::: Jim Rovira
It's just not natural . . . ::: Click here to read the full text.
Ah, Mr. Ken, as much as you'd wish I were a guilty-feeling meat eater, I am not. I relish my hot dogs with relish. Nothing pleases me more than a fat, succulent burger or a thick, juicy steak, medium to medium rare, from the hoof to my p(l)ate.
But more importantly, what does the film say? When Wallace was restored to his proper self he was returned to his meat-eating ways. The film does set up an ideal of absolute non-violence (a la the heroine), but like all ideals, they do not belong in any absolute fashion in the world we actually inhabit. "Tottie" remained inaccessible to Wallace at the end of his film; while "a part" of Wallace would always be on her estate (the freak rabbit)--the part of him that can live with Tottie is freakish, a cheese-eating rabbit. The real Wallace goes home to enjoy his cheese, his steaks, his meat products...and without guilt.
Isn't it possible that Wallace was being punished for his meat-eating hypocrisy by becoming the were-rabbit and being forced into a love of vegetables that he should have had willingly and naturally? I must say that your analysis reads more like the rationalizations of a slightly guilty meat-eater. Consider: "Chicken Run," Park's other feature-length film has a clear message against factory farming, if not chicken-eating in general; "Creature Comforts," his early short, has animals discussing the conditions in zoos and was distributed by several animal-rights and vegetarian activist organizations; PETA gave "Curse of the Were-Rabbit" an award for best animal-friendly movie (of course, they could be misreading it). Admittedly, Park called the film a "vegetarian horror movie." But that sounds more like a horror movie for the enjoyment of vegetarians rather than a horror movie to make vegetarians change their unnatural ways.
Chucky, Chucky, Chucky,
I am deeply offended by your masturbation remark. Between Jim, Jan, XXXLips, and I, we need not masturbate! Seriously, I can understand not appreciating our little liaisons, but if you do not appreciate them, why join us?
In addition, you are hereby given a demerit for asserting negative characterizations about people who disagree with you. It is bad form to assume that someone who disagrees with you is selfish, evil, stupid, ignorant, out-of-touch, etc. Not only is it impolite, but it is also fallacious reasoning. It nearly always assumes things not in evidence. Avoid the temptation and you may avoid feeling the sting of a sentence like this again: "I'd like to assure you that between being married, having multiple children, and having worked as an electrician for sixteen years, I promise you I'm well in touch with the real world."
If you wish to engage people in the future please stick to the evidence and arguments at hand.
By the way, do you also believe that "The Lion, The Witch, & The Wardrobe" also has no deeper meaning?
Chuck...thanks for your comments. It's generally good advice. I'd like to assure you that between being married, having multiple children, and having worked as an electrician for sixteen years, I promise you I'm well in touch with the real world. I will admit I had a good bit of fun writing the piece, so there may be some point to your complaint of intellectual masturbation.
Honestly, though, I prefer using my hand. I prefer my wife most of all.
I'd like to suggest that there are other ways of reading films, books, etc., other than just a surface understanding of plot and character, though. Most stories, in the telling, reveal fears of some things, admiration for others, misunderstanding of still others, etc. The story isn't always properly -about- these things, but still does reflect them.
Now if you think about the WG film, you need to consider that being transformed into a Were Rabbit is a pretty horrible thing....so horrible, in fact, that whatever prompted this transformation may be a serious site of anxiety. I think meat eating/vegetarianism/aggression is the site of anxiety in the WG film...intentional or not.
I would say that the film's intent is probably nothing more than to be a really fun spoof of horror films: being a spoof, it works on understatement. Rather than a Frankenstein monster or or werewolf, the monstrosity is a giant rabbit. Ha ha. Rather than seeking to eradicate death, we're just worried about losing weight. Double ha ha. I think the film works brilliantly on this level...and I suspect we both agree as far as this goes.
I'm not sure I know what to say. Wait, yes I do.
Look, people, let's call a spade a spade here: this article is pure intellectual masturbation. I know it makes us all feel nice and smart to discuss these nifty ideas just like the big kids do, but, honestly, take a step back here and look at what you're saying. Wallace and Gromit, a philosophical discourse on the dangers of vegetarianism? Wallace and Gromit, an allegory for the emasculation of modern man? WALLACE and GROMIT? Give me a break. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and acts like a duck, it is a duck. If it looks ridiculous and sounds ridiculous... you get the point. This is sheer stupidity.
Now for my own philosophical discourse. THIS is what happens when a bunch of intellectuals stay inside for too long. You people have lost touch with the real world, and it might behoove you to return to it. For the love of God, stop worrying about the imaginary anti-vegetarian undertones of Wallace and Gromit and start thinking about REAL issues.
f****** Wallace and Gromit, man... wow.
Hey...cartoons ARE real movies :)
Hey, I thought you people only concerned yourself with "real" movies - good to see, you don't! ;)
Or was that a cheap-shot attack at the intellectual culture?
Cartoons ah movies too!
Ha...thanks Lips and Blue Fox.
Lips, did you ever see that old episode of Star Trek -- the original series -- where Capt. Kirk, in a transporter accident, was somehow split up into two? One Capt. Kirk was a gentle, humane Capt. Kirk, while the other Capt. Kirk was a hyper macho, aggressive Capt. Kirk. Needless to say, the first CK was a wuss and couldn't make a decision, while the second CK was too dangerous to be allowed out on his own. The only way to get things right was to get them reintegrated into a single CK.
I think that's the proper view of our aggressive/non-aggressive tendencies. We need to maintain them in a dialectic. So I don't mean to say that aggression, by itself, makes us human, but aggression in conjunction with other traits is part of what makes us human. As a result, if we toss our aggression, we toss an important part of our humanity, and I think it's probably that Curse of the Were Rabbit represented anxieties about this loss.
More than anything else, though, whether you agree or disagree, I'm glad it was a fun read for you. Thanks again for your comments.
This piece was original, unexpected, and well written. Those three things alone are enough to warrant Two Points...perhaps even a gold star...
However, I have to say that disagree on with you on the statement of 'aggression' making us humans. It seems to me that the fight against animalistic aggression is part of what makes us human. Instead of killing and eating every person who walks on our property or offends us in some way, we learn other ways to cope with our situations. More /humane/ ways, if you will.
But, regardless, I did enjoy the piece...
Even if you did finish it off with some steak. ^^
Copyright © 2001–2004 CLEAVE
- The Counter Agency. All Rights
Reserved.Comments copyright to the posters who are solely responsible
for their opinions.