The Lorax

I remember reading “The Lorax” when I was a child and I also saw the Friz Freleng cartoon once. The 3D animated film had problems when the story was lengthened into feature film length. I felt that if the filmmakers had worked harder during pre-production, they might have been able to pull it off. The path they took story-wise however did not work. The focus of the film appears to be on gags and extravagant musical numbers. While many of the jokes in “The Lorax” worked, the songs for the most part did not. One thing I admired in this film was the technology of replicating fir and Truffula tree tufts.

I will first illustrate what bothers me most about this adaptation of Dr. Seuss’ story. I felt that the plot line did not work and that the alteration in the characters took away from the original spirit of the story. “The Lorax” originally had one plot line while the film has two. It appears as though the Ted/Audrey plot line was added as a framing device because the filmmakers wanted to appeal to kids of that age group. I like how the filmmakers named those characters after Theodor and Audrey Geisel but their plot line felt out of place against the original plot line of the Once-ler. The boy at the start of the book had no name and no lines so as to represent the child reading it. The Once-ler’s face and genus was unseen in the book & cartoon because he was meant to represent unseen corporate heads whose companies ruin the environment. By putting a face on the Once-ler, he becomes relatable. This would not be a big problem normally but we already have a protagonist in the film: Ted. If you are going to have two protagonists in a story, you have to work harder to create balance. For example, even though “Beauty and the Beast” had two protagonists, their stories were intertwined where as Ted’s story and the Once-ler’s story both occur separate from each other. Tulio and Miguel from “The Road to El Dorado” were a perfect team where as Ted and the Once-ler only associated during the telling of the Lorax’s story. Even though one could argue that “Horton Hears a Who!” also has two protagonists, I again point out that their stories were interwoven. Also, Blue Sky Studios was able to take “Horton Hears a Who!” and stretch the original story out into feature length quite well. Furthermore, they retained the spirit of the book in their movie. The spirit of “The Lorax” was retained in the cartoon but lost in this movie. It is a good thing that the message of the book was retained because I can see many young children learning something from this movie. The message could have been universally powerful however if the filmmakers had taken the time to adapt the spirit of the original story and not just its message.

The film also lacks some originality. The first shot reminded me too much of “Gnomeo and Juliet”. Also, introducing the Lorax so soon in the film changes his role in the story. The fish in this movie had their funny moments like the “Mission: Impossible” gag but they reminded me too much of the minions from Illumination Entertainment’s first film “Despicable Me”. I guess they are having trouble letting go of that kind of character. The “bed on the river” gag could have also been constructed in a more original fashion. The rapids followed by the huge waterfall was not very funny because it is quite cliché. “The Emperor’s New Groove” was able to pull it off because of the writing and because they acknowledged in a humorous way to the audience that the gag is cliché. The Ted/Audrey plot line also had pacing problems. We don’t get to know Ted as a character thanks to the opening musical number. I think the movie could have done without that. We also didn’t get very much time to relate to Audrey. The fact that she has a dream is good but this plot point should have occurred a little later after we get to know her; it felt rushed as if the filmmakers were trying to get it out of the way. Later in the movie, Audrey’s mural is painted over and if I were Audrey, I would be heartbroken. We did not get to see this however and that is a problem story-wise. One thing I thought when I saw the movie was why go to the trouble of mentioning fifteen pence, a nail and the shell of a great, great grandfather snail if Ted doesn’t even give them to the Once-ler. Another plot hole was how Ted was able to leave town the second time even after O’Hare’s warning. Once the Lorax arrives in the Once-ler’s plot line, the scene where he and his friends build that pile of rocks as a shire was pretty powerful. I didn’t like how in the next scene the Lorax comes across as comedic. This is not the character that we know from the book. Just because the Lorax is short and grumpy doesn’t mean that you should automatically cast Danny DeVito. While there was nothing wrong with DeVito’s acting, he was the wrong actor for the character. The eyes of the cinematic version of the Lorax were also wrong. Dr. Seuss drew him with wise, old eyes and the 3D Lorax did not have such eyes. The word “Unless” was shown too soon in my opinion. Showing the pile of rocks was important but the word “Unless” should have remained unseen until later like in the book. I think it is more powerful that way. The climax I felt it did not balance with the tragedy of the destruction of the Truffula forest. Also, when the wall comes down and the town sees the wasteland, Ted should have directed his speech more towards this awful sight. Finally, I feel that the concluding song did not work. Most of the songs in this movie did not work because they felt forced upon us and did not come naturally. The story was constructed around the songs instead of the other way around. In a musical, a concluding song is important but in the case of “The Lorax”, it should have come after the townspeople voice their support of planting the seed. One final flaw I wish to point out is the fact that Taylor Swift is in an animated musical but her character doesn’t sing! What is up with that?

Despite these many imperfections, the film does have some good characteristics. Some really funny moments include the disco tree and the bottled air commercial. The technology of computer animation is impressive in “The Lorax” when you look at the appearance of the Truffula tree tufts. The Lorax’s fir is also very noteworthy. Some parts of the story work such as the Lorax’s line “That may stop ya.” That sequence when the Once-ler realizes his failure was powerful fortunately. It is so because of the only song in the movie that works: “How bad can I be?” It is a fun sequence that is set up to contrast the cutting down of the last tree. Ted’s change of heart also feels genuine enough. At first Ted doesn't really care about the trees, just getting the girl. That all changes once the Once-ler concludes his story. Little children will easily understand what the message of the film is but the spirit of the original story has been sadly lost because of the added plot and the new or adapted characters. Funny enough, the writers of this movie also wrote "Despicable Me". I guess their success with that show did not translate over. While the computer generated technology in "The Lorax" is impressive, its musical nature did nothing to help the overall appeal of the movie. When I have children, I plan on reading them the Dr. Seuss' version.

3 Stars