Horton as Propaganda?

[neltana]

I just went to see the new movie Horton Hears a Who last night. I thought it was okay, but I thought it was interesting how much it stressed the importance of faith. So I asked my wife if the book had done the same thing (I've never read it). She said that her impression was that the book was more about equality than faith, hence the motto "A persons a person, no matter how small."

Then, this morning, I ran across this article at the flick filopsopher (http://www.flickfilosopher.com/blog/2008/03/dr_seuss_horton_hears_a_who_re.html). Essentially, she feels the movie is blatant propoganda:

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.

She also feels that the mayor of Whoville represents George W. Bush...widely considered a boob, but the only one knows how to save their world...by listening to the invisible elephant in the sky.

Meanwhile, it appears that anti-abortionists have seized on the "a person is a person no matter how small" line rather aggressively, actually demonstrating at various premieres (http://www.slate.com/id/2186612/).

I just find it interesting how the focus of the message seems to have shifted from the book to the movie. Was this an intentional attempt to court the evangelical christian market? Do folks buy that it was meant as subtle propoganda, or are bloggers and protesters reading too much into the movie?

For the record, I think the screenwriters added some stock characters, situations and platitudes to the thing in an attempt to pad it out. In other words, I'm coming down on the "not propaganda side." But I'm curious what everyone else thinks.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi
I just went to see the new movie Horton Hears a Who last night. I thought it was okay, but I thought it was interesting how much it stressed the importance of faith. So I asked my wife if the book had done the same thing (I've never read it). She said that her impression was that the book was more about equality than faith, hence the motto "A persons a person, no matter how small."

Then, this morning, I ran across this article at the flick filopsopher (http://www.flickfilosopher.com/blog/2008/03/dr_seuss_horton_hears_a_who_re.html). Essentially, she feels the movie is blatant propoganda:



She also feels that the mayor of Whoville represents George W. Bush...widely considered a boob, but the only one knows how to save their world...by listening to the invisible elephant in the sky.

Meanwhile, it appears that anti-abortionists have seized on the "a person is a person no matter how small" line rather aggressively, actually demonstrating at various premieres (http://www.slate.com/id/2186612/).

I just find it interesting how the focus of the message seems to have shifted from the book to the movie. Was this an intentional attempt to court the evangelical christian market? Do folks buy that it was meant as subtle propoganda, or are bloggers and protesters reading too much into the movie?

For the record, I think the screenwriters added some stock characters, situations and platitudes to the thing in an attempt to pad it out. In other words, I'm coming down on the "not propaganda side." But I'm curious what everyone else thinks.

I've not seen it yet, but I'd like to point out that everything you see and hear gets filtered through your own thoughts and attitudes, which are mostly shaped by the world in which you live.

Remember Melville's, "Moby Dick?" A great novel about good and evil? Isn't it interesting that, back when it was written, the part of Good was played by the sailors and Evil by the whale, and now, those roles are reversed?

O Tempus! O Mores!

[neltana]

True, where I see stock characters and generic situations, others see the hand of god.

I just came across this: The Prophetic History of Y.O.P.P (Young Ones Praying and Prophecying) Horton Hears a Who (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=147941372&blogID=304009785)

My favorite part is this:

It was because God's hand was on Dr. Seuss in 1954. The spirit of prophecy rested on him, so that one day God could reach into the attic of history and pull out a little, old children's book and use it to change the world. He could place it on the table and say "I am going to use this book to end abortion. I am going to give a dream to a 15-year old girl who is praying for the kangaroo [court]."

True, our understanding of literature changes as our times change. There are some who maintain that in Moby Dick, the relationship between Ishmael and Queequeg was homosexual in nature. However, I bet few of the original readers would have interpreted it that way.

[articulett]

Isn't "yop" the word that finally breaks through?-- followed by "we're here, we're here, we're here..." I really liked the book as a kid, but I saw it through more sciency eyes... there are tiny worlds and communities of creatures and we might well be tiny creatures in some huge world. We are tiny in the universe... and though the tiny creatures don't resemble "Whos" there are tons of life forms every where on our planet that share out DNA and ancestry with us.

[neltana]

Yes, well this "highly articulate" MySpace page seem to feel that God inspired Dr. Suess to use "Yopp" so that 54 years later it could be used to end abortion (which really shows foresight, being before Roe v. Wade and everything).

Over at Planet Wisdom (http://www.planetwisdom.com/movies/hortonhearsawho.php), however, while they say the movie is essentially "pro-life," they don't seem to feel the same call to action:

Again, the movie is NOT about God or Christianity in any obvious way. In fact, people with faith in just about anything will relate to our hero Horton. But those with faith in Christ -- and those who are interested in that -- are getting used to being dismissed as ignorant for refusing to let go of their clover in our materialist world. Hebrews encourages us: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (11:1) Sometimes that faith costs us a lot, especially when we follow it to protect those who can't speak up for themselves.

Sorry for all the quotes. I just find it really fascinating the different ways people are interpreting this movie.

The funny thing to me is that neither Horton or the mayor are acting out of "faith." They both have concrete reasons for their beliefs...they are based on solid observational evidence.

I suspect Suess and the screenwriters were also looking at it with more "sciency eyes" than are the folks who are interpreting it as a religious parable.

[Kopji]

I saw the movie yesterday. Humm. I think that it is more a result of trying to present some key themes of the story in a way that makes it more contemporary. I'd agree that maybe this is a case of us seeing more of what we want to see and less of other things.

Some random observations -

The baby kangaroo was 'homeschooled', and that was not presented in a very favorable light.

It did not make very good use of the blue monkeys. Monkeys are always great evil henchmen, and they seemed wasted. After the initial assault with the bananas, they pretty much went unused. Pity.

There is definitely a thread of thought that the 'mindless crowd' is something easily swayed and influenced. This theme recurs both in Horton's world, and the 'Who' world. To the story, it is the crazy thinkers in both worlds that save the day. The conventional and authoritarian lead to destruction. This seems very 'Dr Seuessian'.

Horton fails as a metaphor for Bush in that the mayor always has the capability of bringing other people in to hear and listen for themselves. There is not really a faith element going on, maybe one that different thinkers should have more confidence in themselves and what they have to say. (See how easy it is to twist the message).


One of my favorite political cartoon books, and one I can recommend, is an odd collection of Seuss propaganda cartoons from WW2. This is "Dr Seuss Goes to War" by Richard Minear.

Propaganda is not subtle. It is often racist, and loud, and unfair - and gets a definite message out. Horton is not really good as propaganda, but it does contain various universal themes that we still struggle with even today.

[liverleef]

I saw the movie last night too. I would not call it propaganda for the reasons that Kopji cited. I could see how christians could see a right to life message in there. I doubt it was the intent of the film makers though. I thought the movie reflected the overall theme of the book.

[articulett]

Did the movie emphasize "faith"... because the book doesn't-- at least I don't think so... it's about the smallest voice being heard... and perspective... I think. I remember the cartoon version... "boil that dust speck, boil that dust speck"-- I don't remember anything about "faith" in the book or the 1970's cartoon version of the movie. But I hadn't even realized that they'd remade a 2008 version.

[neltana]

Well, that's the thing. I haven't read the book at all. My only exposure to the story was the movie (it just opened this weekend, I think...it's one of those computer animated jobbies from the guys who made Ice Age). I walked out of the film and said "so that movie was basically about faith."

My wife, on the other hand, was familiar with the book and, although she could see where I was coming from, didn't think it was about faith. She thought it was more about tolerance and sticking to your guns.

So, I don't think the answer is a slam dunk either way.

Actually, now that I think about it, I was convinced that the movie was about faith before I walked in the door. The advertisements have clips of the mayor saying something like "I was told to do this by a giant elephant in the sky. But don't bother looking, he's invisible!" That made me think that Horton was a metaphor for God, not being familiar with the story.

So, perhaps I saw more faith in the story because I was predisposed to see it.

[articulett]

Do the Whos realize that they are about to be boiled...? I can't remember how they know to start making noise... I always liked the story has a kid, but it seems to me that the story was told more from the Elephant's (Horton) perspective... he kept saying there were creatures in the clover flower--or whatever it was--and the other Elephants didn't believe him.

I can't remember how he knew this... maybe he could hear them? I can't remember how the Whos realized their world was in danger either... In the book I don't remember anything about an invisible elephant... it's the Whos that were invisible because they were so small-- it made me think about how we could be miniature beings in some much larger universe of entities... and to think about all the dramas and fights and communities going on in places we can't see-- under the sea, in the soil, in beehives in anthills-- I thought it was about "perspective" and about even the "smallest voice" counting, I guess. It was a favorite of mine when I was growing up.

It disappoints me if there was a heavy emphasis or mention of "faith" in the film. I don't like the promotion of the idea that faith is good for something or a way of knowing or this "you gotta have faith" meme. I don't think of "belief" or "faith" as an asset or that people can will themselves to have it nor is it something to be proud of nor salvation worthy. It wasn't faith that saved the town... it was action-- making themselves heard by beings that had ears--not invisible beings.

[Kopji]

I think that your question on faith is well asked. The movie used the word at least once, and I remember the elephant in the sky allusion. - Not in the book (which I had to recover from a box in the basement). :) Also, there is nothing in the book that indicates the Whos needed any convincing of Horton's existence. They seemed already aware of a larger outside world, they just had not felt any need to contact it. So that whole aspect is an invention for the movie.

Religion permeates pretty much everything in the US so it might be an intentional 'religious' message or not - but we get religion in almost everything, it could be just innocent marketing to their customer base. All my money says 'in god we trust' which is a similar form of propaganda. :)

On the original book story -
After a little more web research I'm still inclined toward a hunch that it reflected his growing affection for the Japanese people following his propaganda cartoons in WW2. The book is dedicated to “My Great Friend Mitsugi Nakamura of Kyoto Japan,”. All I could find is that he visited Japan in 1953 and was impressed on an emphasis on teaching individualism to school children.

The story is universal enough to cover many themes, both old and new. Geisel's widow had some creative control on this one, after extreme dissatisfaction with the earlier Cat in the Hat with Mike Myers (shall I call it a debacle?).

[articulett]

I think it's funny that some Christians are imagining themselves as Horton clutching their little clover against the evil materialists. Now, if ever, they better hope their Jesus "yops"... They've had eons to bring forth evidence. Who wouldn't want to see some real evidence for some divine truth somewhere? But Jesus, Mohummed, Xenu, god, et. al. seem to be pretty poor at "yopping", ya' know. I think the Christians have got a clover with a plain old dust speck... not the one with sentient beings inside. But they are free to cling as they wish. I have no desire to boil their dust speck, and if it's as immortal as they believe it is, then my boiling it could have no more effect than my ignoring it. :)

Christians often have a way of twisting every story as a message to themselves. Though the Nazis were Christians who killed Jews partly because they considered them Jesus killers, Christians negate that history and blame "social darwinism" which they extrapolate to mean "atheism"... they think of creationism like it's some new maverick science claiming "they laughed at Newton too... people didn't believe the earth was round either"...

They've learned to see everything good as a coming from god or faith and everything bad as coming from lack of belief... they readily negate or cover for all travesties brought via faith while imagining great rewards that have no basis in reality. It's such twisted thinking. Did something good happen--"praise god"! Something bad-- blame those secularists.

But let them cling to their clovers. (I just wish they wouldn't make their kids into the poor critical thinkers they are.) Cling away, Christians.

[Kopji]

The original story is so universal you could probably use the Whos as a metaphor for the nonreligious, and Horton's world as the believers.

[neltana]

In the movie it is the humorless "atheist" who causes all the trouble. "If you can't see, hear or feel something, it doesn't exist!" she sneers. At least, you could read it that way. But I still somehow doubt the movie makers had an agenda. I think they just kept cramming things into the story to try to make it work as a movie.

I have to track down the book. I'm curious to see the contrast between the two stories.

[dudalb]

This thread is great. It reminds me of all the "meanings" and "symbolism" I used to cook up for English Term papers when I needed to get one done in a hurry because I had been goofing off too much.
You can read just about any meaning in just about anything you want. Whether is has any validity is another story......

[neltana]

The sad part is when somebody takes one of these readings as a justification to send a bunch of protesters to disrupt a movie premiere.

I'm still a little fuzzy why they felt the need to stage a demonstration for a movie they claim supports their position. I think the phrase "seems a little bizarre" is an understatement.

It reminds me of all the "meanings" and "symbolism" I used to cook up for English Term papers when I needed to get one done in a hurry because I had been goofing off too much.

I still remember my senior paper in High School where I had to compare and contrast two novels of Thomas Hardy. I read a one-page summary of each book and then wrote the entire paper by opening them to random pages and pulling quotes.

It was worth a B+, although the teacher did write "far fetched" on the cover page.

[PrincessIneffabelle]

I simply adore Dr. Seuss! I read him as a child and now I have the pleasure and privilege of reading his books to my child. My interpretation of the message in Horton Hears a Who is "every voice counts", "persevere", and "despite our differences, we are all human beings".

I find that "have faith" is not an uncommon message in media aimed at children. I explain this to my son as having perseverance and self-confidence, not as having blind or irrational beliefs.

I don't care how the apparently desperate Christians interpret the message. It's what I teach my child that matters. After all, they probably think that Horton Hatches the Egg is some sort of anti-abortion manifesto, as well.

:rolleyes:

[DeVega]

I hope I don't offend anyone by saying this - but, personally, I always found Dr Suess cartoons to be, well... frightening when I was a child. Even as an adult they still creep me out. I think they border on the kind of 'grotesque' I find uncomfortable - like clowns.

The Cat in the Hat in particular, I found to be the stuff of nightmares! The children are left alone, this really scary looking cat comes in - won't leave - and messes up their entire house. The children in the story are powerless and helpless. I guess it just pushed my own vulnerability buttons! But even as an adult, the idea of watching either the Grinch or Cat in the Hat movies, fills me with a vague unease. (And also, they weren't very good of course...) The Grinch still looked scary on film...

... tell me it's not just me????

I have seen some previews of Horton & it does look less 'Suess-y' somehow. I'm very surprised to learn it is sparking such debate. As dudalb says, when themes are so lightly applied to any story they are much more easily open to interpretation. A lesson to be learned for all of us writers!

[PrincessIneffabelle]

It's okay, DeVega, no offense taken. One person's bed-time story is another person's nightmare, right? My mom feels the same way about Dr. Seuss -- she can't stand the books, and will only begrudgingly read them to my son even if he begs for one. She hates the illustrations and the stories, as well as his made-up words and creatures. My son, OTH, has loved the stories and illustrations even before he could walk. He's 6 now, and we still read Seuss several times a week at his request. The only character he didn't like was the Grinch -- the red eyes frightened him a bit. He was about 4 before he wanted to read that one.

Also, just to be a completely insufferable nit-picker, the children in The Cat in the Hat are not exactly helpless. It is the boy who gets his net yet (I'll bet), captures the Things and orders the Cat out. Then the Cat pops back in and cleans up the entire mess before Mother gets home. As for the Grinch -- well, he's supposed to be horrible! The point is that even the most foul-tempered, selfish, evil monster can be redeemed. Well, that and that "the Spirit of Christmas lies in the Heart" (blech!).

That being said, don't even get me started on the abominable snowmonster from Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer! Holy cow, did I have nightmares about that one!
:o

[DeVega]

Ah, that's good to know - that it's not just me! Yep, there's no accounting for the workings of people's imaginations - even at a young age, what might frighten or alarm one child might just make others laugh.

It's interesting what you say about the Cat in the Hat - perhaps I had mis-remembered the details but certainly that's the impression it left with me. I was terribly worried about those children! I think I will steel myself to go back and read it as an adult & see how different it might seem.

I'm aware that Dr Seuss is a much beloved institution in the US, whereas he is less so here in the UK. I understand there is one of his books which parents often give their children when they are going away to university? Very sentimental I'd guess! Not that there's anything wrong with being sentimental, especially where one's children are concerned...

All best
DeVega

[Unalienable]

But I still somehow doubt the movie makers had an agenda. I think they just kept cramming things into the story to try to make it work as a movie.
Hollywood most definitely has an agenda and they stick to it all the time, every time.

Children's movies are some of the most propaganda laden movies they make, since the audience is so impressionable, and Horton Hears a Who was no exception. However the real hidden message has little to do with theists-atheist conflicts, and has everything to do with global environmental issues.

The Whos constantly reiterated "nothing ever goes wrong in Whoville!" but the wise scientist up in his lab figured out that the world was headed for disaster. And the only way to avoid this unseen but imminent disaster was for EVERYBODY on the entire planet to "chip in." In short, Hollywood is (once again) promoting Marxism, this time with an environmental spin.

Incidentally, the way I reached this conclusion was simple, I analyzed what was added in the new version compared to the classic book and 1970's cartoon. Giesel Seuss had no global environmental agenda, but you can bet your bottom dollar that Hollywood does.

[pgwenthold]

Also, just to be a completely insufferable nit-picker, the children in The Cat in the Hat are not exactly helpless. It is the boy who gets his net yet (I'll bet), captures the Things and orders the Cat out. Then the Cat pops back in and cleans up the entire mess before Mother gets home.

When I think of the Cat in the Hat, it reminds me of Marilyn Manson, who I once heard compare himself to the CitH in an interview.

His point is well-taken, although I'm not sure if the comparison holds through the "cleaning up the mess" part. But it is certainly the case that the CitH was a troublemaker, yet generally beloved.

[pgwenthold]

I'm aware that Dr Seuss is a much beloved institution in the US, whereas he is less so here in the UK. I understand there is one of his books which parents often give their children when they are going away to university? Very sentimental I'd guess! Not that there's anything wrong with being sentimental, especially where one's children are concerned...


"Oh The Places You'll Go"

The title makes it pretty clear.

Not one of my favorites, though. Certainly no "And To Think I Saw It in McGulligan's Pool"

(or whatever his name was)

I always loved that book when I was little. Talk about letting your imagination run.

[dudalb]

Hollywood most definitely has an agenda and they stick to it all the time, every time.

Children's movies are some of the most propaganda laden movies they make, since the audience is so impressionable, and Horton Hears a Who was no exception. However the real hidden message has little to do with theists-atheist conflicts, and has everything to do with global environmental issues.

The Whos constantly reiterated "nothing ever goes wrong in Whoville!" but the wise scientist up in his lab figured out that the world was headed for disaster. And the only way to avoid this unseen but imminent disaster was for EVERYBODY on the entire planet to "chip in." In short, Hollywood is (once again) promoting Marxism, this time with an environmental spin.

Incidentally, the way I reached this conclusion was simple, I analyzed what was added in the new version compared to the classic book and 1970's cartoon. Giesel Seuss had no global environmental agenda, but you can bet your bottom dollar that Hollywood does.

A little paranoid,I think?

[articulett]

The point is that even the most foul-tempered, selfish, evil monster can be redeemed. Well, that and that "the Spirit of Christmas lies in the Heart" (blech!).

That being said, don't even get me started on the abominable snowmonster from Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer! Holy cow, did I have nightmares about that one!
:o

Which reminds me... wasn't the abominable snowman the one that learned to "put one foot in front of the other"... in "Spirit of Christmas" fashion, you might say?"

Loved Seuss... but I would watch the Wizard of Oz every year and freak out when the Crystal Ball shows "Auntie Em" morphing into the witch screaming "I'll give you your Auntie Em!" Horrific.

[joobz]

Isn't "yop" the word that finally breaks through?-- followed by "we're here, we're here, we're here..." I really liked the book as a kid, but I saw it through more sciency eyes... there are tiny worlds and communities of creatures and we might well be tiny creatures in some huge world. We are tiny in the universe... and though the tiny creatures don't resemble "Whos" there are tons of life forms every where on our planet that share out DNA and ancestry with us.
After reading that, I think the word that broke through for you was..

*inhales* here *cough cough cough*:p

[articulett]

Yep... allowing germs everywhere to scream their version of "we're here... we're here... we're here..."

[SDC]

Horton was originally written ca.1954, correct? The explanation I remember (I was being read to in 1954, but have always remembered Horton) was that the book was an attack on McCarthyism; Horton was right, and despised; his enemies were McCarthyesque. (My earliest childhood memories include my mother watching the Army-McCarthy hearings on TV news, in 1954, in which Tail Gunner Joe got his comeuppance. My family didn't like him.)

[Drudgewire]

Also, Green Eggs and Ham was about... uuummm....


...oddly colored food. I've got nuthin'. v:ov

[lumos]

I saw the move and really enjoyed it. I thought it supported skepticism and critical thinking based on the following:

The kangaroo in charge and the who councilmen were essentially "villians" who can be equated to the church in the same way that they tell (force) their followers to "Do as I tell you, believe what I tell you, because I say so".

Horton and the Mayor can be equated to scientists and skeptics (athiests) because they use evidence to determine that something that otherwise seems highly unlikely is true. They stand against the villians (church) even trying to present evidence that is ignored, while being persecuted for speaking up for what is right, moral, and factual based on the known evidence (speaking to one another).

It was the villians (ignoramouses equated to the church) that were willing to murder thousands of innocent people (whos) based solely on their beliefs while entirely ignoring the evidence.

[articulett]

Also, Green Eggs and Ham was about... uuummm....


...oddly colored food. I've got nuthin'. v:ov


Green foods can be good ... even when they look ugly.

Eat your Brussel Sprouts.

(Green hominids, however are grouchy-- see: Grinch --also "Oscar the Grouch")

Is this implying something about "colored" people?

[Drudgewire]

Green foods can be good ... even when they look ugly.

Eat your Brussel Sprouts.
Not on a boat, or in a moat, or with a goat, or after a root beer float, or while reading something Shakespeare wrote or a love note or even to clear a sore throat.

I will not eat my brussel sprouts. And if you make me I'll just pout. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/colbert.gif

[articulett]

Would you could you for some cash?
What if it would cure your rash?

[Drudgewire]

I will not eat them for your gold
or a cure for the common cold.

I will not eat my brussel sprouts. And if you make me I'll just pout. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/colbert.gif

[articulett]

fine.

If that's how you feel about brussel sprouts
Do not eat them, you big lout

:p

[Drudgewire]

Weeelll.... OK...

*tries them*

I do like these brussel sprouts!!
And I would eat them without a bribe
I'd eat them with jager bombs I imbibe
I'd eat them like I was a pig
I'd eat them and then dance a jig...

I DO I DO like brusell sprouts...






Just kidding they suck. Ordering pizza. I'm out. :D

[articulett]

ah... so you did know the real hidden meaning behind Green Eggs and Ham after all, you poser.

[Drudgewire]

The love of my life was a Seuss buff. :)

[Wildy]

I hope I don't offend anyone by saying this - but, personally, I always found Dr Suess cartoons to be, well... frightening when I was a child. Even as an adult they still creep me out. I think they border on the kind of 'grotesque' I find uncomfortable - like clowns.

Eh. You probably wouldn't have thought that if you were read Der Struwwelpeter as a kid.

[Kopji]

I loved Seuss books as a kid. Yertle the Turtle is so delightfully subversive...

I think as the story goes, he worked for Standard Oil as an illustrator, and children's books were a loophole - the only thing not forbidden by his contract that he could do on the side.

He was a self taught artist and had an 'organic' quality like Gaudi. I can see why it might be scary to some kids.

[PrincessIneffabelle]

Which reminds me... wasn't the abominable snowman the one that learned to "put one foot in front of the other"... in "Spirit of Christmas" fashion, you might say?"

Nope. That was the grinch-like Winter Wizard (voiced by Keenan Wynn, one of my favorite old-time actors) in Santa Claus is Comin' to Town, yet another one of those Rankin and Bass TV specials. It's the one about Kris Kringle being a foundling and growing up to be Santa Claus. You may remember the gray and depressing (communist?) village ruled by the dour Burgermeister.

The abominable snowman (aka: Bumble) is the one that got his teeth pulled by Hermie, the elf who wanted to be a dentist. Questions remain about Hermie.

[articulett]

ah yes... misfits and misfit toys, right... ?

[pgwenthold]

Nope. That was the grinch-like Winter Wizard (voiced by Keenan Wynn, one of my favorite old-time actors) in Santa Claus is Comin' to Town, yet another one of those Rankin and Bass TV specials. It's the one about Kris Kringle being a foundling and growing up to be Santa Claus. You may remember the gray and depressing (communist?) village ruled by the dour Burgermeister.


Winter _Warlock_, not Wizard (although I have to ask (and this shows up in Harry Potter, as well): what's the difference between a Wizard and a Warlock? I have always viewed a Warlock as a male witch (at least that is the impression I got from Bewitched), but in HP, JK Rowling uses both Wizard and Warlock. However, Harry is never called a warlock, only a wizard. It's always like "Two warlocks were sitting at the bar" )



The abominable snowman (aka: Bumble) is the one that got his teeth pulled by Hermie, the elf who wanted to be a dentist. Questions remain about Hermie.

Oh come one, let's not jump to conclusions! He's just a little Elfin Metrosexual. Doesn't mean anything.

Polite little guy, too. Even apologized for sitting on someone else's snowbank.

BTW, speaking of Hermie and Rudolph, does anyone know when/where/why they have replaced the song, "Fame and Fortune" with "We're a Couple of Misfits"? It's pretty much the same scene, but the song has been changed (and it doesn't match up with the animation mouths any more). Fame and Fortune went

"Fame and Fortune
Fame and Fortune
We're off to seek them now"

Now it's a duet of "Misfits", including the verse

"We might be different from the rest
Who decides the test?"

Fame and Fortune made a lot more sense in light of them getting together with the prospector, Yukon Cornelius.

(I really gotta get a life - analyzing the story of Rudolph?)

[PrincessIneffabelle]

BTW, speaking of Hermie and Rudolph, does anyone know when/where/why they have replaced the song, "Fame and Fortune" with "We're a Couple of Misfits"? It's pretty much the same scene, but the song has been changed (and it doesn't match up with the animation mouths any more).

Fame and Fortune made a lot more sense in light of them getting together with the prospector, Yukon Cornelius.

(I really gotta get a life - analyzing the story of Rudolph?)
Well, here's the spectaculary mundane answer:

"Also in 1965, sponsor General Electric insisted on replacing the song 'We're a Couple of Misfits' with 'Fame and Fortune', a change that lasted until 1998, when 'Misfits' was put back in." --IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058536/trivia)

(Now I really gotta get a life - answering someone who's analyzing the story of Rudolph!)

[rdaneel]

what's the difference between a Wizard and a Warlock? I have always viewed a Warlock as a male witch (at least that is the impression I got from Bewitched), but in HP, JK Rowling uses both Wizard and Warlock. However, Harry is never called a warlock, only a wizard. It's always like "Two warlocks were sitting at the bar" )Wizards specialize in single target damage and Warlocks are more area of effect. :p

Anyways, I think Warlocks are more associated with Black magic, while Wizards are usually White magic. There is some crossover, and I don't recall if the Harry Potter series ever made the distinction, but usually in stories that have both, Warlocks are portrayed as the evil opposite of Wizards

[Autolite]

In the movie it is the humorless "atheist" who causes all the trouble. "If you can't see, hear or feel something, it doesn't exist!" she sneers.

I thought that the movie did give somewhat of a nod to "faith" but it was very subtle. Not really propaganda as, as already mentioned, it is established at the beginning of the movie that the "Whos" do in fact exist. They are physically there.

All in all I thought it was an excellent film. I was amazed that there were even gag lines directed at the fifty plus folks. Good movie...

[Rrose Selavy]

We had them in my school in the Uk in the 70s. I never liked the Seuss books either - I thought at the time they were some kind of heavy "American" moralistic humour that I really didn't understand. Like Nietzsche for five year olds. They might as well have been in a foreign language and for the most part, were, and too quirky for me. I loved and grew up on American comic books but Seuss was too idiosyncratic , I couldn't identify with any of the characters and even the illustrations didn't appeal, I loved cats but what sort of "cat" was that?

I only remember one "joke".
What's big, red and eats rocks?

A big, red rock eater.


Says it all.......

[Almo]

I hope I don't offend anyone by saying this - but, personally, I always found Dr Suess cartoons to be, well... frightening when I was a child. Even as an adult they still creep me out. I think they border on the kind of 'grotesque' I find uncomfortable - like clowns.

Find "The Secret Art of Dr. Seuss." It has a lot of his "other" artwork. I think you will find that stuff quite a bit creepier. I love that book. I particularly like this one: The Economic Situation Clarified (http://www.tvhgallery.com.au/large_image.cfm?artwork_code=H30004&artist_name=Seuss%2C%20Dr%2E&CFID=627939&CFTOKEN=35840983). Note how the pattern sort of falls apart in the upper right, and we see the one bird noticing he's changed direction.

Oh yeah: I love the Fox in Socks.

[DeVega]

Thanks Almo - I'll order it from the local library if I can.

Interesting metaphorical pic there - darkly witty really...

[athon]

I thought the very same thing myself, to be honest. I loved the movie but felt the kangaroo's cynicism combined with the 'if you can't see it and don't hear it, it's not real' was an attempt to make strawmen of skeptics and atheists.

Yet, I think it could be a great film to show kids in a science class. The message is useful - evidence was provided in the end that the new phenomena could be observed. It could provoke some great discussion. I half wish I was still teaching just to show it and make up a worksheet for it.

While I do feel there was an obvious agenda in the story, it could be a perfect tool to show how science works.

Athon

[Tricky]

I pretty much grew up on a diet of Dr. Seuss books and I fondly remember Horton Hears a Who. The only message I can remember getting out of it was to have respect for others regardless of their physical appearance. I won't claim that Geisel didn't have other messages, but I was a kid, and not much into subtext.

For the movie, though, they had to take a children's book that takes all of ten minutes to read and turn it into over an hour of movie. As such, they inserted all kinds of stuff. All the business about "The Mayor of Whoville" was completely new. The role of the vulture was expanded far beyond its original line or two. In the book, the small kangaroo in the pouch (who said "Me too!") was just as snooty as its mother, not secretly supportive of Horton. The kid who said "yop" was not in the story until the last minute. And of course, one of the weak points was that in the movie, everybody in Whoville could hear Horton (and why not?). The whole "only the mayor can hear him" thing was too contrived even for a kid's movie.

But these days, kid's movies have to have plots that will interest adults as well. There were lots of little cultural references. One I found funny was when the kangaroo (played wonderfully evilly by Carol Burnett) said, something like "What are they teaching kids in school these days? Thank goodness you're pouch-schooled".

If you're looking to take offense, why not by the fact that Whoville is such a sexist society. With 86 (or whatever number) daughters, the Mayor is mostly concerned with his one son. Why couldn't one of his daughters become the Mayor of Whoville after him?

And one more thing that annoys me even in movies I like a lot, like Chicken Run. What is the deal with giving birds teeth? I don't have the books in front of me, but I don't recall Dr. Seuss doing this.

[Gevaudan]

And one more thing that annoys me even in movies I like a lot, like Chicken Run. What is the deal with giving birds teeth? I don't have the books in front of me, but I don't recall Dr. Seuss doing this.

Speaking as someone who's done some animation, it's very difficult to make the shape of the mouth "read" correctly without teeth. Check out Stuart Little 2 to see an example of this - the bird's beak is toothless and has a weird, disturbing rubbery quality. You'll also notice that when non-human animals in photorealistic animation have to speak, the animation always looks better when the animal has a short muzzle - a flat-faced Persian cat looks more natural speaking than a long-snouted dog - and when a talking fantasy character is created whole cloth, like Draco in Dragonheart, they're often given shorter faces for just this nreason.

[Tricky]

Speaking as someone who's done some animation, it's very difficult to make the shape of the mouth "read" correctly without teeth. Check out Stuart Little 2 to see an example of this - the bird's beak is toothless and has a weird, disturbing rubbery quality. You'll also notice that when non-human animals in photorealistic animation have to speak, the animation always looks better when the animal has a short muzzle - a flat-faced Persian cat looks more natural speaking than a long-snouted dog - and when a talking fantasy character is created whole cloth, like Draco in Dragonheart, they're often given shorter faces for just this nreason.
You're right, of course, I just hate to have my favorite characters messed with. They hardly look like the same critter.

[Glen.Nogami]

Also worth checking out is Dr. Seuss Goes To War . It covers a bunch of editorial cartoons that he did during WWII. The art is a fascinating little detour, at least for people me who have only seen his style in his children's books. Kind of odd to see an author so well-known for "celebrations of difference" producing stuff like this (http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/axis-conquers-philippines-7.jpg). Exigencies of war and whatnot. Anyway, definitely worth a look-see.

[Tricky]

Also worth checking out is Dr. Seuss Goes To War . It covers a bunch of editorial cartoons that he did during WWII. The art is a fascinating little detour, at least for people me who have only seen his style in his children's books. Kind of odd to see an author so well-known for "celebrations of difference" producing stuff like this (http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/axis-conquers-philippines-7.jpg). Exigencies of war and whatnot. Anyway, definitely worth a look-see.
Also check out The Tough Coughs as he Ploughs the Dough (http://www.amazon.com/Tough-Coughs-As-Ploughs-Dough/dp/0688065481), a collection of his early, pre-Cat-in-the-Hat absurdist writings. He was kind of the Gary Larsen of his day.