[img]1370|left|||no_popup[/img] Considering that we necessarily place constraints on liberty with injunctions against murder and theft, it remains a great conundrum that, among reactionaries, environmentalism is perceived as a threat to liberty. If it isn’t acceptable to take property that doesn’t belong to us, kill someone without cause for self-defense, or otherwise harm others, why is it controversial that we adhere to moral injunctions against destroying the environment we depend on for our well-being? Big Hollywood hasn’t, so far, offered any insight into the bizarre polarization of the environmental debate, and one questions the extent to which anyone listens past the first explosion or gunshot of the latest blockbuster, but with this adaptation of Dr. Seuss’s fable The Lorax, we find the continuation of a green trend that reflects societal anxiety over the consequences of our unsustainable lifestyles. The message always has been present in this or that film. But it seems as if it’s taking on a greater urgency as major films, particularly animated fare, overtly tackle one of the greatest challenges our civilization must confront. Consider Happy Feet, ostensibly about a dancing penguin striving to find his place in the world that, surprisingly, becomes a call to action to prevent the disappearance of endangered species. Or consider Pixar’s sublime Wall*E, with its speculation on a future earth destroyed by the waste of an insatiable consumerist society.
It seemed inevitable, after the success of the charming animated adaptation of Dr. Seuss’s Horton Hears a Who, that The Lorax would get propelled onto the big screen with all the contradictions inherent in the effort. An environmental film with merchandising rights, a concoction that sacrifices profundity for an often lazy appeal to the masses yet also delivers surprisingly sharp jabs – the film is certainly the product of the uniquely Hollywood affliction that places art and commerce in tension. Strains from the cognitive dissonance manifest as an indulgence of slapstick humour involving the physical collision of things and beings, and an aggressively generic teen-friendly pop score by John Powell, neither of which surprises as much as the relative lack of Seussical language. For anyone hoping to encounter Seuss himself and less Seuss as filtered through the Hollywood studio machine, the film will offer only a hint of reward.
Yet this is a Hollywood film, not the slim illustrated volume beloved by so many, which remains safely nestled in bookshelves everywhere awaiting either discovery or reunion. As a film that exists in its own plane, The Lorax offers much to commend it despite the naysaying of purists. The animation, picking up the baton from Dr. Seuss, is a gorgeously zany mix of Rube Goldberg invention and a love affair for all lines that aren’t straight. Voiceover work is as good as one would hope, with Danny Devito proving an inspired choice to voice the titular creature with his typically endearing, loveably gruff vocal demeanour.
As for the story, there is arguable controversy in adding an extra plot to frame the story of the Once-ler deforesting a Truffula grove. No longer simply about the Once-ler, the film posits the existence of a plastic city walled off from the devastation wrought by the industrialist inventor of “thneeds.” In this city lives a boy named Ted, whose encounter with the Once-ler and his story puts him in conflict with the de facto power behind the city, a millionaire industrialist named O’Hare, presented as a Napoleon of business, minus the hat and affectation with the hand. In this villain is the satirical realization of a scenario taken to absurdity, but frighteningly plausible, end. Forget corporations selling bottled water and, not without irony, benefitting from polluted public water systems and dwindling potable water supplies. O’Hare achieves the ultimate coup by selling bottled air. It’s not a necessary invention to the story’s simple message. But in the context of our public conversation it’s a glorious exaggeration that lampoons the not-remotely-glorious exaggerations of today’s environmentally destructive businesses. It’s depressing to think that our disregard for the environment is not merely the result of the greedy exploitation of natural resources, but of the greedy exploitation of people. As O’Hare eventually makes clear to Ted, his wealthy business doesn’t simply rely on expanding the destruction wrought by the Once-ler, but depends on reducing people to consumers who can be controlled and manipulated through their consumerism. It’s rare for a mainstream film to touch on the issue of authoritarian commercialism, but there it is in The Lorax.
Though the film can be bleak – the scenes of devastated nature starkly contrast the whimsical beauty of the Truffula forest and its inhabitants – it isn’t without hope. What begins as a quest to impress a girl takes on more importance as Ted learns more about the state of his world. In Ted’s growth, the film demonstrates the value of education, individual initiative and community action. We could think of it as faith in the capacity for motives to shift from the selfish to the altruistic when presented with the facts.
Speaking of facts, it’s entirely legitimate, if facetious, to consider the film agitprop, as NPR’s David Edelstein does. But given how much anti-science and anti-environment propaganda our culture is saturated with, thanks to a corrupt commercial media and think-tanks funded by the ridiculously wealthy powers whose interests (and profits) rest in the status quo, labeling The Lorax as agitprop is hardly a criticism that stings. We have lost our connection with our planet, removed ourselves from our place in a vast and wonderful ecosystem, and replaced stewardship with all-consuming domination – stories like The Lorax, whether in print or in cinema, strive to shake us from our complacency while we stand in line for the next Apple product or other shiny gizmo, and remind us about the bond we share with our earth.
The Lorax is not a great film, nor is it the best adaptation of Dr. Seuss’s book that one might envision. It is, however, as gently entertaining as it is unapologetic in its stance; a colourful, silly, melancholy, hopeful, stinging and, ultimately, accessible film. As for the merchandising, surely the film reinforces the argument that we are each responsible for making smart decisions. However the studio might market the film, or companies like Mazda might seek to appropriate the Lorax to sell cars, the film itself doesn’t sell the rug out from under the story. If the merchandising offends, then don’t buy into it. Enjoying the film for what it is doesn’t depend on our supporting the marketing machine.
The Lorax. Screenplay by Ken Daurio and Cinco Paul. Based on The Lorax by Dr. Seuss. Directed by Chris Renaud and Kyle Balda. Starring the voices of Danny Devito, Zac Efron, Taylor Swift, Ed Helms, Rob Riggle, Betty White, and Jenny Slate. 95 minutes. Rated PG for brief mild language.
Mr. Sisa is Assistant Editor of The Front Page Online
————————–
web: www.thefrontpageonline.com
email: fsisa@thefrontpageonline.com
blog: www.inkandashes.net
…and also fashion with TFPO's The Fashionoclast at www.fashionoclast.com
