![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Watched The Lorax - the new version, not the 1970s version. I started out with mixed feelings about it, because the animation is adorable and does a great job capturing the fun of Dr. Seuss - but writing this review has just made me more and more aware of how thoroughly the movie undercuts the original Lorax’s message, while simultaneously being even more preachy.
But first, I have to say - the animation is adorable. I want nothing more than to visit truffula land pre-deforestation, cavort with the various truffula animals, and sleep in a truffula tuft. The movie captures perfectly the visual fun of Dr. Seuss. They don’t just faithfully transport his illustrations to the screen; they seem to really understand what makes his visuals fun, because the movie-designed town has the same zany spirit. I love the tree with its different modes: “Summer, autumn, winter, disco!”
Also, the bar-ba-loots (basically, living teddy bears) are so cute. They’re like a fuzzy version of the minions in Illumination Entertainment’s earlier movie Despicable Me If they keep using this “adorable mischievous non-speaking mass of creatures” conceit in all their movies, it will eventually get old. Presumably. I’m perfectly happy to watch two or three more movies with the same conceit just to make sure.
My very favorite part of the movie, and I think the strongest part, is the bit in the middle where the Once-ler is settling into Truffula land and getting to know its inhabitants. Even though the ending is rushed, the contrast means there’s still a sense of the tragedy of the destruction of the Truffula trees.
But nonetheless, the ending of the Once-ler’s story is rushed. The filmmakers focus instead on their happy ending for their framing story. Given that The Lorax is essentially a tragedy, this drains the heart out of the whole movie, making it preachy but essentially soulless.
In a sense it’s churlish to complain about the preachiness, because it’s not like the original didn’t have an adorable, mustachioed sledgehammer to propound its message. But the preaching worked better in the original book because it’s more sincere. The book is a challenge to readers: it ends with the Once-ler throwing the truffula seed to the young reader stand-in, because we have to go out and change the world.
The movie, on the other hand, seems to be almost patting us on the back for not personally being corporate fat cats. And in that context, tossing the seed to young Ted - a character in his own right, not a reader stand-in - makes no sense. If the Once-ler had the seed this whole time, why didn’t the he replant the truffula forest himself rather than sulking his life away in his ramshackle house?
The more so, because movie shifts the blame for the deforestation from the Once-ler to his family, which I hate. In the book, he’s a tragic antihero, who destroys the truffula trees because of his lust for money and repents too late to save them. In the movie, he cuts down trees because his family talks him into it. Never mind he’s promised the Lorax not to cut any trees! He’s not tragic, just pathetic.
But first, I have to say - the animation is adorable. I want nothing more than to visit truffula land pre-deforestation, cavort with the various truffula animals, and sleep in a truffula tuft. The movie captures perfectly the visual fun of Dr. Seuss. They don’t just faithfully transport his illustrations to the screen; they seem to really understand what makes his visuals fun, because the movie-designed town has the same zany spirit. I love the tree with its different modes: “Summer, autumn, winter, disco!”
Also, the bar-ba-loots (basically, living teddy bears) are so cute. They’re like a fuzzy version of the minions in Illumination Entertainment’s earlier movie Despicable Me If they keep using this “adorable mischievous non-speaking mass of creatures” conceit in all their movies, it will eventually get old. Presumably. I’m perfectly happy to watch two or three more movies with the same conceit just to make sure.
My very favorite part of the movie, and I think the strongest part, is the bit in the middle where the Once-ler is settling into Truffula land and getting to know its inhabitants. Even though the ending is rushed, the contrast means there’s still a sense of the tragedy of the destruction of the Truffula trees.
But nonetheless, the ending of the Once-ler’s story is rushed. The filmmakers focus instead on their happy ending for their framing story. Given that The Lorax is essentially a tragedy, this drains the heart out of the whole movie, making it preachy but essentially soulless.
In a sense it’s churlish to complain about the preachiness, because it’s not like the original didn’t have an adorable, mustachioed sledgehammer to propound its message. But the preaching worked better in the original book because it’s more sincere. The book is a challenge to readers: it ends with the Once-ler throwing the truffula seed to the young reader stand-in, because we have to go out and change the world.
The movie, on the other hand, seems to be almost patting us on the back for not personally being corporate fat cats. And in that context, tossing the seed to young Ted - a character in his own right, not a reader stand-in - makes no sense. If the Once-ler had the seed this whole time, why didn’t the he replant the truffula forest himself rather than sulking his life away in his ramshackle house?
The more so, because movie shifts the blame for the deforestation from the Once-ler to his family, which I hate. In the book, he’s a tragic antihero, who destroys the truffula trees because of his lust for money and repents too late to save them. In the movie, he cuts down trees because his family talks him into it. Never mind he’s promised the Lorax not to cut any trees! He’s not tragic, just pathetic.
