The Lorax Film was Toothless
The Lorax film, unlike the book, didn’t provoke any action or challenge our conscience.
I suspect one day our children will blame us for our environmental incompetence. While kindling a fire with stone flints to cook a rat in the ruins of what was once New York City, they’ll glare at us with anger in their eyes. “You just had to have an SUV, didn’t you, Dad?”
Figuring out what to do with the environment is almost undoubtedly one of the biggest issues our generation and, well, our species. This provoked Dr. Seuss in 1971 to write The Lorax.
If you don’t know the story, it basically goes like this: an old guy tells a young boy a story about his youth, and how he cut down trees, built factories, and destroyed the environment, despite the warnings of the fairy-thing, the Lorax.
The Lorax leaves, but not without giving a bit of an ominous advice/warning: “UNLESS”, with the implication: “unless someone like you cares an awful lot, nothing is going to get better.”
The message becomes crucially different due to a minor, but significant difference between the book and film. In the book, this is where the story ends, hanging. The film fabricates a conclusive ending.
It also, understandably, fills in a lot more details. The boy is named Ted (after Dr. Seuss’ real name), has a love interest (named after his real-life wife), even a mom and grandma, lives in an ignorant and materialistic town called Thneedville, and embarks on a quest to fight an evil, environment-hating, money-loving corporate boss. I mean, you’ve got to make something up if you’re going to turn a 45-page children’s book into a 90-minute film.
After saving the last Truffula tree seed from the clutches of the evil CEO, Ted plants it in the middle of town, with the whole town’s support.
And, a quick time lapse later, we’re treated to a bright, blue-skied world with many new Truffula trees growing. Ted gets the girl, everyone’s consciences are reversed, CEO is expelled, and the world is saved.
Consider the book: The last page of The Lorax is a call to action, pleading for the protagonist, and by extension, the reader, to do something about the deteriorating situation. There is no silver lining. The world does not better itself. We have to do something. It’s haunting, but effective.
But the film’s happy ending acts as a bit of an opiate, softening the blow. It provides no message at all, because by giving the story an ending, it implies that this is a self-contained story about a Lorax and Truffula trees, disconnected from real life. Even if you did draw parallels between the story and real life, the idea persists that everything is going to turn out okay. And so we walk out of the theaters happy and content, with no sense of environmental urgency whatsoever. Which, you know, is pretty much exactly how the people Thneedville lived at the start of the film.
Don’t get me wrong, The Lorax movie was fun and enjoyable. The animation was great. The music, while not amazing, was still bouncy and funny. But, as a film producer, you could do this with any story. Why pick The Lorax if you’re just going to butcher its one message?
You might argue that a film that leaves the audience depressed about the future is not a good kids’ film. Or that it might displease certain people. Then don’t make it! Make another talking animal film instead! But, I suppose using Seuss’ works attracts more viewers, sells more tickets, and makes more money. And a company’s duty is to make money for its shareholders; even if it’s at the cost of the environment, and our future.
Sorry Dr. Seuss. We’ve learned nothing.
