I have warned before that the anti-humanism of Deep Ecology is seeping into the messages of A-List Hollywood films. In previous posts and articles, I pointed to two recent major movies, the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still –in which an alien comes to earth to kill all humans, literally to “save the planet”–and The Happening, written and directed by The Sixth Sense’s M. Night Shyamalan–in which plants rebel against human “oppression” by releasing a pheromone that causes people to commit mass suicide.
I was speaking to a friend about this earlier today, and he mentioned another recent radical environmentalist/anti-human film; the animated movie Wall-E. He’s right. Here’s a synopsis:
Throughout the 21st century, Earth was governed by the Buy n Large megacorporation(BnL), causing mass consumerism and covering the planet in trash by 2105. In an attempt to resolve the situation, Earth’s population was evacuated on fully automated luxury BnL spaceliners to spend five years on a cruise in space while an army of trash compactor robots named WALL-E were left behind to clean the planet. This plan failed, however, when in 2110 the planet was deemed too toxic to ever support life again, forcing humanity to remain in space indefinitely.
Wall-E has become sentient and falls in love with a female robot. Eventually, through a series of advantures, they are able to induce human beings–who have become totally obese and so lazy in their space ship they don’t even walk–to return to the devastated earth and plant a tree. The planet is saved, humankind has learned its lesson: From then on, we will live simple and green.
One criticism to my criticisms of The Day the Earth Stood Still and The Happening is that they were not box office hits, and therefore, there is nothing about which to be concerned. Day made over $100 million, but the success of these films isn’t what matters; the point is that some of the most powerful players in Biggest Time Hollywood are pushing the anti-human theme. And in any event, the “nobody cared” rationalization can’t be said about Wall-E, which was from Disney, was a huge hit, won an Oscar as the year’s best animated film, and most subversively, was very well done and entertaining–its cute and innocent protagonist easily able to pierce the hearts of children and mold their beliefs.
I am not saying the filmmakers are part of a conspiracy. But whether they knew it or not, they furthered the ongoing coup de culture (utilitarianism, hedonism, radical environmentalism), which promotes the anti human view as it elevates environmentalism as the new faith. But destroying our adherence to and belief in human exceptionalism won’t “save the planet.” However, it could denigrate our self perception to the point that we willingly undermine our own thriving as we surrender our freedom.
June 9th, 2009 | 2:12 pm
I just watched Wall-E two nights ago for the first time. I’m going to have to disagree about it fitting into the “radical environmentalism” mold cut out for it here.
Both my wife and I were shocked with the message of the film. Most movies fall on the “The Day the Earth Stood Still” side of the divide in that they communicate that the earth would be better without us. What my wife and I took away from “Wall-E” was that the “message” fit more in line with “the earth needs us.”
For example, the captain of the cruise ship saying to the tree sapling “You just need someone to care for you”. In that moment, the light goes on, and he actually _wants_ to return to earth. He _wants_ to dance. He _wants_ to plant “pizza trees”.
In our shocked opinion, the film actually appeals to human exceptionalism to create a desire to care for the planet rather than merely exploit it (as BnL did to the detriment of human thriving).
I think it is important to distinguish, as this blog usually does, between environmentalism and radical environmentalism. Where the former requires a person have regard for human exceptionalism the later seeks to undermine it.
June 9th, 2009 | 2:57 pm
Wesley,
I am one of your biggest fans, but I think that you have missed on this one. Wall-E’s reputation is unearned in my opinion, though I know quite a few people that have not seen it that voice similar concerns to yours.
That the people have become fat and lazy was a joke as the luxuries of the ship were designed to free them up to live exciting lives without concerning themselves with work. What it did was free them to become completely useless and hopelessly disconnected to the people around them. If you have ever sat next to a teenager that ceaselessly TM’s other people rather than talk to the family members around them you see the point of the fat people who only communicate with each other through the ever present monitors in front of them whether the person they are talking to is beside them or not.
I also think Saltracer is right in the call to be good stewards of the environment. I know that you have clearly expressed concern over how we treat the world around us, and that is the message of Wall-E that I walked away with. Being against the hyper-environmentalist position does not mean that we cannot be conservationists. I saw this movie as more conservationist than an attack on human exceptionalism.
I am with you on the other two, but I did not get my back up watching Wall-E at all. I really enjoyed it.
June 9th, 2009 | 2:59 pm
Saltracer: Hmmm. That’s worth pondering.
I think we can agree that the bulk of the movie is radical environmentalism, e.g. we HAVE destroyed the planet and have become so many self indulgent, lazy, gluttonous slugs, that we are really to be despised.
Does the ending you mentioned shift that message into a human exceptionalist, human duty to the environment theme? Perhaps. But I think if it can be viewed that way, it is a far more subtle message than the heavy-handed anti-humanism that came before. I saw the ending as telling kids to “save the planet” before it is too late.
But yes, there is a certainly a clear distinction that should be made, as I strive to do, between promoting environmentalism as a human duty, to be balanced with our obligations to ourselves and our prospering, and radical anti-humanistic deep ecology. I am glad you saw a different perspective, and moreover, that you were thinking in those terms.
I appreciate the input.
June 9th, 2009 | 3:35 pm
Jay Watts. I’m glad. I hope most people did.
My friend with whom I was conversing this AM, and his wife were quite appalled by the movie through and throuh. He had just seen it the other day which was why he brought it up to me. That call was why I decided to write about it.
When I saw it some time ago–admittedly on a plane meaning there were distractions–I found it clever and entertaining, but overall in the anti human mode, particularly as I mentioned to Saltracer, in the setup of the story. In fact, the good script, excellent animation, and cuteness of the lead character Wall-E made it potentially far more dangerous than the wooden Kenau Reeves frowning in The Day the Earth Stood Still.
But I am glad you saw what Saltracer did. Sometimes there is a fine line. What do others think?
June 9th, 2009 | 3:50 pm
What I find fascinating about these movies is that it is perfectly ok for an alien from some other place to drop by and pass judgment on us humans and even though these aliens are supposedly peacful – they use very violent means to cleanse the planet of the human pests with no chance for the humans to defend themselves at all. This seems to be exactly what the Christian civilizations have been accused of throughout history.
June 9th, 2009 | 4:43 pm
Here’s a different take on it. I felt both ways about the movie (both Wesley and Salt have great points about the movie), but oddly every time I see robots depicted with compelling personalities, I worry we’ll forget just how potentially dangerous they could be. Maybe I am nuts but I see the Terminator, the Matrix and I, Robot and it makes me wonder sometimes…
I thought WALL-E was a great movie though, as all Pixar films turn out to be!
June 9th, 2009 | 5:49 pm
I also think it was not nearly as bad as some others. Remember all of Wall-E’s “treasures”? Up until he finds the plant, they are all human inventions (the lightbulb stands out to me as possibly symbolic)…and throughout the movie he is fascinated by a simple expression of human love.
June 9th, 2009 | 7:38 pm
I’m with Saltracer, Jay W., and College Goyl on this one.
Like many of you, I get exasperated by radical environmentalism masquerading as entertainment (“The Day After Tomorrow” comes to mind – a mirror image of 1980s Christian scare films that proclaimed “Repent now, or you’ll all die in searing pain!!!”) But I loved Wall-E, precisely because saving the planet wasn’t presented as a “worship Gaia” thing, but as a deeply good and human thing to do. And C.G. is right on in noticing that all the things Wall-E collected and was enthralled by were deeply human things: clever inventions that inspired him, humans singing & dancing, happiness, love.
I love your blog, but I love Wall-E too!
June 9th, 2009 | 7:45 pm
I, too, did not find Wall-E an anti-human film. But I did find it a heavy-handed environmentalist film. And it is quite heavy-handed: All those shots of the ruined Earth at the beginning make it quite clear how the filmmakers want you to think about pollution and waste. But remember that the real enemy in Wall-E isn’t humans but a machine: It’s Auto, the ship’s autopilot. The message of Wall-E seems to be more anti-technology than anti-human. It’s the kind of environmentalism that wants us to live in harmony with nature, not kill ourselves.
Of course, the precise meaning of “living in harmony with nature” is left open, and it could be interpreted in the anti-human Deep Ecology sense. But the film itself doesn’t do that. If anything, it seems to me that it does the opposite by celebrating the Captain’s struggle against Auto (and his own bulk).
June 9th, 2009 | 9:15 pm
Thanks to all. I think the premise is unquestionably anti-human, what we did to the planet. I think the outcome can be viewed either way.
Kathleen, that’s interesting. You are right about that. It is a theme from Pinoccio to Data on Star Trek.
As to the AI aspect, that is something I decided to leave out of the post to keep us focused. But we have seen in children’s entertainment the peronalization of animals, so it isn’t surprising we get it in robots, too. The key is that innocence generally isn’t human in these venues.
June 9th, 2009 | 10:30 pm
Kathleen: I loathed The Day After Tomorrow (despite the cute actor portraying the son!). Thank goodness I didn’t pay anything to be bludgeoned with its propaganda.
Sally and Kyle: The significance of this movie’s obvious references to 2001 would, in another venue, be an interesting subject for discussion. Also, if you ignore Wall-E’s pronunciation, his companion robot’s name is clearly spelled EVE. What’s with the Biblical implication? Things are not adding up to a nice round number here.
June 10th, 2009 | 1:56 am
If you read anything from the person who wrote the movie consumerism and environmentalism were not the goals of the movie.
In fact he is an unashamedly devout Christian and many christian messages are skillfully hidden in the movies story. More info here: http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/cinemagogue/walle
June 10th, 2009 | 2:06 am
Wesley,
I completely agree with you about the anti-human agenda of The Happening and The Day the Earth Stood Still, but I cannot agree with you about Wall-E.
U have seen all three of the movies, and unlike the other two, Wall-E definitely promotes the message that the environment needs human beings, and that human beings are an integral and important part of life on earth.
I was actually pleasantly surprised because I had expected the usual anti-human environmentalist hype when I firsrt heard about the synopsis of the movie.
In many ways, the movie actually promotes the idea that much of the current environmental alarmist rhetoric is actually quite over-hyped, and that we are better off getting on with the business of being good stewards rather than giving in to fear and embracing extreme ideas like evacuating planet earth in a spaceship.
June 10th, 2009 | 10:48 am
Wesley -
Michael’s right about the “message” you’re seeing totally not being the goal of the show.
I’m a sick and twisted individual, and you can be sure of that because after I’ve seen a movie six or seven times, I’ll watch the DVD with the director’s commentary on. (The commentary for Hoodwinked is awesome!)
According to the commentary on the DVD, there was no anti-human or environmental message in the story. The creator of the story wanted a story about the lowliest guy he could think of, and naturally, that was a janitor. So he stuck one little robot all alone on Earth for the sake of making him seem pathetic.
He comes right out and says he has no environmental agenda.
As to the robots falling in love, the only time I’ve ever seen anyone critical of anthropomorphic beings is when they’re robots.
What the director was focusing on was the notion that we have a “directive,” or a set of goals or beliefs that we follow stringently. We should never feel pain, is one, or need to work, is another. Humans have a “directive” for pleasure and the easy life. Eve has a directive for finding plant life on Earth.
But love changes the directive from a self-centered one to an “other” centered one. In this case, the captian’s love for the planet – all the things that our difficult Earth provides – is greater than his lazy love for himself. And in Eve’s case, her love for Wall-E is greater than her love of getting the job done for the sake of doing the job.
The ultimate message is, are we going to revert back to babies, where everything’s done for us and we never have to do anything, just so we don’t have to experience pain or difficulty, or are we going to put someone or something else ahead of us and get a little dirty, maybe get hurt from time to time? Which is the more fulfilling?
In a sense, BnL gave you “all you need,” and having nothing to work for was worse than working, because we were no longer *exceptional.*
You’ll note that at the end, in the mosaic of the different art styles, technology hasn’t gone away. It’s kept and used, this time appropriately, to help with work. There’s no going “back” to a “naturalistic” world. Instead, the inventions that humans had and used aboard the ship to make their lives easier are still there, but being used to help humans work. And in working, humans both clean up the Earth and find purpose for themselves. They show that they’re exceptional again.
Now, part of that is conjuncture from me, but the director made it clear he had no intention to write an “environmental” movie. Wesley, I recommend you get a copy of the DVD – either buy or rent – and watch it with the commentary on. After that, you’ll have a better understanding of the mind behind the movie, and if you continue to disagree, you can point out where the director is wrong better.
June 10th, 2009 | 1:34 pm
Wesley, I’m not sure if you’re saying it was anti-human because the protagonists were robots (with human like traits) or because the message that we’ll polute the planet, but in either case, I still think you’re off base on this one.
For the robot case, it’s a kids movie and is no different than talking Cars or Ants or Fish from previous Pixar movies. Kids movies do that all the time.
Assuming it’s the environmental anti-human, I also disagree that the premise was anti-human, for two reasons:
#1 It’s a different thing to play out an extreme scenario in the future, one that could be, than setting something in the current day. It’s more to say “don’t let this happen” than “we’re doomed to do this”. It is at least conceivable that we polute the planet to the degree it is uninhabitable, isn’t it? If anything it is a message to trust us to do the right thing with the message and that in the end humans will do what is right. Said another way, it’s a confusion of the premise and the point.
#2 The movie was really more about anti-consumerism than about the environment. BuyNLarge is the real villan and our inability to fight them is what puts us in that situation. Again, it is the human will to do what is right, to overcome the robots that control them, that is the victory of the movie.
June 10th, 2009 | 2:19 pm
I don’t care about the robots. They are the innocents, the same role often taken by animals.
I believe the picture promotes the idea that humans are destrying the planet, because as the film opens, we HAVE destroyed the planet–just as the Deep Ecologists say. No plants. No ecosystems. It is a dead world, killed by humans, who we later found escaped in a spaceship to become obese blogs of lazy self indulgent good-for-nothings.
I think that message is no different than The Day the Earth Stood Still.
However, I also see that Wall-E isn’t anti human as a character and that the retaking of human control is also a part of the message. My friend focused on the earlier part of the movie in his reaction against it. I think its supporters here have focused on the latter parts, and like the character.
So, I have had my mind changed: Since, unlike The Day the Earth Stood Still and The Happening–the ending of the film is optimistic, rather than nihilistic and reahabilitates the importance of being human it creating a balanced life, I yield and stand corrected.
June 10th, 2009 | 9:52 pm
“I yield and stand corrected.”
Humility is a good thing. :)
I do recommend you listen to the podcast review of the movie I linked earlier. It teases out all the Christian themes.
June 10th, 2009 | 11:29 pm
Wesley –
Regarding the “robots” comment, eep! That wasn’t directed at you; that was an incomplete thought that I decided I wasn’t going to persue, but I forgot to delete the line. Yikes, sorry.
I still think that it’s telling that at the end of “The Day The Earth Stood Still,” the aliens short out all our technology and leave us in the dark ages, whereas in “Wall-E,” technology is altered to be useful, rather than simply coddling humanity.
One of the things I had to learn as a textual critic of literature (and people said I was wasting my money on getting a BA in English Lit! Ha!) was to read the ending before reading the beginning of the story. While it might kill the suspense of a whodunit, the over-all effect is to give you a sense of where the story is going to wind up, and see how it got there.
Taking George Orwell’s “1984″ as an example, if you read the end first, you know that Winston Smith believes he’s won some kind of victory over himself, and that he wants to die before he messes himself up again. Go back to the beginning (“…the clocks struck thirteen.”) and you see the progressive downfall of an ordered person caused by a disordered society.
Taking “Wall-E,” you see at the end that humanity has overcome its self-made obsticles and triumphs. Going back to the beginning, you see the Earth’s pollution less as an offense against the planet and more as a sign of humanity’s thoughtlessness has injured *humanity* by taking away its purpose.
Yes, Wesley, this is what I do in my ample spare time, for the fun of it. I have no life. I’m an uber-geek. All you geeks, bow before me!
What we need is a blog about Human Exceptionalism from a literary POV. It’s a different angle. You come at things from the POV of a bioethicist and a lawyer, which gives you a different spin on the subject. The Liberal Arts could also offer something for us to use in the Human Exceptionalism debate.
June 12th, 2009 | 12:04 pm
[...] would be a message that would resonate with a Catholic, or even a true conservative? Not at all. Wesley J. Smith complains that these movies are somehow anti-person. Here are his words: “Whether they knew [...]
June 12th, 2009 | 12:43 pm
[...] MORE RADICAL Anti-Humanism/ Environmentalism at the Movies …. [...]
June 26th, 2009 | 4:14 pm
It’s odd to hear anyone refer to environmentalists or their pursuits as anti-human.
Someone interested in protecting and respecting the earth recognizes our dependence on the earth for our survival. We sort of can’t live without clean air, water, soil, ecosystems. We are just as capable of taking care of the planet as we are of destroying it. Let’s hope we collectively make the right choice. :)
In general, we need to understand that environmentalists are pro-human or there would be no point to their actions. They just have some work to do in the delivery of their message in some cases. I think Wall-E does a great job and I enjoyed talking about the issues presented in the film with my 5 year old daughter. She has become better than me already at asking “what else can we do with this?” before putting something in the trash. And as a family we are working to make different purchasing choices to eliminate the need to throw stuff away. We’re hoping producers start doing the same thing. Someone made a great point recently that using taxpayer dollars to haul our trash is basically like giving a subsidy to companies that choose to make wasteful disposable stuff. We should be a little angrier that we are left to pay for the clean up when alternatives could be produced in the first place.
It might be helpful for all of us to dig a little deeper to learn about the issues that ‘radical environmentalists’ are fighting for on behalf of all of us and give them the benefit of the doubt. Don’t stop exploring until you’ve made the connection to yourself because I’ll guarantee you it’s there somewhere, no matter how crazy or radical or insignificant it may seem at first.
Interesting discussion.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact