COMMENTS: 28
WALL-E: A World Without Us
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Environment headlines via email.
In Pixar's latest outing, WALL-E, the viewer is also treated to a vision of the far future, but is left instead with an unjustified faith in humanity but no real appreciation for or understanding of the natural world.
When the film starts the world has been without us for over 700 years, and all that remains are desolate cities and a planet covered in unimaginably massive piles of trash. The only activity we see is that of a lone robot named WALL-E (an acronym for Waste Allocation Load Lifter -- Earth-Class), the last of an army left behind by the Buy 'n Large corporation to clean up the planet while humanity vacations on its corporate cruise starships far off in space.
The opening sequences of the film are breathtakingly ghastly, like no post-apocalyptic vision ever put on film. The cityscape is not just deserted, it is disappearing under a cancerous envelope of debris, and even orbital space is a cloud of satellites and junk. And everywhere we see the entity responsible for most of the despoliation: the Buy 'n Large Corporation, which appears, in the final stages of humanity's days on Earth, to have owned and run absolutely everything, making Wal-Mart look like a dime store operation in comparison.
Amid this ravaged world, WALL-E fills his days compacting and piling trash, but also collecting and relishing objects that delight and mystify him: egg beaters, Rubik's cubes and a television with which he watches Hello Dolly! over and over again.
His centuries of routine are disrupted when he finds a tiny green plant. Then a gigantic spaceship deposits the egg-shaped EVE (or the Extraterrestrial Vegetation Evaluator) robot, which proceeds to scan the city -- and when things surprise or annoy her, blow them up. WALL-E is smitten by her lethal charms, and when he shows her the plant, she immediately scoops it into herself and shuts down, awaiting recovery and return.
EVE's mission, it turns out, was at the command of the Buy 'n Large corporation, and the ship that picks her up (and to which WALL-E clings in a bid to rescue her) delivers them to the Axiom, one of the gigantic cruise ships launched centuries before.
Unsurprisingly, given that Buy 'n Large (BnL) is still our dominant institution, humans have learned absolutely nothing from their experience as environmental refugees. The Axiom is populated by identically-dressed and morbidly obese humans carried about on multi-media hoverchairs, their every desire met by a fleet of robots and the omnipresent BnL, which exhorts them to continue to consume every waking hour. And of course, the unceasing consumption continues to produce vast amounts of trash, which is regularly compacted and expunged from the ship.
But through his efforts to rescue EVE, WALL-E gradually disrupts the consumerist and media-soaked ecology of the Axiom. Deprived of their non-stop multimedia two of the humans begin responding to their environment as if for the first time -- appreciating beauty, taking physical enjoyment from a previously neglected pool and actually conversing with each other.
In the end, the humans land on Earth and stumble into the light, determined to farm and support themselves, with no apparent role for the Buy 'n Large Corporation. They have liberated themselves from the corporation and from compulsions of the marketplace.
As satisfying as this anti-corporate and anti-consumerist theme is, it's hard to take too seriously.
After all, Disney is the world's premier vertically-integrated entertainment and merchandising machine. Already the market is crowded with WALL-E toys and other crap, much of which will eventually wind up in landfills. And speaking of irony, what exactly are we to make of the "credit cookie"? Following the closing credits and the Pixar and Disney logos, we once more see the Buy 'n Large logo while its jingle echoes in our ears. It's clever but a bit too cynical by half.
But writer-director Andrew Stanton's most serious difficulty in articulating a theme the audience can actually identify is that the animators are so loving in their attention to details on robots and spaceships that -- unlike his previous Pixar film Finding Nemo -- they appear to have spent little effort thinking about natural processes.
It's annoying but forgivable that WALL-E finds the plant in a closed refrigerator, apparently sprouting without benefit of sunlight, or that he holds the plant out to show to EVE while they are floating in deep space, presumably at temperatures near absolute zero, with no ill effects.
But this lack of understanding of how nature actually functions makes the conflict driving the climax of the movie ultimately without purpose. The humans return to Earth, but the viewer can't help but wish that they'd just stayed away.
The Axiom's captain sees footage of Earth and becomes taken with the idea of farming, believing they need to return to Earth to "help it out." Except -- that's exactly what they don't do: the closing credits feature a nifty bit of animation employing artistic styles ranging from cave paintings to impressionism, showing the familiar arc of civilization -- from fishing to farming to the construction of new cities, except this time we have robots doing a lot of the work for us. But at no point is there a hint of humans actually "helping" nature -- we're just helping ourselves again.
In other words, as far as we can see and Pixar can show us, humans will do exactly what we always have done. But if we do, the results will not be what we see here: the streams will not magically fill with fish, or fields with verdant flowers, trees and plants.
If the humans had instead never returned, however, the planet Earth of WALL-E might have had a chance. As Alan Weisman shows us, at that point when the world is actually "without us," nature will in fact eventually break through the insults we've laid over her and finally disguise all our works beneath green foliage. She will recover -- but of course not replace -- much of what was destroyed, and through cycles of glaciation crush every last trace of us.
But I guess that wouldn't make a very good movie. Or sell any merchandise.
Stay up to date with the latest Environment headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: synx on Jul 1, 2008 11:12 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The New York Times--->"Wall-E for President"
Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: The New York Times--->"Wall-E for President"
Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: Word
Posted by: newtype_alpha
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mweb on Jul 2, 2008 5:11 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: forests and trees
Posted by: Wacre
» RE: forests and trees
Posted by: mattcc42
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Jul 3, 2008 8:21 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
JT
Ultimate Anonymity
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mattcc42 on Jul 3, 2008 11:52 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My main issues with this article is that it doesn't look at the movie as a work of art, and it sees the movie in a bad light because the parent company is hypocritical. The movie was not made by Disney. It might have been paid for by them, but they did not conceive this film. Just as Virgil critiques the Romans in the state funded Aeneid, Pixar offers a work that criticizes large corporations such as Disney. To say that Wall-E is hypocritical because Disney sponsored it shows ignorance of what the film is. Disney doesn't care what the film says as long as it makes the firm money. The people who made Wall-E know that, and criticize that very attitude. Go after a corporations, use trendy, semi-political works as evidence, but please distinguish between the faults of the corporation and the thing that they are sponsoring.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Look at the movie for what it is
Posted by: mattcc42
» RE: Look at the movie for what it is
Posted by: mekkanikal
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mattcc42 on Jul 3, 2008 11:58 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Really? An animated chilren's science fiction film wouldn't be very good if it rigidly adhered to the laws of nature?
But seriously the sarcasm underscores the message of this enlightening, well written, and insightful article very well.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Last Chance on Jul 5, 2008 4:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The concept is not new. The History Channel and National Geographics each did their own version of an Earth without the human race and they showed on TV for several days apiece -- and I have my own little story: One More Destiny
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I Must See It !
Posted by: HoboHomo
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dadmoffatt on Jul 5, 2008 7:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wall E is very childlike despite his being a robot, and is among the most "emotional" of all the characters. Like in most fairy tales, things are not what they seem, and in speaking w/ my 2 kids after viewing it, they completely grapsed the issue that adults messed up the world and it is left to a child like robot to redeem it.
In Wall E the adults are "aliendated" -- competely insulated from nature, each other, and their own bodily functions until Wall E "takes the blinders off them" literally.
The relationship betw/ Wall E and Eva does not need to be seen as a "love" story - it has all the commitment and passion of a deep friendship between children -- a friendship that is life changing and irrevocable.
And the end leaves open the question of whether it's going to happen again. But we see the adults "re learning" things -- to walk, to interact, etc. -- so hopefully we can re learn to take care of ourselves and our world. And of course our kids can teach us a lot about that.
I know Disney/Pixar are among the forces that in fact are leading us all down the road to ruin, but this film has a good message, it's a good story, and it left my kids talking and thinking about the state of our environment and what it takes to be couragous and make a change. That was a good $20 spent.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: justAnEgg on Jul 5, 2008 7:50 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That Disney produced the movie is irrelevant.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bigart on Jul 5, 2008 9:08 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Big f-Art?
Posted by: Cathyc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Gravitas on Jul 5, 2008 9:44 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This does not surprise me. Weight obsession supports consumerism as does yo-yo dieting. This is not the first time a cause has been co-opted in the name of consumerism. Freud's nephew Bernaise came up with the idea of women smoking as an expression of liberation. What is liberating about addiction? By buying Wall E products you are protesting consumption. Use a marketing message that is the very opposite of reality, will sheeple ever really know the difference?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» They?
Posted by: Cathyc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Starfall Deception on Jul 5, 2008 4:35 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: the great omi on Jul 6, 2008 5:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My son and I enjoyed it and it has a great message, besides, if Disney and Pixar were not behind it only a handful of people would watch an independent animation film, the more people to see it the better.
And I forgot to mention, as a movie it is an art form, it is not to please everybody, plus, IT IS ONLY A MOVIE!!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Jul 6, 2008 9:33 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mark on Jul 6, 2008 9:58 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dobermanmacleod on Jul 7, 2008 8:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fungus on Jul 7, 2008 7:28 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
vision of humanity's relationship with nature. It is intensely focused on its theme, and the theme seems to be the fate of the human race when we believe that we are the center of the world, and that it is here to meet our needs.
The humans fell into this attitude when they
got into the radical consumerism that made a mess of the planet. They remain trapped in it
on their cruise ship, where everything is set
to satisfy their whims and appetites. One reviewer made the comment that some pampered moviegoers at multiplexes might make a conection between the self serving values that consumer culture is promoting now and the pathetic, nature deprived lives that the cruise ship passengers live. If they do, this film is deeply challenging to the status quo.
I question the idea that it is a bad thing that the humans return to earth to reestablish a life here. It does seem like they are going to try to create a life where their relationship with nature is central. Maybe their attempts to clean up the mess their ancestors made are similar to habitat restoration work that goes on today. People can get the idea idea that we can change our relationship with the planet, and we sure need positive visions right now. A well done tale like this one can help kids and many adults
think deeply about this point.
I do agree with one point that the writer made. It is pretty ludicrous that Disney Corp. is marketing video games and other products based on "Wall-e". Pixar is showing that they can help change people's values and minds in positive ways, while Disney is basically a giant marketing operation. I hope that Pixar can break their relationship with Disney some day. Is anyone from Pixar reading this?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: EKSwitaj on Jul 8, 2008 11:02 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tlawiv on Jul 9, 2008 10:26 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Walt Disney corporation supports Rush Limbaugh and vulgar revisionist history like that 'Path To War' made for tv movie blaming the Clinton Admin for 911, meanwhile, they refused to air any MoveOn ads because they don't support "advocacy advertising".
There are plenty of forums for trivial mindnumbing discussion. Please don't let this be one of them. This review of this movie is rich social commentary and if you disagree with it, then make an intelligent, reasoned argument disagreeing with the points of discussion. 'It's just a movie' is for the braindead zombies that perpetuate this erosion of our nation.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: synx on Jul 1, 2008 11:12 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The New York Times--->"Wall-E for President"
Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: The New York Times--->"Wall-E for President"
Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: Word
Posted by: newtype_alpha
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mweb on Jul 2, 2008 5:11 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: forests and trees
Posted by: Wacre
» RE: forests and trees
Posted by: mattcc42
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Jul 3, 2008 8:21 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
JT
Ultimate Anonymity
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mattcc42 on Jul 3, 2008 11:52 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My main issues with this article is that it doesn't look at the movie as a work of art, and it sees the movie in a bad light because the parent company is hypocritical. The movie was not made by Disney. It might have been paid for by them, but they did not conceive this film. Just as Virgil critiques the Romans in the state funded Aeneid, Pixar offers a work that criticizes large corporations such as Disney. To say that Wall-E is hypocritical because Disney sponsored it shows ignorance of what the film is. Disney doesn't care what the film says as long as it makes the firm money. The people who made Wall-E know that, and criticize that very attitude. Go after a corporations, use trendy, semi-political works as evidence, but please distinguish between the faults of the corporation and the thing that they are sponsoring.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Look at the movie for what it is
Posted by: mattcc42
» RE: Look at the movie for what it is
Posted by: mekkanikal
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mattcc42 on Jul 3, 2008 11:58 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Really? An animated chilren's science fiction film wouldn't be very good if it rigidly adhered to the laws of nature?
But seriously the sarcasm underscores the message of this enlightening, well written, and insightful article very well.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Last Chance on Jul 5, 2008 4:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The concept is not new. The History Channel and National Geographics each did their own version of an Earth without the human race and they showed on TV for several days apiece -- and I have my own little story: One More Destiny
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I Must See It !
Posted by: HoboHomo
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dadmoffatt on Jul 5, 2008 7:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wall E is very childlike despite his being a robot, and is among the most "emotional" of all the characters. Like in most fairy tales, things are not what they seem, and in speaking w/ my 2 kids after viewing it, they completely grapsed the issue that adults messed up the world and it is left to a child like robot to redeem it.
In Wall E the adults are "aliendated" -- competely insulated from nature, each other, and their own bodily functions until Wall E "takes the blinders off them" literally.
The relationship betw/ Wall E and Eva does not need to be seen as a "love" story - it has all the commitment and passion of a deep friendship between children -- a friendship that is life changing and irrevocable.
And the end leaves open the question of whether it's going to happen again. But we see the adults "re learning" things -- to walk, to interact, etc. -- so hopefully we can re learn to take care of ourselves and our world. And of course our kids can teach us a lot about that.
I know Disney/Pixar are among the forces that in fact are leading us all down the road to ruin, but this film has a good message, it's a good story, and it left my kids talking and thinking about the state of our environment and what it takes to be couragous and make a change. That was a good $20 spent.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: justAnEgg on Jul 5, 2008 7:50 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That Disney produced the movie is irrelevant.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bigart on Jul 5, 2008 9:08 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Big f-Art?
Posted by: Cathyc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Gravitas on Jul 5, 2008 9:44 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This does not surprise me. Weight obsession supports consumerism as does yo-yo dieting. This is not the first time a cause has been co-opted in the name of consumerism. Freud's nephew Bernaise came up with the idea of women smoking as an expression of liberation. What is liberating about addiction? By buying Wall E products you are protesting consumption. Use a marketing message that is the very opposite of reality, will sheeple ever really know the difference?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» They?
Posted by: Cathyc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Starfall Deception on Jul 5, 2008 4:35 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: the great omi on Jul 6, 2008 5:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My son and I enjoyed it and it has a great message, besides, if Disney and Pixar were not behind it only a handful of people would watch an independent animation film, the more people to see it the better.
And I forgot to mention, as a movie it is an art form, it is not to please everybody, plus, IT IS ONLY A MOVIE!!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Jul 6, 2008 9:33 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mark on Jul 6, 2008 9:58 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dobermanmacleod on Jul 7, 2008 8:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fungus on Jul 7, 2008 7:28 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
vision of humanity's relationship with nature. It is intensely focused on its theme, and the theme seems to be the fate of the human race when we believe that we are the center of the world, and that it is here to meet our needs.
The humans fell into this attitude when they
got into the radical consumerism that made a mess of the planet. They remain trapped in it
on their cruise ship, where everything is set
to satisfy their whims and appetites. One reviewer made the comment that some pampered moviegoers at multiplexes might make a conection between the self serving values that consumer culture is promoting now and the pathetic, nature deprived lives that the cruise ship passengers live. If they do, this film is deeply challenging to the status quo.
I question the idea that it is a bad thing that the humans return to earth to reestablish a life here. It does seem like they are going to try to create a life where their relationship with nature is central. Maybe their attempts to clean up the mess their ancestors made are similar to habitat restoration work that goes on today. People can get the idea idea that we can change our relationship with the planet, and we sure need positive visions right now. A well done tale like this one can help kids and many adults
think deeply about this point.
I do agree with one point that the writer made. It is pretty ludicrous that Disney Corp. is marketing video games and other products based on "Wall-e". Pixar is showing that they can help change people's values and minds in positive ways, while Disney is basically a giant marketing operation. I hope that Pixar can break their relationship with Disney some day. Is anyone from Pixar reading this?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: EKSwitaj on Jul 8, 2008 11:02 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tlawiv on Jul 9, 2008 10:26 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Walt Disney corporation supports Rush Limbaugh and vulgar revisionist history like that 'Path To War' made for tv movie blaming the Clinton Admin for 911, meanwhile, they refused to air any MoveOn ads because they don't support "advocacy advertising".
There are plenty of forums for trivial mindnumbing discussion. Please don't let this be one of them. This review of this movie is rich social commentary and if you disagree with it, then make an intelligent, reasoned argument disagreeing with the points of discussion. 'It's just a movie' is for the braindead zombies that perpetuate this erosion of our nation.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
California Carbon Trading Allows Timber Companies to Sell CO2 Credits for Their Worst Logging Practices
How to Answer the Dumb Things Climate Deniers Say
Why Is Obama Trying to Prop Up a Doomed 'Nuclear Renaissance'?




