The Lorax and the Problem of Bad Stories
Which unfortunately may be as bad as what the movie warns against
Just watched the Lorax movie for the first time tonight. It reminded me of why we cannot afford to keep telling bad stories.
Problem #1: None of the characters had any depth and therefore lacked crucial character development.
Lazy stories paint people as flat, one-dimensional “good” guys or “bad” guys. This is probably one of the biggest dangers of bad storytelling: that it leads people, especially kids, to easily label people as good or bad in the real world when in reality, people are extremely complicated and complex.
The thing about life is, no one really thinks that they’re the bad guy in their life story. We know our journeys too much. We’re always the protagonist, the hero of our own narrative, even if we’re in a difficult part of the path at the moment. That’s why this narrative is a problem. By painting these shallow, one-dimensional good or bad characters, it misses an incredible and important opportunity to create a character that is human but still able to be a hero, through their personal development and choices. One that resonates with the viewer, that the viewer can identify and see themselves in in some meaningful way. That’s what really leads to introspection of who we are and the choices that we make — when we’re able to see these things in someone else. Otherwise, we just label ourselves as “good” or “bad” and categorize others in the same way, not allowing for the other person the chance to change.
Bad stories make us bad grace-givers when people escape our mold of what “good” and “bad” people look like. They make us quick to judge others, shut down conversations, and make us want to perform rather than connect. Life isn’t just about being a good or bad person — it’s knowing that we are both. It’s knowing that our decisions will have consequences — sometimes ones that are harmful that will require us to address, reconcile, and ask for the grace of others. It’s being given the opportunity to change and grow, for the better as well as the worse. It’s knowing that no one is beyond redemption.
A story is only as good as its characters, and the depth of a story relies heavily on the depth of the character’s inner journey. Did the character change at all? How well was the movie able to show you the deep intentions of the character’s main motivations? What gave the character’s life meaning? How deep are the character’s relationships with those closest to them? What is their biggest internal conflict? What are the protagonist’s flaws? What are the antagonist’s redeeming qualities? How do the protagonist and antagonist relate to one another in their journeys? This should all be explored by the situations that the characters find themselves in, not just directly stated in the dialogue. Like in real life, we need to experience the journey with them to build an emotional connection with the characters.
The litmus test for a good character is, if the character is in pain, do I feel their pain, too? Or if the character is overjoyed, am I also overjoyed for the character? Unfortunately, I felt none of these emotions for the Lorax characters.
Problem #2: There is no real love in any relationship in this movie.
The protagonist’s initial motive for wanting a tree is to impress a girl he has a crush on. The girl mentions in the beginning of the movie that if she ever receives a real tree, she will marry the gift giver. Although this was probably a hyperbolic statement, the protagonist takes up this challenge, even putting he and his family’s safety in danger. When he finally gets the tree seed and plants it, he gets what he wanted all along — the affections of the girl.
Sadly, this type of transactional affection is present throughout the movie. In this instance, it’s presented in such a direct transactional way that even if she did like him for his character, we aren’t able to see that because we only see her feelings towards Tim right after he provides something for her that she wanted. This parallels the Once-ler’s relationship with his family, a family that we are expected to view as unhealthy. The parents, particularly the mom, give the Once-ler conditional “love” and “approval” when he’s able to provide what they want — success. Once that success dies, they retract their “love” and we feel sorry for him. Unfortunately, this is similar to what has happened with the main character and his love interest, minus the occurrence of the conflict. You can’t have the same scenario occur and expect us to feel differently.
Regrettably, the viewer also never quite develops feelings for Tim’s own family either (with the mom and grandma). The grandma is “cool” and slyly supportive, but cool doesn’t bring emotional weight. It’s shallow. Unfortunately, the only thing I remember from the mom is when she makes an offhand comment that O’Hare could adopt Tim if he wanted. I guess it was supposed to be a joke, but as there weren’t any good feelings built up for the mom during the entirety of the movie, it just comes off as odd and negligent. If there was love in this family, you had to assume it.
Without any showing of real love in the plot, the movie ultimately felt unsatisfying, empty, and unmemorable.
Problem #3: Bad stories directly tell you what to think and feel rather than let you get there yourself.
As someone who studies behavior change marketing, one of the key things we learn is that no one likes being told what to do or what to think. Successful marketing gets people to think that they came up with the intended action/behavior themselves. For this movie, it blatantly shows, sings, and states over and over again what is right and what is wrong. It doesn’t give a chance for the viewer to experience the scenarios and emotions for themselves and get to their own morals and beliefs in a way that makes them feel ownership over their convictions. It’s either a “you’re in or you’re out” for this movie with little room for imagination or lasting conviction.
When the show-over-tell method is done poorly, it also makes for unbelievable development. At the end of the movie, the Once-ler is seen watering the tree stumps growing outside of his home. The Lorax descends and tells the Once-ler that he’s proud of him and that he did OK. Instead of feeling closure, it made me feel confused and doubtful. The Once-ler didn’t really do anything brave. He just told his story to the boy and gave him a seed. My friend asked me, why didn’t he just go and plant the seed himself? In other words, why didn’t he put some stake into solving the problem he caused? We weren’t convinced that he played enough of a part in bringing about the solution to truly feel like he was actually as regretful as he said he was for his past actions. It’s hard to feel proud of someone who just holed up in his cave until it was safe to come out. Unfortunately, the redemption here is not deserved, and stating the intended sentiment in the dialogue doesn’t remedy for the lack of the actual real emotion.
Problem #4: The movie reads more like a commercial rather than a story with a timeless universal moral.
(Before I start, I will say — it’s hard to create a convicting takeaway moral if you don’t have character development or love present in your plot.)
The moral of the movie is obvious. The movie bashes on capitalism and its detrimental effects on the environment in a straightforward, in-your-face kind of way. The Lorax wants to drill in us are that corporate greed leads to a wasteland. It shows us that greed is a cycle that doesn’t create lasting heroes but instead ravenously keeps searching for something to feed its hunger. It tries to scare us by showing us a world without real trees (they have to inflate theirs). They show it as an aesthetic, external health problem rather than an internal problem. The movie is basically an advertisement for the value of trees and how they contribute to clean air.
I think that the Lorax missed the opportunity to tell a bigger, more imperative story. It could have showed how environmentalism is personal for everyone, that it is a personal responsibility that extends beyond just business folks. All of us are responsible for the consequences of our actions, including the harm that these mass, unregulated productions inflict upon the landscape and wildlife that live in the exploited area. All of us are susceptible to greed and unnecessary consumption without thinking. All of us, like the Once-ler and Tim, are prone to wanting to win the approval of folks through our achievements. All of us are capable of realizing that all of these things are not the components for a healthy, fulfilling life. I wish the movie had used its energy to bring us to at least one of these truths.
The movie got so sidetracked by what it wanted us to not do, it forgot to show us what should be our focus instead. It doesn’t give us an objective or purpose, but instead just tells us what to think without delving into why.
The townspeople didn’t come to an understanding beyond being persuaded that maybe O’Hare is evil and trees might be worth a try. But what about actual heart change? Do they know that they are responsible in some way to make sure another business doesn’t just take O’Hare’s spot in a different way? Or are they just going to plant more trees and continue living their ignorant consumeristic lifestyle? The problem with the story is this: We cannot make fundamental, sustainable change without some kind of major internal acknowledgment and sacrifice.
This movie tries to convince us that the solution to our environmental problems can be solved with a new product — the original problem, trees — rather than explore the more necessary and effective problem that is an internal one. Are trees the solution to our environmental problems? Ironically, this solution doesn’t tackle the root of the problem: us. If not tree-exploitation, it’s going to be something else next unless there’s real change.
This is all with the understanding that trying to tell a story with an environmental message is complicated. There are many layers, and a 90 minute film couldn’t possibly cover all of them. But the Lorax could have chosen tell one point thoroughly and well, if that’s what they were aiming to do anyways.
Conclusion
All this being said, it is definitely easier to critique a bad movie than to create a good one. Kudos to The Lorax for at least telling a bad story with an important moral.
“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.” — The Lorax
