In a summer that is mostly bereft of good films (for that, we’ll have to wait for the winter: Frost/Nixon, Doubt, Milk, Revolutionary Road), I was pleased with and mesmerized by a film that has almost no dialogue and few human characters.  It instead found its power through heart, expression, and a celebration of the talents of some exceptional filmmakers.  I am referring to the magic and wonder of Disney/Pixar’s WALL-E.

 I’ll begin right away by saying that I was blown away by the movie.  I, like millions of Americans, fell in love with the titular robot, a delightful blend of R2-D2 and Charlie Chaplin whose binocular eyes and nervous twitters express more emotion than most of the human actors in summer entertainment.  That, combined with a terrific story and the best use of Hello Dolly! since Leonid Brezhnev’s stoned styling in Dick, has helped make WALL-E the finest film of the summer, likely one of the greatest of the year, and maybe even the best that those wunderkinds in Emeryville have produced.  If you haven’t experienced it yet, please do.  You won’t regret it.

It’s because of the charm and timeless magic of WALL-E that I feel compelled to provide some commentary on the politicization of out little mechanical friend.  Given the overall setting of the film – a dystopian earth that suffers due to the neglect of mankind – it’s pretty inevitable that people would see the parallels between it and the conservation movement.  But Andrew Stanton, the creator of this film and Finding Nemo, conceived of WALL-E even before Pixar’s first major hit, 1995’s Toy Story, long before global warming permeated the public consciousness as it does today.  Stanton basically told CNN that the ecological underpinnings of the film were unintentional:

“Yeah, frankly the love one is really all I was pushing. Everything else I was using elements that I knew matched those scenarios of environment and society and things, but I was just trying to go with things that [were] ... true aspects of us that amplified the big point of the story, which was this love story and what is the point of living? What is the real point of living? There's a lot of different ways people can fill their time, but there's really only one reason we're here and it's relationships and loving one another. That's all I was pushing. Everything else was a benefactor of that.”

 In following with this mentality, I find that I most agree with the conclusions of Variety film critic Todd McCarthy: “Stanton, his co-story hatcher Pete Docter, co-scenarist Jim Reardon and the entire Pixar team operate on the principle that entertainment values come first, and they have applied [the environmental message] throughout to sprightly effect.”  In other words, with regards to the ecological call-to-action, take it or leave it!  It’s perfectly fine (and maybe even recommended, considering that love is the real theme of the flick) to watch WALL-E free of any political statement.   

 That’s why I’m confused with comments like those of National Review’s Shannen Coffin, who claims that only liberal Inconvenient Truth-types will enjoy a film that left her kids “bombarded with leftist propaganda about the evils of mankind.”  Um . . . what?  (In National Review’s defense (did I just say that?), their film critic gave WALL-E a glowing endorsement.)  As if this already wasn’t inappropriate and misguided enough, Patrick J. Ford over at The American Conservative argues that Coffin is off-base.  Not because it’s stupid to apply politics to a fantasy endeavor whose creator stated that the environmental message is incidental, but because WALL-E – who knew! – espouses proper conservative doctrine:

“The real tragedy of these callous conservative critics (say that three times fast) is that they are missing the real lessons of the movie, ones I found immediately attractive to a traditional conservative. In the film, it becomes clear that mass consumerism is not just the product of big business, but of big business wedded with big government. In fact, the two are indistinguishable in WALL-E’s future. The government unilaterally provided it’s citizens with everything they needed, and this lack of variety led to Earth’s downfall.” 

Well, of course!  That’s the whole point of the film!  Who needs love when you have Barry Goldwater’s ghost pissing all over everything?  (For more conservative viewpoints, go here).

Maybe it could be expected that some conservatives would find fault with WALL-E.  After all, Chaplin himself was investigated by HUAC.  But even some on the left complained . . . because WALL-E isn’t liberal enough.  At The Huffington Post, Jessica Jensen (who overall really liked the movie) wrote, “Why didn't Pixar put up a simple screen with ‘ten recommendations for loving planet Earth’ at the end of the film -- or a link to a site with educational information? It pains me that MILLIONS of people will see this movie and learn nothing about what they can do to save the planet!”  Now, naturally I agree that we have lots to do to save the earth, and that people should be educated about how to do it.  But do we need to criticize WALL-E when, as I keep pointing out, the ecological-minded message was never meant to dominate the movie? 

What I’m trying to say here (and bless everyone who’s kept reading this far; in that time you probably could have gone out and watched the film) is that we as a people don’t need to apply politics to movies where it’s just not called for.  WALL-E is wonderful without being burdened with a liberal or conservative ideology.  After all, shouldn’t escapist fare be just that – escapist?  I’m a guy who loves political movies, whether that be through plot (everything from Nixon to The American President) or message (The China Syndrome or Angels in America).  But let’s leave politics to those films with political intent, and enjoy WALL-E for what it truly is: a classic love story . . . with robots. 

Awwwwwwwwwwwwww.