Wall-E Preview, cirica 1909
Introductory note: Hello, American Scene readers. I’m this David Robinson, not this one or this one. I work at the Center for Information Technology Policy and sometimes blog at Freedom to Tinker. With Reihan’s kind encouragement, I’ll be giving TAS a shot. Comments welcome…
To follow up on Peter’s post, with something a little different: On Friday night, I too went to see the incontrovertibly adorable new film Wall-E. I started out skeptical—the opening scenes suggested we were in for a buddy movie about the adventures of a trash compactor and cockroach—but was, like basically everyone else, won over by the anthropic charm of its computer-generated, profoundly humane robots.
Ultimately, these robots find their way to a starship containing the remainder of the human race. These people—our imagined descendants—are pampered and infantilized by a ship that takes care of them, caters to their every need, and seems to reduce their existence to hovering around in futuristic floating barcaloungers that can barely contain their uniformly morbid obesity. The ship’s inhabitants appear to direct all communication through the videophone, even when (as in an early vignette in the film) the two parties to a conversation happen to be right next to each other.
These scenes are powerfully reminiscent of The Machine Stops, a 1909 science fiction story by E. M. Forster. It describes a world where people live underground and have lost their ability to care for themselves, relying entirely on a Machine whose workings remain opaque to them but which they treat as a deity. They are obese; they communicate by videoconferencing; they have no sense of their physical surroundings; and they are generally helpless and pathetic. I would wager that some familiarity with this story was deliberately cooked into the Wall-E screenplay.
It struck me as food for thought, particularly given the beautiful new movie theater in which I happened to be watching the film: extra wide seats that made the armrest inconveniently far apart, and large in-arm holders for giant soda cups. The helpless whale-like humans on screen—constantly consuming whatever caloric treat the movie’s Wal-Mart like “Buy ‘n Large” conglomerate had to offer—seemed to be an implicit commentary on the increasing scale of actual Americans. But, as Bill pointed out afterward, the criticism was deftly tempered: by the movie’s end, we’re told that long-term acclimation to reduced gravity is the real reason for this generate state. It lets the filmmakers have their cake and eat it to: Sending an obvious signal of disapproval about our expanding national waistline, under the cover of an exploration of the second-order effects of a high tech future in outer space.
“It describes a world where people live underground and have lost their ability to care for themselves, relying entirely on a Machine whose workings remain opaque to them but which they treat as a deity. They are obese; they communicate by videoconferencing; they have no sense of their physical surroundings; and they are generally helpless and pathetic.”
Egad—it’s a perfect description of my husband’s workplace! If it weren’t for coffee breaks and visits to the gym at lunch, these poor video game developers would never see the light of day.
— Joules · Jul 1, 12:14 AM · #
I have a memory of reading such a story, in a small-press-style collection of stories about robots, something like four years ago.
Haven’t seen the movie so can’t comment but I remember the story as being quite satisfyingly absorbing. I expect your guess is quite likely.
In any event, your report on the inflated environment was deft. Well observed, in both senses.
Thanks.
— felix culpa · Jul 1, 02:28 AM · #
David — I thought the bit about gravity causing bone thinning was ambiguous. On one hand, lower gravity actually would cause weaker bone structures after 700 years. On the other, it seems plausible that that 1) gravity would be an additional cause, a supplement to rather than a replacement for over-consumption or 2) the computer could’ve been programmed to gloss over the truth so as not to make the humans uncomfortable, as providing material comfort and mental distraction seem to have been the ship’s primary directives.
There’s also a potential connection here to Asimov’s Spacers from his robot books. They were humans who’d moved away from a cramped, overcrowded Earth to other planets and tended to live alone, served by armies of robots, communicating with others only through a holographic interface.
— Peter Suderman · Jul 1, 09:13 AM · #
Careful, David— that almost is criticism at the end of your post. Criticizing a Pixar movie will get your Internet movie critic card pulled.
— Freddie · Jul 1, 10:19 AM · #
Freddie: and you call yourself an Obama voter?
Seriously: the critics were willing to say negative things about Finding Nemo and, especially, Cars. I, myself, thought Monsters, Inc was overpraised. But it just happens to be the case that Pixar’s movies are, generally, much, much better than the competition. Are you really going to prefer Antz to A Bug’s Life? Flushed Away to Ratatouille? Shark Tale to Finding Nemo? Shrek to Toy Story? Kung Fu Panda to The Incredibles?
People remember Tennessee Williams saying that Titus Andronicus was his favorite Shakespeare play, but they don’t remember it for being right.
— Noah Millman · Jul 1, 10:59 AM · #
Noah, in all seriousness: I will take Antz, which is not by any means superb, but is a reasonably clever marriage of Woody Allen’s shtick with the conventions of the animated family-movie, over A Bug’s Life, which is Pixar’s only seriously flawed film (except maybe Cars, which I haven’t seen) any day. But again, this may be a product of the whole reflexively contrarian thing.
— Peter Suderman · Jul 1, 11:11 AM · #
But again, this may be a product of the whole reflexively contrarian thing.
Indeed! You know I’m not to be trusted, Noah. Luckily my dislike for Pixar (and Apple) are less important, I guess, than contrarianism re: serious policy divisions. Anyway it’s just my taste, and I’m probably wrong as often as not when it comes to movies.
Except for The Incredibles. Lord, how I dislike that movie. Brad Bird can take his copy of the Fountainhead and buzz off.
— Freddie · Jul 1, 11:18 AM · #
my dislike for Pixar (and Apple)
Can we ban Freddie now?
— Alan Jacobs · Jul 1, 12:02 PM · #
Pixar and Apple I can handle. But The Incredibles — the most important, possibly the best, movie of the decade? Now that, I say, is too far!
— Peter Suderman · Jul 1, 12:31 PM · #
But Freddie: the supermen can only triumph if they work together. You might even say, collectively.
Peter: I can’t agree with you. A Bug’s Life was by no means the most beautiful, or the most creative, or the most profound, or the best-voiced of Pixar’s offerings. But I’ve probably watched it two dozen times with Moses, and it never made me cringe. By contrast, I found Antz spectacularly awful. Not to mention it’s yet another Dreamworks kiddie flick with a bafflingly inappropriate Holocaust subtext (pet peeve, I know).
— Noah Millman · Jul 1, 01:21 PM · #
Apologies, everyone, for the lack of replies — I thought I had posted one earlier but it now seems that it didn’t go through. Reconstructing:
Peter — You make a good point, and I hadn’t thought of it. The movie does ultimately equivocate about the responsibility of the starship’s inhabitants for their own state. Maybe the equivocation carries over: it’s debatable how much responsibility today’s obese people have for their condition, which in at least some cases has an important genetic element.
— David Robinson · Jul 1, 06:04 PM · #
David, I used to live in Princeton and I loved their community library. Do you ever visit?
I went to Princeton High for 9th grade and had a crush on this guy who ruled the drama department. I forgot all about him, but decades later I discovered he’d become a professional actor (Jon Tenney).
— Joules · Jul 1, 08:44 PM · #
Are you really going to prefer Antz to A Bug’s Life? Flushed Away to Ratatouille? Shark Tale to Finding Nemo? Shrek to Toy Story? Kung Fu Panda to The Incredibles?
Not to mention to any comparable big-budget live-action superhero movies, comedies, or family stories. I have the same Fountainhead qualm that Freddie does, but Pixar is leagues ahead of most of Hollywood when it comes to simple storytelling ability.
— Wrongshore · Jul 2, 03:50 PM · #
I thought the business about the “bone loss” was clearly meant as a joke. Remember, that bit of information comes from the corporate mogul Fred Willard character who have an interest in not calling his customers fat slobs. I took it as a rationalization designed to make people feel OK about their size.
— Simon Crowe · Jul 2, 08:48 PM · #
Note also re: “bone loss” that the captains in the portraits get fatter and fatter. It’s not like microgravity got any more micro over 700 years. The progression of those portraits is a clear shorthand for cultural decay. Note also that Auto gets bigger and bigger in each portrait, moving closer to the foreground as the captains become presumably have less and less control, leading up to the infantilized current one.
— Trevor · Jul 6, 12:49 AM · #