"Dr. Seuss" Movies, Part One

"Dr. Seuss" Movies

by Micah J. Duckless

"We can...and we must...do better than this."

-Theodor Seuss Geisel

Some people like these movies; The Grinch (2000), The Cat in the Hat (2003), Horton Hears a Who (2008), and The Lorax (2012), and that's fine. Everybody likes different things for various reasons. This is not a judgment of any kind, but an explanation as to why the only thing these movies have in common with the books, I feel, is the fact they bear the name 'Dr. Seuss'. Forgive any anger, as I'm sure some will come through. Mostly for comic effect, but when Hollywood shits on real artists, real anger can occur.

This is mostly a response to the fact that Dr. Seuss, a hero of mine, has had his work misrepresented in film, a favorite medium of mine, for nearly 15 years. Dr. Seuss taught me, in part, to read, that imagination needs no limits, and that authority needs to be challenged once in awhile as long as you're willing to deal with the consequences. He also taught us that the world is exciting and wonderful and though it has some darkness and disappointments to not let that weigh you down. Though he is known for writing for children, this is somewhat inaccurate. Other than the Beginner Books, he said that he wrote and drew, not only for people in general, but mostly what he wanted to see.

Seuss' books usually come with a lesson. His commentary on Hitler or Mussolini in Yertle the Turtle, or on over-materialism in How the Grinch Stole Christmas. Teaching us things like being environmentally aware through The Lorax or the importance of tolerance with The Sneetches. It was a characteristic about his writing that was as important as his rhymes.

How many people did he inspire? How many children's books would never have been written if Seuss didn't do what he did? John Lithgow apparently writes kids books, and he's certain that that never would have happened without Dr. Seuss being read to him at the age of 5. Just because certain books or movies are for kids doesn't mean when creating or adapting those works you should take that halfheartedly.

My anger towards adult Seuss movie viewers is heightened for effect because, they probably don't analyze movies the way casual movie-goers usually don't. Though this does not excuse these people outright if they are, indeed, familiar with Seuss' work before the films. Because it's not subtle, how much these movies shit on Seuss.

I'm also sick of people saying things like, "They're just kids movies, don't take it so seriously." But that's my point, these movies are for kids. Kids minds need to be challenged, not pandered to. Giving them mind-numbing nothingness like The Lorax movie or Cars shows that you don't take them seriously as little people with brains that need to exercised and developed.

I watched plenty of movies that I loved as a kid but didn't fully understand until years later. Which, of course, is half the fun of some films, regardless of one's age. Walking away from a movie that makes you think, whether it's an adult pondering the black monoliths in 2001: A Space Odyssey or a child curious about why The Secret of Nymh is so damned captivating, can be very rewarding.

This type of experience allows the individual to interpret the movie in their own unique way, often finding elements to the film that may be overlooked by others. This can make the same film mean very different things to different people.

Tell me you knew exactly what was going on the first time, as an adult, you watched Donnie Darko or The Shining. Just because people may not 'get it' right away doesn't mean we should dumb everything down so that it would be impossible for the slowest of the slow not to understand.

Some films are more about discovery, which can create a unique form of entertainment. Film can help people by creating an emotional response in the audience about a fictional setting/character that is an actual reflection of real life, no matter how romanticized. Whether or not you realize it, many movies serve a useful purpose and can provide life lessons. Like the Nostalgia Critic states, saying movies are simply an 'escape' can be highly inaccurate. But I digress.

I don't honestly know where the line between Humorous Anger and True Anger is when I think about idiot parents letting their kids not discover the real Dr. Seuss before inevitably watching those shit films with friends. As I mentioned I can kind of understand non-kids liking, maybe, one of the Seuss movies but that's mostly because they know Seuss and, most likely, grew up with him. But to introduce little developing brains to the empty-headed FUCK that are the Seuss movies? If anyone does that then they haven't actually thought about what Dr. Seuss' work really means, or at least, not as an adult.

Read a couple short essays about him by other authors, many great ones found in Your Favorite Seuss, like Lithgow's. Rediscover your favorite books or animated specials and see how they strike you now, as an adult. Any work of fiction changes over time because when we revisit them throughout Life we have changed, certain aspects about our character have fallen away while others remained or have expanded.

It's like how the same work of fiction can mean various things to separate individuals. People sometimes have changed enough at various points in life that when revisiting favorite works they view them in new ways or discover things previously unnoticed. Some people may change more than others but no matter how little, it still happens. We react to the world as we continue to experience it, in doing this we form opinions, reevaluate beliefs and, hopefully, continue to grow as a human being. No, seriously, I am talking about human beings. From Earth. Stop laughing.

Anyway, after reading real Seuss, sit down and watch the contrived, advertising vehicles that are the movies. Need I say this again? THEY HAD THE LORAX ADVERTISING FOR MAZDA! If that alone doesn't smack you in the face and make you realize that they missed everything that the The Lorax was about, then I don't know what could! I mean, did you even read that book? Maybe I take this too personally, but not without good reason.

Save the Lorax

An 11-ish minute book adapted to a 22 minute animation special and eventually, unfortunately, to 90 plus minutes of film. Yet somehow only retaining two rhymes? So far, we're not doing too great. Where to begin but randomly in the middle. The core of the moral, the part of the story that shows how industrialization affects the environment.

The animated special, technically more fleshed out than the book and by Dr. Seuss no less, has the scenes showing what happens to the Truffula forest, the Hummingfish, the Swomee Swans, and the Bar-ba-loots, suits and all, last about 16 out of the 22 minute running time. That's roughly 60 percent. (ref. Nostalgia Chick for the math) The movie? LESS THAN LITERALLY 4 PERCENT!! They shove all of that into the same moment, but why? To make room for the coming HILARITY, of course! Not to mention pop song after pop song!!

The Once'ler...oh, you poor character. The faceless villain that exists in The Lorax, the one that is not supposed to be defined but ambiguous, representing the larger faceless corporations? Oh, he's just a congenial, face-having, guitar playing, goofy kinda guy! Weird, sounds a lot like Ed Helms, I mean, it just seems so close. Think about it, Helms also has a face...

Of course he played the Once'ler, but why do animated characters, when played by a known celebrity now, almost always reflect the exact personality of that celebrity?! Also, there's a "real" villain too. So over-the-top and unrelatable that no lesson can be derived from him! HE SINGS THE SONG "LET IT DIE"!! HOW MANY VILLAINS ARE EVIL.....JUST BECAUSE!!? Why, only the best written ones, of course!

Why would anyone want to learn about a character who perhaps had good intentions once but made the wrong choices? Or someone who maybe wasn't a horrible person but through various influences, or even being purposefully misguided, ends up on the wrong side? Through this we could possibly have some small amount of sympathy for them. But, who would want the audience to FEEL something??

There is clearly no point to well-developed characters that create emotional connections with the viewer, making them memorable in the slightest! I want simple, two-dimensional characters, ON THE OFF-CHANCE A MORE COMPLEX ONE MAKES ME THINK FOR A MOMENT, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THINKY-PAIN!!

The rest of the film is a fucking bromance for DeVito and Helms, and I admit, some parts are funny BUT THE LORAX IS NOT A FUCKING COMEDY! Though Seuss' books/animations had obvious humor and wit, that was not the entire point.

As The Nostalgia Chick (not Critic), pointed out; They already made The Lorax, and it was called Wall-E. Only among many problems The Lorax has, it's climax may be the worst. They have to rush to get to the center of the town to plant the last seed because...Trees are cool? There are no stakes, nothing is on the line.

Do the townsfolk despise having to buy air? Not really. Is there any immediate danger from continuing to not have trees? Nope. IS ANYTHING ON THE LINE?? Oh, yeah. Zac Efron's under-developed character wants to impress Taylor Swift's equally under-developed character. Got me on the edge of my seat there, movie.

But in the end of Wall-E they have to rush to get back to Earth. Why? Are the humans in danger on their Space Liner? No. Is the Earth in immediate danger from not having viable plant life? Certainly not. But our hero, Wall-E, is dying and the only means to repair him exists on Earth. This keeps you invested because you care for that little robot. Not just because Taylor Swift and Zac Efron like trees!!

Ok, the movie is more shit than not, but maybe the message might end up being clear, right? It's easy enough; The environment needs us to care. As the good Doctor himself said in 1991, addressing the children of America, "We can...and we must...do better than this." He then crossed out 'the children of'. Granted, he was most likely referring to many things about the current state of affairs, but considering The Lorax was his favorite book, I doubt that environmental aspects were far from his mind.

Great, 'go green', let's center the movie around that! With...having over 60 corporate tie-ins with the Lorax's image to be shoved on? Sugar-covered pancake specials (for the kids!), diapers (good thing Americans don't throw away over 3.2 million tons of those every year...yeah, they totally do), Whole Foods, and countless Seventh Generation products. Now, some of that isn't so bad, the last one mostly. Well, comparatively.

Unless, maybe it wasn't so much about making people aware of 'greener' products but about whoring out Dr. Seuss' character. And we can be sure that it wasn't about teaching the kids but about making that money when a SUV commercial has the 'Truffula Tree Seal of Approval' on it!! If you were unaware of this or forgot, then after reading that, your inner chest should now feel something like John Hurt's did moments before he had a chest-burster erupt from his torso. It's plain to see that the Lorax, who once spoke for the trees, now speaks for corporations filled only with sleaze.

By the way, that Mazda isn't even a hybrid. It's a 'fuel-efficient' model that gets 35 gallons to the mile. Ok, now I'm SURE that the studio is taking a piss, or winding us up, as the British say. One Mazda rep was quoted as saying, "[The Mazda CX-5 is] the kind of car we think the Lorax would want to drive." This was at a school event, with the Lorax handing out hugs and encouraging the kids to have their parents test drive the new SUV.

First off, if you have EVER read the Lorax and saw a car commercial with his approving face and didn't have some type of, at least, quiet outrage, then you fuckin missed the point of Seuss. You may want to go back and reread some stuff, BECAUSE IT WASN'T ALL ABOUT FUN DRAWINGS AND FUNNY WORDS, YOU THOUGHTLESS PIECES OF SHIT!! IF YOU CAN SHRUG OFF THE FACT THEY HAD KINDERGARTEN AGE CHILDREN BEING COAXED INTO WANTING THEIR PARENTS TO BUY THIS CAR AND BY THE LORAX!!!!......

I'm sorry, is Smokey the Bear now an arsonist? Did McGruff the Crime Dog become a murdering crackhead? Does Santa Claus now abuse children? Is SpongeBob now a rapist? No? THEN LEAVE SEUSS ALONE!!!

It's not even that someone made these movies, a lot of horrible films are made and that's life. It's the fact that people made these movies successful, by repeatedly buying tickets for themselves and family members, without enough of them saying afterward, "That wasn't Dr. Seuss."

This rage, of course, is only directed at anyone reading this and these Facts about the movie and still think, "It was an OK representation of the book/animated special." I hope those people die, horribly. In front of the children that they brought to the theater to see this pile of bullshit before ever reading one of the actual books to them. Honestly, fuck it!

Even in one of the four pro-corporate song numbers it shows the Thneed billboard bearing the Lorax Approved symbol. But...wait, this is in the middle of showing that corporate greed is no good deed and that no one really needs a Thneed. They have a satire of what the advertisers did for the actual movie, within the movie itself? Is that what that is? How could it be?

Did some artist realize what the movie was all too late and decided to put in a subtle criticism that no one in charge would pick up on? Or was it a subtle gesture on the studios part, rubbing this film in the faces of everyone who knows how much they shit on a great book and even better animated adaption?

"We realize you Seussians that know what's-what,

Hate this film and are going quite nuts.

So, here's to the fact you're right, the fact that it's true.

But with idiots buying tickets, there's nothing you can do."

I think the 'Suits' rhyming is because that's how they were written in the Nostalgia Critic's Cat in the Hat review and it's a nice irony considering how much actual rhyming is in these movies. Let's call that a reference.

Like every Seuss book, The Lorax had a real message, inventive images/ worlds and Dr. Seuss' words, though made up, he would somehow incorporate organically.

This movie, along with the others, suffer from pandering to every possible demographic and altering important aspects of the original stories to appeal to the wider audience. In doing this they show the discerning viewer, or any fan of Seuss that can also think for themselves, that the filmmakers respected only the marketability of the name Dr. Seuss and nothing else.