Humanities
Indiana University Bloomington Wall E Film Critique Review

Indiana University Bloomington

Question Description

I need help with a Film question. All explanations and answers will be used to help me learn.

800-1000 words

Complete a film Critique review for the movie Wall-E.

I will attach a student copy of an A+ Wall-E film review and important class readings that you can compare to the movie.


Unformatted Attachment Preview

Jamie Mendoza Film Critique March 15th, 2018 Wall-E’s World I have seen the film Wall-E many times as a child, but I have never taken the time to analyze the details but into the making of it. The 2008 film Wall-E was directed and co-written by Andrew Stanton. The other writer was Jim Reardon. This film was produced by Jim Morris. Some of the voices of the major actors/actresses in the film include, Ben Burtt, Elissa Knight, Jeff Garlin, Fred Willard and so many more. To me, Wall-E is a movie that is hard to compare to others. It has such a creative and unique concept that boggled my mind. Before viewing the film again and paying attention to the technicalities, I studied the director and actors/actresses and other critiques on Wall-E. When looking further into Andrew Stanton, I noticed that he worked particularly on kids’ movies, more specifically Disney movies. I found this very interesting due to the fact that the meanings that were pulled out of the movie Wall-E seem like they would go in one ear and out the other of a child. At the same time, I could see that Stanton catered his movies to meet the satisfaction of children by using robots in Wall-E, talking animals in Finding Nemo and A Bug’s Life, and bringing toys to life in Toy Story. The trend I noticed that Stanton stuck to in his movies was creating characters out of animals or inanimate objects. Continuing my research on Andrew Stanton I discovered he helped direct the Netflix series, Stranger Things. This discovery really helped me learn more about Stanton as a director by connecting Wall-E with Stranger Things. Both the film and television show present such supernatural ideas. They focus on other worlds outside of living solely on Earth. Aside from trying to look inside Andrew Stanton’s mind, I also read some previous reviews on the film. A review by Robert Ebert, well-known film critique, stuck out to me. He spoke in such detail about the sounds and the colors of the film, stating that, “it finds a color palette that’s bright and cheerful, but not too pushy, and a tiny bit realistic at the same time” (Ebert). Ebert’s obvious reviews, as well as challenging questions created a base for what I should pay closer attention to during the film. I also studied the “THR’s” review of the film Wall-E where they spoke about the two worlds created in the film: the one on Earth and the one aboard the Axiom. THR described them as, “two fantastically imaginative, breathtakingly lit worlds” (THR staff). Both of these reviews gave me an idea of what I should deeply study while watching the film Wall-E. The overall concept of this critique of Wall-E was to study the film through many different lenses and focus on the big and small details. The purpose was also to connect the film Wall-E to many things learned about the world and work and labor. In the film Wall-E a small robot, named Wall-E, spends his time cleaning up the trash that has been left behind by humans from 700 years ago. Wall-E lives a lonely life until another robot, EVE, comes to Earth in search of a sign of life. EVE discovers a plant which proves life on Earth, which has yet to be discovered up to this point. Both Wall-E and EVE are taken back to space where a floating “world” called the Axiom is located. There are humans that live on the Axiom whose everyday lives are controlled by robots. When the captain finds out about the plant EVE has been carrying around, he starts to wonder what a life on Earth would be like. “Auto” the captain’s robot “co-captain”, tries to avoid this from happening, but in the end the captain, Wall-E and EVE manage to make their own decision. The first time watching the film post research, I had spent my time enjoying the music and sounds as well as the connections being made between the characters. I really enjoyed the connection made between Wall-E and EVE, especially watching the progression of their relationship. I thought it was exciting to watch Wall-E, such a care-free robot, turn EVE, a very straight forward and serious robot, into a more lighthearted character. Another aspect I liked was the background music played throughout the film. Specifically, in the opening scene when WallE’s music was playing while he was collecting trash, it immediately gave away to the viewer the happy attitude Wall-E was going to have during the film. I was definitely most engaged during the scenes on the Axiom. I thought that the floating chairs, virtual billboards and bright colors were very intriguing and got my mind thinking about how different our world would be if it was controlled by all robots. This thought of mine continued by thinking about how technology is advancing so much everyday and reaching a point where robots control most of our daily lives is not too necessarily unimaginable. When watching Wall-E, I was immediately able to make connections to The Human Condition by Hannah Arendt. Hannah Arendt speaks about work, labor and action which can all be seen in the film Wall-E. But, one of the more prominent things I made a connection between was the comparison of Earth vs. World. Arendt describes Earth as more of a physical object and world as more of a concept. In Wall-E, we can see that Earth is the place that Wall-E lives and does all of his cleaning, there is really not much more to it aside from the physical place. The axiom in the sky could be compared to the Earth because it is a physical place where people live. World is something that develops towards the end of the film when the captain decides he is not happy with the world him and the other passengers are living in. The concept of a world is made up of choices, happiness, wholeness, etc. and that is something the passengers are missing on board the Axiom. The second time I viewed the film, I had noticed a lot more of the little details. I focused on the lighting, the sounds, the acting of the characters, the distribution of space, and so on. For example, in the beginning scene, the lighting was very dim which to me, demonstrated a mysterious mood. The dust added to the mood as well while Wall-E was cleaning up and piling the trash. The darkness and dust provoked some questions right off the bat about what was going on, where were all the people, why was Wall-E the only one there? For someone watching the film for the first time, they do not understand what is being portrayed. Once Wall-E and EVE are taken back to the Axiom, the lighting got a whole lot brighter. I noticed that all of the billboards were illuminated so strongly and all of the “roads” and floating seats were very colorful. As I continued to look further into the lighting, I also studied the moods of the humans. They all seemed to be in a neutral mood, not necessarily anything too happy or excited. I then thought that the director might have used the extreme bright lights to compensate for the lack of emotion the characters displayed. This thought brings me to talking about their acting. Even though it seems like it would be hard to study the acting of robots, it was very evident to see in Wall-E and EVE. The director did a good job showing the personalities of Wall-E and EVE in the very beginning and demonstrating how they had changed towards the end of the trip. In relation to the humans, their acting fit the role very well of someone who had been stuck on a secluded ship, in a floating seat. They acted with a low amount of intelligence or awareness to what was going on in their lives, because sitting in those chairs is all they have ever known, When the main male passenger fell out of his chair after seeing Wall-E and EVE moving through the stars, he had a realization. He acted very well toward the part of someone finally becoming conscious of their current situation trapped on the Axiom. The good acting continued when the captain had made his realization that they were destined to go back to Earth. When I watched the film for the second time, I was able to make deeper connections to what we had learned in class. I previously spoke about the connections to Hannah Arendt’s, The Human Condition, but there are other ways the film connected to our class discussions. For example, we discussed many definitions of labor and work and life. In the film, it was very interesting to decide which characters were participating in labor or work. Arendt defines labor as, “the activity which corresponds to the biological process of the human body, whose spontaneous growth, metabolism, and eventual decay are bound to the vital necessities produced and fed into the life process by labor” (pg. 7). Based on this definition, you could argue that all of the passengers and maybe even robots are partaking in labor. Arendt describes labor as, “the activity which corresponds to the unnaturalness of human existence, which is not imbedded in, and whose mortality is not compensated by, the species’ ever-recurring life cycle” (pg. 7). This definition makes it more focused on those who actually participate in physical or maybe even mental work. This would mean Wall-E, EVE, and most of the other robots were a part of work, and maybe not so much the passengers. Nice observation! When looking at the bigger picture of life itself, you can see that every character in the movie had created a life for themselves, whether it be ideal or not. The passengers had a life of sitting in those chairs and going with the flow of everyday life. This is something they didn’t complain about because it was the life they had grown to know. Wall-E and EVE had a life of cleaning up and taking orders, and that is all they had ever lived to know. Overall, I was fascinated by the film Wall-E and watching it over a few times really helped me develop a deeper meaning for what Andrew Stanton was trying to show. It was a great quality movie, and kid friendly. It would be very worthwhile to watch the film after reading The Human Condition because it will give you more of an insight on what it means to be apart of a world and how work, labor and action are portrayed throughout the film. Works Cited Ebert, Roger. “Wall-E Movie Review & Film Summary (2008) | Roger Ebert.” RogerEbert.com, 26 June 2008, www.rogerebert.com/reviews/wall-e-2008. THR Staff. “'WALL-E': THR's 2008 Review.” The Hollywood Reporter, 27 June 2017, www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/wall-e-review-2008-movie-1016979. r~~~~~~J ~ Prologue ~ ~~~~~~~~ In 1957, an earth-born object made by man was launched into the universe, where for some weeks it circled the earth according to the same laws of gravitation that swing and keep in motion the celestial bodies-the sun, the moon, and the stars. To be sure, the man-made satellite was no moon or star, no heavenly body which could follow its circling path for a time span that to us mortals, bound by earthly time, lasts from eternity to eternity. Yet, for a time it managed to stay in the skies; it dwelt and moved in the proximity of the heavenly bodies as though it had been admitted tentatively to their sublime company. This event, second in importance to no other, not even to the splitting of the atom, would have been greeted with unmitigated joy if it had not been for the uncomfortable military and political circumstances attending it. But, curiously enough, this joy was not triumphal; it was not pride or awe at the tremendousness of human power and mastery which filled the hearts of men, who now, when they looked up from the earth toward the skies, could behold there a thing of their own making. The immediate reaction, expressed on the spur of the moment, was relief about the first "step toward escape from men's imprisonment to the earth." And this strange statement, far from being the accidental slip of some American reporter, unwittingly echoed the extraordinary line which, more than twenty years ago, had been carved on the funeral obelisk for one of Russia's great scientists: "Mankind will not remain bound to the earth forever." Such feelings have been commonplace for some time. They show that men everywhere are by no means slow to catch up and adjust to scientific discoveries and technical developments, but that, on the contrary, they have outsped them by decades. Here, as in other [ I ] The Human Condition respects, science has realized and affirmed what men anticipated in dreams that were neither wild nor idle. What is new is only that one of this country's most respectable newspapers finally brought to its front page what up to then had been buried in the highly non-respectable literature of science fiction (to which, unfortunately, nobody yet has paid the attention it deserves as a vehicle of mass sentiments and mass desires). The banality of the statement should not make us overlook how extraordinary in fact it was; for although Christians have spoken of the earth as a vale of tears and philosophers have looked upon their body as a prison of mind or soul, nobody in the history of mankind has ever conceived of the earth as a prison for men's bodies or shown such eagerness to go literally from here to the moon. Should the emancipation and secularization of the modern age, which began with a turning-away, not necessarily from God, but from a god who was the Father of men in heaven, end with an even more fateful repudiation of an Earth who was the Mother of all living creatures under the sky? The earth is the very quintessence of the human condition, and earthly nature, for all we know, may be unique in the universe in providing human beings with a habitat in which they can move and breathe without effort and without artifice. The human artifice of the world separates human existence from all mere animal environment, but life itself is outside this artificial world, and through life man remains related to all other living organisms. For some time now, a great many scientific endeavors have been directed toward making life also "artificial," toward cutting the last tie through which even man belongs among the children of nature. It is the same desire to escape from imprisonment to the earth that is manifest in the attempt to create life in the test tube, in the desire to mix "frozen germ plasm from people of demonstrated ability under the microscope to produce superior human beings" and "to alter [their] size, shape and function"; and the wish to escape the human condition, I suspect, also underlies the hope to extend man's life-span far beyond the hundred-year limit. This future man, whom the scientists tell us they will produce in no more than a hundred years, seems to be possessed by a rebellion against human existence as it has been given, a free gift from [ 2 ] Prologue nowhere (secularly speaking), which he wishes to exchange, as it were, for something he has made himself. There is no reason to doubt our abilities to accomplish such an exchange, just as there is no reason to doubt our present ability to destroy all organic life on earth. The question is only whether we wish to use our new scientific and technical knowledge in this direction, and this question cannot be decided by scientific means; it is a political question of the first order and therefore can hardly be left to the decision of professional scientists or professional politicians. \Vhile such possibilities still may lie in a distant future, the first boomerang effects of science's great triumphs have made themselves felt in a crisis within the natural sciences themselves. The trouble concerns the fact that the "truths" of the modern scientific world view, though they can be demonstrated in mathematical formulas and proved technologically, will no longer lend themselves to normal expression in speech and thought. The moment these "truths" are spoken of conceptually and coherently, the resulting statements will be "not perhaps as meaningless as a 'triangular circle,' but much more so than a 'winged lion' " (Erwin Schrodinger). We do not yet know whether this situation is final. But it could be that we, who are earth-bound creatures and have begun to act as though we were dwellers of the universe, will forever be unable to understand, that is, to think and speak about the things which nevertheless we are able to do. In this case, it would be as though our brain, which constitutes the physical, material condition of our thoughts, were unable to follow what we do, so that from now on we would indeed need artificial machines to do our thinking and speaking. If it should turn out to be true that knowledge (in the modern sense of know-how) and thought have parted company for good, then we would indeed become the helpless slaves, not so much of our machines as of our know-how, thoughtless creatures at the mercy of every gadget which is technically possible, no matter how murderous it is. However, even apart from these last and yet uncertain consequences, the situation created by the sciences is of great political significance. Wherever the relevance of speech is at stake, matters become political by definition, for speech is what makes man a political being. If we would follow the advice, so frequently urged [ 3 ] The Human Condition upon us, to adjust our cultural attitudes to the present status of scientific achievement, we would in all earnest adopt a way of life in which speech is no longer meaningful. For the sciences today have been forced to adopt a "language" of mathematical symbols which, though it was originally meant only as an abbreviation for spoken statements, now contains statements that in no way can be translated back into speech. The reason why it may be wise to distrust the political judgment of scientists qua scientists is not primarily their lack of "character"-that they did not refuse to develop atomic weapons-or their naivete-that they did not understand that once these weapons were developed they would be the last to be consulted about their use-but precisely the fact that they move in a world where speech has lost its power. And whatever men do or know or experience can make sense only to the extent that it can be spoken about. There may be truths beyond speech, and they may be of great relevance to man in the singular, that is, to man in so far as he is not a political being, whatever else he may be. Men in the plural, that is, men in so far as they live and move and act in this world, can experience meaningfulness only because they can talk with and make sense to each ·other and to themselves. Closer at hand and perhaps equally decisive is another no less threatening event. This is the advent of automation, which in a few decades probably will empty the factories and liberate mankind from its oldest and most natural burden, the burden of laboring and the bondage to necessity. Here, too, a fundamental aspect of the human condition is at stake, but the rebellion against it, the wish to be liberated from labor's "toil and trouble," is not modern but as old as recorded history. Freedom from labor itself is not new; it once belonged among the most firmly established privileges of the few. In this instance, it seems as though scientific progress and technical developments had been only taken advantage of to achieve something about which all former ages dreamed but which none had been able to realize. However, this is so only in appearance. The modern age has carried with it a theoretical glorification of labor and has resulted in a factual transformation of the whole of society into a laboring society. The fulfilment of the wish, therefore, like the fulfilment [ 4 ] Prologue of wishes in fairy tales, comes at a moment when it can only be self-defeating. It is a society oflaborers which is about to be liberated from the fetters oflabor, and this society does no longer know of those other higher and more meaningful activities for the sake of which this freedom would deserve to be won. Within this society, which is egalitarian b ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Final Answer

Attached.

Surname1
Name
Course
Instructor
Date
Movie Analysis: Wall-E
Wall-E is a 2008 computer-animated film that was directed by and co-authored by
Andrew Stanton, produced by Jim Morris and co-written by Jim Reardon. Some of the main
characters include Ben Burtt (acts as Wall E), Jeff Garling (Captain), Elissa Knight (Eve) and
Peter Docter (Lifeguard Bot) (Stanton 1). This movie centers on the negative impact on the earth
as generated by the rampant consumerism and environmental neglect. It can be understood in the
context of other films such as Avatar, FernGully and Princess Mononoke. Such films look into
the negative stress humanity has placed on the natural order. The purpose of this critique is to
evaluate the themes and cinematography techniques within the film critically.
Plot Summary
The film revolves around earth and space. The film begins by showing a small and lonely
robot named Wall E cleaning the electronic waste (e-waste) left by human beings more than 700
years ago. Wall-E only has a cockroach as the companion until one day a hovering egg-shaped
robot named Eve appeared from the Sky. Eve had originated from “Axiom”, a space vehicle
which houses some human beings and other robots. Eve had been sent to explore whether earth
was inhabitable again so that humans coul...

mwalimumusah (21231)
Cornell University

Anonymous
Solid work, thanks.

Anonymous
The tutor was great. I’m satisfied with the service.

Anonymous
Goes above and beyond expectations !

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4
Similar Questions
Related Tags