is kind of a core belief system for us . . .

Maybe if you're a hardcore Calvinist. Many of us are not. Though how many of the people complaining about this film have been Christians, anyway? In one of his recent blog posts on this subject, Kyle Smith, for one, recently mentioned that he is an atheist, IIRC.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The filmmakers have gone out of their way to disavow some of the more obvious readings of this fable, while at the same time setting up websites that support those readings.

So long as people conflate filmmakers and marketers into the same entity, this conversation is in trouble.

You write film reviews, Peter. Someone else edits them (sometimes substantially). Someone else puts them on the web and adds photographs. Someone else markets that web page. I wouldn't be surprised to find that you might take issue with the marketing of CT Movies, if it were to be crafted to reach a larger audience. I probably would argue too. Heck, I've argued with how some of my own stuff is being presented.

I do not hold Andrew Stanton personally responsible for the Buy-n-Large website, and I'm certainly not going to let that website determine how I interpret the film itself.

And fairy tales and fables have always portrayed society in narrow, exaggerated terms to highlight an aspect of the real thing. What is The Emperor's New Clothes, but a portrayal of people as utter buffoons who will go along with a lie in order to keep from taking a brave stand? Does that mean the storyteller has nothing but contempt for humankind? I doubt it.

Hey, let's light torches and go after that heartless cynic, Roald Dahl, for writing such a hateful piece of prejudice as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory! How dare he suggest that children are selfish and self-centered!

When I was at the junket for The Return of the King, I received the usual marketing swag. One of those items included a bright red lapel pin... representing the Eye of Sauron.

Gosh, so... does that mean... ?

Tolkien himself scoffed at the marketing of The Lord of the Rings. He was given a goblet that had the inscription from the Ring of Power etched around the bowl. He kept it... using it for tobacco ash. It was the only thing it was good for, he said.

Edited by Overstreet

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure Wall*E portrays it's people fat, lazy slobs. It portrays people following their programming until the veil is lifted and they in fact start becoming active-disrupting their programming.

I think it may be a both/and thing rather than an either/or thing. But that is a good observation about following their programming. And I like how it was "touch" that was the disrupting factor.

I can't help but Marvel when Christians complain about negative portrayals of human kind...a negative view of man is kind of a core belief system for us...a movie actually acknowledges our ability to be sheep following whatever tickled our ears and becoming comfortable in bondage and this is something we complain about?

Ah... but it associated those negative connotations (being sheepish, comfortable in bondage, isolated from relationships, and a host of other negatives) with being overweight in a very visually strong way. Even if unintentional, this is encourages an inaccurate perception of overweight people, as if overweight people have all of those negative connotations. I don't have any problem whatsoever with negative portrayals of humanity, so long as they are reasonably accurate and believable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wading in very tentatively here... Have any of the critics of this film's depiction of the overweight guy who falls off his hovercraft and can't get up had a relative who used one of those scooters to get around in old age?

The reference point I had for that scene was from an experience I had recently with an overweight friend who through a set of circumstances ended up on the ground just like jon and couldn't get up to his feet or knees. It was very embarassing/humiliating for him.

When a person falls off a hovercraft in this film and can't get up, that's not derision, that's not "making fun of." That's reality. (BTW, I didn't hear laughter in my theater during this scene.)

In my opinion, that scene strongly and visually emphasized the overweigtedness of the humans which in my opinion reinforced the connection between the negative attributes of the humans with being overweight.

I've talked way to much on this topic and I'm not really adding anything new here, so I'll drop it. I'm willing to accept Stanton's explanation. I'm surprised it is being defended here so vigorously against such a minor observation.

Edited by Thoreau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overstreet wrote:

: So long as people conflate filmmakers and marketers into the same entity, this conversation is in trouble.

Well, given the deep entwining of filmmaking and marketing here -- I mean, this is Disney and Apple, y'know -- I don't know how the interplay between these two things can be entirely avoided.

: You write film reviews, Peter. Someone else edits them (sometimes substantially). Someone else puts them on the web and adds photographs. Someone else markets that web page. I wouldn't be surprised to find that you might take issue with the marketing of CT Movies, if it were to be crafted to reach a larger audience. I probably would argue too. Heck, I've argued with how some of my own stuff is being presented.

Questions about editing aside (since editing is clearly analogous to "filmmaking" and not "marketing"), I don't recall taking issue with how my stuff has ever been "presented", except in a few cases where the editors came up with headlines that I think were clearly misleading. My favorite anecdote here involves a review I wrote for a local paper of a local play, and how my review was basically on the thumbs-down side but I had a good thing or two to say about one of the actors ... and so my editor gave the story the headline "So-and-so Actor shines in Such-and-Such Play". That was so clearly NOT the thrust of my article, but my editor, for whatever reason, wanted to give the article as positive a spin as possible ... and I later found out that one of the other actors in that play, who normally never reads reviews of productions of his while they are still being performed, decided to make an exception in this case because the headline was so good. Oops. But so long as what I actually WROTE hasn't been touched, I can't say that even cases like THAT make much difference to me. And I certainly wouldn't object if someone wanted to infer something about "the writers" or "the publishers" of that publication, based on that headline, since of course that headline WAS written and published by people involved with that paper.

Oh, and I have also often kvetched about tacky lay-outs and designs, but usually as a fellow editor, rather than as a writer, per se. Yeah, sure, I would like my work to be supported by good design as opposed to bad design. But, well, there's no parallel to that in our current discussion; no one is complaining about WALL*E because it's being released to theatres with sticky floors and lousy wallpaper, or because some theatres are playing inappropriate trailers before it, etc.

: I do not hold Andrew Stanton personally responsible for the Buy-n-Large website . . .

Neither do I (at least not until and unless he says he was personally involved in it in some way), but then, he's not the only maker of this film, is he?

: . . . and I'm certainly not going to let that website determine how I interpret the film itself.

Determine? No. Influence? Sure, why not?

The website we are discussing is not merely marketing someone else's act of creation, it is an extensive and satirical act of creation in and of itself, which supports ONE of the film's two competing narratives but NOT the other narrative; yet, according to all the OTHER marketing around this film, we are supposed to believe that it is the second narrative, rather than the first, which is what this film is all about.

And since you and others have pointed to the prominent placement of the BNL logo at the end of the film (at least in the versions that you saw), it seems reasonable to place at least some emphasis on the BNL entity as part of the larger framework within which the film is being presented and interpreted.

: And fairy tales and fables have always portrayed society in narrow, exaggerated terms to highlight an aspect of the real thing.

So I return to my question: WHICH aspect? There are two competing narratives in this film, two competing fables.

: Tolkien himself scoffed at the marketing of The Lord of the Rings. He was given a goblet that had the inscription from the Ring of Power etched around the bowl. He kept it... using it for tobacco ash. It was the only thing it was good for, he said.

Heh. Lucky for him he never got to see kids dressing up as Darth Vader for Halloween.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I return to my question: WHICH aspect? There are two competing narratives in this film, two competing fables.

Please boil these two competing fables down to simple summaries. I have to decide if I agree that there *are* two competing fables before I answer this question. The lengthy posts above are too huge for me to sift right now.

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overstreet wrote:

: Please boil these two competing fables down to simple summaries.

There's the robots' story, about irrational love, etc.; in this story, the entire human race is just a device to get the robots to where they are. (This is the line that Stanton has taken in his interviews; whether we should pay any attention to his interviews when it is the film ITSELF that needs to be reviewed is, of course, an interesting question in and of itself. If we are to ignore the OTHER marketing efforts, then we should arguably ignore the press-junket style interviews, too. The film is what it is.)

There's the humans' story, about rampant consumerism ruining the environment, etc.; in this story, the robots are just a device to wake the humans out of their sloth, etc. (This is the story that many, many viewers -- including this who love the movie and those who don't -- have glommed on to. This is the "agenda" that both fans and foes think the movie is "pushing". This story is also bolstered by such highly creative marketing efforts as the BNL website, and perhaps by the inclusion of the BNL logo at the end of the film.)

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, to me, these two are inseparable.

BOTH stories are about entities who have been programmed to do certain things. BOTH stories are about those entities learning to swim upstream, and bravely pursue a higher calling, transcending their programming in the name of love.

All of us are at our best when we transcend our programming, when we act out of love rather than mere practicality and convenience. That seems to be the heart of the film, shining through either one of these "non-competing" narratives.

WALL-E was programmed to clean up trash. That's honorable, but it's not the highest path. Of course, it's fanciful to think of a machine yearning for love... but that's the charm of this fairytale, just as R2D2 was charming for his humor and nobility. So WALL-E's story is about taking action, going after something real and meaningful.

The human race in this fable has settled into an existence of programming... following the course that was charted for them, and failing to question enough. When they *do* begin to question, they discover a more authentic life for which they were meant. They break out of their programming, and chart a new course of rehabilitation -- physical, intellectual, and yes, spiritual rehabilitation. They start becoming proactive in love, so to speak.

Instead of piling up more "stuff" that entertains them and satiates their appetites, they will begin to subdue and replenish the earth.

So no... I reject the idea that the human race is "just a device." If Stanton said and meant that, well... this may be a case of the artist not realizing what his art conveys (which happens all the time, even to the best artists). The story of the human race in WALL-E is in harmony with the story of the robots.

I'm *interested* in what Stanton says it's about, and I'm *interested* in what the marketers and other collaborators say. But the work is a separate thing in itself that will reveal more (or sometimes less) than anything anybody claims about it. The B-n-L website may illuminate something about the work, but if so, it will only do that because that aspect is there to begin with. Or it may add on to the work with something extra. That's worth talking about. Whatever the case, I care most about the film itself: both as a thing (something to study), and as a way (the "vocabulary" it provides for us to discuss ideas).

Edited by Overstreet

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...