Animism, Nostalgia, and the Sublime in
Animated Feature Films: An Ecocritical
Reading of FernGully and WALL-E
Student: Anaïs Oetelmans
Student id: 6091946
Supervisor: dr. Catherine Lord
Second Reader: dr. Gerwin van der Pol
Program: Film Studies
Course: MA Thesis Film Studies
Institution: University of Amsterdam
27-06-2014
Word count: 17486
Abstract
In the upcoming field of cinema studies and ecology, this thesis takes a specific look on two animated
feature films (WALL-E and FernGully: The Last Rainforest), and examines the way these films deal
with environmental issues and simultaneously attempts to raise critical, environmental awareness
towards the natural world. Previous research on animation and ecology has mainly focused either on
the historical development of animated film and environmental issues; proving its effectiveness as a
medium for stimulating debate on complex issues, or demonstrating humans’ relationship with the
natural world and what ideologies these films or cartoons (for television) criticize or encourage. Ursula
Heise is the first scholar to examine how some of the aesthetic strategies that are distinctive for
animation engages with nature. By looking closer to animation’s characteristics, this thesis continues
on the work of Heise. But instead of mainly looking at the use of plasmaticness, as Heise does, my
goal is to examine how nostalgia, the sublime, and most of all, animism are related to nature and the
environmental crisis more specifically. It is remarkable that little to no attention has been paid to the
interrelatedness of animation and animism; the first an act of setting motion and life to lifeless matters,
the latter, the belief that also the nonliving have a spirit, a soul, or a consciousness. This belief is
closely related to some of deep ecology’s fundamental assertions.
Keywords
Animation, film, ecology, environmental issues, ecocriticism, animism, nostalgia, the sublime
1
CONTENTS
P.
INTRODUCTION
3

The properties of animation
4

Ecology and ecocriticism
6

Animation and ecology
9
FERNGULLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERACTION:
PRESERVING THE NATURAL WORLD
14

Tracing the wilderness and locating the sublime
14

Forces of destruction and the sublime
18

Environmental interaction and the magic forces of creation
21
WALL-E: FROM POST-APOCALYTPIC DYSTOPIA TO A NOSTALGIC UTOPIA

The apocalyptic narrative and its revelation

The power of technology:
23
23
how the animate become inanimate and the animated animate
25

Excessive consumption and the deterioration of human awareness
27

Down to earth: the fulfillment of a nostalgic utopia
30
CONCLUSION
34
WORKS CITED
36
2
INTRODUCTION
The peculiar fascination of the genre lies in its refusal to treat either
natural or human-made environments as mere inert materials and in its
insistence that these environments are alive and populated by all
manner of nonhuman agents.
(Heise 2014: p. 303)
By taking a closer look at animation’s distinctive qualities as a cinematic style, animation film can
critically address environmental concerns. While several studies have already proven otherwise,
animation film is often condemned as a children’s medium; incapable of delivering a critical stance on
complex discussions on politics, ideologies, societal affairs and ecological concerns. Therefore, it
often has not been taken into serious consideration as a way of producing critical environmental
awareness (Starosielski 2001: p. 148). In her essay ‘Movements That Are Drawn’: A History of
Environmental Animation from The Lorax, to FernGully to Avatar (2011), Nicole Starosielski
addresses some of the arguments that have been made against environmental animation. A first one
being that it “over-simplifies” complex issues and leaves an abstract depiction of environmental
conflicts. Furthermore, as Starosielski illustrates, this distorted representation has the potential to
damage “a pre-existing reality” (2011: p. 149). Therefore, the indexical media is naturalized “as the
most appropriate mode of representation and reinforces a conception of the environment as objective
entity to be captured, rather than subjectively imagined.” (Starosielski 2011: p. 149). I shall suggest,
however, that it is exactly this ‘subjectively imagined environment’ that proves to be able to deliver
substantiated criticism on ecological and environmental issues.
According to Ursula Heise, a key figure in contemporary environmental culture, literature and
art: “up until the past ten years”, “environmental critics had paid little attention to animated film.”
(2014: p. 302). Writers duo Robin L. Murray and Joseph K. Heumann are one of the iconic writers on
ecology and cinema and have extended their research to animation film as well. That’s All Folks?
Ecocritical Readings of American Animated Features (2011) focuses on what they call enviro-toons1;
“animated shorts or feature films that address environmental concerns” (p. 2). Enviro-toons reflect on,
and critique “beliefs about technology, consumerism, and the natural” (p. 11). Contrary to what is
often believed, Murray and Heumann argue that the history of representing environmental concerns in
American animation films reaches much further back than the emergence of the environmental
movement in the 60s. Going back in history Murray and Heumann offer new insights to animated
cinema and the environmental representations at issue. Starosielski’s essay mentioned above also
1
Following the definition given by Lindvall and Melton in Raz Greenberg’s The Animated Text: Definition
(2011), I reject the term ‘enviro-toons’ as it only refers to comic animation, in other words; cartoons. Therefore I
belief the term ‘enviro-toons’ is chosen incorrectly by Murray and Heumann since they also address non-comic
animation films.
3
proves to be a useful and comprehensible text to gain a better understanding of the history of
animation and environmental representations. Furthermore, she addresses the ways in which animation
endeavors to take a critical, though self-reflexive stance on ecological concerns, and attempts to raise
awareness on environmental issues.
However, Heise, points outs that many of these critical studies on animation and
environmental issues focus on “how animated films mobilize particular cultural templates in
portraying nature, how they define humans’ relationship with nonhumans, to what extent they engage
with ecological crisis, and what sociopolitical ideologies they criticize or encourage” (2014: p. 303).
While such studies have proven to give valuable insights, they do not consider the aesthetic strategies
animation films employ to deliver such ecological criticism (Heise 2014: p. 303). She further argues
that animation “should be understood as the principal aesthetic genre that engages with the reification
of nature and its possible alternatives in modern society.” (p. 303). Heise understands the presence of
nonhuman actors (or bodies) and the quality of plasmaticness as some of the key aesthetic
characteristics of animation film. Starosielski proposes a different take on how animation film find its
ways to triggers our environmental awareness. She distinguishes “three ways in which animation’s
experimental and imaginative views can challenge our environmental imagination.” (2011: p. 151).
These are the practice of ‘environmental mutability’, which is closely related to the concept of
plasmaticness which Heise refers to in her work (2014), ‘environmental interaction’, and considering
the ‘environment as construct’ (2011: pp. 150-151). Finally, according to Murray and Heumann,
enviro-toons reveal three narrative and aesthetic patterns in their approach to ecological concerns.
These are: “the power of nature over the human world, the need for controlling human intervention
and nurturing the natural world in order to strengthen their interdependence, and criticism of human
exploitation of the natural world.” (2011: p.5). Following the work of these writers, I shall propose my
own view on how animation film can not only trigger environmental awareness, but also deliver
criticism on current affairs. Before touching upon animation and environmental issues I find it
necessary to explain both terms in depth.
The properties of animation
With the rise of CGI (computer-generated imagery) in live-action films it is becoming much more of a
challenge to define animation. In fact, as Raz Greenberg rightly illustrates in ‘The Animated Text: A
Definition’ (2011), there are several misconceptions on the definition of animation. The first
misconception is that animation is a genre within film. However, a genre is best defined as a set of
form, content and style conventions within artistic texts and practices, such as literature, theatre and
cinema. One cause for this misconception, as Greenberg points out, is that animation is often confused
with the term ‘cartoon’. Defined by Terrance Lindvall and Matthew Melton as comic animation,
“cartoon” is indeed a genre (qtd. in Greenberg 2011: p. 4). Indeed not all animated films are comic.
Films like Persepolis (2007), Waltz with Bashir (2008) and even WALL-E are not defined as comic
4
films. To iconic authors of animation film like Ralph Stephenson and Paul Wells, animation is defined
as “a film made by hand, frame by frame, providing an illusion of movement which has not been
directly recorded in the conventional photographic sense” (qtd. in Greenberg 2011: p. 4). However,
this definition seems more related to analogue and hand-painted animation than to digital or computer
animation. Therefore, the distinction between animation and live-action films still remains unclear as
techniques like CGI are deployed in live-action films and can thus be considered ‘animation’. The best
way to define animated films and distinguish them from live-action films is not “by their contents or
style (as in genre), or the way in which they are consumed by the audience (as in medium), or even the
method in which they are made (or coded)” but “it is in their basic meaning, their ability to convey
concepts, rather than objects.” (Greenberg 2011: p. 5). Indeed, this is also the position I will take in
throughout this thesis. Animation film do not wish to resemble or mimic reality, but instead create a
reality of its own. The desolated earth presented in WALL-E does not claim that this is the future that
awaits us, but instead is a possible and plausible future. Animated films do not seek to replicate reality
but instead attempt to create a reality which can contort representations of space and time and “bring
us into imperceptible worlds, including terrains outside of human perception or beyond the camera’s
reach” (Starosielski 2011: p. 150). Therefore I would suggest that a key characteristic of animation is
to achieve credibility instead of realism. By creating its own realities animation can go beyond the
physical reality in which we live. The real possibilities of animation then, lies within the ability “to
question and challenge the received knowledges which govern the physical laws and normative socio
cultural orthodoxies of the ‘real world’” (Wells 2002: p. 5). In this sense, however, a film like Avatar
(2009) can still be considered an animation film, but I would consider films like Avatar as films that
merely make use of the current technical advancements of computer animation. In the first place it
remains a live-action film as it contains real-life actors and objects present in the physical world. To
clarify:
In the animated text, the non-specific represented object (such as “person” or
“setting”) is always absent in the process of representation – the creation of the
text does not involve the presence of a “person” or “setting” of the kind that is
involved in the creation of the live-action film. (Greenberg 2011: p. 6)
As Greenberg further points out “the spectator never watches the represented object in its physical
form” (p. 6). This leads to another key characteristic of animated film. Rather than being reflective or
a replication of reality the animated film is always imaginative and interpretative. The animator has
total control over its creation and can make objects – both human and non-human – appear in any form
or style he likes. Furthermore, as Ursula Heise (2014) points out, animated films hold the capability of
“plasmaticness”, a term coined by Sergei Eisenstein which means that animated bodies, objects and
settings hold the “ability to expand, contract, stretch, bulge, flatten, implode, explode, fragment, and
yet return to their original shapes.” (Heise 2014: p. 304). It are the above mentioned practices and
5
aesthetic conventions that define animation film. Animation is capable to present a metaphysical
reality in which objects are brought to life that might not be considered as ‘alive’ (Greenberg 2011: p.
5). This stands in relation with the idea of animism. As already mentioned, animation primarily works
through the practice of creating interpretative and imagined worlds and making these believable for
the audience. Moreover, I suggest that the use of animism is one of the main features of animation,
and that it is used a tool that allows them to distinguish themselves from live-action films. In fact,
‘animation’ and ‘animism’ already show a resemblance in their definitions. To animate, is to give life
to something or set something in motion, while animism, means to attribute life to the nonliving, or
give it a consciousness or a soul. This is exactly what animators do; they have to give life to every
little aspect in the narrative, everything they do is a conscious decision. More often than not, animated
films imagine realities in which every ‘body’ – be that humans, animals, plants, stones or any other
object – is indeed very much alive. Anthropomorphism – the act of attributing human characteristics to
the nonhuman – then, seems like the only logical way to make audiences relate to the nonhuman
characters in animation films and simultaneously make them aware that indeed, as deep ecologists
argue, all species and organisms have the right to flourish (and be considered alive!). In this sense,
animation, animism, and anthropomorphism all become interrelated matters, referring to, and
reflecting upon each other.
Ecology and ecocriticism
In order to provide an ecocritical reading to my case studies I must first explain what ecology is and
also how it differs from environmentalism, then I will address the theory of ecocriticism. Ecology and
environmentalism are closely related as they are both concerned with nature and therefore are often
used and thought of as the same thing. Due to our environmental crisis, they are often mixed up and
used in similar fashions. However, ecology is a scientific discipline whereas environmentalism is a
social and political movement. Deriving from the Greek word oikos (home or household) and logos
(study) ecology is the study of species – humans, animals, plants and organisms – and their relations
with each other and their environments or habitats. The basic premise of ecology, as Evernden points
out, is inter-relatedness (1978: p. 16). The study of ecology gained popularity and was integrated in
the general vocabulary when in the late 1960s and early 70s the first pictures of earth as a whole were
taken from space. By this time, however, ecology was still primarily considered as a subfield of
biology (Odum and Barrett 2005: pp. 3-4). When in the 70s the press broadly started to cover
environmental concerns and politics got a hold on it, environmental issues gained more awareness and
ecology started to make its move into the humanities. This is also when environmentalism comes into
play. Environmentalism is a movement based on an ideology to save and preserve the environment.
Environmentalism, therefore, is concerned both with how we affect nature and simultaneously how we
are affected by nature. Environmentalists seek to reduce the harmful effects on nature that are caused
by human interaction.
6
To address further on the study of ecology and to get a better understanding of ecocriticism I find it
necessary to elaborate a bit more on the concept of deep ecology, an environmental and ecological
philosophy. The term was first coined in 1973 by Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess and opposed it
to what he calls ‘shallow ecology’, which takes a rather utilitarian and anthropocentric stance on
ecology. According Naess shallow ecology fights “against pollution and resource depletion” to benefit
“the health and affluence of people in the developed countries.” (1973: p. 95). Conversely, the first
premise Arne Naess and George Sessions attribute to deep ecology is that “the well-being and
flourishing of human and nonhuman Life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic
value, inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the non-human world for
human purposes.” (Naess and Sessions 1984: p.3). In total they have attributed seven more principles
to which deep ecologists, should adhere to. Some of these are rather significant. For example Naess
and Sessions argue that the interference of humans with the natural world is becoming excessive and
the effects of it are harmful. Therefore in order for nonhuman life to flourish, human population
should decrease. As a result policies must change and we should learn to appreciate life quality instead
of aiming for a higher standard of living (Naess and Sessions 1984: pp. 3-6). Both WALL-E and
FernGully step away from the anthropocentric stance of ‘shallow ecology’ and instead argue that all
species have the right to flourish. FernGully does this by positioning humans as ‘the Other’, while
WALL-E constantly delivers criticism upon humans’ behaviors towards the natural world. These
principles of deep ecology are, however, not fixed statements but mainly serve as guidelines to hold on
to, and starting points for discussion. Nevertheless, deep ecology takes on a holistic and egalitarian
view, one where all species have equal rights to flourish and no species is more important than the
other. Especially when it comes to humans we should take on the belief that nature does not exist to
serve humans. Humans, among all other species have an equal share in nature in which they are all
interrelated and all species and organisms in the ecosystem function as a whole.
So what then is ecocriticism? Ecocriticism originally emerged as a discourse in the humanities
and more specifically in literary studies. Ecocriticism, just like the environmental movement, gained
popularity due to the awareness that was raised on pollution, over population, human destruction of
the natural world and other environmental issues that were made explicit in politics and the press. The
Ecocriticism Reader. Landmarks in Literay Ecology (1996) an essay bundle by Cheryll Glotfelty and
Harold Fromm is one of the first mayor and iconic works on ecocriticism. In the introduction of the
book Glotfelty explains what ecocriticism is. Emerging from literary studies ecocriticism “takes an
earth-centered approach to literary studies” (1996: p. xviii) and studies the relation between literature
and the environment, or between literature and nature. Of course, ecocriticism is not only bound to
literary studies but can also be applied in other disciplines such as history, philosophy, sociology, and
film and television studies. Ecocritics are interested in the way nature is presented in a text and as
Glotfelty mentions ask questions like “[…] What role does the physical setting play in the plot of this
novel? […] How do our metaphors of the land influence the way we treat it? […] In addition to race,
7
class, and gender, should place become a new critical category? […] How has the concept of
wilderness changed over time? (1996: p. xix). Furthermore ecocriticism is also concerned with
questions how human culture constructs and is constructed by the natural world. Following Glotfelty,
“ecocriticism takes as its subject the interconnections between nature and culture” and “as a theoretical
discourse, it negotiates between the human and the nonhuman.” (1996: p. xix). However if
ecocriticism is concerned with human perceptions on nature, the dichotomy between culture and
nature endures. As Murray and Heumann assert (2009) “nature, within this framework, is defined in
contrast to culture and humanity, with nature taking the inferior seat in this dualism.” (p. 74).
Moreover, as Howarth contends “if its political agenda insists on an Us-Them dichotomy, then
ecocriticism cannot be self-scrutinizing, only adversarial.” (1996: p. 69). Hence, ecocritics must not
regard nature and culture as opposites, but rather as entities that are in constant flux and always
intermingled.
In this dualism between nature and culture, nature is often socially constructed by the meaning
we give to it and subsequently is often considered as an ‘objectively existing thing out there’. Ecocritic
Timothy Morton explores the way we think about, talk about and construct the natural world in
Ecology Without Nature. Rethinking Environmental Aesthetics (2007). Morton argues that in fact
nature itself is far from “natural” (p. 14). He later continues by saying that nature “is an arbitrary
rhetorical construct, empty of independent, genuine existence behind or beyond the texts we create
about it.” (p. 22). That what is natural and that what is “unnatural” or (socially) constructed is always
indecipherable. The fact that we think there is something like “nature” implies the underlying
understanding that our idea of nature is one we have (socially) constructed. Morton does not say that
there is no such thing as nature – indeed there is, and we are at once surrounded by it and embedded in
it – but in order to be ecocritical one should lose the idea of nature since it is “the one thing that
maintains an aesthetic distance between us and them, us and it, us and “over there””. (Morton 2007: p.
204).
Neil Evernden wrote about such theories on the natural world long before ecology gained
popularity in the study of arts and humanities.2 Evernden’s work is primarily concerned with how
humans – as cultural beings – apprehend and experience nature. He tries to make explicit that there’s a
connection in the way we see the world and “the fact that we are destroying our own habitat” (Jensen
2004: p. 112) The way we see and experience the world is often linked with feelings of the sublime. I
will come back to this notion in the following chapter. However, the sublime has much to do with
what we determine as beautiful in nature. Our actions are determined by the way we see things. So the
way we see nature, determines our behavior with it. Therefore, if one experiences a feeling of the
sublime within nature, than it is likely one might change its attitude towards nature. Furthermore
2
In fact, in Beyond Ecology: Self, Place, & the Pathetic Fallacy Evernden advocates for greater interest and
research in ecology in the study of arts and humanities in order to achieve a better understanding of the
relatedness between man and “nature”, and a stronger environmental movement (1978).
8
Evernden’s work concentrates on the environmental thought and “the social constitution of natural
entities.” (Jensen 2004: p112). In doing so, Evernden seems to take an even more radical stance than
Morton does when it comes to talking about (ideas of) nature. He argues that in fact “nature” is a
dangerous word, since “there is no such thing as Nature, there are simply other entities.” When we talk
about nature, we merely talk about concepts of nature, and that, as Evernden stresses, is really all they
are; concepts (Jensen 2004: pp. 112-113). In the same way that Morton argues that we should lose the
idea of nature, Evernden argues that we should renounce from “the belief that our role is to describe
and explain, and thereby contain” (Jensen 2004: p. 221). In other words, we should release ourselves
from the idea that we constantly have to give meaning to nature and instead should consider it as
something that just is.
Culture can never achieve the status that nature possesses of an entity that just is. Because
culture just isn’t. A thing like clothing and fashion never just is. It is a thing that’s produced by men
and is given meaning to. At first clothing might seem as a natural thing; of course we have to get
dressed, we need to protect our bodies from both cold and warm weather conditions and showing up
naked to work is simply not accepted. In this sense, clothing and dressing up seems as the most natural
thing to do. However clothing, through fashion, has become more and more so a way to express
ourselves, and even a way of showing we belong to a particular group in society (like skaters, Goths or
hippies) or that we belong to a certain class in society. Therefore, if we would consider nature as
something that just is, I contend that the dualism between nature and culture or us and it still persists.
It even problematizes the discussion further as it can be questioned if we should consider humans as
cultural or natural beings? When talking about concepts of nature should we include humans to the
natural ones or the cultural ones? In this sense I would argue that humans in essence are a product of
nature, but through the very act of giving meaning to products, environments, experiences (and what
not?) in life, and our subjugation to consumerist behavior, we have become cultural products.
Animation and Ecology
As the term “to animate” already indicates, animation films brings life to objects and machines (or
cultural products more generally), animals, plants, and inanimate matters found in the natural world.
As indicated previously in the section ‘Animation’, animation films are both imaginative and
interpretative by nature. Furthermore, animation films are self-reflexive and, as asserted by Wells,
Hardstaff and Clifton in Re-Imagining Animation. The Changing Face of the Moving Image (2008),
are “constantly aware of its own high artifice and illusionism”, and due to the presence of an author
who is “always configured in the self-conscious nature of the image-making”, Wells, Hardstaff and
Clifton contend that “animation has insisted upon its distinctiveness and potential difference, if not
subversiveness as a form” (2008, p. 24). Nevertheless, due to its aesthetics and the falsely assumed
conviction that animation is solely for children, animation film is often accused for being too abstract,
oversimplified, and incapable of portraying an effective representation on environmental issues and
9
conveying complex ideological, political and environmental messages. As Wells, Hardstaff and
Clifton further indicate “animation is still considered innocuous and juvenile, despite its proven
usefulness as a primary propaganda tool in Maoist China, for example, or indeed its proven efficacy as
a ubiquitous repressive and manipulative political tool in Western corporate media.” (p. 48).
Nevertheless, animation does posses peculiar techniques and aesthetic forms that make for a
believable and thus convincing representation of both the cultural and natural world, and therefore
proves to be competent to criticize both natural and cultural constructed worlds – inside and outside
narrative. Starosielski even asserts that it is exactly the use of abstraction and simplification that give
animation its strength (2011: p 146). This will be further demonstrated later on by the work of Ursula
Heise and the concept of ‘plasmaticness’, but first let me draw on some of the techniques used by
animation to reflect on environmental issues.
In her essay Movements that are drawn: A history of environmental animation form The Lorax
to FernGully to Avatar (2011) Starosielski distinguishes “three ways in which animation’s
experimental and imaginative views can challenge our environmental imagination” (2011: p. 151).
The first one, environmental mutability, relies on the ability of animation to “contort the space and
time of representation” (Starosielski 2011: p. 150). Animation can thus – more easily than nonanimated films – represent environmental transformation while simultaneously blurring the relation
between object and subject. The second, environmental interaction, “refers both to functional
interaction, defined as physical interaction with an object or text, and cognitive interaction, a mode of
perception requiring a high level of interpretative response.” (2011: p. 151). Characters in
(environmental) animation films can manipulate and be manipulated by the environment in a variety
of ways. Audiences then often identify themselves with the active relationship represented between the
characters and their world, which ultimately could bring about a “cognitive interaction from the
spectator as their interpretive attention is directed toward the environment as a possible actor.” (2011:
p. 151). The final way in which Starosielski argues how animation can challenge our environmental
imagination is when she describes how the environment is constructed. Starosielski argues that it are
actually the first two methods that can alert the audience to recognize how the environment is actually
more of a cultural construction than “an objectively existing nature”. She asserts that “through
exaggerated environmental transformation and the deliberate misrepresentation of reality, animation
can lead audiences to question how the actual world has been constructed.” (2011: p. 151).
In Beyond Ecology (1978) Evernden discusses how the aesthetic experience of nature “lies in
the relationship between the individual and the environment” (p. 18). Ones experience of the natural
world is comprehended is not “simply in the object viewed, nor the mind of the viewer”, but through
“a process, an interaction between the viewer and the viewed” (p. 18). This idea of how the aesthetic
experience with nature is established, is closely related to Starosielski’s ‘environmental interaction’.
Through animation’s ability to transform a character’s physical appearance and the appearance of the
ability of the environment to take on different shapes and sizes (think about landscapes, trees, houses
10
etc.), the viewer is invited to interpret and respond to these changes, as they, more likely than not,
deviate from the ‘real world’. This ability where animated character’s3 take on peculiar shapes is
defined as plasmaticness, as stated in the previous section. Ursula Heise successfully describes how
plasmaticness triggers our environmental awareness:
Speaking and acting animals, plants, and objects invite the viewer to see
humans as only one of many manifestations of liveliness, intentionality, and
agency in the fictional worlds of animation, in which human interests and
endeavors are often pitted against those of animals, machines, or objects.
Plasmatic bodies, both human and nonhuman, might seem to defy
environmentalist worries about the fragility of nature, but they also playfully
explore ecological adaptation, resilience, and the synthetic, human-made
ecologies that define the future of nature in the Anthropocene, the age in which
humans transform even the most basic structures of their planet. By questioning
how and why we discover agency in nonhumans, how organisms become
objects and objects organisms, animated film persistently draws attention to the
reification of nature in modern societies and its opposite, the encounter with
nature as a realm populated by a variety of nonhuman agents. (2014, p. 305)
The description Heise gives here on how plasmaticness invites the viewer to rethink extant ideologies
on the relation between humans and the natural world, much resembles the ideas of deep ecology. By
animation’s ability to produce new realities – indeed a reality that is ‘ecocentric’ instead of
anthropocentric, and where all species flourish and are recognized among all others – it can be argued
that animation film certainly is able to challenge our environmental thoughts and raise awareness on
our natural habitat and environmental issues. While it also could be argued that this might seem as an
idealized world that seems far from feasible, we should keep in mind that the animated film is always
interpretative and self-reflexive. Nevertheless, the art of animating can be compared to making a
portrait. Evernden suggests that:
The artist is not doing landscape paintings; he is doing landscape portrait, or
place portraits. And just as the serious portraitist attempts to capture the
essential qualities of his subject, qualities which would otherwise be known
only to the subject’s friends, so the landscape artist gives us a glimpse of the
character of the land that would otherwise require long experience to achieve.
The artist makes the world personal – known, loved, feared, or whatever, but
not neutral. (1978: p. 19)
Just like the portraitist, animators do not wish to make the fictional world a replica or a reflection of
the ‘real’ world, but instead attempts to create a different world in which the essential qualities of
3
When talking about animated ‘characters’ I talk about both the human and nonhuman characters, as well as
(parts of) the natural and cultural environment represented. In contrast to live-action films, in animation every
single detail is considered, from the way how a character’s hair falls, or the way a doorbell looks and rings and
then to the colors and shapes of trees (think The Lorax, 2012).
11
existence are portrayed. Indeed, it is the animator’s personal interpretation of a reality, which can, and
often will, be loved (Up, FernGully) or feared (WALL-E). And precisely because this world is a
personal interpretation, just like Evernden asserts, it can never be neutral. Furthermore, in animation
neither the natural world or the human environment are treated as inert entities (Heise 2014: p. 303),
on the contrary, these environments and the humans, animals, plants, organisms and other nonhuman
agents that populate them, are in fact, very much alive. This, at once, is also the understanding and
practice of animism; the idea that all nonhumans have a soul and the attribution of life to all nonliving
matters. The practice of animism is just another one of the peculiar features that differentiates
animation from live-action films.
With the American (cinematic) culture as their focal point, Murray and Heumann4 affirm that
animated films (both short films and feature films) with a focus on ecology, “ask an audience to reperceive everyday issues, themes, and knowledge related to differing phases of the American
environmental movement” (2011: p.2). In relation to the historical and cultural context and the
ecological approach of a film, Murray and Heumann argue that American animated films reveal three
narrative and aesthetic patterns: “the power of nature over the human world, the need for controlling
human intervention and nurturing the natural world in order to strengthen their interdependence, and
criticism of human exploitation of the natural world.” (2011: p. 5). While Murray and Heumann argue
that all three of these narrative and aesthetic patterns are present in American animated films, I believe
that in every animated film at least one of the three patterns is supported more extensively than the
other.
Since I will be examining the films also in relation to nostalgia, I find it necessary to explore
the meaning of nostalgia and how it is related to the environment. Indeed, nostalgia is often discussed
in relation with the environment. Or conversely, the environment is often discussed with notions of
nostalgia. Hence, the combination of nostalgia and environment is often found in nature writings and
ecocritical texts. This might not come as a surprise, since simply formulated nostalgia is a longing to a
different – often ‘happier’ and ‘better’ – time or place, usually located in the past. Nostalgia is a
compound of the Greek word ‘nostos’, meaning homecoming, and ‘algo’, meaning pain or suffering.
The relation is then readily made. As mentioned earlier, the word ecology is compounded by the
Greek word ‘oikos’, meaning home and in a broader ecological term it simply means nature. If
nostalgia means a yearn for the past, or more specifically a yearn to ‘come back home again’, then in
ecological writings, this could mean a yearn for a nature in the past. Jeremy Davies discusses the
relation between environment and nostalgia in Sustainable Nostalgia (2010), where he, more
specifically, relates nostalgia to sustainability. He argues that “the dream of sustainability, […], is a
4
In the introduction of their book That’s All Folks. Ecocritical Readings of American Animated Features (2011:
p. 2) Murray and Heumann make a distinction in the different ecological movements that altogether form the
American environmental movement. These are: hu-man ecology, organismic ecology, economic ecology, and
chaotic ecology.
12
nostalgia for the future. Its fundamental desire is precisely that which the nostalgic yearns for: a stable
home, free from the losses of time.” (p. 264).
In animation, implementing nostalgic elements can thus work to bring about sentimental
feelings of nature. The viewer is made aware of the ever-worsening conditions of the present
environment and realizes that change and intervention is needed for the benefit of both human and
nonhuman life. Nostalgia can be a personal experience, but it can also be experienced through a
cultural collective remembrance, one that many individuals of a (cultural) group, or nation, can relate
to. Animation films work on two levels in relation with (cultural) collective remembrance. On the one
hand, since animation film is often attributed to a younger audience, adults who watch an animation
film might feel sentimental about their younger years as kids and teens and bring up memories of how
careless the world then seemed to be. On the other hand, through its narrative aesthetics animation can
play with collective remembrance and create an enjoyable moment of recognition for many viewers.
Through what I call ‘environmental nostalgia’, in which the both the natural and cultural environment
are represented through a nostalgic setting, animation films can present an identifiable environment
and simultaneously provoke the viewer to rethink the environment we live in and how we’re
exploiting our natural habitat. By use of an nostalgic environment animation can suggest a different
reading of the environment and make viewers more conscious of their behaviors.
My goal then, is to examine and argue that through the uses of animism, nostalgia and a
representation of the sublime, animation film is capable of adopting an ecocritical stance and able to
reflect on the interrelations between such dualisms as nature/culture, human/nonhuman. The animated
film achieves this by presenting imagined (interpretative), yet believable worlds. I will substantiate
this claim, by examining to what extent the films make use of animism, nostalgia and the sublime, and
consider in what ways this serves as a contribution to their critical position on the environment.
Finally I wish to determine how each film reflects on the dualism and interrelatedness between nature
and culture. The first one of these films to be analyzed is WALL-E (2008) which is a critique, as
Murray and Heumann state, of ‘human exploitation of the natural world’. It will be examined in
relation to notions of (post-)apocalyptic narratives, consumerism and nostalgia. Thereafter, I will
address FernGully: The Last Rainforest (1992) which was one of the first animated feature films to
attract considerable attention from both the general public as politicians. FernGully, pleading for
preservation of the natural world, will be examined by locating the sublime in Starosielski’s notion of
‘environmental interaction’, and an understanding of ‘the wilderness’. Even though I advocate the
many ways in which animation reflect on environmental issues and the ideologies they encourage, I
want to note that I do not wish to argue that animation films provide a better representation of
ecological issues than documentary or fictional live-action films. I simply believe animation films can
bring about different thoughts and ideas to raise critical awareness of the environment among
audiences in their own, unique and peculiar ways.
13
FERNGULLY AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERACTION: PRESERVRING THE NATURAL
WORLD
FernGully is an Australian-American animated film from 1992. The film takes place in Australia
where the last rainforest, FernGully, is located. Inside the rainforest live tree spirits, or fairies, who
“nurture the harmony of all living things” as Magi Lune, the mother figure of the rainforest explains.
They believe humans have gone extinct by an evil creature named Hexxus; the very spirit of
destruction. Magi Lune possesses magical powers by which she could trap Hexxus inside an
enchanted tree. When the naïve fairy Crysta decides to explore the world outside FernGully and flies
above the treetops she discovers smoke from Mount Warning. Crysta befriends Batty Koda, a megabat
that has been experimented on by humans. Together they head off to Mount Warning and discover
dead trees that are marked for cutting. Crysta accidently shrinks Zak, a human being part of a larger
group destroying the rainforest. The three go on a journey together and Zak learns to appreciate the
rainforest.
The title of the film FernGully: The Last Rainforest already indicates that nature, wilderness
and rainforests are endangered. FernGully is the last remaining rainforest and therefore should be
preserved and taken care of. While WALL-E approaches environmental issues by questioning the
human/nonhuman dualism, FernGully discusses and critiques human’s relationship with nature from
an ecocentric approach and treats nature as if it has a mind and soul of its own. The film takes on the
standpoint from the natural world rather than a human, cultural point of view. Moreover the film
seems to somewhat neglect the way humans think and feel, and instead takes on an animistic approach
in which nature is considered to have both emotional and physical feelings of its own. My goal here is
to examine in what ways FernGully is presented as a wilderness, and to what extent FernGully (the
rainforest) can be considered a wilderness. Furthermore I shall locate ‘the sublime’ and examine how
this may trigger not only environmental interaction, but perhaps even more so, our environmental
awareness.
Tracing the wilderness and locating the sublime
‘Wilderness’ cannot be comprehended by one single definition. In fact, a or the ‘definition’ of the
wilderness is under continual change, therefore it is wiser and safer to speak of notions or descriptions
of the wilderness, rather than ‘the definition’ of the wilderness. Indeed throughout history men has
given different meaning to what a wilderness is and how it is experienced. However, when speaking
about a wilderness it is important to distinguish it from the wild, and from wildness; these have
different meanings, but are often confused with one another or are understood as the same thing.
Another crucial point to consider is the place that humanity takes in when speaking and thinking about
wildernesses. Could it even be that humanity takes no place in the wilderness and does not belong
14
there? Or how about humans and wildness? Finally, how does the sublime relate to the wilderness, and
perhaps even to wildness?
Perhaps the most common and traditional concept of wilderness is that of the 1964 U.S.
Wilderness Act where wilderness is described as “an area where the earth and its community of life
are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain” (DeLancey 2012: p.
26). Indeed, at first one might think of wilderness as a large, possibly dangerous (wild) area,
untouched by man. A place where any form of civilization is hard to find and a place where survival
skills are needed in order to make your way through it. Or at least where one needs an experienced
guide who’s familiar with the area so that you won’t fall for the traps that nature may hide from you.
But is this a reliable and accurate description of wilderness? Is wilderness always a pristine area left
untouched by humans? And if wilderness – at times – is affected by humankind, then what defines
wilderness? In what ways is it affected, or is it merely taken care of and preserved? What ‘traits’ do
we ascribe to wilderness?
As an environmental historian William Cronon studies the human interaction with nature over
time. In his 1996 essay The Trouble with Wilderness: Or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature Cronon
traces the different meanings society (or societies) have given to wilderness. He starts off with some
Christian notions of wilderness in which it is perceived as a dark place that “had little or nothing to
offer civilized men and women” and where nothing good was to be found. A place where one would
only come against their will, fearful and shivering (p. 9). Even in the eighteenth century, wilderness
was characterized with words such as deserted, savage, desolate, barren and, ‘a waste’ (Cronon: p. 8).
It appears as if wilderness has no positive adjunctions and was typified as a fearful place. As Cronon
notes “the emotion one was most likely to feel in its presence was “bewilderment” or terror.” (Cronon:
p. 8). If this is the case, then for FernGully the rainforest is not a wilderness for humans, but instead
wilderness turns into a fearful place for the fairies that actually live there. In fact, it would be mankind
that makes the rainforest a fearful place, by destroying it and leaving it uncontrolled and barren:
impossible for organisms (such as the fairies) to flourish.
However, this biblical view of the wilderness as a dark and dangerous – even diabolical –
place changed by the end of the nineteenth century. Instead of a place to be feared, the wilderness had
become a spectacle, a place which one had to visit, and by doing so, one could achieve an
otherworldly or even godly experience. The Romantic concept of the wilderness held the belief that it
was a place for religious redemption (Cronon 1996: p. 13). The wilderness, in accordance with the
Romantics, now was a place of the sublime (Cronon 1996: p. 10). German philosopher Immanuel Kant
was the first to introduce the notion of the sublime. Experiencing something as sublime is different
from experiencing or viewing something as beautiful. For Kant, experiencing something as beautiful is
bound by the form of objects within definite boundaries. The sublime, on the other hand, is found in
formless objects, exactly because there is a lack of form. Because of the absence of form, our mind –
indeed, our reason – cannot fully comprehend that what is presented to us. The sublime then refers to
15
an indeterminate relationship between the faculties of the imagination and of reason; the impotence to
comprehend the presented object, induces our minds to attempt to comprehend what we see and
therefore our imagination enters a relationship with reason. That what we see or experience is too large
to grasp our minds to. More precisely we are overwhelmed by what we see, and at once are in awe.
Nevertheless, the feeling we receive is pleasure (Ginsborg 2014). However, Kant distinguishes two
notions of the sublime: the mathematically and dynamically. Even though Kant distinguishes between
these two sorts of the sublime, this is not to say that there are different kinds of the sublime. These are
not two different kinds, but only two ways to consider the sublime in relation to nature. In the case of
the mathematical sublime, “we are confronted with something that is so large that it overwhelms
imagination’s capacity to comprehend it.” (Ginsborg 2014). The imagination seeks a relationship with
reason to comprehend that what is presented but fails to do so. Our imagination is infinite, but reason
is limited to real, existing ideas and understandings. Furthermore, within the mathematically sublime,
the representation must not involve the idea of purpose. Hence, the sublime is often found in nature, as
we can never fully comprehend nature.
The dynamically sublime, on the other hand, can be experienced when nature is considered “a
power that has no dominion over us” (Ginsborg 2014). The feeling of the dynamically sublime thus
occurs when we experience nature as fearful, yet are not really afraid because we still feel safe. As
Ginsborg observes, being in this situation makes us “recognize our physical powerlessness” over
nature’s power, yet at the same time “it reveals a capacity for judging ourselves as independent of
nature and a superiority over nature” (2014). However, taken from a deep ecological view, this
recognition of ‘judging ourselves as independent of nature and a superiority over nature’, is somewhat
problematic as it suggests a usefulness of nature for the purpose of mankind. Deep ecology, however,
“demands recognition of intrinsic value in nature” (Garrard Ecocriticism 2012: p. 24). Even though, as
deep ecology suggests, we are embedded in nature, rather than independent of nature, one should not
underestimate the powers of nature, or more specifically; the power of the wilderness. While we might
have some agency over nature in the sense that we can and should preserve our natural environments,
our powerlessness over nature should above all remind us that mankind is of no more value than any
other species, organism or matter in nature (nor is it of any less value!). However, for Kant, the
pleasure that results from the sublime, inextricably occurs with a feeling of displeasure. So even
though notions and experiences of the wilderness were associated more positively, in the case of the
sublime, there always is a feeling of displeasure and discomfort.
The myth of the frontier was another cultural movement that led to the transition in
experiencing wilderness as a dark and fearful place, to a place where one could escape the allurements
and confining beliefs of a debilitating modern civilization in order to live a more simpler, primitive
and ‘truer’ life. Moreover it was a place for national renewal and rediscovering what it was to be
American (Cronon 1996: p. 13). The myth of the frontier always had a nostalgic background.
Supporters of the frontier myth believed “that wilderness was the last bastion of rugged individualism”
16
and so they mourned for a simpler and ‘truer’ world (p.13). It was believed that wild land had been
crucial in the making of the nation and thus had to be preserved. Even though the frontier was gone,
by preservation, the frontier experience could still be lived (Cronon 1996: p. 16). Cronon continues by
stating that the idea of wilderness and the visitation of it now belonged to an elitist group of modern
society. Wilderness – seen as a quintessential place – had become a place of recreation. This was,
however, an insult to Native Americans and farmers who (once) lived on this wild land. The elitist
groups didn’t believe wilderness was a place that could be habited (1996: p. 15). Additionally, some
paleoecologists believe that if the Native Americans had not managed their land:
the vast, biologically diverse open prairies of North and South America would not
have existed, that the American heartland would instead have been grown over
with brush. Some believe that the North American forests would not have been as
rich and diverse in the absence of the Indian’s pyrotechnology. (Callicott 2002:
p.175)
This statement implicitly contends that a wilderness, in fact, can be habited and even more so that
through habitation, the wilderness is actually being preserved. It thus contradicts the common concept
of wilderness that is believed to be a pristine area untouched by humans. DeLancey, who speaks of
wilderness as a complex ecosystem, claims that it is very possible for a wilderness to have humans as
part of the organisms living in the ecosystem (2012: p. 31). He continues that in fact humans might
even benefit the ecosystem as it is possible that “more individual organisms, and more kinds of
organisms” will exist “if there were humans in that landscape” (p. 31). Furthermore, the ecosystem
might not even be a wilderness without the presence of humans (DeLancey 2012: p. 31). Still, all these
different notions of the wilderness that I mentioned before prove that ‘wilderness’ is a culturally
constructed place, just like nature itself is inescapable of similar denominations. Because of all the
different meanings given to it, “nature in itself flickers between things—it is both/and or neither/nor.”
(Morton 2007: p. 18). Or as Cronon announces in the beginning of his essay there is nothing natural
about wilderness (and thus, there’s nothing natural about nature!). He writes:
Far from being the one place on earth that stands apart from humanity, it is quite
profoundly a human creation – indeed, the creation of very particular human
cultures at very particular moments in human history. (1196: p. 7)
Wilderness is thus a product of civilization. Cronon continues that when we think about wilderness,
and nature in general, a mirror is being hold up for us in which we imagine to see nature while in fact
what we see is “the reflection of our own unexamined longings and desires”. Thus the “nonhuman
world we encounter in wilderness is far from being merely our own invention.” (Cronon 1996: p. 8).
We desire to see what we believe is the wilderness, while in fact what we really see is merely a
representation of our constructed view of the wilderness. Essentially, Cronon argues that wilderness is
17
nothing more than an imagined world ‘out there’. It is a place to look at and cherish. Furthermore, it is
a place we’ve created in our minds to be peaceful, a place we visit to escape from the artificialities of
modern society – only to return to that same society moments later. It is an authentic landscape which
suggest the illusion of freedom. Perhaps the danger in attempting to comprehend (or even represent)
the wilderness, lies in Cronon’s argument that it is nothing more than an imagined world ‘out there’
and that whatever we see or find in the wilderness is nothing more than an illusion. But if the
wilderness is our (illusory) escape to freedom and a peaceful land, then why don’t we understand that
our society is in peril? And that it is us, human beings, that induced this endangered world. If the
wilderness is an escape to freedom and peace, than the cultural world (that we constructed ourselves)
must be a world of make-belief.
Forces of destruction and the sublime
While FernGully presents its viewers a fantasy world inhabited by fairies, it does not wish to represent
the rainforest as a fantasy. In fact, through the use of animism, plasmaticness, and the sublime, the
film warns us for the real harm that humans cause to rainforests if deforestation is not controlled soon.
Thus, even though FernGully presents a fantasy world, the message the film conveys is not much of a
fantasy, but more of a reality. While the film clearly fights against deforestation, it claims that not only
human beings can harm nature, but that there are other ‘forces of destruction’. In fact, Hexxus, the
very spirit of destruction, is presumed to have caused human extinction. Even though humans did not
become extinct, it implies that nature might indeed be a self-regulating entity in which humanity is not
safer than any other species from extinction. It might just be the natural way in which nature evolves.
It thus seems as if either way, by human forces or by natural forces inherent to earth’s biosphere, the
natural order (including human beings!) is vulnerable to possibly devastating, irrevocable changes.
Dinosaurs have become extinct, so it might not be unlikely for humans to await the same fate.
Sublime moments can be traced in different moments in the film. The first is when Crysta flies
above the treetops and glances over the rainforest. The view shows an endless, tranquil and healthy
looking image of the rainforest, but far into the horizon there arises a big black cloud behind the
mountain tops. On the one hand the sublime lies in the presentation of something greater than Crysta
can grasp; she is the first to fly above the treetops of the rainforest and appears to be in awe of what
she sees. It is the form of Kant’s understanding of the mathematically sublime. Crysta is unable to
understand and comprehend the image of nature that she has just witnessed. Therefore, shortly after,
she visits Magi Lune and asks her what the black cloud was. Crysta not only learns that the cloud is
probably smoke, but also learns what mountains are. At the same time, when Crysta finds herself
above the treetops, she is nearly attacked by what appears to be an eagle. The eagle implies what
dangers lie behind the supposedly safe environment of the FernGully rainforest. It further suggests that
the wilderness is not as safe and sound as it is thought to be and that in fact features of the wild appear
in our direct environment. Furthermore Crysta proves to have an idealized perspective on FernGully,
18
and thus an idealized perspective of her own habitat; the wilderness. Indeed, she is unaware of the
‘wild’ in wilderness.
According to Cronon however, the idealized concept of the wilderness induces the case where
we tend to forget about the wilderness in our direct environment like our backyards or a lake nearby
the city. (1996: p. 22). According to Cronon we should learn that wilderness can be found anywhere.
This, however, is something we still need to learn, because:
By teaching us to fetishize sublime places and wide open country, these
peculiarly American ways of thinking about wilderness encourages us to adopt
too high a standard for what counts as “natural.” If it isn’t hundreds of square
miles big, if it doesn’t give us God’s-eye view or grand vistas, if it doesn’t
permit us the illusion that we are alone on the planet, then it really isn’t natural.
It’s too small, too plain, or too crowded to be authentically wild. (Cronon 1996:
p. 22)
Indeed, in a society where we want everything to be bigger, better, and more, and because of the
cultural meaning of wilderness that has become so familiar to all, it is hard to take a step back and
notice the wilderness that surrounds us. Cronon is not on his own by arguing that wilderness can also
be found in the smaller things. Sigurd F. Olson in his essay What Is Wilderness? also suggests that
wilderness can be found in places “no matter how small”, which results that wilderness becomes much
more accessible to millions of people5 (Olson 1968: p. 151). But if the wilderness is a “compellingly
beautiful place free of human imprint, an object of great worth precisely in having escaped human
domination, where natural processes reign unimpeded.” (Proctor 1998: p. 355) to what extent then, is
FernGully still a wilderness when humans started logging? Hasn’t it actually become more of a
wilderness than before humans entered? And can the desolated and demolished earth represented in
WALL-E be called a ‘wilderness’? It becomes necessary not only to rethink and re-evaluate the notions
around wilderness, but also consider the meaning of wildness
In order to trace and understand the wild in wilderness I shall refer to Henry David Thoreau’s
famous statement: “in Wildness is the preservation of the world” (Proctor 1998: p. 358). Indeed, he is
not referring to wilderness, but to wildness. According to Thoreau, humans play a significant part in
the destruction of the untamed natural world (wildernesses) and the systematical order of it. The
beauty of nature lies in the wild aspect of it. It is in observing or entering the wild part of nature that
human beings come to realize that it is something we should preserve instead of deplete. A further
distinction between the wilderness and wildness should be made. Unlike wilderness, wildness can be
found anywhere, for it is not a denominated, demarcate place, like wilderness is. In fact, it is quite the
opposite. Wildness is a state of mind. As Proctor (1998) quotes David Rothenberg, wildness:
5
Article found in The Meaning of Wilderness. Essential Articles and Speeches by Sigurd F. Olson, but edited
and with an introduction by David Backes.
19
is a quality that beguiles us, a tendency we both flee and seek. It is the unruly,
that which won’t be kept down, that crazy love, that path that no one advises us
to take – it’s against the rules, it’s too far, too fast, beyond order, irreconcilable
with what we are told is right. Wild Thing. Wild Life. Wild One. Wild Child.
Wild Culture. (Rothenberg qtd. in Proctor 1998: p. 358)
In line with the previous, wildness literally means possessing the quality of being wild and untamed. A
quality which is often produced in nature. In this belief, wilderness is the place where wildness is
created or performed. But if wildness can be found anywhere and is a ‘tendency that we both flee and
seek’ and in fact is really a state of mind, then I would suggest that the sublime is closely related to
(the properties of) wildness. Since the sublime is related to beauty, then to have a sublime feeling is to
have an aesthetic reaction (Novak 1972: p. 37). As the sublime is often accompanied by a feeling of
displeasure, the sublime is “generally suspenseful, attended by terror and dread, and often relieved by
the uproar of cataracts, earthquakes, fires, storms, thunder, volcanoes.” (Novak 1972: p. 37).
Earthquakes, storms and fires are often experienced as fearful and are considered as the wild part of
nature. However as Novak further notes: “Nothing is more sub-lime than mighty power and strength.”
(1972: p. 37). Thus, while they are fearful they also create a pleasurable overwhelming feeling.
If it is not the wilderness that shows itself, than it sure is the wild, or wildness, that occurs as
Crysta heads off to Mount Warning. Images of a green healthy and safe forest take place for reddish,
brown, black and dark images of dying trees. The sky has turned dark and a group of black crows fly
towards Crysta, again signaling the danger that awaits the population of FernGully. To a certain extent
the rainforest resembles the apocalyptic and desolated environment found in WALL-E. Even though in
WALL-E there’s no natural world left to be seen; no trees or any of that kind (that is, not until WALLE finds the plant), both environments resemble each other in their overall appearance. Both present the
environment as a wasteland. The color tone of the environment is brown-reddish and implies a dying
or deserted earth, ravaged by both natural and cultural (human) destruction. Also, both films present
moments of the sublime in somewhat fearful environments. For FernGully this takes place shortly
after the environment of Mount Warning is introduced where lumberjacks are destroying the precious
rainforest by cutting down trees. Zak, one of the lumberjacks approaches a big, black and fearfully
looking tree. He stands before it and is in awe by its dimensions and appearance; it is nothing like the
other trees he’s marked. Indeed it is the tree Hexxus is captured in and as soon as he marks it, the tree
is made animate; Hexxus, what could be considered the (evil) spirit or soul of the tree, is released by
the spray can; a toxic for the natural world and thus a force of destruction. However, the tree Hexxus is
captured in, is not only animated in the sense of given life to, but is also animated in the cinematic
sense. The Hexxus tree is animated to stand out and distinguish itself from the other trees in the
environment. Unlike the other trees that are lighter of color and mostly presented as tall, ‘lean’ and
straight trees, the tree Hexxus is captured in, is a massive, black tree, with branches resembling long
20
arms, able to seize anything that passes by. Animation, as a cinematic form, does not try to mimic
reality, but instead attempts to create a plausible reality where the practice of animism (attributing life,
or a soul, to nonhuman things), is applied.
Even though Kant argues that the sublime is mainly to be found in nature, it is questioned
whether the sublime could also be found in pieces of art or other objects. Through the act of animation
and animism, and by way of attributing plasmaticness to a certain character, object or phenomena, I
would argue that the sublime could very well be found in meanings than nature. In the case of WALLE I’d consider EVE as the ultimate embodiment of the sublime. For seven centuries WALL-E’s only
living company was a cockroach. Therefore when he sees EVE for the very first time he is
overwhelmed by her appearance and yet cannot fully comprehend who or what she is, why she is on
this earth and what her directive is. Due to her modern design – in fact resembling much of the Apple
products (iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad) – EVE is aesthetically beautiful; a shiny, white egg-shaped robot
(whereas WALL-E looks like a rusty, rugged robot) and is therefore a pleasure to look at. EVE’s
behavior however, does not fit her graceful design and appearance. EVE proves to posses some
destructive powers. Her destructive powers show off when she creates a major explosion by the
shipwrecks, causing them to fall over like domino stones. But also when WALL-E takes EVE to his
home and shows her how to dance, EVE initially bounces her body ferociously on the floor and in a
second attempt, blasts WALL-E into the wall while swirling. Despite her actions, WALL-E remains
fascinated by EVE’s appearance and presence. and thus experiences a sublime feeling when he
observes her and at the same time tries to comprehend her.
Environmental interaction and the magic forces of creation
Regardless of the meanings we ascribe to wilderness and nature, it does not mean that there is no such
place as a nonhuman nature and a pristine wilderness. It are the connotations we give to wilderness –
and nature in general – that transform it into an ‘unnatural’ environment, or better, a socially
constructed environment. Wilderness, however, does consist of vast, desolate places, and more
importantly, wilderness and nature do exist outside humanity’s perceptions of it. Nature and
wildernesses are simply there. The main argument FernGully wants to make, seems to be that in order
to preserve this pristine wilderness, one should in fact interact with it. By interacting with the
environment one gets to learn the environment and appreciate it at the same time. However,
acknowledging the idea that nature simply is there, does not take away the fact that for humans, nature
in some ways is always culturally constructed. Even more so, “ecological problems, are features of our
society, arising out of our dealings with nature, from which we should like to free ourselves” (John
Passmore qtd. in Garrard Ecocriticism 2012: p. 6). Even though humans’ relationship with nature is
not really explained (except through logging and causing destruction), and the film only poses one
ecological problem (deforestation), FernGully nevertheless advocates human interaction with the
natural environment. For Crysta, the relation with the environment is not much different than a
21
relation with any other person or species. Crysta is then also surprised when she finds out that Zak
does not talk or communicate in some other way with nature. She asks him to listen to what nature has
to tell. While Zak is impressed by the FernGully rainforest, he does not yet fully engage or interact
with his new environment. His appreciation for and understand of the environment arises when he and
Crysta go on a small journey in the underwater world of FernGully. By the end of the journey, when
Crysta leaves Zak in search of Magi to return him back to his human size, Zak for the first time feels
the pain of a tree when he tries to climb it. More importantly, he now understands the damage that
deforestation causes.
Unlike most environmental narratives, FernGully treats humans as ‘the Other’. By looking at
humans as the other, we can engage more critically in the narrative and question our habits and
attitude towards nature. While in most narratives the world is invaded or corrupted by some sort of
nonhuman agents (aliens, zombies, robots), in FernGully the opposite occurred. It are in fact human
beings themselves that ‘invade’ in the wilderness and thereby disturb the natural order. While some
may criticize FernGully for its simplified ending, one could also read it as the magical forces of the
rainforest, in which earth is able to recover itself. The end here resembles the ending of WALL-E, in
which it is also assumed that nature was able to restore itself. But the film actually resembles WALL-E
in yet another way. While in the openings scene Magi Lune explains how Hexxus nearly destroyed the
rainforest and ‘the humans fled in fear, never to return’, the event strikes as an apocalypse. While it
remains unclear exactly how long ago this event took place, it also remains questioned whether ‘the
spirit of destruction’ (Hexxus) is what could have kept humans out of the rainforest. This seems very
unlikely, especially since more often than not, humans feel superior over the natural world.
22
WALL-E: FROM POST-APOCALYPTIC DYSTOPIA TO A NOSTALGIC UTOPIA
WALL-E takes place some seven hundred years in the future. Like many traditional Hollywood films,
WALL-E opens with an establishing shot, indicating the film’s theme and introducing the viewer to the
world of WALL-E. The shot opens in space and then moves closer to earth. But earth is not a place of
(wild) nature and lived cities. Instead, all one sees is a world covered in a reddish-brown haze.
Moreover, earth is covered by debris, and anything ‘natural’ or ‘green’ (such as trees, or even people)
are nowhere to be found. The film presents a landscape that resembles a wasteland, or a postapocalyptic landscape. Indeed, WALL-E takes place in a dystopian future where piles of debris are
built into skyscrapers. When the film further zooms in, into what seems to be a city, it becomes clear
that earth is a desolated place with no traces of life to be found. It even appears as if humankind has
become extinct. However, signs of a multinational corporation called Buy N Large (BnL) are
dominating the streets and when later in the film it becomes clear that humankind has not become
extinct but has actually left earth to reside in space, we see that BnL continues to dominate mankind as
they live in the ‘Axiom’; a cruise ship-like spaceship operated by BnL. While humans have decided to
abandon earth to reside in space, earth is not entirely void of life, a little robotic trash compacter,
named WALL-E (Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth Class) and his companion, a cockroach.
The apocalyptic narrative and its revelation
In literature and film, plenty of stories have been written on catastrophic events such as alien and
zombie invasions, epidemics, natural and environmental disasters, nuclear wars and ultimately the
destruction of planet earth; or the end of the world. WALL-E is such an apocalyptic story, albeit a postapocalyptic one. Apocalyptic narratives, or eschatological (end of time) writings find their origins
mostly in Christian, Jewish and Muslim religion, between 200 BCE and 200 CE (Garrard 2012;
Stewart and Harding 1999). Apocalypse, however, derives from the Greek word ‘Apocalyptein’
meaning to unveil or a disclosure and most likely refers to John’s Revelation as reported in the Book
of Revelation of the New Testament (Stewart and Harding 1999: p. 286). While the original definition
of apocalypse refers to a revelation, today it is most commonly known and referred to as what really is
‘apocalyptic eschatology’. It refers to themes and motifs on the end of the world in apocalyptic
narrative (or cinema for that matter), and is thus a revelation of our knowledge about the end of times.
When writing about the apocalyptic it is this definition that shall be adopted throughout this paper;
tales about the end of the world.
For over 3,000 years, as Greg Garrard (2012) remarks in his book Ecocriticism, “a fluctuating
proportion of the world’s population has believed that the end of the world is imminent.” (p. 93), thus
in apocalyptic narratives, the catastrophic scenario presented or described is an interpretative (thus not
necessarily a presumable) account of how the world may end. What matters in such narratives is that
they convey a representation of a realistic fear of what might or could happen when the world reaches
23
its imminent destruction. Especially in cinema, apocalyptic narratives are usually depicted in
dystopian settings. The scenery is often an annulled environment covered by smog and dark skies,
where the earth is left ravaged, and most likely uninhabitable for human beings. But as Garrard points
out in an essay called Worlds Without Us: Some Types of Dysanthropy (2012), apocalyptic traditions
always leaves out at least one fortunate or unfortunate survivor. That is, however, until the early
twentieth century when writers began to imagine worlds completely void of human beings (2012: p.
40). Even though in WALL-E humanity did not become extinct, the film does imagine a world (earth)
without human beings, and simultaneously suggests reasons why humanity cannot live on this earth
anymore. Furthermore, contemporary apocalyptic narratives (and so does WALL-E) use their stories to
draw attention to our changing and destructive relation with nature, whereby it follows “the Christian
tradition of predicting an end to human history” (Lewis 1993: p. 47). WALL-E, too, follows this
tradition. By collecting items from the debris humans left behind on planet earth, it is solely WALL-E,
a non-human character, that becomes (and finally is) familiar with the remnants of human history. The
film suggests that human history will continue to exist in some other way and thus never be lost
completely. But it also very much criticizes our destructive attitude towards the natural world. In fact,
while human history might still exist on planet earth, human history for humanity itself however, has
long been lost (indeed, for over 700 years!). This becomes especially clear when in a later scene, the
captain asks the computer to define earth and the captain appears amazed at what the computer screen
shows him. When finally humans return to earth, they have to rebuild a new human history.
Apocalyptic narratives then not only predict a possible end of human history, or the natural
world, but even more so criticizes upon our behavior and attitude towards the natural world. In Back to
the Garden: New Visions of Posthuman Futures (2011) Jendrysik considers a (utopian) world in which
humans take no place. While Jendrysik does not make clear references to the apocalyptic, he asserts
that utopian stories (and to my suggestion also environmental and apocalyptic stories), “call for a
radical revaluation of human and natural things” by taking “a position of estrangement not just from
existing society but from Homo sapiens.” (p. 36). But as Jendrysik further pronounces, it should be
questioned if such utopian or apocalyptic stories have any meaning without the presence of humans (p.
36). Without the presence of human beings in WALL-E, the film would not have much meaning,
neither as an environmental film, nor as a children’s film. WALL-E’s actions of compacting trash,
thereby ‘cleaning’ the world, and more importantly collecting human artifacts, take place in a world
without any human beings. WALL-E’s actions do not have much meaning without any reference to
living human beings. He would merely appear as a little trash compactor collecting human artifacts of
the debris humans have left on earth. But as it becomes clear that humans have not become extinct, but
instead have been residing in space, WALL-E’s actions reveal an underlying loss. Not only did
humanity lose respect for nature and all things green and ‘natural’, human beings also lost their
humanness. Inside the Axiom there is no true humane being to be found (with the exception of
WALL-E himself). Human beings are driven by technological forces and are never truly connected to
24
one another, their environment, or their collective history on planet earth. Obviously as the plot
develops this changes, but initially human beings have been deprived not only of human agency, but
even more so of vitality or, life.
While an apocalyptic narrative that considers a world without human beings might sound
pessimistic, apocalyptic narratives are all but pessimistic. In fact, more often than not, they evoke a
nostalgia for that what has been lost and encourage a more simplistic, or even utopian future, referring
back again to the past. As Kathleen Stewart and Susan Harding demonstrate in Bad Endings:
American Apocalypsis (1999) apocalyptic narratives, simultaneously as well as alternately, combine
styles of “horror and hope, nightmare and dream, destruction and creation, dystopia and utopia.” (p.
286). Or as Timothy Morton explains, when the destruction of the world seems irretrievable,
“Apocalypticism, tries to see beyond death, to remain sighted after there is nothing left to see.” (2007:
p. 185) and thus attempts to design new possibilities, perhaps even new futures. Thus besides
expressing the fear of a possibly irrevocable and catastrophic event, and delivering a critique of the
current social order, apocalyptic films like WALL-E also provide the viewer with a possible positive
outcome, and a way to think and act differently about, and towards, the natural environment.
The power of technology: how the animate become inanimate and the animated animate
WALL-E asks its viewers the question where humanity stands in relation to the natural world. By
representing a destroyed world absent of any human life, the film questions if earth would be a better
place without humans. As mentioned earlier, writers began to imagine “worlds without us” in the early
twentieth century and we’ve come to realize that it is not so much nature itself that is in peril, but
humanity (Murphy 2013: p. 235). While the contemporary environmental movement from the 1960s
“has made humanity more aware of the fragility of life” and reminds us “that human civilization often
works against the health of the planet” (Jendrysik 2011: p. 37), human’s negligent attitude towards
nature might actually be more of a disadvantage for humanity than for the natural world. For the very
reason that humans are embedded in nature – rather than opposed to it – they are also susceptible to
nature’s changing existence. Obviously it are not human beings by themselves that have an
unfavorable effect on the natural world, but it are the social behaviors, cultural traditions and
technological advancements – inherent to humanity – that harm nature. After all, in the opening scenes
of WALL-E the (natural) environment is presented as barren, and it is not until the end of the movie,
when humans have been absent from earth for seven centuries, that one could assume nature was able
to restore itself. This becomes evident when the camera takes the viewer to a field full of plants –
albeit amidst a hill of dirt and garbage. However, even though the natural world seem to have restored
itself, eventually it is technology that saves the human world and even saves, or literally preserves
human history. It is through technological innovations such as solar energy that WALL-E is able to be
on ‘operation-mode’ for seven centuries. Furthermore, without technology humans would not have
been able to reside in space for seven centuries long. Finally, without EVE – an Extraterrestrial
25
Vegetation Evaluator – and the spaceships, humanity would not have been able to return to earth and
restore (human) nature.
Even though technology might have saved humanity by the end of the movie, for most part,
technology has made humans incredibly lazy and inert. While it remains unclear exactly how earth got
covered by trash, the most obvious reason seems to be that humans just got too indolent to clean up
after themselves and were lacking the ability to appreciate not only their possessions, but also the
value of nature. Following Stewart and Harding, it seems as if “the modern world is characterized by
simultaneous overstimulation and numbness, alarm and anesthesia.” (1999: p. 291). What is even
more notable are the ostensible binary oppositions that the film presents between the human and
nonhuman (where the nonhuman is in fact the technological; the humanoid robots aboard the Axiom),
or the animate and the inanimate. This is where the film plays with the power of animation as a
cinematic form and thereby, through the act of animating, “poses the very question of life itself,
movement itself, and their relation” (Cholodenko qtd. in Sobchack 2009: p. 382). While humans have
nearly become meaningless beings, it are the humanoid robots like WALL-E that embody not only
their technological function, but also the very definition of animism. As Vivian Sobchack puts it:
The little trash compactor literally embodies not only the contradictory
mechanistic and animistic modeling of animation as, on the one hand, automatic
and repetitive movement and, on the other, autonomous and autopoietic life, but
he also acts out an atavistic synthesis that, as Eisenstein recognized, conflates
the inanimate and animate, the object and subject. (2009: p. 385)
Thus, WALL-E not only embodies what animation does (to bring life and motion to lifeless matters),
but in fact blurs our understanding of human/nonhuman, animate/inanimate and object/subject. Here,
humanity fully came to rely on technology which not only had the effect that humans became
dependent on technology, but that in fact, humans became passive dependents of technology. Even
more so, while the humans in WALL-E are presented as boneless beings, made inert and even
inanimate, the robots on the other hand are very much animated, full of life and vigor. While the
humans aboard the Axiom are passive, inert and ignorant consumerists, WALL-E is always aware of
his environment and tries to give meaning to and comprehend the things in his environment – both on
the desolated earth as aboard the Axiom. The animators behind WALL-E not only attribute animism to
WALL-E, EVE and all other robots – making them alive and conscious beings – but for a great deal
they actually deprive the live from the ‘real’ humans in the film. It is not until WALL-E interferes and
interacts with other humans and robots, that the people aboard the Axiom fight against the system and
actually interact and cooperate with each other.
The film then suggests that what is considered a binary opposition (human/nonhuman,
animate/inanimate, subject/object and even nature/culture), is in fact much less indisputable than one
might consider it to be. As the film positions humans as much less alive than WALL-E (and the other
26
robots), it seems to agree with the deep ecological thought that humanity is not at the center of the
world and that we should consider all species and matters (such as stones, rocks, trees and water(life))
as equals in nature. The film also seems to warn its viewers from the (hidden) power of technology.
While the initial plan was to return to earth after a “five year cruise” – having WALL-E robots clean
up the mess – human beings got stuck in their daily routine of consuming and constantly being served
and regulated across the Axiom. It becomes ever more clear that “technology provides both liberation
and totalitarian control” (Stewart and Harding 1999: p. 295). The film here both criticizes technology
and at the same time applauds it. However, this passivity, laziness and numbness is not necessarily
caused by technology itself, but more so by what technological developments incite; consumerism.
Excessive consumption and the deterioration of human awareness
As stated in A Guide to Consumerism (1970) by George S. Day and David A. Aaker, according to
Vance Packard – one of the early adopters of the term – consumerism is often linked with strategies
“for persuading consumers to quickly expand their needs and wants by making them “voracious,
compulsive (and wasteful).”” (pp. 12-13). In the case of WALL-E this is no different. The driving force
behind this behavior is the multinational company Buy N Large. In fact, what the film is presenting is
very much an indoctrination by a multinational company. If one pays close attention, you’ll find that
BnL is everywhere in WALL-E and has taken over daily products and uses. The world is organized by
one big company that highly influenced consumers’ behavior (and continues to do so in the Axiom).
The presence of BnL in WALL-E can almost be considered a form of product placement, as if BnL was
a real existing company and the film was sponsored by it. Some BnL products and utilities that are
presented in the film is a BnL ultrastore, a gas station, a bank and corresponding atm machines and
paper money, BnL soda, ‘kremies’ (cookies), running socks, the ‘Buy N Large Times’ newspaper, a
transit metro line, clothing, a beach ball, a cooler, a trophy, a fire distinguisher, cups, lighters, a
basketball, a clock and even the velvet ring box WALL-E finds is from BnL. Then of course, WALLE, EVE and the Axiom are also products of BnL. In the narrative of WALL-E BnL has truly invaded
society and determined consumer behavior. This idea of a multinational company such as BnL is,
however, also very much a reflection on American society from the 1950s onwards when
technological progress generated a consumer culture. The brandname “Buy N Large” provokes two
things: first it provokes consumers to buy stuff and second – most notably – it provokes consumers to
buy in large quantities. It advertises quantity over quality. In State of the Field: The Politics of
Consumption (2011) Meg Jacobs refers to the work of historian David Potter People of Plenty (1954)
in which he describes how advertising “indoctrinates values in the individual and his role as the
consumer” (qtd. in Jacobs: p. 562). Furthermore, abundance does not lead to fulfillment but rather
triggers “psychological tension” as individuals feel pressured to demonstrate their social position
through material possessions (Jacobs 2011: p. 562). In an online blog post on huffingtonpost.com
titled ‘What We’re Concealing With Our Consumption’, the author, Anna Clark, demonstrates that
27
behind this act of excessive consumption “we are suffering from the failure to appreciate” (2014).
According to Clark “we do not fully realize what the natural world means to us”, but even more so, I
suggest that we do not really understand what nature is. We often describe it as the trees, lakes,
oceans, flowers, wildlife, parks, and rabbits hopping freely on the grass, but is that really (all) what
nature is? As Morton and Evernden suggest, it might be of importance to lose our idea of nature and
try to not constantly give meaning to it. Because as Clark asserts, we avoid to deal with the
“unanswerable and unattainable” which causes the effect that “we consume in order to cover up what
we cannot face. Often, we don’t think at all. With rampant advertising, consumption is practically a
Pavlovian response.” The ‘rampant advertising’ as Clark calls it, becomes extremely evident aboard
the Axiom and affirms the presumption of indoctrination by a multinational, where people mindlessly
follow the hype.
Both the indoctrination of a multinational company and the excessive, thoughtless
consumption practices are profoundly demonstrated in WALL-E, especially in the Axiom. As
demonstrated earlier, BnL is found everywhere in the desolated world. But also in the Axiom there’s a
clear indoctrination present. As WALL-E moves around the Axiom looking for EVE, he passes by
overweight human transferred on hover chairs across the Axiom, being served by robots (and
technology) all the while. Drinks and food – both served in cups with a straw – are being brought by
robots and the only way of communication is by means of a screen. There are no real-life, face to face
dialogues – at least not until WALL-E intermingles and actually ‘disrupts’ the system. However, the
indoctrination is further presented when the narrative shows a classroom where children learn the
alphabet by a ‘Buy N Large vocabulary’: “‘A’ is for Axiom, your home sweet home. ‘B’ is for Buy N
Large, your very best friend.” It becomes clear that the people on the Axiom have stopped to think for
themselves, they never seemed to have doubted the system. When a voice in the Axiom announces
that ‘blue becomes the new red’, everyone naturally takes on the new color in their wardrobe without
even thinking if that’s what they really want. Clark’s denomination of consumption being a Pavlovian
response due to rampant advertising, is convincingly at stake in the Axiom. People on the Axiom have
stopped thinking and consequently haven’t even thought about the possibility to return to earth.
Furthermore, it isn’t until WALL-E disrupts another conversation on the Axiom – this time a woman
named Mary – and the screen in front of her goes away, that Mary is actually aware of her
environment, and above all, realizes that she hasn’t had a real conversation or connection with another
human being until WALL-E introduced himself to her. This refers much to the past in the United
States that Jacobs refers to by the work of historian Daniel Boorstin, who in 1973 explained that:
The modern American then, was tied, if only by the thinnest of threads and by
the most volatile, switchable loyalties, to thousands of other Americans in
nearly everything he ate or drank or drove or read or used. . . Americans were
increasingly held to others not by a few iron bonds, but by countless gossamer
webs knitting together the trivia of their lives. (qtd. in Jacobs 2011: p. 563)
28
Indeed, aboard the Axiom everything is regulated and the people inside are only connected through
what they consume. They wear identical clothes, consume the same food and perform the same
activities day by day. “Furthermore, their possibilities for demonstrating any meaningful human
agency – purposeful effort, curiosity, desire – are both limited and regulated by the computerized
screens and electronic machines that constantly surround them.” (Sobchack 2009: p. 389). It appears
as if humans are not only indoctrinated by the multinational BnL, but are prisoners of technology.
Murray and Heumann have given an extensive analysis of how nostalgia is employed in
WALL-E and in what ways it is related to the environment. I will acknowledge some of the discoveries
Murray and Heumann have made and further address on these findings in relation with uses of
animism and locating the sublime. Following Murray and Heumann I assert that the uses of nostalgia
in WALL-E reveal that “nostalgia may itself prove not only a way to learn from the past but to
recuperate real community” (2011: p. 214). As the title of this chapter suggests, ‘From a postapocalyptic dystopia to a nostalgic utopia’, earth is transformed from a dilapidated, unlivable
environment (a dystopia), to a rejuvenated, revived and healthy livable environment (a utopia). In
other words, earth transforms itself from hell to heaven; with a stopover at the ambiguous place called
‘space’, where hell and heaven merge.
The use of nostalgic elements in WALL-E can be divided into two groupings, the latter
following from the former; the first has its emphasis on cultural, artificial consumer products, the
second relies on (ideas of) the natural environment. The first nostalgic element that is implemented in
the film comes from WALL-E’s activities in finding and collecting cultural products humans left
behind in the dilapidated world, form which WALL-E makes a selection and adds certain products as
trophies to his collection at home. WALL-E’s home does not only keep him safe from storms and
such, but also serves as a private museum for all his collectables. The idea of a private museum in
WALL-E’s home, further contributes to a feeling of a collective nostalgia as museums often house
artifacts of cultural and historical remembrance. Remarkably, it are the products that human beings
generally would add lesser value to that WALL-E seems to be finding most interesting and that make
it to his collection. It are objects like lighters, spoons, forks (and even a ‘spork’) that WALL-E takes
home with him, but a nice diamond ring – an object that more likely than not contains great emotional
value – is thrown away in back into the garbage piles, keeping the velvet box instead. However, in his
house WALL-E also keeps many cultural artifacts such as a rubber duck, a foam hand or a Rubik’s
cube, that may hold nostalgic feelings to an individual, but at the same time add little genuine value to
one’s life. As Anderson asserts (2012), WALL-E questions “Western culture’s relationship to the
consumer goods that play such a prominent role in day-to-day life” when ultimately “the objects we
buy today, or bought a few decades ago, become the future’s earth-choking trash.” (p. 272). This
might then also imply just another way WALL-E wants to alert viewers on the consequences of our
(excessive and thoughtless) consumption behavior and encourage people to make more durable
decisions when buying consumer goods. In the continuation of Anderson; “the film suggests that
29
there’s a fine line between useful products and wasteful trash.” (2012: p. 273). Interestingly though,
WALL-E does take home with him the plant he finds in a refrigerator and puts it in an old boot. This
may indicate that WALL-E not only seeks for a humanlike connection, but also finds importance in a
connection between humans, or the humanlike, and nature. The plant appears to be an ‘object’ WALLE has not seen before following his directive as a garbage-cleaner. In all the seven hundred years that
WALL-E has been compacting garbage and collecting cultural artifacts, WALL-E has not witnessed
such a ‘thing’ before and he seems to perceive it as something nonhuman, or at least as something that
wasn’t produced by human beings. Therefore it not only indicates that human beings have neglected
plants – and nature altogether – but it also validates the assumption that human beings have lost their
sense of value and true appreciation (as mentioned earlier) for both nature and cultural products. At
last, the plant, buried in the debris, suggests a desire for images of nature and can thus be seen as
another form of (collective) nostalgia (Murray and Heumann 2011: p. 220).
However, it should be noticed that the human beings in the film are not the only consumerists.
Through his daily routine of collecting human artifacts, WALL-E proves to be a consumerist himself.
Nevertheless, WALL-E distinguishes himself as a consumerist from the other consumerists (the
human beings). While the human beings mindlessly follow trends, subjugated by technology and even
more so by Buy n Large, they are ignorant and simultaneously careless about not only the future of the
natural environment, but also that of human history. WALL-E on the other hand, makes more
conscious decisions as a consumer. At the same time, this is yet another treat that makes WALL-E
more human and animate than the human beings. But as McNaughtan (2012) notes, the act of
collecting and consuming is not necessarily what makes WALL-E human. He explains: “WALL*E is
‘human’ not because he embodies some alternative to consumption-as-social-being, but because his
consumption demonstrates successful aesthetic spacing. […] a heavy-handed distinction is drawn
between the ‘right’ kind of consumption (rebellious, distinctive) and the ‘wrong’ (slavish,
thoughtless).” (p. 763). Even though WALL-E follows his directive for over seven hundred years,
doing his work as a robotic trash compactor, it are the human beings that act more like robots; none of
them even tries to resist the prevailing order. It is yet another way in which the film warns viewers
from becoming thoughtless and slavish consumers – indeed, prisoners of their own habitat without
knowing so – and instead encourages viewers to make conscious decisions about what and why we
consume and how this affects the natural world as well as humanity.
Down to earth: the fulfillment of a nostalgic utopia
In the journey that this film presents, from a post-apocalyptic dystopia to a nostalgic utopia – or from
hell to heaven – the stopover takes place in space; inside the Axiom. However, the Axiom is both
heaven and hell at the same time. It resembles heaven in the way that it is represented as one mayor,
enjoyable cruise ship. There’s entertainment all around, there is nonstop service fulfilling every want
and need you may have, you can easily transport yourself over long distances in the hover chairs, and
30
it becomes easy to communicate to other humans and robots as well via video feeds. Moreover, there’s
no need to constantly bring your hands towards your mouth to eat, you can just hold your cup and
consume both food and drinks through a straw. Perhaps that also explains WALL-E’s collection of
spoons, forks and a first ‘spork’ as it indicates the loss of a (Western) human tradition; eating with
forks, spoons and knifes. However, for the very same reasons life aboard the Axiom can be called
heaven, it is in fact very much a hell. Due to the constant service, the video feeds, the hover chairs, and
more generally Buy N Large’s indoctrination, people have become passive and thoughtless consumers
and lost all senses of real connection and communication. In other words, people have become
passive, thoughtless slaves of consumer culture, losing all agency they once possessed, thus becoming
prisoners in their own world. Moreover the roles and characteristics of the seemingly binary
opposition human/nonhuman in WALL-E seem to have been turned over. While the humans in WALLE are deprived of life, the nonhumans – the robots, or humanoid androids – are full of life and
animated with human features. In this sense, it is animism what makes WALL-E more alive and
humane than all other humans in the film, and ultimately, it is neither the natural nor the human world
that saves humanity. It is the animated world, the world in which nonhuman objects (WALL-E, EVE
and all other robots) are given life, that saves humanity.
Finally, when the Axiom and all human and nonhuman ‘species’ return to earth, a nostalgic
utopia is being lived. The collective nostalgia begins, however, when WALL-E brings in dirt from
earth and the captain asks the computer to analyze it. “The computer tells him it is soil—earth.
Suddenly the captain is nostalgic for images of nature. The captain asks the computer to define Earth,
and images of green fields and blue skies come on the screen” (Murray and Heumann 2011: p. 224). It
is remarkable how ‘easily’ earth, or nature for that matter, is defined. The computer displays images of
a serene valley, a river, a man in the countryside, fruit and vegetables, two hands holding dirt or soil,
and a farmer cropping fruits. These descriptions of nature is what Morton calls a ‘metonymic list’,
which he supplements with words like: “fish, grass, mountain air, chimpanzees, love, soda water,
freedom of choice, heterosexuality, free markets…” (2007: p. 14) and continues by arguing that such a
metonymic series merely becomes a metaphor for nature (p. 14). Nevertheless I would argue that these
metaphors for nature are a necessary tool to get a sense of nature and to (attempt to) understand nature.
As Murphy (2009) asserts, “every “thing” is defined not by its own limits, but by its relationship to its
context and to other things” (p. 11). Furthermore, when the captain gets hold of the plant, and starts to
take care of it, the film implies that earth too, is something that needs to be taken care of (Murray and
Heumann 2011: p. 224). Therefore, humanity decides to set foot on ground again and employ a ‘down
to earth’ state of mind; reduce their consumption behavior and act carefully towards human nature.
But when the Axiom finally returns to earth, earth has yet to be restored. The restoration of
earth seems to have worked in two ways. The first one is that human beings finally start farming and
harvesting plants, thereby creating a more healthy and ‘natural’ environment. This is made clear when
the captain explains what farming is and tells the children that we can start to grow vegetable plants
31
and even pizza plants – indeed still unaware of the fact that pizzas are not a natural product,
simultaneously validating the assumption that we cannot fully comprehend all the complexities of
nature. However, shortly thereafter the camera moves away from the scene and shows a field full of
plants which implies that nature was able to restore itself in the absence of human beings. The film
might be referring here to James Lovelock’s hypothesis about the Gaia System, which considers the
earth as a living ‘thing’. The Gaia theory takes in an ecocentric position and thus considers all species,
organisms, humans and nonhumans to have intrinsic value in the earth’s biosphere. What Lovelock
proposes is that in fact all “living organisms regulate the atmosphere in their own interest” (Lovelock
2003: p. 769), yet they can act as one single entity whereby it aims to “maintain the Earth in
homeostasis” (Lovelock and Margulis 1974: p. 3). This ‘single, self-regulating entity’ is what
Lovelock calls Gaia. While the film remains unclear as to how earth exactly recovered, one
supposition may be that indeed Gaia continued to regulate earth. Even though we never saw signs of
life – except from WALL-E, the cockroach and later EVE – it could very well be that what we don’t
see – organisms – adapted to the new environment and recovered earth as a habitable place.
Through the practice of excessive consumption and most likely the lack of recycling, the
(initial) world presented in WALL-E is left destroyed and abandoned. More specifically, it is an
apocalyptic world impossible to be inhabited by humans. As mentioned earlier by the works of
Stewart and Harding, in every apocalypse there’s a positive voice to be heard; one of hopes, dreams,
creation and utopia (1999: p. 286). Nostalgia possesses some of the same qualities as apocalyptic
narratives. Both in apocalyptic and nostalgic narratives lies hope for a better, healthier world, and a
sustainable future. However, just like apocalyptic narratives, nostalgia can also be experienced as a
threat. A threat that comprises the fear of never attaining that what is longed for; or a utopia that can
never be achieved. Perhaps, then the apocalypse remains infinite. Nevertheless, Jeremy Davies
delivers a useful explanation of how nostalgia can produce an ‘ecological sound living’:
Our universal homelessness is no longer transcendent, but produced by the
corruption of our habitat. The threat of a nostalgia that cannot be satisfied now
stems from the danger that we will permanently obliterate our dwellings, and
leave ourselves with an impossible longing for clean land, air and water. The
solution is not just a re-imagining of the cultural experience of home, but a
preservation and restoration of its physical characteristics. Thus, ecology
transforms nostalgia, and nostalgia is offered as the only basis for ecologically
sound living, albeit with an unnerving lack of awareness that this is what is
being done. (2010: p. 265)
Davies not only suggests how nostalgia can cause an aspiration for a healthier planet, but in fact very
much summarizes WALL-E’s plotline. Since initially the Axiom was meant for a five year cruise, the
human beings have been homeless for centuries now. And while the Axiom at first seemed like
paradise to many, it turned out to be hell as it erased humanity’s memories of what home (planet earth)
32
actually is and means. Nevertheless, thanks to WALL-E’s distinctive and rebellious attitude, human
beings have come to appreciate the natural world and simultaneously restore and renovate their new
habitat. The story actually continues in the end credits, depicting WALL-E, EVE and the other robots
building a family and helping the humans (the captain, children and other adults) to re-construct a
better nature and environment to live in, with interdependent relations among humans and nature, and
constructing a more green and ‘friendly’ world (Murray and Heumann 2011: p. 226). Moreover, the
end credits also work on a collective nostalgia, depicting the rejuvenated world – indeed, now a
healthy environment – in different art and painting styles. Earth is now a home again but it is yet to be
explored.
33
CONCLUSION
Even though FernGully might be more straightforward sending out an environmental message, I
would argue that the WALL-E conveys a stronger message and makes us more aware what causes our
actions may have. The message in FernGully is very direct; it tells its viewers that, quoting Crysta:
‘Trees give life. They make the clouds, the rain, the air.’ So instead of cutting down trees we should
preserve the natural world, not only for the purpose of nature but also for the well-being of humanity.
As an article on nature.org states, rainforests are critical in providing fresh drinking water for the
earth; in fact “one-fifth of the world’s fresh water is found in the Amazon Basin.” Furthermore, the
rainforests offers plants that are helpful in the treatment of cancer, or contain anti-cancer properties.6
Moreover rainforests have a high density of varied species in plants, trees, and animals (such as birds).
When logging operations occur, these species lose their habitat and can no longer survive; obviously
this is the main threat for the inhabitants of FernGully. But as an article on deforestation on
nationalgeographic.com explains, the logging of trees means the deterioration of the well-being of
earth. Trees block sun rays whereby forest soils maintain moist and the forest’s canopy regulates the
temperature inside the forest, keeping it cool during day and holding heat at night; crucial for many
plant and animal life.7 Thus, if we continue to cut down trees, we do not only harm the natural world,
but eventually – inevitably – the well-being of mankind will also dwindle. Finally, FernGully takes in
an animistic position where it considers all natural beings and species to have a spirit of their own.
Crysta is surprised when she finds out that Zak never talks to the trees and doesn’t understand he hurts
the trees by carving Crysta’s name in it.
WALL-E, on the other hand, takes an entirely different approach on environmental issues. First
of all, it sets out an apocalyptic narrative. Even though the film never gives a clear explanation of what
had happened before earth turned into a wasteland, one will immediately assume that mankind played
a significant role in the destruction of the natural world, due to all the debris that covers the earth.
Secondly, by situating the narrative at least seven hundred years into the future, WALL-E warns
viewers for a possible reality in which technology – if it does not so already – plays a prominent role
in society. (Humanoid) robots now undertake the smallest tasks, making humans inert and slothful
beings. The film critiques developments and triggers an environmental awareness to such
developments by questioning, subverting and simultaneously opposing the dualism between
human/nonhuman, technological/natural, animate/inanimate, subject/object. Finally, by making
constant references to nostalgic elements and delivering a critique on humanity’s (excessive)
consumption behavior, WALL-E asks its viewers to rethink our consumption behaviors and instead
6
Quoted and paraphrased from: The Nature Conservancy. “Rainforests. Facts About Rainforests.” Nature.org.
n.d. The Nature Conservancy. 20 June 2014.
<http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/urgentissues/rainforests/rainforests-facts.xml>.
7
Paraphrased from: National Geographic. “Deforestation. Modern-Day Plague.” Nationalgeographic.com n.d.
National Geographic Society. 20 June 2014. <http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/globalwarming/deforestation-overview/>.
34
asks us to appreciate what we already have. The nostalgic elements mostly work on a collective
memory, therefore WALL-E is able to reach a large audience.
Whereas FernGully posits human as ‘the Other’, WALL-E continuously questions the place
human take in the natural world and subverts the prevailing assumption of which place that is. Even
though WALL-E is the lead character, the humans are at the center of the film’s criticism.
Furthermore, WALL-E’s clearly present theme of the apocalypse conveys a stronger environmental
message than the fantasy theme of FernGully. By acting upon a collective nostalgia the apocalyptic
narrative not only asks us to appreciate what we have, but even more so triggers our moral values and
decisions. As Veldman (2012) puts it: “the apocalyptic ending discloses certain everyday decisions as
moral decisions.” He continues that “in the context of potentially disastrous consequences for valued
places, people, and organisms” certain decisions “become matter of right and wrong.” (p. 12). What
Veldman says is that people are more likely to change their habits when their moral values are
questioned.
Both films however experiment with the idea of animism; a belief that is so closely related to
animation as we know it in cinematic terms. While representations of (collective) nostalgia and the
sublime prove to be useful properties when touching upon environmental issues, animism most
evidently questions the seeming dualisms between nature/culture, human/nonhuman, object/subject,
animate/inanimate, and is something both films employ. Furthermore, while not everyone may believe
in animism – the attributing of life or a soul to the nonliving – the imagined and animated worlds in
both FernGully and WALL-E are convincing and the threat they render can be felt. However, by
animation’s characteristics, in particular in their ability to produce plasmatic ‘bodies’, the sublime can
be felt not only in presentations of nature, but even in art or objects (such as EVE). Both uses of the
sublime, nostalgia and animism trigger our environmental awareness.
Further research on animation (feature) films and environmental issues, or even more
specifically apocalyptic narratives (on the end of times), could examine how animation as a
cinematographic style is simultaneously opposed to, embedded in, and related to an impaired natural
world. In other words, it could look more closely to the different qualities of animation and parallel it
to humanity’s behavior towards the natural world and examine how cultural traditions affect
humanity’s attitude. Also one could look closely at the comic side of animation (often a key
characteristic of animated films and series) and examine how this might raise environmental
awareness or how it is used as a tool to either critique or celebrate a certain sociopolitical ideology.
Nonetheless, animation film, as a speculative form, convincingly delivers critique upon environmental
issues, but also manages to encourage certain environmental movements.
35
WORKS CITED
Anderson, Christopher Todd. “Post-Apocalyptic Nostalgia: WALL-E, Garbage, and American
Ambivalence toward Manufactured Goods.” Literature Interpretation Theory Vol. 23 No. 3
(2012): pp. 267-282.
Callicott, J. Baird. “A Critique of and an Alternative to the Wilderness Idea.” Wild Earth: Wild ideas
for a World Out of Balance. Ed. Tom Butler. Minneapolis: Milkweed Editions, 2002: pp. 172186.
Clark, Anna. “What We’re Concealing With Our Consumption.” Huffingtonpost. 2014. 17-04-2014.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anna-clark/what-were-concealing-with_b_4938489.html>.
Cronon, William. “The Trouble with Wilderness: Or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature.”
Environmental History Vol.1 No.1 (1996): pp. 7-28.
Davies, Jeremy. “Sustainable Nostalgia.” Memory Studies Vol. 3 No. 3 (2010): pp. 262-268.
Day, George S. and David A. Aaker. “A Guide to Consumerism.” Journal of Marketing Vol. 34 No. 3
(1970): pp. 12-19.
DeLancey, Craig. “An Ecological Concept of Wilderness.” Ethics & The Environment Vol.17 No.1
(2012): pp. 25-44.
Evernden, Neil. “Beyond Ecology: Self, Place, & the Pathetic Fallacy.” The North American Review
Vol. 263 No. 4 (1978): pp. 16-20.
Garrard, Greg. Ecocriticism. New York: Routledge, 2012.
Garrard, Greg. “Worlds Without Us: Some Types of Dysanthropy.” SubStance Vol. 41 No. 1 (2012):
pp. 40-60.
Ginsborg, Hannah. “Kant’s Aesthetic and Teleology.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed.
Edward N. Zalta. Summer 2014. <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/kantaesthetics/>.
Greenberg, Raz. “The Animated Text: Definition.” Journal of Film and Video Vol. 63 No. 2 (2011):
pp. 3-10.
Heise, Ursula K. “Plasmatic Nature: Environmentalism and Animated Film.” Public Culture Vol. 26
No. 2 (2014): pp. 301-318.
Jacobs, Meg. “State of the Field: The Politics of Consumption.” Reviews in American History Vol. 39
No. 3 (2011): pp. 361-573.
Jendrysik, Mark S. “Back to the Garden: New Visions of Posthuman Futures.” Penn State University
Press Vol. 22 No. 1 (2011): pp. 34-51.
Jensen, Derrick. “Neil Evernden.” Listening to the Land: Conversations about Nature, Culture, and
Eros. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2004. pp. 112-121.
Lewis, Chris H. “Telling Stories about the Future: Environmental History and Apocalyptic Science.”
Environmental History Review Vol. 17 No. 3 (1993): pp. 43-60.
Lovelock, James. “The Living Earth.” Nature Vol. 426 (2003): pp. 769-770.
36
Lovelock, James and Lynn Margulis. “Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere: the gaia
hypothesis.” Tellus Vol. 26 No. 1-2 (1974): pp. 2-10.
McNaughtan, Hugh. “Distinctive Consumption and Popular Anti-consumerism: The Case of
WALL*E.” Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies Vol. 26 No. 5 (2012): pp. 753766.
Morton, Timothy. Ecology Without Nature. Rethinking Environmental Aesthetics. Cambridge, MA
and London: Harvard University Press, 2007.
Murphy, Amy. “Future Traditions of Nature.” Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review Vol. 21
No. 1 (2009): pp. 7-20.
Murphy, Amy. “Nothing Like New: Our Post-Apocalyptic Imagination as Utopian Desire.” Journal of
Architectural Education Vol. 67 No. 2 (2013): pp. 234-242.
Murray, Robin L. and Joseph K. Heumann. Ecology and Popular Film. Cinema on the Edge. Albany:
State University of New York Press, 2009.
Murray, Robin L. and Joseph K. Heumann. That’s All Folks? Ecocritical Readings of American
Animated Features. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 2011.
Naess, Arne. “The Shallow and the Deep, Long-range Ecology Movement. A Summary.” Inquiry: An
Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy Vol. 16 No. 1 (1973): pp. 95-100.
Naess, Arne and George Sessions. “Basic Principles of Deep Ecology.” n.p. (1984): pp. 1-6.
National Geographic. “Deforestation. Modern-Day Plague.” Nationalgeographic.com n.d. National
Geographic Society. 20 June 2014.
<http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestationoverview/>.
Novak, Barbara. “American Landscape: Changing Concepts of the Sublime.” American Art Journal
Vol. 4 No. 1 (1972): pp. 36-42.
Odum, Eugene P. and Gary W. Barrett. Fundamentals of Ecology. Thomson Brooks/Cole: n.p., 2005.
Olson, Sigurd F. The Meaning of Wilderness. Essential Articles and Speeches. Minneapolis and
London: University of Minnesota Press, 1928-1973.
Proctor, James D. “The Social Construction of Nature: Relativist Accusations, Pragmatist and Critical
Realist Responses.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers Vol.88 No.3 (1998):
pp. 352-376.
Smith, Michelle J. Elizabeth Parsons. “Animating child activism: Environmentalism and class politics
in Ghibli’s Princess Mononoke (1997) and Fox’s FernGully (1992).” Continuum: Journal of
Media & Cultural Studies Vol. 26 No. 1 (2012): pp. 25-37.
Sobchack, Vivian. “Animation and Automation, or, the Incredible Effortfulness of Being.” Screen
Vol. 50 No. 4 (2009): pp. 375-391.
37
Starosielski, Nicole. “‘Movements that are drawn’: A history of environmental animation form The
Lorax to FernGully to Avatar.” The International Communication Gazette Vol. 71 No. 1-2
(2011): pp. 145-163.
Stewart, Kathleen and Susan Harding. “Bad Endings: American Apocalypsis.” Annual Review of
Anthropology Vol. 28 (1999): pp. 285-310.
The Nature Conservancy. “Rainforests. Facts About Rainforests.” Nature.org. n.d. The Nature
Conservancy. 20 June 2014.
<http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/urgentissues/rainforests/rainforests-facts.xml>.
Veldman, Robin Globus. “Narrating the Environmental Apocalypse: How Imagining the End
Facilitates Moral Reasoning Among Environmental Activists.” Ethics & the Environment Vol.
17 No. 1 (2012): pp. 1-23.
Wells, Paul. Animation and America. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd, 2002.
Wells, Paul, Johnny Hardstaff and Darryl Clifton. Re-Imagining Animation: The Changing Face of the
Moving Image. Lausanne, Switzerland: AVA Publishing, 2008.
Filmography
FernGully: The Last Rainforest. Bill Kroyer. Twentieth Century Fox, 1992.
WALL-E. Andrew Stanton. Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, 2008.
38