Happy Feet Review
I saw Happy Feet this weekend! And I have a thing or two to say about it.
Happy Feet is a wonder of filmmaking, really. The animation is incredible. All the wonder and beauty of Antarctica is captured in each frame. From the grand expansive scenes of (I guess it would be) the Southern Lights to the monstrous arctic blizzards, every detail is beautifully rendered.
The music of the film, for the most part, is a thoroughly enjoyable experience. John Powell’s score does a good job of capturing the mood and accenting the action with exciting and interesting cues. The songs are well performed. Especially Robin Williams’ Spanish rendition of “My Way.” Speaking of which, Robin Williams’ performance is pretty funny all around.
So. From an artistic and technical standpoint, it was worth seeing. Because of the wonderful views, it was worth seeing on the big screen.
It’s too bad the story is a blatantly anti-Christian allegory. Here. I’ll break it down.
Anti-Ecclesiastical
Besides the nasty indifferent humans (aliens) who are polluting the environment and stealing all the fish from the cute little penguins, the villain of the whole set piece is the group of penguin “elders,” and particularly the oldest penguin elder, who speaks with a thick Scottish brogue and uses archaic English in his admonitions like “the Great Wind is that which giveth and taketh away.” No, I’m not kidding. He actually says that.
It seems that there has been a fish shortage recently, and the elders are baffled as to what to do about it. They conclude that rigid conformity to a religious sort of singing ritual is the answer. The Great Wind (which giveth and taketh away) must be displeased with them, so they should sing better, louder, and more religiously.
The main character, Mumbles, dropped as an egg and unable to sing, does not quite fit in. Instead of singing, he dances. This does not fit into the religious practice as prescribed by the great penguin church, and so when his influence grows he is promptly excommunicated.
This subplot is a clear attack against the organized church and the ignorance and bigotry that the all-accepting liberal secular world accuses it of. In fact, the whole eldership of the penguins is a twisted caricature of the church. One might even be tempted to think that the Scottish penguin pastor is a personal slam against John Knox.
“Non-conformity” (revolt against morality) is glorified
Mumbles is different. He can’t sing. And he does this weird little tap dance. It’s different. It must be evil, the elders conclude. “But he’s not hurting anyone!” his defenders say. No matter, he must go. Sure, the particulars of Mumbles’ different-ness is basically innocent. I enjoy tap-dancing as much as anyone. But Happy Feet is no innocent Ugly Duckling story.
With the whole story context of the penguin church and the elders’ insistence that his tap dancing is immoral, Mumbles’ non-conformity is being used to attack any moral standard in society. As if to say, “See? It is all just a matter of being different. If it’s not hurting anyone, it must be okay. There is no moral standard beyond the comfort of your peers. All these ‘differences’ are as innocent as tap dancing.”
Religion vs Science
Mumbles believes that the aliens (humans) are causing the fish shortage. The elders dismiss this as nonsense. There are no such things as aliens, and that is that. After all, “it is the Great Wind that giveth and taketh away.” All use of empirical evidence is lost on the penguin elders, so Mumbles goes off to prove that his theory is true. In the end, science trumps religion, and the elders are exposed as the ignoramuses they are. In fact, they join Mumbles in dancing for the humans.
This is a clear assault against the Biblical account of natural history. “Those stupid Christians, they think God created the universe! When all the empirical evidence indicates evolution. Imagine that.” The implication, of course, is that anyone who believes in a supreme divine Creator is as stupid and blind as the penguin elders in the film.
EDIT: Paragraph on “adulterous penguins” removed. See comments.
Conclusion
So that’s the nature of Happy Feet. It packages a poisonous anti-Christian message into a dangerously cute candy coated form and markets it to children. The included props to environmentalism and illegal immigration are relatively benign compared to what the film is really telling us. Christians should exercise great caution and lots of instruction when allowing their children to view Happy Feet.
December 3rd, 2006 at 4:54 am
What a direct slight against Christianity! Honestly I’m not that surprised, film industries have been candy coating propaganda in the form of children’s cartoons for decades. From Pocahontas introducing spirit worship and mother nature to blatant mis-telling of the Bible in Prince of Egypt and all other sorts of little anti-biblical social statements snuck in here and there in other children’s films. It seems like Happy Feet was more loaded than most. I’m sorry to see how successful it has been in the box office and am dismayed to think stories are just going to become more blatantly anti-Christian over time.
Thanks for the great review! You really spelled out the problems, when are you going to apply to replace Gire?
December 4th, 2006 at 3:43 am
I really enjoyed your review, Chris! I went to see Happy Feet last week sometime, and agree with nearly everything you said. I went away saying, “Well, the first part was really cute, but why did they have to preach their anti-religion and environmentalist agenda near the end?”
Like I said, I agree with you, but I believe you are mistaken about the last part - the “adulterous penguins.”
When Mumbles returns and sees Gloria with the “rapper penguin,” the audience is set up to think, “Oh no! She’s with another penguin!” But this rapper penguin is just a school teacher with Gloria. (Grace thought the exact same thing you did about all of the little baby penguins surrounding them. But only one of the babies could have been theirs. Remember Gloria says, “He teaches rap and I sing the blues.” (Not an exact quote.) Anyway, that’s what I got out of that scene. They’re just teaching the cute little munchkins together.
Thanks for the review. I think you hit on the points well.
December 4th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
But at the end, Mumbles asks Rapper and Gloria, “Which one is yours?” Rapper leans over Gloria protectively and replies, “They’re all mine.”
Depending on how you take it, it’s ambiguous anyway.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:03 am
I agree with you 100%. Your review was done very well.
December 8th, 2006 at 12:42 am
Thank you for the review, coz. Now I know I don’t need to bother watching it. It sounds like the makers of this movie were especially blatant about their hatred for God and the Church, but the more movies and TV I see, the more I notice that this hatred is blatantly evident everywhere. Specifically, now, I’m watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer, :p , and it’s getting frustrating … not to mention all the stupid little children’s shows, which teach them to be rebellious, individualistic, and materialistic. Most recently, I watched a couple stories of Winnie the Pooh for the first time and was horrified at it. Argh.
Lord save me from being one of those super-protective parents who keep their kids in a bubble. It’s going to be difficult to teach my children to think critically and independently of American culture without being party poopers.
By the way, in the last paragraph, “candy-coated” is used adjectivally, modifying the word “form” … so you’re missing a hyphen.
December 22nd, 2006 at 10:01 pm
Me again.
Just wanted to second what Hannah said about Gloria and the other penguin being teachers, not parents. Leastwise, that’s how I took it. One has to wonder how many kids have taken this moment the wrong way as well…
Good review. I left the theater with similar misgivings. I guess the film makers decided this was a good time to preach their worldview after the popularity of March of the Penguins. How sneaky.
- F
February 20th, 2007 at 12:18 am
On the trivial side, it’s not “interpretation” but actual lines from the movie. Gloria and Rapper were teachers (rhythm and blues, respectively). The little penguins around them were students. Gloria was merely yanking Mumbles’ chain for a moment.
On the weightier side, a more accurate depiction of the stultifying, smothering and myopic force that is organized religion could not be made. Kudos to the film’s creators for supplying such a valiant and useful message alongside great entertainment.
If only people like you all would emulate the raving penguin elders in the film and adapt to reality when it lands in your face.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Welcome to my blog, Magnan!
Thanks for your assessment of the trivial. I am sure you are right on that count. Watching the film again will probably confirm it for me.
On the weightier side, it amazes me that you find gross and twisted caricature to be “accurate” in any sense. The only thing that might excuse your ignorance is that perhaps you have never taken the time or the effort to find out the truth of the matter. While I grant that “organized religion” can certainly be stultifying, smothering, and myopic (the organized religion of Darwinism, for example), the portrayals in this film are what any objective observer would refer to as “a cheap shot.”
Thanks for the comments anyway. All opinions are welcome here. Even sadly misguided ones.
~Chris
May 7th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
I found your revue to be extremely innaccurate and laced with personal misguided religious animosity.
The movie “Happy Feet” has no hidden message against christianity and if that was what you took away from it, then you are indeed a sad and pathetic person.
The over all message of the movie was environmental, yes. The message is against doing nothing, not against religion. In less than one hundred years we have caused more devastation to this planet than the entire last century. All that is required for a positive change to the earth and the environment is for one person to stand up and make a difference. One person who can direct the attention of the masses to the problem at hand.
A person like Steve Erwin who was involved in the making of this movie and even voiced the elephant seal.
To take this movie as an insult to christianity is about the height of ignorance. It also happens to be a production that hollywood had nothing to do with.
If you find that you are really offended by the so called “anti-chritistian” message, how could you ignore the character of “Lovelace”, someone who claims to be in contact with “mystic beings”.
The fact that your review ignores this simply shows you have no real argument against an anti-religious sect.
The movie is against a culture of consumerism. This detail is spelled out in simple form for easy comprehension when the elephant seals talk about humans who will make you into “fun food”.
If anything, as a so called religious man, you should be seeing the correlations between Mumble’s journey and the persecution that Jesus Christ himself endured when he tried to encourage entrenched religious powers to make a change for the better.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:42 am
“The movie “Happy Feet” has no hidden message against christianity”
You are certainly correct in that it is not hidden.
“and if that was what you took away from it, then you are indeed a sad and pathetic person.”
Ad hominem attacks are not a valid method of argument. Please don’t use them here.
“The over all message of the movie was environmental, yes. The message is against doing nothing, not against religion. In less than one hundred years we have caused more devastation to this planet than the entire last century. All that is required for a positive change to the earth and the environment is for one person to stand up and make a difference. One person who can direct the attention of the masses to the problem at hand.
A person like Steve Erwin who was involved in the making of this movie and even voiced the elephant seal.”
I have absolutely nothing against Steve Erwin, and was very sad to hear about his passing. Yes, the film was enviro, but if you notice, I really didn’t offer a whole lot of objection to that. I am supportive of responsible management of God’s creation.
“To take this movie as an insult to christianity is about the height of ignorance. It also happens to be a production that hollywood had nothing to do with.”
To miss the anti-Christian slams in the film is ignorance indeed. They are obvious to anyone familiar with the Christian church, and they require no reading-into to see. When did I say anything about “Hollywood”?
“If you find that you are really offended by the so called “anti-chritistian” message, how could you ignore the character of “Lovelace”, someone who claims to be in contact with “mystic beings”.”
Mmhmmm. And did it so happen that Lovelace actually was in contact with such “mystic beings?” In any case, Lovelace does not resemble a Christian in any sense but is more akin to shamanistic superstition. He presents himself as a medicine-man in touch with secret knowledge from “spirits” for which all others must come to him.
“The fact that your review ignores this simply shows you have no real argument against an anti-religious sect.”
I didn’t say the film was anti-religion. Only anti-Christian and anti-ecclesiastical.
“The movie is against a culture of consumerism. This detail is spelled out in simple form for easy comprehension when the elephant seals talk about humans who will make you into “fun food”.”
Sure, that was one of the messages in the film. And I’m all for anti-consumerism. I even found those parts amusing. But that was not the main theme of the film, and doesn’t negate the anti-Christian slurs.
“If anything, as a so called religious man, you should be seeing the correlations between Mumble’s journey and the persecution that Jesus Christ himself endured when he tried to encourage entrenched religious powers to make a change for the better.”
The problem with viewing the film this way is that the penguin elders do not resemble the Pharisaic Jewish leaders that persecuted Jesus. Rather, they are an obvious parody of Scottish Presbyterians. Check the comments. Even Magnan, who disliked my review, knew it was obvious and actually applauded the attack on Christianity.
As a side note, Jesus did not “encourage religious powers to make a change.” He came with authority, shook the very foundations of legalism and brought God’s covenant with His people to fruition through His death and resurrection.
March 9th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Ahaha, well. Actually, strictly from a historical standpoint, Jesus, or, whom he was likely based upon, ben Yeshua, was very much a political activist - and, as for this film being ‘anti-Christian,’ maybe it was just me, but I found it to be a rather tightly scripted ‘messiah/prophet’ tale, by way of Campbell’s formula.
Also, I don’t think Magnan was applauding it’s ‘attack on Christianity,’ but it’s ‘attack’ on organized religion, which, from various personal experiences, is in fact, stifling, myopic, and so on.
I’m always amazed when I read these fundie Christian reviews of the film, and how the film really captured the ‘attitude,’ so to speak. The fact that you’ve bought into that whole “Darwinism iz a religion” thing speaks for itself, really.
Ho hum.