DiscussMormonism.com

I just watched Horton Hears a Who yesterday. I found the film entertaining, but I thought I detected some religious undertones. One seemed to be an anti-abortion message, "because a person's a person no matter how small." Another was that of believing in things you haven't experienced yourself (the Mayor of Whoville's wife).

Maybe I'm overanalyzing the movies.

asbestosman wrote:I just watched Horton Hears a Who yesterday. I found the film entertaining, but I thought I detected some religious undertones. One seemed to be an anti-abortion message, "because a person's a person no matter how small." Another was that of believing in things you haven't experienced yourself (the Mayor of Whoville's wife).

Maybe I'm overanalyzing the movies.

I thinks so.

By the way, I think every one would agree that a person is a person no matter how small. It's a tautology.
But is a fertilized ovum a person?

Most people also think it is OK to believe in things they haven't personally experienced--like the country of Iraq or another person's thought.

Tarski wrote:Most people also think it is OK to believe in things they haven't personally experienced--like the country of Iraq or another person's thought.

Qute true. But there is a difference between believing in Iraq and believing in contact with extra-terrestrials. Iraq has many eyewitnesses, is open to observation even for those with impure hearts, and most of all, the experience of Iraq is in many ways analogous to experiences many of us have.

But is a fertilized ovum a person?

Maybe it depends on whether it ends up splitting into identical twins 'cause then it would have to be two persons if fertilized eggs are equivalent to live-born humans.

asbestosman wrote:I just watched Horton Hears a Who yesterday. I found the film entertaining, but I thought I detected some religious undertones. One seemed to be an anti-abortion message, "because a person's a person no matter how small." Another was that of believing in things you haven't experienced yourself (the Mayor of Whoville's wife).

Maybe I'm overanalyzing the movies.

abman,

I saw this movie today and I see exactly what you're saying. I have to admit that I've never read the book so I don't know how much of the movie is embellishment.

If I had to pin some labels on the characters, I'd say this:

Horton is a believer.
The Kangaroo is an atheist.

Both stereotypical.

Is that what you were thinking?

Check this out, abman:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horton_Hears_a_Who!

What kind of link is that? Just search on "Horton hears a who" and go to the wiki result. Read the whole piece, you will be surprised!

I don't know everything about Dr. Seuss, but from what I do know I would be surprised if it was an intentional abortion allegory. I'm not surprised the anti-abortionists have ripped off the phrase: their marketing got more sophisticated from the 80's on, though their real stock in trade is still gore and shock (witness recent posts on this board).

As a child, I read it as a kind of civil rights allegory, not unlike the Star-Bellied Sneeches. Geisel dabbled in gentle political allegory in his later books, social prejudice and environmentalism (the Lorax) being the main topics. I think he was too much of a political liberal to have been sly anti-abortion adherent. He did a lot of commercial work, contributed political cartoons to PM, a left-wing NYC newspaper in the early 40s, but later did propaganda work for the war effort. I've seen some recent commentary on this work: its what you would expect if you're familiar with the racist Popeye cartoons of WWII and the like. I think he also did work for the army after the War. All in all, a pretty mainstream liberalism inflects his work.

I adored his work when I was a kid. I think I mentioned once how I wrote him some fan letters and sent him some drawings and he wrote back to me! I should grab those letters next time I'm home.

Blixa wrote:I don't know everything about Dr. Seuss, but from what I do know I would be surprised if it was an intentional abortion allegory. I'm not surprised the anti-abortionists have ripped off the phrase: their marketing got more sophisticated from the 80's on, though their real stock in trade is still gore and shock (witness recent posts on this board).

As a child, I read it as a kind of civil rights allegory, not unlike the Star-Bellied Sneeches. Geisel dabbled in gentle political allegory in his later books, social prejudice and environmentalism (the Lorax) being the main topics. I think he was too much of a political liberal to have been sly anti-abortion adherent. He did a lot of commercial work, contributed political cartoons to PM, a left-wing NYC newspaper in the early 40s, but later did propaganda work for the war effort. I've seen some recent commentary on this work: its what you would expect if you're familiar with the racist Popeye cartoons of WWII and the like. I think he also did work for the army after the War. All in all, a pretty mainstream liberalism inflects his work.

I adored his work when I was a kid. I think I mentioned once how I wrote him some fan letters and sent him some drawings and he wrote back to me! I should grab those letters next time I'm home.

Blixa,

I think I stated previously, that I've never read the book "Horton Hears a Who". I use only one piece of Suess in my classroom, "My Many Colored Days" which is unlike his other books. I'm not a huge fan of Seuss however, his books do hold educational value as early reader books and children definitely appreciate them. In the wiki link there is this statement:

wiki wrote:The book was published in August 1954, two months after the climax of the Army-McCarthy hearings. The comments of the Wickersham Brothers seem to come from Joseph McCarthy

I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are political undertones in some of Seuss's books. We see this in also in Mother Goose Rhymes.

I would just like to add, off topic, that there are a number of children's films today that carry the phrase "What the?" and because of that, I have children saying it in class. The only problem with that is that there are children who know a variety of ways to complete the phrase and that's not a good thing from my perspective! That phrase wasn't used in the Horton movie, but if you have a chance to watch other children's films (I watch a number of them to keep on top of what's being dished out to children in the media) it is used frequently.

I do not like that "What the?" spam
I do not like it Sam I am
I do not like it in free play
I do not like it through the day
I do not like it on their tongues
I do not like it, those "What the?" bums
I do not like that "What the ?"spam
I do not like it Sam I am.

;-)

Suess on demand!

Jersey Girl wrote:If I had to pin some labels on the characters, I'd say this:

Horton is a believer.
The Kangaroo is an atheist.

Both stereotypical.

Is that what you were thinking?

Yes. I would also add the Mayor of Whoville to the list of believers although perhaps he is more of a religious leader although he would be one without much power.

asbestosman wrote:

Jersey Girl wrote:If I had to pin some labels on the characters, I'd say this:

Horton is a believer.
The Kangaroo is an atheist.

Both stereotypical.

Is that what you were thinking?

Yes. I would also add the Mayor of Whoville to the list of believers although perhaps he is more of a religious leader although he would be one without much power.

I'd have to read the book to see if the movie was politicized by the script writers. I don't have the book in my personal children's library (yes I have one :-) but I'll see if my school has it. I say this only because it would be interesting to me to make that comparison.

From the perspective of one who teaches the audience that Seuss appeals to, I'd have to say that the phrase "a person is a person no matter how small" can also be taken as a child empowerment statement with which I agree.

Blixa wrote:All in all, a pretty mainstream liberalism inflects his work.

You're probably right, especially when I think of him speaking for the trees throught the Lorax. It may also be the movie's bend to things instead of Geisel's original which I haven't seen (I saw part of the Chuck Jones cartoon version once though). It may be that is was intended to be more of a civil rights or anti-McCarthyism thing. On the other hand, I know that for myself even though I believe I lean right in many ways, I often have sympathies for causes on the left.

I think for me what was remarkable was not the question of abortion that came to my mind during the movie, but the question of faith. When is it good to take someone's word for it? When is faith actually dangerous to society and when is that fear merely overblown?