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

[Sisyphus]

It's not (IMO) deliberate social commentary because as a culture we've reached the point where that "message" is no longer necessarily a political statement. To use a more extreme analogy, there was a time when showing a married, employed, female character on television would have been considered a radical feminist statement (and it still would be in many parts of the world). However, in 2008 in the United States it doesn't even occur to most people that it might be controversial. While it is true that there are still plenty of people who think "a woman's place is in the home," and that the the writers and producers of that television show almost certainly hold certain basic values in disagreement with that, that doesn't mean they're making a deliberate point.

[Pangloss]

So you feel they made a social statement, but not one intended to motivate change in policy? (Did I interpret that right?)

 

If that's true then why do people deny that there is a social statement being made? I think the answer to that question is clear -- some react negatively to what they perceive to be overreaction by people they ideologically disagree with. Others just don't care and don't want their entertainment marred by such a discussion (fine, don't read it). But your point seems to make clear that it's normal to note an underlying message. And I agree with you.

 

And that leads directly to a more important question: If we look back at historical examples like the one you cite about women, and react to them negatively today, why are we basically saying that it's okay to react to them today, but it was not okay to react to them at the time, because that would have interrupted people's entertainment, or brought inappropriate attention to a settled issue, etc? Isn't that kinda backwards? Shouldn't we be shortening that reaction time, in order to progress society?

 

Put another way, I don't think it's an overreaction to observe these things and comment on them, especially (in this case) if the intention is constructive criticism and recognition of the positive aspects of the work (which are many). Censorship is another issue entirely, for example, or even demonstration or outrage. Commenting and observing are normal human exercises, not ideological over-reactions.

[iNow]

It probably won't remain here for long, but if you want to watch the movie in its entirety, it's at Google Video right now:

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4577453851005069832&hl=en

[iNow]

So, Pangloss... Your recent thread on Religulous reminded me of this one.

 

I'm curious, have you yet viewed the film to compare your initial outrage against the reality of the situation? Did the film validate and exemplify all of the negative things you claimed it did?

 

 

 

Note: Unfortunately (and predictably), google removed the film from the link in my post above.

[Pangloss]

Unfortunately I can't actually answer your question yet, because it still hasn't come out on home video. We built a home theater that beats most movie theaters in sound and picture quality, so we don't go to movie theaters anymore -- I haven't seen a movie in a theater in almost ten years. I believe it's slated for release in November, but it'll probably have an extra short feature and look really amazing on Blu-Ray, so I'm sure it'll be worth the wait. The Cars and Ratatouille Blu-Rays were awesome -- I use Cars as a demo when I show off the system. I think the reason they look so good is because they're never transferred to analog form -- they stay digital from production to output, so every color is perfectly represented every time. Pretty slick. But I digress.

 

I wasn't "outraged". My point was simply that people shouldn't be ridiculed based on stereotypes. It's not acceptable just because the thing being ridiculed is unhealthy and unpopular. However, I think it likely here that the intention was entertainment and not "message", at least judging by Pixar's earlier films that I have seen and the posts in this thread.

 

But this is a good example to bring back up, because it's a good illustration of our difference of opinion of whether the ends justify the means. I know you don't laugh at overweight people (or religious people) for humor value, but as with Religulous, you see value -- a means to a higher societal goal -- in the use of ridicule and derision. I do not. (But I don't mean to make it sound so evil; I know it's well-intentioned.)

[iNow]

IIRC, I questioned your premise that Wall-E was an intentional attempt at ridicule. What you saw as some larger focussed societal commentary (again, for a film you'd not even seen), I instead perceived as the over-reaction of insecure people who were sensitive about their weight... basically making mountains out of molehills.

[Pangloss]

Well I agree with you that there is no intended message in Wall-E, at least from all that I've read about it. So I am a little surprised by the correlation with Maher's documentary, which he himself states is a message piece.

 

I'm also not sure I understand the value of forcing people to accept ridicule and just deal with it, and not "make mountains out of molehills". It sounds like what you're saying is that ridicule is okay when applied for benevolent purposes and on approved subjects, with the validity of approval being the scientific determination that the target is harming themselves in some manner. In other words, society has an obligation to shame them into shaping up, and that this is a right and proper thing to do. Am I reading you wrong?

[iNow]

Yes. I think you are reading me wrong, but I'm probably not choosing my words very well. I'll keep it short and sweet.

 

I disagree with your premise of ridicule. I didn't see it. That's all.

 

 

The correlation between this thread and the one on Religulous is that you're commenting on what the film is saying and doing without having seen it.

[JohnB]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but intend to.

 

Offhand though, I'd say people are making mountains. It's not like the ideas of a rubbish covered earth or humans virtually incapable of movement are actually new, is it? Been around in Sci-Fi for decades. Even Zager and Evans sang about it nearly 40 years ago.

In the year 5555

Your arms are hanging limp at your sides

Your legs not nothing to do

Some machine is doing that for you

 

From the sound of it, Pixar took a dystopia and added a story about a cute little robot. I believe it's called "entertainment". This has been a minor part of storytelling for some little while.