So, it’s no secret that I’m a huge fan of The Lorax by Dr. Seuss. So, naturally, when Universal released an animated adaptation, I HAD to go see it.
Synopsis: Ted, a 12-year old lovestruck boy, lives in Thneedville, a walled city with no “nature” to be found. Spurred on by his desire to present his crush, Audrey, with a real, live tree, Ted follows his grandmother’s advice and visits the Once-ler. On the far end of town where the grickle-grass grows, the Once-ler tells Ted about a time when the sky was still clean and Truffula trees grew all over. Ted also learns about the Lorax, what his word - “unless” - meant, and how the courage of one young man can save the trees.
Rating: 10 out of 10
Discussion Points: I do not think I can express how much I loved this movie. I’ll admit that I was a little apprehensive going into the film. After all, The Lorax is one of my favorite books, so I was sure I would find fault with a ton of things. Thankfully, that was definitely not the case.
The thing that I enjoyed the most about the adaptation is the way they mirrored the language of the book. Obviously, sticking strictly to the format of the book would be too limiting, and would have boxed the film in to a voice-over narration style. However, as someone intimately familiar with the source material, I really appreciated the throwbacks they added in for those of us who have the book memorized. There were the obvious bits, of course, that almost had to be included, such as the Lorax introducing himself with “I am the Lorax; I speak for the trees,” and most of the language surrounding the “unless” was spot on.
More subtly, and therefore of greater interest to me, were the veiled references obviously placed in the movie for viewers more familiar with the book. One of my favorites was Audrey’s description of the Truffula trees. While she didn’t quote the book verbatim, she mentions the tufts of the trees being softer than silk and that they smelled like fresh butterfly milk, both taken directly from the language of the novel. Even more obtuse (and perhaps unintentional) were the signs advertising tomatoes for $3.98 - the price the Once-ler sold his first Thneed for in the book - for townspeople to throw at the Once-ler.
To me, mirroring the language of the book was incredibly important for making this a successful adaptation. I’m of the opinion that the fine folks that adapt books for film can rarely say something better than the author already has - after all, that’s why so much of the language in the Harry Potter films is taken directly from the novels. In the case of The Lorax, there isn’t much dialogue written directly into the book, at least not in a way that is easily conveyed to a film’s audience. I think borrowing some of the book’s language for use in the film helps the filmmakers stay truer to the source material, and I think it really helped the adaptation.
Another thing I really loved about the film is something they altered slightly from the source material. In the book, the reader never sees the Once-ler’s face - mostly, you just see his arms, which are green and sort of furry. Whether the Once-ler is a human is never explicitly stated in the book, but since humans aren’t typically furred in green, the conclusion is reached that the Once-ler isn’t human. However, the filmmakers chose to depict the Once-ler as completely human. In other words, he’s just like us.
I think making the Once-ler just another guy us incredibly significant and has a positive impact on the message the film sends. At work, one of our elementary programs uses The Lorax to talk about pollution and what kids can do to make a difference. In discussing the book, we always talk about whether the Once-ler was a bad person, or just an average person that made a series of bad choices. I think it’s so important for kids to realize that making a bad choice doesn’t make you a bad person. We, like the Once-ler, have the capacity to feel remorse and do something to change our actions - which is exactly what the Once-ler does by giving Ted the last Truffula seed.
It would be far too easy to depict the Once-ler as a greedy, nature-hating monster. And, in the 1970s when Dr. Seuss was writing The Lorax, that was the propaganda going around. Anti-environmentalist were seen as monsters. Now, times have changed, and the emphasis isn’t on vilianizing someone like the Once-ler. I think the filmmakers were wise to clearly point out that the Once-ler wasn’t a monster. This choice really underscores the idea that there’s always a way back, no matter how big of a mistake you’ve made - redemption is always possible.
Besides, it’s pretty obvious that the Once-ler wasn’t the bad guy in the grand scheme of things. Sure, his poor choices led to the state of things in Thneedville at the start of the film, but the real bad guy here is O’Hare, the enterprising capitalist determined to keep nature (and independent thought, a free market system, etc) out of Thneedville. Compared to the Once-ler, O’Hare is a monster. He is unapologetically determined to keep Ted from bringing Truffula trees back to Thneedville, lest they make his product (bottled oxygen) obsolete. Even when Ted and Audrey (and Grammie Norma) defeat O’Hare at the film’s climax, it’s clear that O’Hare isn’t remorseful - except, of course, that his plot to rule the town was foiled. Whereas the Once-ler is a multilayered, complex character that experiences significant change due to the action of the story, O’Hare is a one-note, handlebar mustache twirling, bad guy.
But, you know, that’s okay. O’Hare doesn’t have to be a complex character, because it’s not about him. We don’t need to see O’Hare reach some catharsis and grasp hold of the desire for change, because to the audience, O’Hare simply represents all that’s wrong with Thneedville - the materialistic, over-consumption that is so prevalent in today’s society. Of course, Thneedivlle and O’Hare take this to an extreme, but it’s to prove a point and make it blatantly obvious that the anti-nature camp are the bad guys.
In the frame story, which O’Hare is a part of, our protagonist is Ted. We want to see Ted change over the course of the film, and, for the most part, he does. We get to watch Ted come to terms with the world he lives in, and, more importantly, we see him decide to do something about it. Ted learns to stand up for what he believes is right - even if that means defying the most powerful man in town. This is the key to the Ted/O’Hare plot line. It’s not about O’Hare being the bad guy; it’s about Ted being the good guy.
Speaking of the frame story, I really like how they balanced the two interwoven plots. Again, sticking strictly to what’s covered in the book would severely limit the scope of the film, and I’m glad they chose the route they did. Rather than adding unneccessary subplots to the Once-ler’s story, the filmmakers chose to flesh out the Once-ler’s tale (in the context of what actually happens in the book) and add Ted’s frame story. It would have been easy, I think, to put too much emphasis on one or another of these plot lines, but I felt there was a nice balance between the two. The audience cares equally about the Once-ler’s background (and how Thneedville got into the mess it’s in) and what Ted is going through to restore nature in the here and now. Similarly, conservationists need not just concern themselves with what’s happening on the ground now in terms of endangered species; it’s also important to understand the history of a species or ecosystem in order to save it.
My only concern with the film is, I think, fairly nitpicky. As is often the case with animated children’s films, there were quite a few musical numbers interspersed throughout the film. Many of the songs were quite catchy, as was to be expected. However, every single one of the musical numbers was about consumerism - until the last song, “Let it Grow”. I don’t know that it should be a huge concern, and it definitely isn’t a reason to not see the film, but it sort of bothered me that kids might be walking around singing about needing Thneeds or biggering their businesses, rather than singing about Truffula trees.
Overall, though, I enjoyed this film immensely. I think they got the message spot-on, and injected so much life into the story. The film left me feeling like I could make a difference, which is exactly what should have happened. So, dear readers, I’ll leave you with what, to me, is the true meaning of The Lorax, in the words of Dr. Seuss himself: “Now that you’re here, the words of the Lorax seem perfectly clear. Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.”
Peace Out,
Slim Pearl Silver-Feather
Currently Reading: Starcrossed, by Mark Schreiber
Books Read in 2012: 9
