So, as most of you in class on Wednesday remember, I was very vocal in my objections to the movie adaptation of the classic children's book. I still hold by my opinion that there was not nearly enough material in the original story to warrant a 90-minute-ish movie. In addition, it takes a lot away from the magic of the original to explain through pseudo-science why the weather is expressed in food. I also think that it completely changes the context of the story to attribute all of the disasters to human/machine error.
But, I think that my biggest bone to pick with this movie is the pseudo-science which feeds into the misconceptions people have about microwaves and how they cook food. Yes, microwaves are a kind of radiation because they are electromagnetic waves. No, they are not the kind of radiation that mutates your food and changes molecular structure. This is why people believe that microwaved food is cancer-causing. But, what the microwaves actually do is excite water molecules in the food, causing friction. And any grade-schooler can tell you that friction causes heat.
Lastly, what is with all of the "stupid" humor in that movie? Is this really what we are reducing the next generation to? How does America intend to improve the education of the youth or even compete with other nations if we allow for such nonsense to continue? "Steve." Really? Way to raise the bar.
Alright, my ranting is over. Feel free to comment and to refute my claims.
This is pretty surprising to me, as I really appreciated this film. Granted, I barely remember the original book, and I didn't interpret the pseudo-science as a critique on microwaving as much as a metaphor for technology, but I think the film is undoubtedly deep for a children's film. In fact, I would go so far as to say that this is the deepest American children's film that I have ever seen.
ReplyDeleteI found it to comment on so many levels of postmodern society, from rampant media consumerism at the expense of individuality to the exploitation of technology. From the opening scene, we see Flint as a child daring to be different and having to face estrangement from his classmates for being himself, an individual. We meet Sam, an intelligent woman who has long since sacrificed her own passions and personality for fear of standing out in society. Though Flint continues to pursue his love of inventing, he too loses sight of why he fell in love with it in the first place. Instead of actively continuing his impetuous creations, he begins tendentiously appeasing the masses with his overworked food machine; he'd rather be accepted than be happy. These characters, like us, become incapable of seeing themselves as they naturally are, but rather only through the eyes of society. Like Brent, who literally cries out "Who am I!?" when the town no longer placates his infantile persona, they constantly need the approval of their surroundings in order to assure themselves that they're "normal" or "fit" rather than embracing their individuality and the intricacies that make us all different from one another.
I personally viewed the food machine as a metaphor for technology. It propagates at an uncontrollable pace, is constantly being capitalized on (ie the mayor), makes everything "bigger, easier, faster," while destroying small markets and familial relations. I found it very clever that other areas of technology were mocked as well, especially the succinctly genius youtube video of the cat dancing to Public Enemy's "Fight the Power," a song that is powerful and meaningful in its intentions but trivialized to a stupid garble of meaningless drivel. How familiar are such surface level judgments on substantive arts today?
But what I appreciated most about Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs was that it wasn't completely unilateral on its take of technology. It doesn't suggest that technology is innately bad at all, but rather that we must make concerned efforts in using it to enhance our own creativities rather than to inhibit them (which again are what help make us unique). Consider the elaborate jello theatre that Flint makes for Sam with his own technology; it is not a coincidence that the only time he uses his machine to actually be creative and invent something again is also the time that he finally wins Sam's heart. And what about the email that his father sends to him to save the world? Or his monkey brain reading device that enables his father to finally express his love to his child? These are all tremendous symbols of critique, claiming that technology can help us just as much as it can hurt us, thus it must be respected. It is so rare that a film not only criticizes something as universally important as this, but also offers a genuine solution or alternative, let alone doing it dramatically and subtly. And it's a children's movie!?
I don't know, I loved it.
It’s interesting to see the different takes on this film. Elizabeth: the pseudo-science of microwaves. James: technology. I saw the “weather as food” more as an allegory for the human race’s abusive exploitation of the earth’s resources. Technology does play a role because the abuse often occurs in the name of technology. And we also expect technology to bail us out in the future.
ReplyDeleteOur most basic human function is consuming food for survival. As we originally hunted and gathered for our food, it has now evolved to a complex global economic system of trade and currency. What better way to represent our abuse of the earth than through the use of food—which is really what every action that every human performs is ultimately motivated by.
The glaring difference between the book and the film is the role that humans play-- they are a cause of the disaster in the film. Elizabeth brings up a valid point that there was not enough material in the book to warrant a 90 minute film, but I would say close to 100% of adaptations either have too much or too little material—never just the right amount. Rather than looking at the faithfulness of the filmmakers’ adaptation to the book, we can look at the message they are trying to convey: Humans’ overconsumption will be a cause of the earth’s disasters unless we change our ways. We have a tendency to sweep things under the rug until we’re forced to face the problem at an unmanageable level, a la the “Out of Sighter.” Ironically, the book conveys a different message: Disaster will strike anyway—we can just move away from the problem. I think the left can promote the film, while the right promotes the book.