Wall-E

[NineInfinity]

Knowing that Pixar typically produces quality movies and being a fan of science fiction, I went in to seeing Wall-E with somewhat high expectations. Not only was I let down by the quality of the movie itself but the basis of the movie is absolutely deplorable. The future mankind has been forced to abandon Earth because it is overrun with garbage. What caused this catastrophe? Capitalism. The movie makes the same point over and over, it's big corporations, consumer culture, and mass consumption that are at fault. Humans have also somehow been turned into dumb, fat, lazy creatures incapable of taking care of themselves.

In terms of the movie itself, the first half hour is almost completely devoid of dialogue, which is understandable part of the time but becomes a drag later on. The plot never really materializes into anything spectacular or unpredictable anyway- it seems Pixar needed some antagonist and plot device so they decided to make it a cliche copy of 2001: A Space Odyssey (who didn't see that coming?). It then rushes into the conclusion which I will discuss below.

End spoilers below:

The ending also makes no sense at all. Humans return to Earth which still seems largely incapable of supporting life (they better find shelter from those bug, sudden windstorms pretty fast!) but that's not the big problem. Wall-E loses his memory trying to fight the evil computer, but then a dramatic pause and a touch on the arm later from Eve and it's magically restored. I mean, seriously?

[athena glaukopis]

Thanks for saving me 11 dollars

Too bad though, it looked so cute

[aleph_0]

I'll still have to see it, but that's a discouraging review. Though I dislike consumer culture just as much as the next Marxist.

[Grames]

Thanks for saving me 11 dollars

Too bad though, it looked so cute

It has its good points. The film is largely a mystery without a plot until the second half of the second half. It does have epic scale, characters are communicated to the audience through action not dialogue, Wall.e is cute. The premises which serve as background to the story are anethma to Objectivists.

[dadmonson]

Did they actually say in the movie that Capitalism caused Earth to be overrun by garbage? Was the movie all about the enviroment?

I keep on hearing that Wall-E is a great movie from everybody else.

Edited July 2, 2008 by dadmonson

[JASKN]

My impression of the movie was of a technical masterpiece, as is (amazing and) usual with Pixar, with some really fantastic character creations. I am happy with the movie for those reasons alone.

As for the story, I left with a kind of so-so taste in my mouth, especially after the credits sequence and the ridiculous song at the end. Admittedly, it skewed the movie for me.

However, here are a couple reviews by forum members (who are quite good at reviewing movies), that shed some light for me, and I am happy I read them. Their impressions were more positive than my own, and certainly more positive than NineInfinity's: Literatrix and WoPSR.net.

[Unknown Idealist]

I sat through the movie. Saturday. Here it is in a nutshell:

Humans are fat, dumb, lazy creatures who have turned earth into an uninhabitable wasteland.

Only robots are capable of love, bravery and decisive action.

I disagree with JASKN. Far from being a masterpiece, it is Pixar's least appealing feature yet. There is none of the visual spectacle of Finding Nemo or Ratatouille. Worst of all, the humans look like a throwback to the two-dimensional TV cartoons of four decades ago.

Edited July 2, 2008 by Unknown Idealist

[JASKN]

I sat through the movie. Saturday. Here it is in a nutshell:

Humans are fat, dumb, lazy creatures who have turned earth into an inhabitable wasteland.

Only robots are capable of love, bravery and decisive action.

I think you should read those reviews I linked to. Yes, the humans are fat and lazy, though they are not dumb, but they wind up fixing their laziness by the end of the movie. So it's a positive. And for the robots, they are the center of the story (it is called WALL-E, after all)! So as far as they are brave and decisive, and love, that is also a positive.

And you are simply wrong about the visuals. They are, as usual, outstanding. Which movie were you watching? And the aesthetic of the movie generally is grand (my only gripe with the aesthetics is yours, how the humans look. This may have been less of an issue if they hadn't mixed live-action humans with animated ones). There isn't a Pixar movie with poor visuals. Even Cars, which I really disliked, looked beautiful.

[Mammon]

Did they actually say in the movie that Capitalism caused Earth to be overrun by garbage? Was the movie all about the enviroment?

I keep on hearing that Wall-E is a great movie from everybody else.

No, it doesn't say that explicitly. The CEO of the corporation was also president of the earth too, so obviously the walls between economy and state were blurred. Granted that may not be the intent, but I can see it that way. The only thing that upset me a little bit was that the hand-out-station on the cruise ship was named "Economy"

I agree with the reviews that were linked.

Honestly, the seeming enviromentalism might be a ploy to sell it. It also looks like there may have been some inner creative directional problems. Meaning some of the staff wanted to inject it with more anti-capitalism stuff then others.

Eh, who knows?

I think the main point is laziness, conformity and obediance are the vices here.

The humans weren't totally mindless, just distracted by unimportant things.

Let's not have knee-jerk reactions here.

Thanks for saving me 11 dollars

Too bad though, it looked so cute

See it for yourself. There are better reviews out there, some were linked in this thread.

Edited July 3, 2008 by Mammon

[JMeganSnow]

If you want to see a *really* environmentalist movie, go see The Happening and contrast the two. Wall-e is NOT environmentalist because it is pro-man: pro-ideals, pro-love, pro-struggle . . . pro just about anything that is human. It is anti-passivity, anti-abandonment, anti-ignorance. One of the best lines in the movie (in my opinion) is when the Auto-Pilot tells the captain "You will survive." when the captain wants to go back to earth, and the captain says: "I don't want to survive. I want to live!"

Judging art requires an ability to identify central, unifying elements and think in terms of essentials. Background is just background.

[Grant]

If you want to see a *really* environmentalist movie, go see The Happening and contrast the two. Wall-e is NOT environmentalist because it is pro-man: pro-ideals, pro-love, pro-struggle . . . pro just about anything that is human. It is anti-passivity, anti-abandonment, anti-ignorance. One of the best lines in the movie (in my opinion) is when the Auto-Pilot tells the captain "You will survive." when the captain wants to go back to earth, and the captain says: "I don't want to survive. I want to live!"

Judging art requires an ability to identify central, unifying elements and think in terms of essentials. Background is just background.

Haha, The Happening...AWFUL movie.

And not only from a philosophical standpoint. Just plain awful.

[K-Mac]

So what's the bottom line here? Is it worth a $7 matinée or should I wait for the DVD? I wanted to see this (and Hancock) over the holiday weekend, but not if it's not worth it.

[Mammon]

So what's the bottom line here? Is it worth a $7 matinée or should I wait for the DVD? I wanted to see this (and Hancock) over the holiday weekend, but not if it's not worth it.

Matinee definately.

[Unknown Idealist]

If you're interested in a movie that shows man not as he is but “as he might be and ought to be,” then Wall-E is the film for you -- provided that your ideal is the blob-like Venus of Willendorf.

You'll also be treated to what civilization would look like if managed by a giga-corporation called "Buy N’ Large." But don't expect a flattering view of capitalism.

[Chops]

If you want to see a *really* environmentalist movie, go see The Happening and contrast the two. Wall-e is NOT environmentalist because it is pro-man: pro-ideals, pro-love, pro-struggle . . . pro just about anything that is human. It is anti-passivity, anti-abandonment, anti-ignorance. One of the best lines in the movie (in my opinion) is when the Auto-Pilot tells the captain "You will survive." when the captain wants to go back to earth, and the captain says: "I don't want to survive. I want to live!"

Judging art requires an ability to identify central, unifying elements and think in terms of essentials. Background is just background.

Very well stated, and my thoughts mirror that almost exactly (though you've stated them much more precisely than I would have).

I have a buddy that summarizes the premise of the movie with the following line:

"The real enemy is auto-pilot"

.

WALL-E, as a character, in my opinion, is Pixar's best character ever - lovable, dedicated, curious, and full of emotion. And the chemistry between WALL-E and Eve was phenomenal given the lack of dialog.

I'd say that WALL-E is worthy of the normal price or matinee (but then again, I try to see most movies, so the price isn't something I really consider).

And yeah, "The Happening" was laughably bad, but that's for another thread.

[JMeganSnow]

So what's the bottom line here? Is it worth a $7 matinée or should I wait for the DVD?

*I* think it's definitely worth it--I may go see it *again* because the theater was packed with kids and I want to make sure I got the subtleties (PIXAR movies often contain many subtleties). However, I actually liked Kung Fu Panda better, I think. It's a close-run one with me because I like martial arts action flicks and I really liked the theme of KFP.

[softwareNerd]

Saw it last night at a drive-in.

Cute movie. I agree with Jennifer about the theme. The plot was relatively simple -- like a "one act romance" -- but, the time flew.

[Grames]

I found a review that helpfully points out what is actually wrong with Wall.e

The movie Wall.e is a bad science fiction story coupled with a unbelievable but stirringly depicted love story between robots. The audience is expected to anthropomorphize the robots and be sympathetic to them. The love story kind of works if you can do that. The science fiction fails totally because it contradicts already known facts about economics and human nature.

First, the film makes the Marxian assumption that it would be possible for a single corporation to take advantage of ever-increasing returns to scale and thereby subsume the entire world — and still remain profitable and continually patronized by everyone. But as Ludwig von Mises showed as far back as 1920 in Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth, without the presence of multiple providers of goods in the economy, the single dominant firm is in the same position as a socialist central planner. In the real world, BNL would have no market price signals to help it discern consumer demand for and the relative scarcity of resources. It would not be able to engage in rational economic calculation and would make decisions arbitrarily. Surely, this state would not please many consumers, and the BNL monopoly would be short lived at most.

The review goes on to point out the unreality of the extreme degree of conformity among the humans of the Axiom and the romanticization of agriculture.

Sneaking such massively false ideas into the background where the audience must simply accept them in order to enjoy the movie at all, is insidious. Distracted by the robots, some people won't grapple with the issues.

[JMeganSnow]

I found a review that helpfully points out what is actually wrong with Wall.e

Oh come ON. Next you'll be criticizing Finding Nemo and Cars because fish and cars can't talk. Yes, the movie contains fantastic elements that aren't explained and aren't realistic. So do a great many other movies: if you look hard enough, you can find flaws like this with just about ANY movie. Wall-e isn't about teaching economics or proper principles of robotics. It's about contrasting the blob-like conformity of total convenience against the rewards of effort, individualism, and achievement.

Convenience is a great thing when it frees you up to pursue other achievements . . . not when it becomes a substitute for achievement.

[Unknown Idealist]

The problem is in Wall-E World, it's capitalism that trashed the planet, capitalism that brainwashed consumers into becoming copycat zombies, capitalism that turned human history into an endless, static pleasure cruise. For a film that's not about economics, there sure are a lot of socialist lessons packed in there.

[JMeganSnow]

How do you arrive at the conclusion that "capitalism" is to blame? When did capitalism come to equal "Wal-Mart" This entire movie is like a practical exercise in finding the substance instead of drawing conclusions based on incidental surface details.

[Grames]

Oh come ON. Next you'll be criticizing Finding Nemo and Cars because fish and cars can't talk. Yes, the movie contains fantastic elements that aren't explained and aren't realistic. So do a great many other movies: if you look hard enough, you can find flaws like this with just about ANY movie. Wall-e isn't about teaching economics or proper principles of robotics. It's about contrasting the blob-like conformity of total convenience against the rewards of effort, individualism, and achievement.

Convenience is a great thing when it frees you up to pursue other achievements . . . not when it becomes a substitute for achievement.

Not every fantastic element can be granted an equal validity. In the science fiction genre a certain respect for reality and logic is expected. A complete fantasy such as Finding Nemo is all about the characters and plot action, but the very idea behind science fiction is a linkage between fact and value such that the setting constrains or motivates the actions of the characters in a novel way. Broad statements about human nature are condensed down to scenarios depicting individual reactions to technology. The fantastic elements introduced in Wall.e are frequently Marxist ideas, and I cannot grant them validity even for the short duration of a movie.

The first thing to note is the historical narrative at play here. The postulated epitome of human society is pure consumerist hedonism. People didn't go to space because they wanted to, they went because they had to. Because people are defined by their work, in a society where no one does a lick of work no one has a lick of worth. It is pure Historical Materialism.

For me worst element was the depiction of humans as cattle, smugly chewing cud for 700 years as though that was some kind of utopia. Then there is the contradiction that if humans really are that way then why would they regard leaving the spaceship as an improvement in their lives? They should not have wanted to go back to earth. But perhaps a better interpretation is that the people are merely manipulated by the autopilot to be satisfied with their hollow lives. But here is another Marxist concept, that of the False Consciousness.

Wall.e uses a classic science fiction plot device of a rogue computer which takes over the Axiom, but after Otto the autopilot is defeated the movie doesn't stop. The movie doesn't stop because it wants to give a proper ending in the happily-ever-after-style, and to say more about what is good and what is right. What it comes up with is a green version of intrinicism.

Since they already have lots of perfectly good food it would make more sense to be park rangers, not farmers. So why are people learning to farm at the end? How is backbreaking toil in the fields superior to a cupcake in a cup? Apparently the movie is saying effort is an end in itself. Watching the artwork rolling by underneath the end credits, the intrincism is blatant. I'm going to identify this as the Labour Theory of Value and note once again a connection to Marxism.

Wall.e is a poisoned bit of sugar. Sweet as he is, Wall.e is a vehicle for spreading Marxist ideas into the culture.

[Unknown Idealist]

How do you arrive at the conclusion that "capitalism" is to blame? When did capitalism come to equal "Wal-Mart" This entire movie is like a practical exercise in finding the substance instead of drawing conclusions based on incidental surface details.

Since the gargantuan retail store "Buy N' Large" figures prominently in the ruins of junkyard earth as well as on the dystopian Axiom spaceship, it is hardly a "surface detail." It is associated unmistakably with what is wrong with the world (and out-of-this-world). And why shouldn't we regard Buy N' Large as a private, capitalistic concern? It sure looks and sounds more like capitalism than the "Federation" in Star Trek or the "Empire" in Star Wars.

[JMeganSnow]

How is backbreaking toil in the fields superior to a cupcake in a cup?

Would you want to live on cupcake in a cup if you had other options available? And isn't it yet another baseless assumption to call work supervised by robots "backbreaking"? Objectivism *also* holds that people are defined by their work . . . it just doesn't hold the Marxist view that work consists only of physical labor.

It is also wrong to assume that the humans on board the ship were "satisfied" with their lives. I have met people who exhibit the kind of blank stupidity that arises from a lifestyle where they never have to accomplish anything. When the entire population is passive, it only takes one or two people who want something to push it in a new direction. After a while the passive people get used to the new way as "normal"--or they may even decide to stop being passive.

Now, I would assume that after a while farming (which is only the most immediately available activity), the humans would get bored and start venturing out in other directions. However this is also an unwarranted assumption because the movie doesn't extend that far. Strictly based on the actual contents of the movie, the theme is simply about struggling for your values, which is a benevolent, life-affirming theme regardless of ancillary details. You may as well start blasting Victor Hugo's novels because HE was far from being philosophically perfect, either.

[JMeganSnow]

And why shouldn't we regard Buy N' Large as a private, capitalistic concern? It sure looks and sounds more like capitalism than the "Federation" in Star Trek or the "Empire" in Star Wars.

Hmm. Fascism also "looks and sounds" more like capitalism than, say, communism . . . should we assume that they are the same then? The modern "big-box store" culture we have now is a result and hallmark of a mixed economy and I am not necessarily in favor of it simply because it "looks like" capitalism. (I'd like to see what would arise under an actually capitalist system before I make up my mind which one is better.) Not to mention that a monopoly of the type depicted in the movie (stupid, ineffectual, tasteless--real monopolies may exist but only by being superior to all competitors in every way) can't actually exist under capitalism.

This brings up an interesting ancillary issue: if someone is diatribing against an actual evil but they mistakenly believe it is caused by capitalism, can they actually be said to be attacking capitalism? It is possible that they know what capitalism actually is and are intentionally confusing the issue as part of a smear campaign. However, most of the time I have not found this to be true. Most people genuinely are confused about how capitalism works and are seriously concerned about actual evils. I prefer to *encourage* this because they are *thinking*. I would prefer to demonstrate to them that capitalism doesn't actually cause those evils than to try to convince them to embrace evil.

I thought Wall-e was very fun and enjoyable. Now, would I prefer to see a movie with less proximity to bad ideas? Sure. However I can't see theoretical movies, only real ones. Like I said, I thought Kung Fu Panda was better and I recommend it instead unless you don't like martial arts movies for some reason. Wall-e is one of the better movies that are in theaters right now.