"Earth" for the Happy Victim of False Advertising

I'm walking a thin line here. By writing so many blogs about Disney, one might think I have some obsession. Maybe it's true, though it so happens that Disney makes quite an example of itself lately and they've just done it again.

Disney missed an important memo - Recycling is for plastic, not wildly popular nature footage already premiered as part of one of the most successful series on TV. For those of you fans of the BBC's great achievement, Planet Earth, DON'T SEE "EARTH", BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE. In a previous post I mentioned that Disney's press releases shamelessly ignored environmental sensitivity. I talked about how Disney prides themselves on a standard of morals accessible to people of all ages, and that, as a family company, Disney is liable to represent themselves with that standard of morals, putting money where its mouth is. Disney has proven even further that the main concern is money... Only a few shots of "Earth" were original shots - shots not taken from the already drooled over Planet Earth series. They took another film, changed the narration, and dropped the word "Planet" from the title. Wow.

Disney had the opportunity to do something huge. They had the chance to follow Planet Earth and really "imagineer" something historical. Well, they didn't, and they still managed to take an amazing amount of credit for another company's success. They even had the nerve to play a tribute before the film, explaining how natural footage is a heritage of theirs (which is a reference to their childhood days of parading lemmings off cliffs). No, Disney deserves no credit for re-gifting. They do, however, deserve a HUGE round of applause for one of the only original shots in the entire film...

Disney murders Bambi in slow motion. I felt: nauseous, shocked, fearful, tranquil, uproarious, rejuvenated - at the site of a cheetah chomping the neck of a small deer. When the shot begins, one would presume that the deer, despite being chased by the fastest land animal, will escape. In that moment, one might think to themselves, "Disney won't show an animal being eaten, and so the deer must escape somehow. Maybe the cheetah will trip?" As the shot continues, ever so slowly so that every detail is impactful, it becomes obvious that this deer is done for, especially when the poor thing stumbles, and tumbles, and rolls across the ground. Now, we know the cheetah has won. Fine. We're thinking, "Ok, Disney's not actually going to show the death of this deer. They'll cut the shot right about now...... ..... ...." Nope - they keep it rolling, and in slow-motion they force children to watch as the cheetah tears into flesh, and then, as it moves to the neck and sinks its teeth deep into Bambi's throat. It's not a cartoon teaching kids about death this time around, but the images of real, living, breathing animals desperate for survival - the one thing Disney gave me for my money.

Disney Markets Mother Nature (For All She’s Worth)

Disneynature: it’s like selling tickets to a funeral, or helping an old lady cross the street because she tips well.

On April 22, 2009, The Walt Disney Company will release the first of several films under its new subsidiary, Disneynature. Disney says the film, entitled, Earth, “…will take us on a tour of our home as we have never seen it before.” How many times have we heard that one?

It’s like the McDonald’s slogan, “I’m Lovin’ It!”

No, Disney’s intentions are about as green as a dollar bill. Take a look at Disneynature’s press releases, which shamelessly paint pictures of potential profits. The company cites the success of other nature films, such as Planet Earth and March of the Penguins, as motivation for entering the “market”: it wasn’t the interests of a young clownfish, Nemo, taken from his father - not the protection of a baby deer whose mother died dramatically at the hands of hunters - not the disappearance of “all the colors of the wind.” Instead, Disney chief-executive Bob Iger, described his eureka-moment in the formation of Disneynature as an attempt to copy March of the Penguins’ giant success: "After that came out, a lightbulb went off and we said that should have been a Disney film worldwide. That's part of the Disney heritage."

It’d be like if Obama used the line, “NO MORE TAXES!”

He’s right about heritage – Disney also turned to nature for ticket sales back in the 40s and 50s for the, “True-Life Adventure Series,” and even then, the company’s intentions proved questionable. For instance, the company actually staged natural scenes, as if putting on a play. Disney created the idea that lemmings commit suicide. Don’t worry, I doubt any lemmings were actually harmed in the production of the documentary, though the company purposely fabricated the morbid idea that lemmings jump of cliffs in procession. Literally – they took lemmings from Manitoba, their natural environment, and herded them off cliffs in Alberta for the sake of “documentation.” Similar to the way in which Bob Iger addressed the formation of Disneynature, Walt announced that the purpose of the company’s old-school docs, the “True-Life Adventure Series,” was to entertain, and not to educate. Apparently suicidal rodents are popcorn material!

It’s like the idea of “non-profit” oil drilling.

So, “heritage” as defined by Disney, means exploiting nature for the sake of profit, to put it simply, clearly, environmentally. The fact that Disneynature has come to be means that someone at Disney recognizes the precarious position of the natural world, and that it’s marketable. That’s fine. We get it… Hollywood is an industry. Shocking, then, that a company like Disney takes little to no precaution in exploiting the trend. Come on. We all understand the term “movie business.” Iger obviously ignores tact, and corporate identity, in the honesty of admitting financial motivations for the creation of an environmentally based subsidiary. Shouldn’t we expect Disney, manufacturer of pleasant dreams and childhood wonder, to put business aside and represent itself with exactly that fantastical attitude? And wouldn’t that work better anyway?

It’s like OJ writing and publishing a book about how he would have killed Nicole.

Look… I have nothing against entertainment. In fact, it’s what I’ll try to do for the rest for my life. There is, however, a certain liability that comes with being a powerful corporation that shapes the interests of children and adults alike. We’ve made it to the year 2009. We are struggling, truly struggling, to find a solution to our most threatening, potentially detrimental problems. The least Iger could do: “We recognize the importance of our natural world. Disneynature is our veritable attempt to become a part of the environmental discussion happening around the world.” Instead, Disney – creators of “the happiest place on Earth” - reasserts that business concerns itself with business primarily.

It’s like buying stock in the apocalypse.

That said, I can’t wait to see the films.

The Earth for Thumbsuckers

"Things have changed since Captain Planet!" I'd tell my hypothetical Grandchildren.
"In my day, you had to be a superhero to save the Earth!"

Now, kids get their dose of environmental ethics in Computer-Generated Imagery. Pixar Animation Studios makes films that traditionally appeal to and are marketed for a young audience, though the studio's box-office triumphs and strong critical reception evidence an ability to connect with people of all ages. For their popularity alone, Pixar's films are an easily pertinent cultural snap-shot that include children as part of the picture. Wall-E is particularly special. That Wall-E makes bed-wettingly serious environmental suggestions about the future points to a contemporary anxiety in our relationship with the Earth. And don't let Wall-E's charming robotic eyes distract you from an important point: though the film carries a message that warns against the big-corporation, it was released by Disney.

Wall-E opens zooming through space, giving us the sense of the vastness of our universe before calmy arriving home, on Earth. After penetrating the cloud layer we discover the shapes of what look like city skylines, and upon closer look realize the Earth is now covered in towers of compacted trash. Who could be responsible for the desolation of our home, and why? The buck stops with "Buy-N-Large," a take off the big corporation retail store. Remembering that the major demographic of this film hasn't yet had their first job, it's significant that the world's most successful animation studio (who I remind you is distributed by one of the world's largest brands) is challenging our kids with such big ideas. Hm... there must be something going on?

This film is obviously a bi-product of an expanding trend towards environmental consciousness. Hollywood has always been criticized for it's liberal agenda, but Wall-E's suggestions seem ulta-progressive in nature, to the point where some might propose it seeks to brainwash youngsters. Devin Faraci, writer of The Devin Advocate, argues that while Wall-E's message demands environmental consciousness and also some kind of social responsibility, it is ultimately void and hypocritical due to the fact that Disney has such a large role in its creation and marketing. He makes a good point, suggesting, "The truth is that Wall-E feels like a really well-made stop smoking ad starring Joe Camel."

No one can argue that the film's message is hypocritical considering that millions of Wall-E promotional products will eventually become the heaping trash pile the movie warns itself against. Still, the film's hypocrisy is what convinces me that something significant is happening here. After credits roll, the studio leaves us by repeating its harmonic "Buy-N-Large" jingle accompanying the fictional brand logo - as if to say, "Though our intentions are good, this movie is a product of the sins it preaches against." That the film is self-reflexive about it's impact and, that Disney is ok with denouncing itself, is revolutionary. While Disney certainly hasn't destroyed the future of their company, it would seem they're committing artistic suicide by marketing these ideas. Regardless of whether Wall-E is hypocritical, it marks an important historical moment in which even our largest corporations realize the impact of their reach, and actually depend on selling the idea of an alternative mindset.