Happy Feet (review)

Get new reviews in your email in-box or in an app by becoming a paid Substack subscriber or Patreon patron.

Could Lead to Dancing

(Best of 2006)

I wanted happy. The trailer for Happy Feet promised, you know, silly sweet danceable happy, so as long as that promise was fulfilled, I’d have been fine. There’s just not enough pure unadulterated happy in the world, and I could use some of the moment, so that’s all I needed.

I got that within the first twenty minutes of Happy Feet, and then the film took off into realms of wonderful that I never could have seen coming. It would have been accomplishment enough for George Miller (the Babe movies) to achieve all-consuming adorableness that manages to remain devoid of an ounce of icky sappiness, which he does: Fluffy baby penguins dancing and singing and waddling around their world with wide-eyed wonder? You have to have a heart of stone not to be a puddle of goo after coming in contact with that. But rapidly it becomes clear that Miller is not going to be content for his little dancing-penguin movie to be merely cute. He has something to say that it is absolutely imperative that we all hear; he wants Happy Feet to be Important. And damned if he doesn’t succeed in that much harder endeavor, too. Succeeds spectacularly. In a way that makes me want to say this may be the greatest animated movie ever made.

For a good stretch, the film is brilliant simply just by being Moulin Rouge! meets March of the Penguins as inspired by that Gary Larson cartoon of the penguin yelling “I gotta be me!” It’s gotta be impossible, of course, with the ridiculous lengths of time required to make an animated film, but Feet seems to assume that its audience has seen March and so understands the bizarre mating cycle the penguins go through: the long trek from the sea, the parents sharing egg duty, the huddle to stay warm in the bitter depths of winter, all that stuff. Because it is all but dispensed with here. The mystery of how penguins hook up, what attracts them to a mate — and how couples find each other again after months of separation — is what Miller (and his coscreenwriters John Collee [Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World], Warren Coleman, and Judy Morris) is concerned with exploring. And he figures that what sounds like nothing more than squawks to our ears are in fact the most melodious of songs to other penguins. And if it’s the songs that intrigue potential mates… well, then, why wouldn’t a penguin named Memphis coo sweet rockabilly songs to the ladies? (Hearing Hugh Jackman [Flushed Away, The Prestige], as the voice of Memphis, do Tom Jones via Elvis Presley might be worth the price of admission alone.) Why wouldn’t he simultaneously be drawn to the breathy tunes of Norma Jean? This isn’t a musical like we’re used to, with the action stopping short for five minutes for a song-and-dance number: this is operatic like Moulin Rouge, little snippets of pop songs, from standards to rap, busting out as needed. (Clever of Miller to cast Nicole Kidman [Bewitched, The Interpreter] as Norma Jean in a near-reprise of her Rouge role.)

But then there’s the son of Memphis and Norma Jean, Mumble (the voice of Elijah Wood [Everything Is Illuminated, Sin City] as an adolescent; before that, he’s all cute baby-talk from cartoon vet Elizabeth Daily: The Incredibles), who can’t find his song, but he sure likes to dance. It ain’t penguin, his father grumbles, but Mom supports her strange son as he goes off on a quest to– well, you know how these stories work.

It’s in Mumble’s journey that Miller’s real purpose shows itself. The film opens in space, zooms in on our planet and down to Antarctica, and right about here, you start to realize that that was not just some cool clever way to segue into the story: this is the film saying, “Welcome to Planet Earth. You may think we’re alone, but we aren’t, and everything we do impacts everyone else. Even cute fluffy dancing penguins.” The penguins have religion: they sing in the dark of winter to turn the Earth and bring back the sun and the warmth, and Mumble’s heresy with this dancing nonsense is angering the Great ’Guin, the tribe’s elders warn. That’s why the fish are disappearing. That’s why the ice is collapsing. Everyone’s a little scared that things are changing for the worse, and no one understands why.

And there’s the real genius of Happy Feet. Miller sucks us into all the cuteness and then pulls back and says, “Ha! You like this? Well, we’re ruining it with our indiscriminate abuse of the planet, and unless we do something soon, it’s gonna disappear.” So Mumble’s journey becomes much more vital than simply finding a way to fit into a culture where he’s an oddball: he becomes the visionary necessary to lead a people to change their ways, even if it’s scary, because not to change is to court ultimate disaster.

Mumble and his people are, of course, us: we have to learn a new dance. The beautiful and touchably real animation, which is perhaps the most photorealistic ever and does not physically anthropomorphize its animal characters any more than is absolutely necessary (like making their beaks move like lips so they can speak). They look like penguins. Their world is alive with all the many colors that ice and snow and water can be. This isn’t a cartoon world — this is the real world. And Miller is daring us to save it, for ourselves and for the penguins. Are they just cute fluffy critters to smile at in a movie? Or do they deserve more from us than that?


Oscars Best Animated Feature 2006

previous Best Animated Feature:
2005: Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit
next Best Animated Feature:
2007: Ratatouille

go> the complete list of Oscar-winning Best Animated Features

share and enjoy
             
If you’re tempted to post a comment that resembles anything on the film review comment bingo card, please reconsider.
If you haven’t commented here before, your first comment will be held for MaryAnn’s approval. This is an anti-spam, anti-troll measure. If you’re not a spammer or a troll, your comment will be approved, and all your future comments will post immediately.
subscribe
notify of
37 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
view all comments
bats
bats
Thu, Nov 16, 2006 2:48pm

I was looking forward to this “just because” of the cute penguins. Having read your review (and a few other ones) and knowing a little more about Miller’s subversive (in a good way!) mind, I’m really jazzed about it!

Jurgan
Jurgan
Fri, Nov 17, 2006 9:34am

And I was expecting this movie to fall somewhere between “meh” and “ick.” But now… now I’ve got to see it, sooner or later, anyway.

Jack
Jack
Sat, Nov 18, 2006 12:40am

I just came back from seeing this film and I’m still thinking about it. No animation I’ve seen has ever had that effect on me. I think you’re one of the only reviewers I’ve read that actually “gets” the subtext of this film and the different layers of references it makes, both to our world and to filmmaking itself. Just as the penguins needed to entertain the humans in the film to save themselves, George Miller entertains his audience in order to convey a greater message about the fragility of our environment.

Bzero
Sat, Nov 18, 2006 1:00pm

Wow. I saw this movie last night, and I was simply blown away. You’re right about it succeeding on all levels, and I was impressed by how strongly Miller was willing to attack authority (especially faith-based authority) and the effects of mindlessly allowing others to think for you.

xakep
Sat, Nov 18, 2006 2:55pm

Interesting!

Thomas
Thomas
Sun, Nov 19, 2006 11:06am

Bravo for describing the movie as it is, not what others think it should be. An entertaining movie that is also IMPORTANT.

CHong
CHong
Sun, Nov 19, 2006 2:46pm

It’s really an interesting movie as what described by this review.. I’ve never been so attracted and impressed by a cartoon or animation.

PeterE
PeterE
Wed, Nov 22, 2006 9:37am

I can’t wait to take my kids to see this movie – but, just based on what Maryann has writen here, its a pity that we have to setup a conflict between the Great ‘Guin and nature. The Great ‘Guin, after all, created the natural world, and created us with the hearts to care about it and the brains to solve problems. The Great ‘Guin even gave us the capacity to change our religious traditions.

We inherit the twin traditions of environmental exploitation, defended by the concept of “dominion” in Genesis, and the secular thinking that eliminating Genesis solves the problem. As Stalin and Mao illustrate, atheism does not lead to environmentalism.

Roger
Roger
Mon, Nov 27, 2006 11:10pm

I couldn’t disagree more. I thought the film was awful in so many ways with the exception being the quality of the artwork. Heavy-handed and muddled. Mumble is shunned for not being just like everyone else, then saves the colony by getting everyone to be just like him.

If you are ranking it on the artwork and animation, I haven’t seen anything better. However, it’s a film, not a painting, and the story has to also work.

MaryAnn
MaryAnn
Tue, Nov 28, 2006 5:43pm

Mumble is shunned for not being just like everyone else, then saves the colony by getting everyone to be just like him.

I see more like, Mumble is shunned for being different, and saves the colony by getting everyone to recognize the value of change, particularly when your lives depend on it.

Everyone’s not going to keep dancing the way that Mumble will. But now dancing will be seen to have a value at least as important as singing — both are now vital for the perpetuation of the species.

PeterE
PeterE
Fri, Dec 01, 2006 11:06am

and why is that important?

Mat
Mat
Fri, Dec 01, 2006 11:41pm

I agree with Roger. I just got back from the movie, and I thought it was terrible. I don’t take my kids to a movie to recieve a message about how awful humans are. If this is such a great message, why was it marketed as a feel good children’s animation? Miller got us all onboard to take a feel good – children friendly – trip and then he hijacked it to force feed us a message that wasn’t even well put together. I want my money back Miller!!! What a waste! Why does Hollywood feel like we are interested in hearing their political view points?

MaryAnn
MaryAnn
Sat, Dec 02, 2006 2:51pm

Why is what important, PeterE? Perpetuation of the species?

I don’t take my kids to a movie to recieve a message about how awful humans are.

Wait, Mat: So, you don’t want your children to know that our stripping of the planet’s natural resources is hurting other creatures who live here?

If this is such a great message, why was it marketed as a feel good children’s animation?

Well, our kids are gonna have to live with the legacy of what we’re doing today. Maybe if we help them understand that we’re driving all the cute, cuddly critters to extinction, they’ll decide they want to save them. Of course, unless we teach our children to take good care of the planet, there won’t be too many of us — humans, penguins, whatever — around after a while, so maybe it doesn’t matter after all.

PeterE
PeterE
Tue, Dec 05, 2006 11:52am

Yes, Maryann, why is perpetuation of the species important?

PeterE
PeterE
Tue, Dec 05, 2006 12:41pm

But to comment on Mat’s question, I think educators today go crazy trying to make learning fun, and entertainers go crazy trying to make fun educational.

Of course, the boundaries are not clear, but somehow there is an ethical boundary that is being crossed when we consistently confuse the two.

Because we are making our kids into little tyrants, we have to buy the cereal that is kid-tested mother-approved, instead of just mother-approved.

Similarly if we think we have to teach the kids something (“environmental degradation is a bad thing and is proceeding apace”, for example) we have to make a “package” that is entertaining.

Where ethics comes into it is that kids don’t even know they are being fed a line, sorry, being taught. Since it is a package it is harder to separate the ideas from the cuddly penguins. And this from the generation that was all about critiquing what we see on TV and not just buying the soap because it is presented by a sexy blonde model-type.

MaryAnn
MaryAnn
Tue, Dec 05, 2006 4:37pm

PeterE: If you think saving an environment habital by human beings is like selling soap, then we are so far apart that I can’t even imagine how to begin talking to you.

I also think you’re just being a troll when you ask my perpetuation of the species is important, so I shan’t even dignify that with an answer.

PeterE
PeterE
Tue, Dec 05, 2006 5:13pm

Of course you are free to ignore me for whatever reason, but you did create this blog.

1) whether the product sold is soap or environment or God’s love the method can still be manipulation;

2) I’m looking for an answer to the species question because I belief that liberals don’t have an answer to the question, and I was hoping you could prove me wrong. You might know that the founder of Earth First once argued that the planet would be better off without human beings, so the question is raised: why is the survival of human beings a good thing?

To save you from having to guess, my theism provides me with an answer to the question. God created humanity in order to have an object for His love, and we have value to the extent that we do that or will be able to do that in the future.

Its nice to see you use the word “shan’t”; I thought it was disappearing from the vocabulary.

Mat
Mat
Wed, Dec 06, 2006 12:36am

MaryAnn: What did I say that gave any indication of what I want my kids to know or not know? When going to a movie with my family, my expecation is to be entertained not preached to. Miller had a chance to make a good, entertaining movie AND teach a nice lesson at the same time. For the most part, I was onboard with the movie as it progressed (although I thought there was a couple boarder line jokes specifically for adults that kids did not need to hear). Mumble was an outcast that didn’t give up on himself and he was able to find a place where he fit in. Than Miller takes a *left* turn and tries to stuff in a political message. It ruined the movie. He tried to stuff too much into too small of a time slot. It was too clumsy to work, and, I feel, didn’t belong in the first place.

What proof do you have to offer that we are “driving all the cute, cuddly critters to extinction”? I think it is unarguable that our methods have an effect on “cute, cuddly critters”, but your claim that we are “driving” them “all” to “extinction” is simply false. A nice emotional argument, but completely without merit. Similar to what we might find on the nightly “news”.

Can someone please tell me why so many in Hollywood feel that we are interested in knowing their political viewpoints? What great insight do they have?

MaryAnn
MaryAnn
Wed, Dec 06, 2006 11:11am

It was too clumsy to work, and, I feel, didn’t belong in the first place.

That’s your opinion. Mine is the opposite.

What proof do you have to offer that we are “driving all the cute, cuddly critters to extinction”? I think it is unarguable that our methods have an effect on “cute, cuddly critters”, but your claim that we are “driving” them “all” to “extinction” is simply false.

When the ice is gone, so will they be, except in zoos. Ditto the polar bears.

Can someone please tell me why so many in Hollywood feel that we are interested in knowing their political viewpoints? What great insight do they have?

They’re people with opinions. Why shouldn’t they express them? You don’t have to agree with them, but that’s another issue.

MaryAnn
MaryAnn
Wed, Dec 06, 2006 11:15am

I’m looking for an answer to the species question because I belief that liberals don’t have an answer to the question, and I was hoping you could prove me wrong. You might know that the founder of Earth First once argued that the planet would be better off without human beings, so the question is raised: why is the survival of human beings a good thing?

Perhaps the planet would be better off without humans. But humans would not be better off if we were all dead. I would have thought that was obvious.

PeterE
PeterE
Wed, Dec 06, 2006 1:01pm

So then, human interests are what count? What about the interests of penguins? What if the interests of penguins and humans collide? What worldview guides us towards a solution? Or perhaps more realistically, what happens when the interests of humans and the interests of waterfowl collide? Is that when human interests matter?

PeterE
PeterE
Wed, Dec 06, 2006 1:35pm

In the conflict over environmentalism we have one corner screaming for the interests of wildlife (etc) and the other side saying “those folk are a bunch of crazy tree huggers”. Meanwhile in the middle there is a good deal of practical politicking – mediation of interests through politics – which is based more on relative power of those interests than any clear way forward.

What is needed is a worldview that acknowledges human interests but places them within a framework that also includes our natural environment. The Christian concept of stewardship articulates the general point of view, but it doesn’t give many clues as to how to proceed in any practical situation.

What I want to point out is that neither left nor right has the answer to this conflict. To look at the left, neither Marx nor Foucault had access to any worldview that could articulate human interests in relation to our environment.

MaryAnn
MaryAnn
Wed, Dec 06, 2006 10:37pm

So then, human interests are what count?

I didn’t say or imply that. Please don’t put words in my mouth.

If it’s not too late and we can prevent the poles from melting, it will benefit humans and penguins… in fact, the more of the devastating climate change that is predicted that we can prevent, the more creatures currently alive we can save. I don’t see how that is possibly debatable.

What I want to point out is that neither left nor right has the answer to this conflict.

Well, we’d better find it, and very soon, or else we’re looking at an 80-foot rise in sea levels by 2100. The first step is raising a generation for whom concerns about the global climate is innate, something as fundamental to their worldview as, say, the power of TV is to mine.

PeterE
PeterE
Thu, Dec 07, 2006 9:27am

“But humans would not be better off if we were all dead. I would have thought that was obvious.”

This means: “it is in the interest of humans to survive, therefore human survival is a good thing, stupid”.

I’m not putting words into your mouth, I’m clarifying the meaning of what you said, and then extrapolating from there (drawing consequences). That’s what philosophers do.

You remind me of my teenage daughters. When I point out the consequences of their line of thinking they say: “I didn’t SAY that”. But that’s the point. She didn’t say that, so somebody else has to.

MaryAnn
MaryAnn
Thu, Dec 07, 2006 1:07pm

You’re not extrapolating, you’re creating a straw man out of what you think I mean. You want to think that I am saying that because humans want to survive, only human desires matter. It apparently did not cross your mind that I might espouse a perspective that takes into account the fact that survival of humans and survival of other creatures we share the planet with are not mutally exclusive. Even though I have already stated that very idea.

Just because YOU see only one consequence of a statement does not mean there are not other possibilities that may flow from it.

PeterE
PeterE
Thu, Dec 07, 2006 2:30pm

It certainly crossed my mind that that was what you believed (everybody believes that various species including people can co-exist) – I was asking you to articulate philosophically your view of the relationship between humanity and nature.

But I guess that is not going to happen, as you just take it personally. Bye, its been fun.

MaryAnn
MaryAnn
Thu, Dec 07, 2006 11:55pm

I was asking you to articulate philosophically your view of the relationship between humanity and nature.

I thought I had. But to recap: Humans are part of nature. We don’t have a relationship WITH nature. We are PART of nature. It remains to be seen whether nature will select us for extinction… and whether we will help nature in her decision. THAT certainly will distinguish us from all the other creatures who have lived on the planet.

PeterE
PeterE
Fri, Dec 08, 2006 9:22am

So don’t worry about it. If we all die through global warming its all part of the natural plan, or non-plan. In any case there is no higher meaning, so if we all die, its OK. You can save your readers from your ecology-preaching and just review movies. Cheers.

MaryAnn
MaryAnn
Fri, Dec 08, 2006 6:20pm

What a bizarre philosophy! Cancer is part of nature, and we try to avoid that. And it most certainly is NOT okay for us all to die, because if there is no “higher meaning” or afterlife, we’d better make the best of the here and now.

Mat
Mat
Fri, Dec 08, 2006 10:27pm

MaryAnn: You should be careful when listening to whom ever told you the sea level is expected to rise 80ft. by 2100. I think they may have picked up on some gulability and could be taking advantage of you. Currently the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts a rise of just under 1.6 ft. by 2100, and they have been criticized for having bias IN FAVOR of global warming.

In any case, I kind of like the warmer weather. If we have to sacrafice penguins and polar bears to get it, so be it. If you want to do something to stop it, try letting off less hot air.

I think that there are an awful lot of cute cuddly creatures out there that are feeling pretty low right now. Apparently you do not see squirrels, rabbits, brown bears… as cute and cuddly creatures? Or is your argument that global warming is going to take them out as well?

“They’re people with opinions. Why shouldn’t they express them? You don’t have to agree with them, but that’s another issue.” – because they often times contain as much fact as your 80ft. figure and tragically some people take their word for fact when it is far from it.

MaryAnn
MaryAnn
Sun, Dec 10, 2006 2:16pm

Glad you’re enjoying the warmer weather, Mat. You’re sure to love the desertification of prime farmland, too. And millions of refugees from flooding coastlines? Gonna be a hoot!

Mat
Mat
Sat, Dec 16, 2006 1:07am

Why don’t you grab a shovel and dig an irrigation ditch on your way? If you would like, we could ramp up our global warming efforts to cut down on the digging. I am not sure how much of the coast we could flood, but we should be able to get you closer if we melt a little extra ice. Alternatively, bring a rake. I’ll start a watermelon farm and put you to work. Either way, you better buy a pair of gloves.

Can you explain how gloabal warming will cause “desertification” of “prime farmland”? I’ll sit back and listen – gonna be a hoot!

Keep the facts coming

MaryAnn
MaryAnn
Sat, Dec 16, 2006 12:35pm

Mat, if you Google “global warming desertification,” you’ll get half a million results, including many from scientific sources.

Soon, there may be plenty of sand for you to keep your head in.

And while 60 degrees may be pleasant in December, 120 in August is gonna be a bitch.

Mat
Mat
Sun, Dec 17, 2006 12:44am

MaryAnn, if you Google “what’s your point”, you’ll get 137 million results. Not sure how many of them are from scientific sources. Why don’t you take a look around and find out. But first, why don’t you explain how global warming will cause “desertification” of “prime farmland”. It’s a simple question Bill, and, if you have 500k sites to pull from, it shouldn’t be too hard to lay it out for someone of low intellegence such as myself.

120 a bitch? We’ll be okay. I’ll even give you an extra half hour break at noon.

Does your book of fictional facts give average temps over the past 100 years? How about over the past 1,000 years? 2,000 years?

MaryAnn
MaryAnn
Sun, Dec 17, 2006 12:08pm

The point, Mat, is that I am not your teacher. Go learn stuff for yourself. Or don’t. I don’t care.

Mat
Mat
Sun, Dec 17, 2006 7:03pm

I didn’t think you would be able to explain / prove it. You are much better at throwing out B.S. statements than actually making valid points and backing them up, Glib Lib style, gotta love it.

MaryAnn
MaryAnn
Sun, Dec 17, 2006 8:02pm

Boy, you showed me, Mat. I concede to your clearly superior intellect. You win.