Dr. Seuss’ Horton Hears a Who! (review)
The Passion of the Horton
Aghast is the word. It’s not a word that should be applicable to anything Seussical. But this is what I felt as I stumbled from my Saturday morning screening of Dr. Seuss’ Horton Hears a Who! and immediately hied myself to a bookstore to pick up a copy of the Ted Geisel children’s book upon which this is based. Because I could not imagine that the gist of what was up on the screen was actually present in the book. I mean, I’d read it as a kid, but, you know, kids don’t pick up on subtext, and maybe there was something I’d missed as a tyke.
more below the ad... scroll down...
But no. I didn’t miss anything. If there’s any “agenda” at all to Geisel’s book, about a kindly elephant who learns of very, very tiny people living on a speck of pollen and devotes himself to getting them to safety even as his fellow jungle residents scoff at him -- hearing voices? tiny people? *snort* -- then it is merely this: It is its own reward to be nice to people, even if they don’t look like you. Stretch it all some more, and maybe Geisel, writing in the 1950s, was creating an extremely heavily veiled parable about racism. Maybe.
And what has Hollywood done with this gentle plea for tolerance? It has been turned into something that looks astonishingly like far-right propaganda about how Christians are a persecuted minority -- as if this were 100AD in the Roman Empire -- and loudmouthed atheists are ruining everything. I know the movie industry is supposed to be full of evil liberals out to kill God and everything decent in the world, but there honestly doesn’t seem to be any other way to interpret the ham-fisted and weirdly confused allegory about conformity -- it’s both good and bad! -- and principle.
Would that that were a joke. But what’s really insidious here is that the script -- by Ken Daurio and Cinco Paul, who also wrote Bubble Boy and the new College Road Trip, which proves that there is no sin you can commit that will cause Hollywood to shun you -- follows the story of the book pretty closely. It’s in how they flesh out a brief picture book into a feature-length film that the weird ickiness comes, in all those little -- and some not so little -- extrapolations that expand it. The titular elephant (voiced by Jim Carrey [The Number 23, Fun with Dick & Jane], who manages to refrain from the excessive and distracting Jim Carrey-ness that often mars his performances) is far more besieged by the creatures of the jungle here, led by the harpyish Kangaroo (the voice of Carol Burnett: The Trumpet of the Swan), who goes on a rampage of indignation over Horton’s attention to the speck. Daurio and Paul’s escalation of Kangaroo could have retained her mocking of Horton while still going in any one of several different directions, but where they take her is into an unpleasant parody of atheists. “If you can’t see it, hear it, or feel it, it doesn’t exist,” Kangaroo rages -- something she does not come anywhere near saying in the book, and something that is a strawman characterization of secular religious nonbelief. (No atheist would deny the existence of, say, neutrons.) “Horton is a menace” is Kangaroo’s justification for her attempts to squash the pachyderm, a “sick” influence on the children of the jungle. Except he isn’t, as far as we can see -- he’s not, for instance, advocating that the speck theory of creation be taught in the public schools of the jungle. But Kangaroo is the villain -- she’s the unreasonable one here. If the screenwriters really wanted to demonize her, they could have simply renamed her Madalyn Murray O’Hair.
But that’s all as nothing when your jaw drops to see how far the movie goes in inventing more story on the speck side of things, in the tiny world of Whoville, where the dimbulb Mayor (the voice of Steve Carell: Dan in Real Life, Evan Almighty) is the only one who can hear Horton. He runs around the curlicue city -- it’s really a shame that the tone and attitude of the film is so vile, because the animation really is gorgeous -- yelling that the sky is falling but that the big invisible voice in the heavens will save them all if only everyone listens to him. Did I mention the big dubyas-- I mean, Ws all over the place, like in the Mayor’s office? True, the Mayor is an idiot -- “I’ve been called a boob, several times,” he says without, apparently, any regret -- but his people are even dumber, barely noticing all the upheavals to their world (like the fact that the sky shifts, in mere seconds, from day to night, day to night, as Horton shades and unshades the speck with his ear). And they will only be saved once they accept that the Mayor has a direct line to God-- I mean, Horton, and because of that hotline, the Mayor, and the Mayor alone, has an understanding of the threat facing all of Whoville. Before that happens, though, the Mayor comes under scoffing, too: “You’re finished,” a councilman tells him. “No one believes you. No one supports you.” Will the people of Whoville stand by their belief in democracy even if it means they’re doomed? Or will they come to their senses and accept that the Mayor knows what’s best for them, even if he is an idiot?
Needless to say, none of this is hinted at in the book, either.
Perhaps the worst thing, from the perspective of someone who doesn’t want to see reason so utterly turned on its head like this, is that if you argue with the film, you invariably end up sounding like Kangaroo, because the way this sweet story has been adapted leaves no room for anything else. Geisel’s book was ambiguous enough in its essence that it can be, and has been, appropriated by people all over the political and philosophical spectrum. (Antiabortionists, for instance, love that “a person is a person, no matter how small” line.) But this movie, in its attempt to expand on the book, instead diminishes it, reduces it to something that cannot be seen except in one narrow sense. It has taken a timeless work and turned it into a cheap artifact of this immediate moment. We’ll still be reading Dr. Seuss a century from now, but this desecration of him will be long forgotten.
(Technorati tags: Horton Hears a Who, Dr Seuss, Ted Geisel, Jim Carrey, Steve Carell)
viewed at a semipublic screening with an audience of critics and ordinary moviegoersrated G
official site | IMDB
comments
posted by Jordan Short (March 14, 2008 9:38 AM)
It's funny. . .
Out of all of the reviewers on Rotten Tomatoes, you were the only one (that I saw & I scanned them all) who came to this conclusion about "religion" and "God" being forced upon the audience.
Sounds like you came into the viewing with some preconceptions. . .
posted by cheffy (March 14, 2008 9:48 AM)
Wow, talk about reading way too much into things. How about reviewing the movie for the movie itself... not trying to read into what it might mean.
#1. It's a kids movie
#2. It's not trying to go above any ones head
Sometimes a tree is just a tree. And sometimes a kid's movie is just a kid's movie. What probably threw you was that it wasn't full of bathroom jokes so you assumed there must be something more too it.
Please... this isn't a movie review it's a misplaced political tirade.
posted by cheffy (March 14, 2008 9:52 AM)
Followup: W is for the Who's from Whoville. Whoville was created long before the year 2000.
posted by postman (March 14, 2008 10:23 AM)
Wow, this was kind of painful to read. I was going through all the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, and this one really sticks out like a sore thumb. I know it's just your opinion, but I have to say I was squirming in my seat as I read your review. I'm embarassed for you, because I think alot of people will be heading over to your page to read this. But may be that's all you wanted.
Either way, this was a ridiculous review. At least you admit in your bio that you drink way too much. You should probably avoid posting review to children's movies after doing so, though.
posted by west (March 14, 2008 10:27 AM)
I have to admit that the points you brought up are one's that I commonly notice in movies, and yes they get under my skin, but I have to also admit that you failed to really review the movie. Your point was worth mentioning though.
posted by Harrison (March 14, 2008 10:28 AM)
So much for just enjoying a family film that isn't laced with inneuendos about all things garbage. Good nor evil is done in isolation, but by no means does everything have to be viewed as political or religious manipulation. Enjoy the film, enjoy Seuss, and please just enjoy positive and redeeming messages.
posted by Cosmo Brown (March 14, 2008 10:33 AM)
You say the movie can only be seen in "one narrow sense." Yet in reading the reviews, it appears that you're the only one who saw it in that narrow sense. So which is narrow-minded, the movie or the reviewer? I'd have to go with the latter.
posted by Edmund WE Hughes, JR (March 14, 2008 10:33 AM)
Let me guess; you're not religious, and any movie with a Christian appeal or overtoes is abhorent to you. (Were you also offended by Lord of the Rings or The Chronicles of Narnia? - both have Christian themes and influences.)Christians are usually the ones that are accused of intolerance and paranoia, but in this case your are identifying yourself as being a paranoid Secular Progressive who is overly sensitive to the theme of a movie that "may" have Christian influences.
I have not seen the movie, but I have three kids and own most of the Dr. Seuss books. Many Dr. Seuss books have Universal themes that are shared by several religions, including Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, etc. I'll reserve final judgement until I actually see the movie with my kids, but I won't be worried or insulted if I pick up on a Christian theme - better a Christian theme than some politically-correct, Fascist, directive from Al Gore, Mike Moore, or other deranged, Secular Proggressive nut job.
posted by bobby (March 14, 2008 10:38 AM)
I saw a preview screening of this film and after reading your review all I can say is Wow!!!. I think you are completely off base. I think that the movie is really true to Suess' original intent. I do not think there is anything off base in how the kangaroo "rages". In the original book, the Kangaroo and monkeys are seen caging Horton and ready to throw the clover into Beezlenut juice, just like the movie. If that isn't an intense moment for a children's book, I don't know what is. The animals were not just mocking him. I remember being really scared by that moment as a child. So I don't think the film makers got this aspect wrong. If anything, I think this is the most faithful adaptation I have seen of anything done by Seuss on the big screen and I would rank it closely with the old chuck jones films.
I also enjoyed the way they fleshed out the characters of whoville. I found that i cared about the mayor and his family. It makes the drama of the story more powerful, when you have an emotional attachment to the characters, while not destroying the dynamics of the original book.
I do not think this is a right wing movie. If anything, I think it gives an interesting look at the way good individuals can become a very dangerous mob, when their leaders prey on their fears. I do not think this is a left wing movie either. In the end, I think the movie adheres to the original message of tolerance.
I think you really missed the point on this one. One moment you are saying it is pro christian, the next you are saying it is Anti Bush. Maybe the W in the mayor's office stands for Whoville. Perhaps you should leave the reviewing of sweet children's movies to someone else. You are trying to read into things that aren't there.
posted by MaryAnn (March 14, 2008 10:39 AM)
Yup, that's it. This review isn't actually reflective of what I think of the film, it's just a ploy to get people to visit my site. Geez. You're on to me. What shall I do?
Yes, of course that's true. But as I said in the review, there are attitudes in this movie that are not in the book.
So, then, you *would be* worried if you picked up on an attitude in the film that wasn't in the book and that you disagreed with? Would that be different than what I've written here?
Oh my goodness? Really and truly? Well, then, that negates everything I've written. Because everyone knows that something cannot possibly have two meanings at the same time. And filmmakers adapting books never, ever interpret those works through new lenses.
posted by snead (March 14, 2008 10:40 AM)
Finally! I thought I was the only one who saw it! Though you forgot to mention how the pink clovers clearly represent the right-wing's fear of the sinister gay agenda! Oh, and how convenient that Vlad the eagle has a Russian accent -- like we're not supposed to see this thinly veiled attempt to scare us by raising the spectre of the communist menace! And the "leaf bugs" that Horton claims to study, as if we couldn't recognize a marijuana plant when we see one! Be strong, sister. Don't let the bastards get you down. And keep watching the skies!! Keep! Watching! The! Skies!
posted by MaryAnn (March 14, 2008 10:43 AM)
No, I'm saying it's pro-Bush. The Mayor of Whoville -- the Bush stand-in -- claims to talk to God... and he actually does! And his talking to God is what will save the people of Whoville!
posted by Elodie (March 14, 2008 10:44 AM)
Wordy drunken tirades have no place in children's movie reviews! Funny that most of the bad reviews on Rotten Tomatoes come from New York - cultural wasteland.
posted by Peter (March 14, 2008 11:00 AM)
The script was done by the guys that did Bubble Boy and College Road Trip soooo ....... I think a tree is just a tree here, although I'm pleased that it had your reaction. I'll point it out to my kids now so they can taught correctly about the true meaning of the story. Thanks!
posted by j (March 14, 2008 11:01 AM)
having worked on the film, i can assure you the directors never meant any of these things you claim they tried to hint at. you are merely making parallels of story themes that happen to relate to a million things. like Nostradamus predictions, he can say something vague, and it becomes true. this was meant to be faithful to the book and fun for kids. nothing more.
posted by Chris (March 14, 2008 11:05 AM)
I'll echo what's already been said: sounds like you go into situations looking for things that you hate, yet love to complain about....even if it isn't really there to begin with.
If all the things that stick in your craw disappeared tomorrow, would you really be happier? Or would you be bored and/or depressed?
posted by MaryAnn (March 14, 2008 11:15 AM)
Yup, again you guys are amazingly correct! I went into a Dr. Seuss movie looking to be offended, so I found stuff to offend me. Wow. It's astonishing how well you people know me. Simply astonishing.
Of course, it couldn't possibly be that I see something that you all didn't because I might generally have a different mindset than some people. Because we all know that everyone thinks exactly the same about everything. And beloved children's authors never, ever have to write books to explain that, you know, maybe that's not the case...
posted by MaryAnn (March 14, 2008 11:16 AM)
That would be New York, yessiree.
posted by Yo (March 14, 2008 11:21 AM)
I'd love to meet some of Mary Ann's friends and ask them how often they have to deal with this scornful, self-righteous side of her when all they want to do is go out and have a nice time. I mean, look at her face. That's not even a smile! It's more like a self-assured smirk. She looks like a bitch who can't wait to tell someone that she sees past his B.S.
posted by B. (March 14, 2008 11:28 AM)
Mary-Ann,
What kind of reviewer feels the need to retort public comments on his or her review? And sarcastically, at that. I don't think I've seen, in all my years as a journalist and radio station manager, such PETTY vitriol!
You have a responsibility to include in your review everything intelligent that you have to say about a movie and to not insult your reading audience when they respectfully disagree with your assertion (which, perhaps alarmingly, is shaping up to be exactly opposite of what everyone else has written, apparently irrespective of political affiliation or religious predilection).
Combing through your reviews, I have yet to find one that criticizes a film for overly secualrist or leftist overtones that fail to match the source material. We're all subject to our biases, but at least call a spade a spade. It's obvious what "side" you fall on even before you analyze the film ("I know the movie industry is supposed to be full of evil liberals out to kill God and everything decent in the world"...). This is a weakness. While I consider myself a liberal, I appreciate honest critiques of entertainment that, over time, do not display an obvious bias.
I'm sorry, but this review smacks of amateurism to the point that it requires a clarification or retraction, not half-witted retorts at people who are obviously not as eloquent or educated as you are.
Pick on someone your own size, please; and for pete's sake, at least make sense.
posted by Doa766 (March 14, 2008 11:34 AM)
I haven't seen this movie yet, but I have to admit that every time a kid's movie tries christian overtones I found it absolutly disgusting
like santa giving a knife to a 6 year old in Narnia so she can go to war packing
posted by Colleen (March 14, 2008 11:35 AM)
MAJ, I haven't seen the movie, nor do I plan to, but the munchkin is going tomorrow. And, I'm sure when the dvd comes out I'll probably end up seeing it.
It is unfortunate the writers felt they had to add to the story to make what they felt was a good movie adaptation. And it doesn't sound as though those additions are like The Grinch, supporting various parts of the storyline that were already there. It sounds as though they may detract from the storyline instead.
I'm less concerned with the possible Christian overtones, even though I'm not Christian. I'm more disappointed in the fact they didn't stay true to the actual story. I don't recall a mayor in the original text?!?! I don't recall any over- (or under-) tones of politics. I don't recall any religion. All I recall is a general statement of tolerance, and a possible idea of people being so caught up in their own little world they don't see the possibility of anything or anyone outside their sphere.
As well he touches on the vastness of the universe... for example what if the earth is not the only inhabited planet throughout all the universes. What if our universe is a dust speck to someone? What if the swirling dust specks going by are inhabited by smaller beings. If you REALLY felt like delving into an attempt to translate, you could get into both Christian and Scientific theories.
BTW, haven't seen this much reaction to one of your reviews in quite some time. :) Keep up the great work!
posted by MaryAnn (March 14, 2008 11:48 AM)
I have never, ever pretended not to be biased, or to hide my biases. Would you prefer that I did?
And I'm not allowed to respond to comments on my own Web site? Are you serious?
I don't see a lot of "respectful disagreement" in these comments. I do see a lot of namecalling, lack of understanding of what I wrote, and a general lack of understanding of what film criticism is about. And most of this from people who have not yet even seen the film.
I'm happy for people to disagree with me. In this instance, I expect it will be the general response. But I certainly will defend my opinions. I don't see why I shouldn't.
posted by MaryAnn (March 14, 2008 11:50 AM)
There was a mayor, but he's a much smaller character -- no pun intended -- than he is here. Whoville has been greatly expanded here.
Exactly. The film could have been more inclusive and more open and more ambiguous in its attitude. The filmmakers chose not to go in that direction.
posted by Dale Jarrett (March 14, 2008 11:54 AM)
Wow! your review really hurts. I see many flaws in your attack. First off Hollywood is a free thinking state of mind and would never ever propose the act of God in His state onto a kids movie in the way your proposing. Disney...maybe...but Hollywood...never. Hollywood loves the idea of Karma and whats good for you will help others. Hollywood rarely if ever even mentions the idea that there is any type of deism out there that controls this world except in the supernatural such as mythology. which might i add...is NOT a godhead. they are spiritual beliefs of nature or the atmosphere or carnal beings of the heavens that can send lighting down if your bad. You are on a rant and i can tell from your writings that you are the crazy far left writer who believes that there is no God and shouldnt be any trace of Him in all areas of our daily life. Well ma'am...you are WRONG! God was one of the key instruments in Americas foundation and as we drift farther and farther away from Him, the more are country crumbles. Are you afraid of God? Because the day will come when you will meet him face to face and then all of your pre-concieved notions will be wrong and you might be on the wrong side.
posted by George Glass (March 14, 2008 12:10 PM)
OH MY GOD! You are a lunatic! Too much wine indeed.
posted by MaryAnn (March 14, 2008 12:12 PM)
Please explain in what way I am a "lunatic."
posted by Adam (March 14, 2008 12:16 PM)
If you would have done your research, you would know that the original intent of Horton Hears a Who was to apologize to the Japanese for Geisel's previous political cartoons which stereotyped them as a small, insignificant nation. Seuss himself admitted to being too stereotypical at times, especially when deadlines loomed and the easiest way to get a cartoon done was with a cheap stab.
After WWII, the Americans and other allied nations debated quite a bit about the fate of Japan, and after a visit to the country, Geisel wrote a children's book trying to remind people the people are people no matter how small. Which, is why the book is dedicated: "For My Great Friend, Mitsugi Nakamura of Kyoto, Japan"
So the book, nor the movie is about abortion nor Christianity, nor George "dubya" Bush for crying out loud. I think you're trying to sound more intelligent than you really are, which is just a sham writer who doesnt do their research.
posted by ashok (March 14, 2008 12:19 PM)
Thanks for the review, surprised that a lot of "critics" have failed to see what you saw. I will probably stay away from the movie, I cannot take any more right wing agenda.
posted by MaryAnn (March 14, 2008 12:31 PM)
What the *book* is about and what the *movie* is about are not necessarily the same thing. "Research" has nothing to do with the matter.
posted by MaryAnn (March 14, 2008 12:33 PM)
You're welcome, but as these many commenters are pointing out, just because I see something doesn't mean everyone will. It doesn't make the other critics wrong for not having seen it.
posted by Todd Suomela (March 14, 2008 12:49 PM)
Wow, you struck a nerve with this one!?
Just for a bit of balance I'll say that I've read a lot of your reviews over the last year and I don't agree with all of them but I come back to read them because of your clear opinions and willingness to share them despite the slings and arrows of outrageous commenters. So keep reading those subtexts and questioning those hidden agendas.
Good luck with the struggle.
posted by Newbs (March 14, 2008 1:03 PM)
Wow,
I was going to disagree with you on a couple points (like pinpointing McCarthyism as a major catalyst for the theme of tolerance), but it seems like you've got your hands full here. At cursory glance, I'd say most of those responding with such vitriol are doing so from their own religious perspective. Don't get too involved in responding -- it's likely they'll never be back to read what you've said.
An excellent review, as always, MaryAnn. Stick to your guns. This is why my wife gets jealous when I visit your site. :)
posted by Maddie (March 14, 2008 1:22 PM)
It is interesting to compare your insights to the review posted on Salon. Rather than claiming the movie is an assault on reason, they claim the movie is thoroughly in support of it. (Rather than relying on faith, Horton and the mayor search for evidence, and scientific imagery is scattered through the film, for example.) Did you see some of this as well, or do you think Salon is not just wanting to out-and-out proclaim the movie as a religious allegory, and scrambling for any evidence they can find?
posted by Ken Patterson (March 14, 2008 1:24 PM)
Personally I think that it is wrong to expand somebody else's work to a size that it wouldn't accommodate on it's own.
The children's books of Dr. Seuss are truly fit for half-hour, or maybe an hour long medium. The only cinematic Seuss that fit the length requirement was actually written by Seuss himself as a movie - that being The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T. and that seems to have a highly split appreciation.
MAJ, thank you for saying what you actually feel about a movie.
To your readers I have this to say: If you find a reviewer is not to your taste, then you are perfectly within your rights to not take their advice. In fact you can then gauge what movies you'll like by what they don't. But like with any form of journalism, it is best to get your information from more than one source and not to believe what any one person or news agency says - because there will always be some bias (political, religious, social, &c...) that can not be avoided.
posted by Dawn (March 14, 2008 1:28 PM)
I find most of these comments offensive to the reviewer. I think MaryAnn has made some cogent observations of the movie.
I highly recommend the nay sayers to check out "The Political Dr. Seuss", an independent documentary of Ted Geisel's work (including the so-called children's books). I think that after viewing that film, many of you will understand what MaryAnn is discussing. Dr. Seuss's stories have always been somewhat political.
posted by t6 (March 14, 2008 1:55 PM)
Hey MAJ,
Great review, as ususal.
Clearly you've upset some people, but whatever. You understand concepts like reader-response theory and subtext...too bad not everyone does.
posted by Brenna Dougherty (March 14, 2008 1:57 PM)
MaryAnn,
As a secularist like yourself, I respectfully disagree with your analysis. I see Horton as an advocate for "the little guy," an Al Gore figure protecting The Mayor from the Sour Kangaroo and Vlad, hyper-conservative (remember, Rudy is "pouch-schooled") enviromental terrorists. Like the Mayor's higher-ups, when confronted with Horton's passion for the tiny eco-system, they insist that there is nothing to see, that Whoville, a stand-in for our own enviroment, (or in Seuss's original intent, the persecuted minority) is not in trouble. But eventually, even Horton's pleading isn't enough. It's Jo-jo's... the little guy's, shout for big government change, that gets everything on the right track. Don't consider Horton as God. Consider him Wellstone, or any other politician who's been elected to speak for those with small voices.
posted by rt (March 14, 2008 1:58 PM)
The reviewer is hugely ignorant of Christian persecution worldwide. I would suggest visiting persecution.net for an overview of the many life threatening conditions for Christians worldwide - just for being Christian.
posted by bronxbee (March 14, 2008 2:06 PM)
"I'd love to meet some of Mary Ann's friends and ask them how often they have to deal with this scornful, self-righteous side of her when all they want to do is go out and have a nice time."
as one of maryann's closest friends, i can assure you that we all enjoy her intellectual openness, her sense of humor and her strong opinions. we don't always agree with her -- but we all enjoy intelligent discourse from every side and opinion, and we don't limit ourselves or anyone else in discussion. our idea of a "nice" time is one where 6 or 8 of us see a movie, and spend the next two hours enjoying a meal, dissecting the film and expressing our opinions -- on many, many topics -- as vociferously as she does hers. i don't know what your idea of a nice time is -- but our brains have a good time whenever maryann is around.
posted by Mark (March 14, 2008 2:14 PM)
Wow! Such a quick reaction! From the first trailer on I have never once even considered going to see this movie(doesn't matter if my kid wants to go or not). The trailers were awful, and more about who is voicing the characters, as opposed to the actual movie itself. Throwing in the "made by the same people who made Ice Age" didn't help either, as I thought the first one was crap. IMHO, very few CGI movies outside of Pixar are worth seeing.
Thanks for a very "interesting" review Mary Ann. Thats all I, and anyone else, can really say without having viewed the movie. Then again, I do agree with you most of the time, so who knows.
posted by doubleored (March 14, 2008 2:16 PM)
Wow, seeing all these comments it both makes me sad and happy at the same time. Sad because some people have lost all manner of respect for someone else's viewpoints even if you don't agree, and happy that we are still able to express those viewpoints.
I'll be honest, I haven't seen the film yet so I'll reserve judgement on that respect, however I wanted to give you (Mary Ann) a big thank you for having the courage to post what you think, and not what you 'think' people will want to hear.
posted by dib'n (March 14, 2008 2:20 PM)
couldn't the theme just be a pro-"use your imagination" one?
i also do not understand why you see this as a pro-Christian message instead of a pro-religion message in general.
i have not seen the movie, but i plan to. i will attempt as best as i can to see if i can pick up on any hidden agenda that may be present.
posted by MaryAnn (March 14, 2008 2:20 PM)
and
I don't not see where you're both coming from -- the "pouch-schooled" line *is* pretty potent -- but I don't think it balances out what I saw as an overwhelmingly neoconservative attitude, that democracy is bad and women are useless and that deviating from the norm as long as you're the one who gets to define what the norm is.
I have to admit that I was almost tempted to try to shoehorn my reaction into the kind of response that Salon came up with, because I really didn't want to see what I was seeing, and I found it hard to believe that Hollywood, which is supposed to be so liberal, would spawn something like this. But that would have been dishonest on my part. I had to go with my gut. As overly intellectual as I am accused of being here, it really was an emotional reaction that I had to go with. Okay, it was an emotional reaction to something intellectual, but still.
And just to be clear, I am NOT suggesting that the Salon critic was being dishonest or wrote a review that does not represent the critic's honest reaction. I'm just saying that my review does represent my honest reaction.
posted by Grimmy (March 14, 2008 2:23 PM)
Sounds like the Reviewer is seeing all kinds of Whos everywhere. Explains her intolerance for a different viewpoint.
Since Antony Flew's book (There is a God) came out, atheists have been in full attack mode. The spectacle of them accusing Flew of being a senile dupe ... was not a pretty sight.
I suppose their defensiveness is due to their worldview's underlying lack of scientific or rational basis (as ex-atheist Flew exposes for all to see) all the while claiming the exact opposite.
The Inquisition, boogeyman of our age, killed 2,000-4,000 over 350 years, while atheistic, anti-God regimes in the "modern" age killed over 120 million in just decades. Another reason to be defensive.
posted by MaineRoad (March 14, 2008 2:25 PM)
This is the best thread ever - gonna have it printed out and laminated. Really.
posted by MaryAnn (March 14, 2008 2:27 PM)
I know that people are persecuted for their religious beliefs around the world. But it is not happening in the U.S. -- well, not to Christians, anyway; Muslims may have a strong case for complaining about it -- and that is the context in which this story is set.
No, because imagination is not involved here. It's a matter of whether there *are* actually tiny people living on a speck or a giant elephant living in the sky. There's no leap of faith involved.
posted by jenn (March 14, 2008 2:29 PM)
After seeing Hollywood's horrific version of the Grinch and the Cat in the Hat, you couldn't pay me to see this. Didn't any of the posters on this site see how they perverted the previous movies? A person could hope this one would be better, but from the trailer this looks even worse. I feel bad that the Seuss legacy is tainted with this garbage. His books are still popular and relevant. I hope the rest of his family enjoyed the money they made from selling out.
posted by Chris Kah (March 14, 2008 2:30 PM)
You don't seem to have an agenda at all? Oh, wait a minute...
Is there a reason you needed to attack Christians (none of those things that you mentioned I see in the Christians that I am friends with) when you are reviewing a movie that is not a Christian one?
I'm utterly confused.
posted by MaryAnn (March 14, 2008 2:57 PM)
I am not intolerant of others' viewpoints. People can believe whatever they want to believe, as long as they're not trying to force it upon others. I am railing against intolerance, and against this film for being dismissive of tolerance.
I have no idea who Antony Flew is. And I "attack" nothing except the idea that only Christians can be moral and only Christians are in possession of the rules for right living, which they are trying -- and often succeeding -- in forcing upon those who do not share those beliefs.
posted by MaryAnn (March 14, 2008 3:00 PM)
OF COURSE I have an agenda. EVERYONE has an agenda.
So, what makes a movie "Christian"? And do you honestly believe that because your friends don't do a certain thing that other people are not doing it?
posted by bobby (March 14, 2008 3:05 PM)
Aside from the argument of race or religion, there are many moments in history where individuals have been persecuted for their ideas. The issues that seuss and the film makers of Horton have addressed here are not exclusive to the right wing christians. Gregor Mendel and Galileo are perfect examples of people whose brilliant ideas scared people and led to persecution. If you are reading this to be all about evangelical propaganda, I think you are really missing the mark. Lack of tolerance is a problem that our species has faced since we walked on this tiny little speck and troubles us to this day. I think it is especially timely to tell a story like this when there is so much anger and fear towards people with different beliefs, whether they be political, religious or social. Afterall, what is so wrong about telling a story that teaches children to respect life.
I happen to be a left wing Bush hating democrat from the cultural wasteland that is New york City, and I loved the film. I did not find it to be preachy.
In the end of the day, it's a sweet movie, that made my family laugh.
posted by Greg Peterson (March 14, 2008 3:11 PM)
The review and sarcastic comments strike me as ludicrous, but that's not what prompts me to write. No, it's the bit of bilge Grimmy spewed. Let's fisk that dawg, shall we?
Since Antony Flew's book (There is a God) came out, atheists have been in full attack mode...
Antony Flew's book elicited a monumental yawn from atheists, and I haven't heard about that book being very influential anywhere. The "full attack mode" actually started well before, with Harris, Dawkins, and Dennett, among others. And it came partly in response to the faith-based initiative of the 9/11 attacks on America. Atheists are tired being vilified while atrocities are committed in the names of various Bronze Age myths.
The spectacle of them accusing Flew of being a senile dupe ... was not a pretty sight.
Wasn't really much of a spectacle. One major article, basically, that pointed out that by his own admission, Flew had lost much of his edge, including his powers of memory. That Flew appears to have been manipulated for ideological and perhaps monetary gain is an even less pretty sight.
I suppose their defensiveness is due to their worldview's underlying lack of scientific or rational basis (as ex-atheist Flew exposes for all to see) all the while claiming the exact opposite.
Please don't mistake exasperation for defensiveness. Look, it's one thing if having an imaginary friend helps you through the tough times. No harm, no foul. But many religionists make claims that yes, science does contradict. The age of the earth and history of life on it, for example. And theism is philosophically bankrupt. I defy you to provide a single reason why I or anyone else should accept belief in a god. Just one. Not a threat like Pascal's Wager, not an appeal to faith, not some pissing contest about which side is responsible for more genocide (atheists lose, OK? In sheer numbers, atheistic regimes are responsible for more deaths than the Inquisition, Crusades, witch burnings, jihads, etc. I will stipulate that. That has nothing to do with whether there is a god or not. And since there is not reason to think there IS a god, that leaves the challenge of preventing religionists AND atheists from committing genocide--since no one else is going to). A reason. Give me any kind of reason that existence of a god is more probable than not.
The Inquisition, boogeyman of our age, killed 2,000-4,000 over 350 years, while atheistic, anti-God regimes in the "modern" age killed over 120 million in just decades. Another reason to be defensive.
Covered above and stipulated to. Atheist regimes killed many, many people. They did not, however, become genocidal out of too much reason, but out of too much faith--in the system of Communism, and its leaders. Even science, the one activity that should always strive for a pure objectivity, was captive to Marxist philosophy (in the form of Lysenko, who rejected evolution as not Marxist enough and thereby was responsible for crop failures and famines).
I have a degree in biblical studies from an evangelical college, earned while studying to become a Baptist pastor; I worked for Billy Graham for years. For every Antony Flew (who you seem to idolize way too much, by the way--I think that whole phenomenon is a huge yawn), there are many more pastors and theologians who abandon faith because they have the integrity to admit that reason forces them to conclude its falsity. Perhaps someday you will have that bracing realization and feel embarrassed by what you have written.
posted by Kris Mills (March 14, 2008 3:14 PM)
I'm going to take a shot in left field and guess that you are atheist. If not an atheist, then agnostic at best. Here's the deal, Christian's get slandered by all types of media. Look at Happy Feet, it's a giant liberal anti-Christian propogandized movie and I heard no complaining about it. In this country, it seems the liberal ideal is, "You can be whatever religion you want! Except Christianity." It pisses me off when you people who don't worry at all when a movie is anti-Christian get so damned indignant when a movie bashes you. Well, imagine that! Another opinion exists beyond the ACLU. If you want to trounce movies with an agenda, watch Pocohantas, Happy Feet, or Ferngully. Those movies were sickeningly liberal. Good grief. You are as close minded as you think a Christian is. Get over it.
-Kris
posted by Luke (March 14, 2008 3:15 PM)
I could go on a long rant like some of the other people who posted comments but in the end it all comes down to 3 simple words: GET OVER YOURSELF!
posted by dib'n (March 14, 2008 3:35 PM)
the fact of the matter is that the Whos need to use their imatination to understand things that are happening outside of their immediate experience. In the land of Whoville, no one has experienced an elephant first hand just as no one has experienced being on the surface of a planet outside of our solar system. We can see the effects that this planet has on a it's parent start but we can not observe it directly. The Whos are also unable to observe Horton directly but are defintely able to observe the effects of him existing.
from Webster - imag·i·na·tion: the act or power of forming a mental image of something not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality
faith just takes imagination a step further by requiring an element of trust that this object outside of out experience really does exist.
A person tasting a food can only imagine what the taste is like. People can describe it to them, they can compare the taste to something else that the person many have eaten, or list off the exact quantity of every compound contained within the food. None of this is sufficient to convey to me what a strawberry tastes like, or how exactly i will react if i were to eat one (with my severe alergy). i can imagine what the taste is like. i have to have faith in the fact that it is delicious, sour and sweet, and generally something that i am missing out on not being able to eat.
Someone falling in the air has no way of knowing that gravity is still there, but they have faith that when they will hit the ground, or some surface.
We did not understand that there were organisms in the depths of the ocean, but we could imagine them.
We see the sun, but what tells someone with insufficient understanding that the sun is much larger than the earth and very hot and that the earth actually moves around the sun. We feel the heat and have faith that it is from the sun. We are told that the earth orbits the sun, and imagine things like relative size and orbital path ect.
Just because the other animals can't see or hear the Whos doesn't mean they aren't forced to imagine what one may look or sound like.
Just because some instrument could, possibly, one day observe something unknown does not mean that those without the instrument are not forced to imagine that the unknown object exists and what its characteristics are.
Just because something is not directly observable yet doesn't mean it won't be eventually.
Thank you for reading and considering these ideas, whether or not you agree.
posted by bobby (March 14, 2008 3:37 PM)
I like Horton. He's cute
posted by JT (March 14, 2008 3:39 PM)
Reading some of the comments here.. this old image is still true as ever.
posted by Greg Peterson (March 14, 2008 3:39 PM)
Bobby, exactly. That's what I was trying to say.
posted by Larry Word (March 14, 2008 4:17 PM)
Congratulations. You got me to look at your review. It was only one of a few I took the time to skim through. And to think it was all because of your summation of what your you thought this movie was forcing on people. God forbid if anyone were to catch on that other movies like this, such as Winnie-the-Pooh, were actually created to push a religious agenda rather than entertain kids of all ages. At least you were upfront when you disclosed you drink way to much wine while you think about the inconsequences of movies. Cheers.
posted by jeffrey (March 14, 2008 4:18 PM)
to the movie reviewer:
the review sounds more about some internal struggle or outrage, rather than an actual movie review.
resolve your personal issues, because this movie obviously stirred them up for you...
it simply is a movie you are not comfortable with...and that is fine. everyone has personal tastes. everyone has their own ways of "viewing the world"...shaped by their own life experiences from birth to the present...their own perceptions.
you are entitled to your personal view and you have the right to express it. but it doesn't mean it is any more accurate a view than anyone else's.
it was an interesting read.
i will say i haven't seen the movie yet....but your review really makes me want to see it more, just to see if it is as 'heavy' handed as you say.
you say "skip it", but it is more likely now that i will see it. that makes me curious about my own internal motivations. why do i want to see it now? probably curiosity. also from what i have seen in the clips/previews...it does look like a beautifully animated movie. and also, when i first heard "Horton" speak in the Preview, i didn't know it was Jim Carrey until it was said. it was so "Un-Carrey" like.
thanks for the review.
posted by Greg Peterson (March 14, 2008 4:24 PM)
Jeffrey, it's human nature to want to do things we're told not to do. Mark Twain once quipped that if God wanted to keep humanity safe from sin, he should have told Adam and Eve not to eat any snakes.
posted by jeffrey (March 14, 2008 4:31 PM)
to the reviewer again,
i was reading through my original comment and fear i may have come off sounding sarcastic and scolding. maybe not. i apologize if that is there. plus i read through the other comments and saw some of the more overtly scalding comments toward your review...and i try to be more accepting of others and just let people live life (though i sometime fail at that effort, since i'm only human).
if anything, your review just got me thinking. so thank you.
posted by aviv (March 14, 2008 5:17 PM)
Just wanted to say I haven't seen the movie and don't intend to (the trailers didn't interest me in slightest, and I've never been much of a Seuss fan to begin with), but I still enjoyed (as always) reading your review.
I don't know if I'd see the same stuff as you do were I to see this movie, but bravo for not being afraid to voice your own observations.
I hope you have a thick skin, though, what with all the nut jobs out there who seem to think mean, personal attacks on a writer are valid reponses to a review they dislike.
Keep up the good work, MaryAnn!
posted by Patrick (March 14, 2008 6:02 PM)
Hmmmm, not sure I want to enter this debate :P
I will say though, I hate when films add a religious undertone, such as Hellboy. I really liked that film up until the end and then it started to get preachy "Don't forget who you are!". Blah.
Though I'm not sure, entirely, why you choose to respond to the haters out there. I'd just let em' be. They're gonna hate no matter what, that's what they do.
posted by Moe (March 14, 2008 6:28 PM)
As Djimon Hounsou recently yelled:
"NEVER BACK DOWN!"
Keep up the good fight, MJ.
Us regulars will be here long after these idiotic right-wingers who've hilariously fooled themselves into thinking that they're a persecuted minority cry and leave.
posted by DG (March 14, 2008 7:38 PM)
Hey Mary Ann,
I only saw the preview for the film and I got the concept that it was going to use Christian allegory when the Mayor made a comment about hearing a voice from a giant invisible being.
I shook my head and said, "I'll pass on this one."
From the comments I've read, it sounds like some people get really upset when you critique their religion. It just goes to show how thin skinned we've become as a nation, and how quick people in the majority religion can be when someone critiques their angry man in the clouds beliefs.
It's sad that a kids movie is being used to promote a political agenda.
But hey, this too shall pass.
Cheers.
posted by Cathryn (March 14, 2008 9:05 PM)
Damn, and here I thought the "No Country" thread had gotten nasty. Quit having opinions, MaryAnn! Opinions are bad! Especially when people obviously have NO CHOICE but to read them, no other source for opinions that might be different, and no brains to think for themselves with instead of blindly accepting what others tell them!
posted by joe (March 14, 2008 9:24 PM)
I totally agree with all the Mary bashing, her review on No Country for Old Men is reason enough (for me anyways) to bash her! Just kidding Mary Ann! Interesting how crazy people can get OVER A MOVIE! GET A FREAKING LIFE PEOPLE!
posted by soro (March 14, 2008 9:36 PM)
I agree with "doubleored" (and the few others). I appreciate that you wrote what you thought no matter how different it was from some other reviewers. It doesn't seem o be what other people here seem to want to read (many of whom seem to have gotten to your page through rotten tomatoes, thus I assume are unfamiliar with your style of reviewing). You have my thanks for writing our impressions and not just rehashing the plot with some snarky comment aided at proving how clever you are or some praise that sounds pulled out of a dummies book on writing glowing reviews.
posted by Eric (March 14, 2008 10:24 PM)
I think you may have drifted off at some point... yes, Kangaroo says the line you quoted.."If you can't see it, blah blah blah". but she follows it up by saying that Horton is responsible for children using teir imaginations. THAT is what Kangaroo is against, not the existence of some God. She is referring to the chaos, confusion and joy that children, and man adults, find while using their imagination (hence, the can not see, can not touch theory). Maybe, instead of trying to see something that is not there, in order for you to have something to flesh out you own meager talents as a critic, you shoulf find some other profession, where you will not come across as some ignorant writer, trying to make a name for themselves in an are where you obviously don't belong. Fee free to read anything you want in this...I am sure you will
posted by bridgeofsighs (March 14, 2008 10:51 PM)
You know, I read a TOTALLY different message from both the film and the book--I can't believe no one else brought it up or considered it. So here it is: maybe the theme of HHAW is that by helping others--even if you can't see them or hear them, no matter how "small" they seem--you are, in fact, making a huge difference in their lives. Think of it: we don't think that by recycling or dropping a dime in a homeless man's cup or making a donation to _________charity will make a difference because we're just one person, right? But the truth is--cheesy as it sounds, call it the "butterfly effect"--one action on our part could make enormous changes on another's. I'm not trying to sound like Pollyanna here; I have no religious affiliation. But that is the message I carried away from the story. True, the movie gave the story the usual 21st Century Gloss Update, which I hate, but I still think the message was there, even if it was accidental. I have to agree with the other posters, MJ--sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Or rather, a bad movie is just a bad movie--you don't have to read any more into it or even justify it if it doesn't do it for you. This was definately a bizarre review.
posted by Ide Cyan (March 15, 2008 12:52 AM)
I love that you bring your atheist perspective to your film reviews, Ms. Johanson. Thought I'd mention that, amids this dogpile of naysayers attacking you for it.
posted by 2cents (March 15, 2008 7:13 AM)
Guys, this is film CRITICISM not a REVIEW. I used to take offense when MJ red flagged a particular movie (which I thought was great and enjoyed watching) but that was until I realized that MJ is essentially a movie critic and not a reviewer. From that moment on, her writings took on a whole new different light.
(maybe the name of her site: "The Flick FILOSOPHER" wasn't obvious enough huh?).
posted by MaryAnn (March 15, 2008 11:39 AM)
I think that's a valid interpretation of the book. With all the other crap that was ladled onto the original story in the movie, I don't think that covers it.
posted by TempestDash (March 15, 2008 12:19 PM)
I find it intriguing that one of themes you mentioned was prevalent in the movie was prejudice against someone with a different perspective... and here's 10 pages of comments attacking you for having a different perspective than the other reviews aggregated by rotten tomatoes.
If this proves anything, it's that you were close to the truth and the movie was preaching to the choir. Down with contrary ideas! Hooray for the status quo and non-questioning behavior!
An enlightened society would at least appreciate your POV and disagree, and ideally would attempt to explain why they believe the movie intended a different interpretation.
Instead we get drivel like: "Boy, MaryAnn was really hitting the sauce this time, wasn't she?" As if one needs an excuse to think differently.
posted by shoop (March 15, 2008 12:51 PM)
Two comments intrigued me--MA's remark that there's a lot of misunderstanding regarding what film criticism is about, and 2cents insisting that MA is a critic, and not a reviewer.
Huh, I thought. I'll go find this out for myself. So I found that "film criticism is the analysis and evaluation of films, individually and collectively," according to answers.com. Huh, I thought (again), sounds a lot like film reviewing. Then I read a bit further: "film critics try to come to understand why film works, how it works, what it means, and what effects it has on people."
Well, damn, I thought. And I looked at MA's "Horton" piece again, and son of a gun, it's all there--she's trying to come to understand why Horton works, how Horton works, what Horton means, and what effects it has on people. Love her, hate her, agree, disagree, suggest an AA intervention or whatever--she's a freakin' critic, all right. Who'da thunk?
posted by shane (March 15, 2008 3:35 PM)
I think you're a bit out on a limb. Maybe they did intend some of the themes you mention, but it's speculation, and it wasn't so heavy handed as you describe. I can see how you could view the kangaroo character as a lame attack on rationalism, but compare her to the Whoville scientist who didn't laugh or show any meanness toward the mayor when he asked, "What if we are living on a speck?". When her predictions matched her observations, the scientist was the first to believe him. This is a movie specifically about intolerance of other peoples ideas, even when those ideas are harmless to you. That is valid theme for a children's movie, even if it is coming from someone with a religious perspective. I know Christians cry persecution in all sorts of improper situations, but atheists really do live up to the straw man sometimes and I think we would do well to remember it. All the other stuff about the mayor being George W. Bush just seems too crazy to me.
But I just want to say, it's because of reviews like this that yours is my favorite movie site. You obviously love movies and analyzing every little thing in a way only geeks would care about. I hope you keep doing it for a long time.
posted by MBI (March 15, 2008 3:48 PM)
Wow.
I think your analysis is incredibly flawed. I find that most everyone have made these points already, but to reiterate.
1) Neither Horton or The Whos represent God, or faith, or anything like it. They are representative of other people. Their existence is proved when they make their physical presence known -- not a ridiculous miraculous set of events that one can interpret as being a sign of God a la "Signs."
2) I left the film thinking of this movie as one of the leftiest kids movies I've ever seen. Kangaroo is clearly a Maude Flanders-esque parody of Middle American overparenting mothers, and I think Christians would have a hard time identifying with Horton's persecution. Atheists would clearly have an easier time of it, since a) the Kangaroo has all the power, a la midwestern Christians, b) she is forcefully eradicating anything that contradicts what she would say, which is characteristic to both sides of the debate but certainly more so towards Christians.
3) Al Gore would clearly approve of the message, that people should open their eyes and quit being willfully ignorant about massive climate change. You praised Disney's "Chicken Little" on similar terms, remember?
I will agree that whatever the target, the satire against Kangaroo was too vicious and hateful to be comfortable with. How un-Seuss.
posted by Scott M (March 15, 2008 4:11 PM)
MaryAnn, I've checked out some of the Christian web site reviews of this movie and a lot of them picked up on the theme you mention also. They have some different takes on it that I wouldn't have imagined like comparing the mean kangaroo to the preacher in the movie Footloose. One Christian commentator complained of kangaroo saying she homeschools not being reflective of her life homeschooling her children. So it's not just the atheists (myself included) that have picked up on this theme.
Two things more. One of the commenters above saying s/he worked on the film and nothing like this was intended. That's nice to hear.
And another commenter above says you're not very attractive. I have to disagree. From the shoulders up, you're a hottie!
Best wishes.
posted by Jason C (March 15, 2008 4:56 PM)
Yeah, we homeschool our kids too and have since learned that there are certain things our society doesn't have to be tolerant towards. Homeschooling is one of them.
Luckily our kids didn't seem to pick up on the jab so no harm no foul. BUt, I guess when anti-homeschoolers look at the fact that homeschoolers exceed public and private schoolers in terms of academic acehivement, you have to resort to the ever-powerful ad hominem attack.
Overall, the movie seemed like it wanted to make a political statement of some sort, but it was all over the place. I couldn't tell whether it had a left wing agenda or if there was some right wing conspriracy going on so I just gave up and enjoyed the movie. :)
posted by MBI (March 15, 2008 6:54 PM)
I realized that I just wrote "I think Christians would have a hard time identifying with Horton's persecution." That was probably incorrect. Religious types can relate to all sorts of persecution, whether it makes sense or not. (Christians have used this book as a pro-life text for years -- even though there's a gigantic difference between the debate about whether fetuses count as human beings and the debate about whether Whos even physically exist.)
In any case, the film is not blasting the Kangaroo for not believing in Whos. Horton's little mouse friend doesn't believe in them either. The Kangaroo is ridiculed for not being able to accept someone subscribing to a different version of reality than her own. Intolerance, not disbelief, is the problem. And I'm sure there are all sorts of strident militant atheists out there, but that's definitely more of a Christian thing.
You say that the Kangaroo "does not come anywhere near saying 'If you can't see it hear it or feel it it doesn't exist' in the book," yet clearly she does. Why else would she disagree that Whos exist? How is this uncharacteristic of the Kangaroo in the original book?
posted by Bob the Accountant (March 16, 2008 7:41 AM)
Is it at all possible Horton Hears a Who could be about "the debate?" How science is reshaping "the debate," raising our empathy I.Q.?
"A person is a person no matter how small." (Horton Hears a Who)
http://www.godspy.com/magazine/a-question-of-empathy/
Perhaps DNA is God's language, as declared by Genome Project Lead Francis Collins?
Peace and tolerance,
-Bob the Accountant
posted by Patrick (March 16, 2008 11:43 AM)
Just went, last night, to see it. I can see, now, why you came up with the Christian analogy, I think that's a very astute pick up and I'm wondering why more reviews haven't noted this. But having read some of the comments on here, in particular one that mentioned that HHAW was written as an analogy about Japan and the Super Powers of the world post WW2, I couldn't help but feel that this was more the case.
In the end it was about communities learning that they had to live together.
posted by MaryAnn (March 16, 2008 1:57 PM)
Oh, please do explain.
Sure. But I don’t think that characterization of the film fits in with the rest of what’s going on.
There’s a huge difference between what meaning an artist intends to inject into his work, and what meaning can be drawn from the finished art.
Well, thanks. But I don’t see how what I have to say has anything to do with what I look like.
Unfortunately, “homeschooling” has become synonymous with “Christians unwilling to have their children educated about anything they disagree with,” like, you know, science. Perhaps that is not always the case, but too often it is.
Right. “A person is a person, no matter how small,” unless she’s a woman.
It’s not even about intolerance -- it’s about control. Would we really care if Kangaroo didn’t believe in the Whos but left Horton alone to do whatever he wanted to do to save the Whos (assuming that Horton’s actions did not endanger the jungle or something)? Of course not. It’s not that Kangaroo scoffs, it’s that she is trying to shut Horton down. That’s the problem with Christianity in our society (not every individual Christian, of course, but some very vocal and very influential groups of them): they want everyone to follow their beliefs whether we believe or not. Those Christians don’t see that that’s what they’re doing, yet they turn that around and accuse atheists of trying to force atheism on everyone, which is not the case.
It’s not necessarily unrepresentative of Kangaroo’s attitude -- the problem is that that line hits a particular hot button, and seems deliberately designed to do so. Kangaroo’s attitude could have been conveyed in other ways that didn’t hit that button.
posted by shane (March 16, 2008 5:18 PM)
MaryAnn said:
"Oh, please do explain."
*shrug*, Do you really need examples? After 9/11 I remember hearing from several atheists that religion had finally proven it was too dangerous to exist. And, I'd guess that has something to do with the series of anti-religion books that have come out the last few years. Now I enjoyed some of them, but you aren't going to sway many to your side by showing them how silly they are for defining a huge part of their lives with a myth. The history of the quality of life in the west improving since the dark ages, is largely a history of the diminishing role of religion in government and people's lives. I think it would be a good thing for that to continue, but every time I see some idiot on TV trying to take "In God We Trust" off the dollar bill I want to scream. Cultural changes can't be imposed by force or reason overnight. What progress has been made was made indirectly by ideas in science and philosophy that gave people better ways to understand the world than absurd creation myths, and better reasons to treat one another with dignity than heaven and hell.
None of this really has anything to do with HHAW, and I can't believe I've gotten involved with an internet "discussion" of religion. The main thing I didn't like about your review wasn't that you mentioned the possible right-wing symbolism, because I think it's interesting, but that you devoted the whole review to it as if it were a certainty that that's what the writers intended, when at best it is a little far fetched. It gives the impression that you want to believe it, because this a fight you're just itching to have. Some people might consider that a little kangarooish.
posted by Danni (March 16, 2008 7:10 PM)
hah... all of the people getting offended that you noticed the allegory involving atheism and religion. i noticed it as well and frankly i'm quite surprised other reviewers didn't touch on it.
posted by Kelly (March 16, 2008 9:23 PM)
MaryAnn, I think you're a very intelligent person and very passionate about social issues. This is great, it's beautiful that you want to fight for what you believe in. But when it comes to God, you're manifesting this desire to fight for what you believe in against forces that are good for society.
I think your disdain for Christianity comes from your misconception that it promotes hate or demotion of women in some way. But this IS a misconception, and a strong one. Judaism(God created man and women in his image - putting them on equal footing) and Christianity especially were really the first religions to really acknowledge women as fully capable human beings with souls(the Greeks are the ones that disdained women and thought they had no souls - some of these viewpoints eventually infiltrated Christianity 500 years after it's inception, but that says nothing about the actual THEOLOGY of Christianity which bolstered women to ASTRONOMICAL heights compared to how they were being treated at the time.
Mary, I am completely sympathetic to your disdain for a religion you believe does not accept you or womenkind. But if you want to be honest about Christianity and the overall impact it's had on the world as far as the elevation of women, I think an intelligent person as you will come to the conclusion, as many fine philosophers of the past have, that Christianity has been instrumental in providing a voice for women in history, as well as laid the groundworks for freedom of speech, religion and choice.
I think you may find a kindred spirit(if you can swallow your biases) in the very intelligent and eloquent Frederica Mathewes-Green whom, like yourself, hated Christianity largely because she'd thought it was anti-women. She was formerly a HUGE feminist and pro-choice advocate and atheist, flower child, etc. If you're really interested in learning what Christianity speaks of concerning women and other things I suggest you give this a chance - I'd hope you would given your professed open-mindedness and disdain for straw-men. http://www.veritas.org/media/talks/218
This is another speech by her that I think is slightly more interesting, but I'm afraid you might fall over when you read the title... but it's more open and understanding than some diatribe you may have heard from some of the more...emphatic...of the faith. Considering she used to be a hyper-liberal feminist hippie.
http://www.veritas.org/media/talks/217
Both of these are audios. Mary, it is my hope that you are truly interested in truth and will give one or both of these talks a chance. You are clearly not aware of some basic tenets of the religion you're critiquing.
Give one a chance!!! I think you'll like her.
posted by Kelly (March 16, 2008 10:01 PM)
Oh, any Maryann..."Those Christians don’t see that that’s what they’re doing, yet they turn that around and accuse atheists of trying to force atheism on everyone, which is not the case."
This is not true. Have you read Dawkins, or Hitchens? Religion poisons everything. It is a very popular book. You are deluding yourself if you think it is not about expelling religion and inculcating atheism.
Dawkins has gone as far as to say he thinks it is CHILD ABUSES for parents to teach their children about God and religion. If he were in control, he'd make it illegal. He's one of the foremost proponents of atheism today, as I'm sure you're aware of.
Go on any "sci" forum. Read some of the comments and videos posted on youtube against Christianity. It's pure vitriol. We're idiots for even THINKING there could be a God, this "sky-daddy." Belief in God is often compared to belief in leprechauns or fairies(somehow I think the comparison is somewhat lacking, as questioning the existence of leprechauns and fairies hasn't been prominent on the minds of the great geniuses and ordinary people alike. Perhaps there is a philosophical REASON for this? Hm..) We're feeble-minded, intolerant, dangerous people. Maryann, maybe you don't get much of a chance to scour the internet or read much philosophy(you'd know who Antony Flew was if you did - he is widely recognized by atheists as the most influential atheist philosopher of the 20th century.)
Christians have gone through some of the most horrible persecution in history. It's quite possible that it could happen again here - it is quite vehemently in other parts of the world (http://www.christianpersecution.info/ )often due to the exponential growth of Christianity in places that are opposed to it(China, for instance).
posted by cwm (March 16, 2008 10:08 PM)
I find it difficult to fathom the chorus of "shut up and enjoy the film," when evidently the film (unlike Seuss' books) isn't enjoyable!
As for the filmmakers' intentions: I agree with MaryAnn (if I read her correctly) that their intentions are irrelevant. What's important is how the audience will react to this peculiar adaptation of what was originally a delightful children's book.
Horton Hears a Who--as written by Dr. Seuss--carries a message, though it