Fixing Obesity... Through Ridicule? (WALL-E)

[Pangloss]

Pixar is taking a bit of a PR hit over its new movie WALL-E, which apparently plots a dystopia in which everyone is obese and the planet lies in ruins.

 

Check out this google on "pixar" and "obesity":

 

http://www.google.com/search?q=pixar+obesity&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

 

Slate ran a piece on it today:

 

Pixar's WALL-E Sends the Wrong Message

 

All this may be enough to leave some overweight viewers of Wall-E in tears. It's easy to imagine how they might respond to Pixar's dystopic vision of our fat future, in which puffed-up bodies are played for cheap laughs. What happens when the movie ends and the lights come up? Does the rest of the audience stare at the lone fatty as she waddles her way toward the theater doors? Do they see in her body a validation of the film's "darker implications"—a signpost for what we might become if we don't change our ways? Or do they just scowl at her, convinced that she's part of the problem?

 

And apparently this isn't just an anti-PC rant -- the movie isn't just seen as entertaining, it's seen as acceptable social commentary.

 

Even New York Times columnist Frank Rich gets in on the action, lauding the film for being "in touch with what troubles America," and providing "a gentle, if unmistakable, summons to remake the world before time runs out."

 

And of course all of this plays right into the political scene of the day.

 

The desire to link obesity and environmental collapse seems to have more to do with politics than science. Eco-liberals put down their Nalgene bottles and wring their hands over the fat slobs in Middle America. It's these red-staters who are screwing things up with their shopping malls and their fast food. Of course, they can't exactly be blamed for their misfortune. Instead, we infantilize them and moan over the corporate interests that beguile our dumb cousins with super-sized portions and deceptive PR campaigns. Hence the overgrown babies of Wall-E, who have been duped into their lethargic lifestyle by the corporate overlords at Buy N Large.

 

The article presents evidence to the contrary on obesity and the environment, which I thought was interesting (though just as dubious as the claims in support of the "link").

 

Whatever happened to concepts like "it's a free country" and "mind your own business"?

[Sayonara]

People who can't differentiate between an obese person and an obese population are not Pixar's fault.

[iNow]

That was probably the funniest part of the movie... A bunch of overweight, no bone mass, drink everything through a straw population going around in floating chairs... I was in tears from laughter (especially when they fell out of them and could barely walk...looked like the girl who turned into a blueberry on Willy Wanka)!

 

Too many people these days whining about hurt feelings. If you're THAT insecure and have that LOW of a self-esteem, then what Pixar does with their movies is, to be perfectly honest, the least of your problems.

 

It was way funny.

[swansont]

Does the rest of the audience stare at the lone fatty as she waddles her way toward the theater doors?

 

Statistically, there will be a lone fatty in a demographically average US audience only if 3 people or fewer are watching the movie.

 

 

Is anybody from Pixar saying it's social commentary? It's not like this would be the first time that people read into a work symbolism that wasn't intended.

 

There isn't any symbolism. The sea is the sea. The old man is an old man. The boy is a boy and the fish is a fish. The shark are all sharks no better and no worse. All the symbolism that people say is shit. What goes beyond is what you see beyond when you know. E. Hemingway

 

Sometimes fattie is just a fattie. It's a movie, not a documentary, for crimony's sake.

[ydoaPs]

I want to see the sequel.

 

 

[hide]I don't see them succeeding in rebuilding earth. Since they are a bunch of obese vegetables with no engineering skills trying to restart agriculture using one plant.[/hide]

 

And that fire extinguisher lasted WAY too long.

[Sisyphus]

Here's a rather amusing summary of the various ridiculous controversies. The bigger firestorm seems to be not about making fun of obesity, but about the environmentalism themes. Apparently, it's all liberal fascist propaganda!

 

In all seriousness, though, this is probably the best-crafted movie of the year, and certainly the most adorable robot yet conceived by man.

[Pangloss]

(I've got a slight injury to my hand at the moment so I apologize for not being my usual wordy self.)

 

Sayo's reply seems reasonable -- the idea that making a larger statement about obesity is not the same thing as picking on an individual. But I think we do ostracize overweight people in society and this movie appears to follow that meme.

 

Nobody in this thread has responded yet to the parts of the article that talk about rejections of certain memes, like the "myths about overweight" section, or the academically-supported statements by the author that obesity is not connected to high-fat intake, entertainment consumption or overeating. Anybody want to take those on?

[ydoaPs]

Nobody in this thread has responded yet to the parts of the article that talk about rejections of certain memes, like the "myths about overweight" section, or the academically-supported statements by the author that obesity is not connected to high-fat intake, entertainment consumption or overeating. Anybody want to take those on?

 

Fat can lower the glycemic index of foods. So, if you use a hormonally neutral fat, such as a monosaturated fat, fat can be good for you. Sure it is more calorically dense than protein or carbohydrates, but the hormonal effect(insulin vs glycogen) is more important than calories, because that determines if the food is stored or used.

[Phi for All]

How can you write a story with more than one person (or anthropomorphized robots) in it *without* having it comment about society at some point?

 

Like anything brilliantly written and presented, the audience is left to apply whatever symbolism they want to it. That's why some people see homosexuality in all fantasy movies, and others are convinced that science fiction is trying to undermine religion. And it's why still others can read a book or see a movie or hear a song while sneaking glances in a mental mirror to see if what they're experiencing is reflected in themselves.

 

For Daniel Engber at Slate to say that Wall-E was simple minded satire is hypocritical (he probably left Lord of the Rings in a huff because Sam was gay for Frodo). He claims that Wall-E preys on myths about obesity and ignores scientific studies but falls prey to ignorance himself about life on a spaceship and how gravity affects bone mass. He has made the satire simple-minded by being simple-minded in his reaction.

 

I thought the movie's message was to avoid letting others think for you in exchange for comfortable convenience (this proves it's a great movie; so many got so many different things out of it!). And I absolutely came apart when Wall-E tried to show his "directive" to EVA (Extra Vehicular Activity? Brilliant way to prophecy her willingness to break away from her programming). In his enthusiasm, when he strains to crush a cube of waste, he looks just like he's taking a... well, what I think Daniel Engber is full of.

[bascule]

Nobody in this thread has responded yet to the parts of the article that talk about rejections of certain memes, like the "myths about overweight" section, or the academically-supported statements by the author that obesity is not connected to high-fat intake, entertainment consumption or overeating. Anybody want to take those on?

 

I think the movie is trying to make a point about physical inactivity, not any of those other things.

[Pangloss]

Like anything brilliantly written and presented, the audience is left to apply whatever symbolism they want to it. That's why some people see homosexuality in all fantasy movies, and others are convinced that science fiction is trying to undermine religion. And it's why still others can read a book or see a movie or hear a song while sneaking glances in a mental mirror to see if what they're experiencing is reflected in themselves.

For Daniel Engber at Slate to say that Wall-E was simple minded satire is hypocritical (he probably left Lord of the Rings in a huff because Sam was gay for Frodo). He claims that Wall-E preys on myths about obesity and ignores scientific studies but falls prey to ignorance himself about life on a spaceship and how gravity affects bone mass. He has made the satire simple-minded by being simple-minded in his reaction.

 

I thought the movie's message was to avoid letting others think for you in exchange for comfortable convenience (this proves it's a great movie; so many got so many different things out of it!). And I absolutely came apart when Wall-E tried to show his "directive" to EVA (Extra Vehicular Activity? Brilliant way to prophecy her willingness to break away from her programming). In his enthusiasm, when he strains to crush a cube of waste, he looks just like he's taking a... well, what I think Daniel Engber is full of.

 

So then you agree that WALL-E conspicuously features humans as having become overweight and sedentary?

 

And... you don't think Pixar did that on purpose? Bascule seems to think they did.

[swansont]

So then you agree that WALL-E conspicuously features humans as having become overweight and sedentary?

 

And... you don't think Pixar did that on purpose? Bascule seems to think they did.

 

I haven't seen the movie, but can't you portray a population as having become sedentary and overweight without it being a comment on society? It's not saying that because I'm overweight that I'm lazy, it's saying it about them. The ones in the movie. The fictional ones.

 

"But the metaphor only works if you believe familiar myths about the overweight: They're weak-willed, indolent, and stupid."

 

The myths only need to be believed if it's actually a metaphor.

 

Nobody in this thread has responded yet to the parts of the article that talk about rejections of certain memes, like the "myths about overweight" section, or the academically-supported statements by the author that obesity is not connected to high-fat intake, entertainment consumption or overeating. Anybody want to take those on?

 

I will. It's pretty much a hatchet job. If you read the links, they aren't coming to the conclusions alluded to in the article, and they are mostly links to newspaper stories and blog posts, not research.

 

"But there's little evidence that overeating causes obesity on an individual level and no real reason to think that anyone can lose a lot of weight by dieting. (Most of us fluctuate around a natural "set point.") We also know that children who watch a lot of television are no less active than other kids and that pediatric obesity rates are not the direct result of high-fat diets." Has four links, underlined here.

 

The first is about starvation and has little to do with linking overeating causes obesity (and I've seen criticisms of the author that appear to be legitimate, in terms of cherry-picking data to make a point and other unscientific tactics)

 

The second link doesn't really support the article, either. It points to the difficulties of dieting, not to the fact that you can lose weight if you change your caloric intake. The common theme of the first two links is that extreme dieting isn't particularly good for you.

 

The third link is another Szwarc post, and like the predecessor, it focuses on one variable — activity levels — while ignoring others. The last link focuses on fat levels alone, not caloric intake or types of fat. Again, a single variable, and is the lone research abstract linked to.

 

Later, there is the comment "Two months ago, the Washington Post compared childhood obesity to global warming." The comparison? Saying not to wait for more studies, i.e. start doing something now, because it's obvious there's a problem: "We don't have all the data yet, but by the time all the data comes in it's going to be too late," he said. "You don't want to see the water rising on the Potomac before deciding global warming is a problem." That's the entire comparison.

 

Hatchet job.

[bascule]

So then you agree that WALL-E conspicuously features humans as having become overweight and sedentary?

 

And... you don't think Pixar did that on purpose? Bascule seems to think they did.

 

I'm pretty sure they did that on purpose... sort of an Idiocracy-like slippery slope commentary on our current (American) society.

[iNow]

Hatchet job.

 

The worst part is that Pangloss is certainly not the only one out there using the article as a jumping off point to admonish others (and those involved with the film).

 

 

Witch hunts are gaining popularity these days. ... because if she weighed the same as a duck... she's made of wood.

 

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure they did that on purpose... sort of an Idiocracy-like slippery slope commentary on our current (American) society.

 

I'm telling you. It was the funniest part of the movie. My guess is that the obese had their feelings hurt when everyone in the theater laughed at parts that reminded them of themselves, not b/c Pixar was doing some social commentary.

Edited July 12, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[Pangloss]

I haven't seen the movie, but can't you portray a population as having become sedentary and overweight without it being a comment on society? It's not saying that because I'm overweight that I'm lazy, it's saying it about them. The ones in the movie. The fictional ones.

 

I think Pixar's purpose was entertainment, sure. But why is it so hard to believe they were making a social statement in the process? And why does social commentary have to be intentional?

 

 

I will. It's pretty much a hatchet job. If you read the links, they aren't coming to the conclusions alluded to in the article, and they are mostly links to newspaper stories and blog posts, not research.

 

Pretty much what I thought, but I think he took a valid point and just pushed it too far, trying to lend academic credibility to something that isn't really necessary.

 

People shouldn't be ridiculed based on stereotypes, and whether it's a good idea for society to pressure people to get thinner is a perfectly debatable point, regardless of the accuracy of the health science.

 

 

The worst part is that Pangloss is certainly not the only one out there using the article as a jumping off point to admonish others (and those involved with the film).

 

 

Witch hunts are gaining popularity these days. ... because if she weighed the same as a duck... she's made of wood.

 

 

Isn't that just another kind of witch hunt? Please speak with me directly, don't just smirk and wink at everyone just to make me look bad. Come on.

Edited July 12, 2008 by Pangloss

[iNow]

Pangloss, the worst part is that you are certainly not the only one out there using that hatchet job article as a jumping off point to admonish others.

[Pangloss]

Thanks.

 

Now allow me to quote Frank Rich from my first post, in direct response to what you just said:

 

Even New York Times columnist Frank Rich gets in on the action, lauding the film for being "in touch with what troubles America," and providing "a gentle, if unmistakable, summons to remake the world before time runs out."

 

That wasn't a movie review, it was an essay by one of the most widely-read political commentators in the business, who actually called his column:

 

WALL-E for President

 

Allow me to quote Rich further:

 

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?

 

One of the great things about art, including popular art, is that it can hit audiences at a profound level beyond words. That includes children. The kids at “Wall-E” were never restless, despite the movie’s often melancholy mood and few belly laughs. They seemed to instinctually understand what “Wall-E” was saying; they didn’t pepper their chaperones with questions along the way. At the end they clapped their small hands. What they applauded was not some banal cartoonish triumph of good over evil but a gentle, if unmistakable, summons to remake the world before time runs out.

 

Holy cow! Where can I plug into this mind control device? And god help us if the Republicans get hold of one!!!!

 

iNow, would you make these attempts to obscure the social aspects of this message if you didn't agree with it, or would you instead be exposing it and insisting that we all agree?

 

------------------

 

More articles commenting on the issue:

 

Brad Brevet of the movie site "Ropes of Silicon" comments about the hypocrisy of Pixar making a statement about out-of-control waste after generating so much of its own waste in marketing deals for its previous films.

 

http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/fat_people_mad_about_wall_e_and_others_upset_over_hypocrisy

 

 

New York Magazine points out that no promotional still for WALL-E shows a single human, even though they are shown in trailers.

 

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2008/06/pixar_vs_fat_people.html

 

 

This blog post suggests that Disney ordered Pixar to change the movie late last year to take fat people off the hook for the Earth's demise.

 

http://the-f-word.org/blog/index.php/2007/11/01/pixar-joins-in-on-fat-bashing/

 

 

(Holy freaking cow -- I just lost power in the middle of typing this message, and Firefox 3 recovered my entire session including the contents of the textbox right up to the exact character I was typing when the power went!)

[swansont]

I think Pixar's purpose was entertainment, sure. But why is it so hard to believe they were making a social statement in the process? And why does social commentary have to be intentional?

 

If someone's going to kvetch about it, it should be intentional. People have an amazing ability to read things into messages, just like we see patterns where there are none. Pixar isn't responsible for how people misinterpret the movie.

 

I've seen this firsthand, when someone told me what one of my cartoons meant.

 

"What they applauded was not some banal cartoonish triumph of good over evil but a gentle, if unmistakable, summons to remake the world before time runs out." is purely the authors interpretation, and IMO, crap. He doesn't know this to be true. He thinks it's true, and perhaps wants it to be true, but maybe the kids were just entertained.

Edited July 12, 2008 by swansont
fixed a 'whatthe?'

[iNow]

For the love of Thor, I CLEARLY don't care enough about society.

 

I just went to the movie, and had a good time with my girlfriend. What's wrong with me? I guess I really should have realized that my focus should have been on perceived social messages instead of just enjoying one of the simpler pleasures of life... like spending $20 on movies and popcorn to distract myself from the real problems I face.

 

 

 

 

I'm going to see Hancock in a few hours today with my girlfriend. I wonder if I should just kick back and enjoy it, or watch for hidden messages about the dangers of alcoholism and selfishness and then come back to start a blogospheric frenzy. Only time will tell, I suppose.

 

 

I just find the whole thing about Wall-E quite silly, and it reminds me of my younger days when I would justifiably tell people to get a life.

 

 

However, I'm quite content to rail against films like Expelled for being biased and filled with agenda, but not Wall-E. Does that make me a hypocrit? I should like to think not, but I really don't care.

Edited July 12, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[Pangloss]

Well I agree that these memes are of minor import. Conservative film fans have to ignore them most of the time, or they'd never have a good time at the theater, so you're certainly in good company.

 

We'll see how the film is viewed 20 or 30 years from now. That will be the most revealing barometer.

Edited July 12, 2008 by Pangloss

[bascule]

People shouldn't be ridiculed based on stereotypes

 

I see you're being politically correct again

[Pangloss]

Flatterer!

[bascule]

Flatterer!

 

I find that ironic considering your past protestations against political correctness

[Sisyphus]

Clearly there are certain values on display in the movie, but that doesn't mean it's propaganda, or even a deliberate message. I got the impression that the people at Pixar, like me, didn't think the "message" would even be controversial. Don't get so caught up in instant gratification that you ignore the consequences, nor so self-absorbed that you can't connect with other people, nor so complacent that you forget to explore life. "Oh my god! Liberal fascist propaganda!" Please. The National Review types are just upset because the movie takes as an accepted premise that we, through unchecked and unexamined consumption, can cause serious damage to the environment as a whole, a premise that they, in ever-shrinking numbers, are still thickheadedly dismissing as mere socialist propaganda despite all evidence to the contrary. The times, they are a-changin', and you better stop swimming, or you'll sink like a stone.

[Pangloss]

I agree with all of that except the last couple of sentences, which just strike me as another example of the same thing. It's also odd that you're basically saying "it's just a movie", followed immediately by criticism that people who don't like the film's message are "thickheadedly dismissing... evidence". Which is it, mere entertainment or deliberate social commentary?

 

I agree with the point that movies shouldn't be taken too seriously, but that doesn't mean "only take seriously the politically correct messages, because those are scientifically evidenced (in spite of the fact that they may well be refuted or disproven later); instead just sit there and eat your morality meal like a good little automaton."

Edited July 13, 2008 by Pangloss