I don’t want to make this a debate on the abortion issue, I just want to point out the unusual choice of film a pro-life group decided to go to the premiere of and spread their message: Horton Hears A Who! It kind of makes sense, since the famous story’s moral, “A person’s a person, no matter how small,” has often been used by pro-choice groups, much to the dismay of Dr. Seuss and his wife, who recently stated that her husband disliked the use of his work for political causes. But with films such as Juno and Bella that are depicting a pro-life attitude and being praised for it, why pick a film that has no babies, no abortion issues, is intended for children, and has no real link to the controversy other than that one line? (Of course, Horton was a surrogate parent before he heard a who, so perhaps he is a good poster child for this stance after all.)
Does that strike anyone else as odd? It seems like a fair number of Dr. Seuss’s books had definite political tones. Off the top of my head, there’s The Sneetches, The Lorax, The Butter Battle Book, and Yertle the Turtle. I’m not contesting that Geisel said it, but it does seem contrary to a decent selection of Dr. Seuss’s work.
Children’s books most often are specifically writing about moral issues.
A moral issue might be “Killing People is Bad”, but the author might still support such and such a war, which is a political issue. He’d probably rather let his works only be used to teach moral guidelines, not to dictate real world political decisions.
Of course, certain books might have been spurred by a particular political event, but any point they might have is still most likely only intended to be focussed on that one event and not to be losely used for anything that has vague similarities.
Depends on the political cause
http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/speccoll/dspolitic/pm/1942/21013acs.jpg
http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/speccoll/dspolitic/pm/1942/20626cs.jpg
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/axis-conquers-philippines-7.jpg
I’m not a bit surprised. I’ve thought for years that we pro-lifers should adopt Hortonism. L
Hijack: I’m not sure Juno deserves praise as a pro-life movie. The pro-life protester character that confronts her outside of the clinic was extremely, awkwardly goofy.
So were the door-to-door evangelists who witnessed to Mimi Rogers in THE RAPTURE.
But they were right.
Oh, they certainly did. Dr. Seuss was very political and very liberal, but he and his wife were probably upset about the fact the meaning of one of his works was being distorted into something it wasn’t intended to be. Horton was written after Dr. Seuss went to Japan after World War II. Depending on who you ask, the story either represents the importance of voting or what he thought the United States should do towards them: not be cruel, but be kind. Despite my earlier statement, I now see that Horton could very well be seen as a pro-life story: Horton could very easily let the other animals kill the Whos, but after hearing them, they realize there is life there and they decide not to. This was not the message Dr. Seuss intended, but it’s amazing how a well-written story by a talented author can be interpreted in so many ways.
There is a big debate over whether or not Juno depicts a pro-choice or a pro-life viewpoint, but many conservative and religious critics, including World Net Daily, Media Research Center, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, have praised the film for having the main character choose an option other than abortion. As MRC’s L. Brent Bozell put it, “It’s in effect pro-choice and yet ultimately pro-life.” I’m reminded of when Charles Schulz drew a cartoon in which Sally has a big secret to tell Charlie Brown she doesn’t want anyone else to hear: “We prayed in school today!” Both those who were for and those who were against prayer in school loved the cartoon, and wanted to reprint it in their publications to further their cause. Schulz, not wanting to seem as if he was for either side in particular, refused permission to both groups. So it is possible for a writer to create a work with a message which is interpreted in different ways by two sides of a debate.
I agree, but more because you can’t really make a pro-choice teen romantic comedy*. She has the abortion, she gets on with her life, the end. There’s no movie there. While you could make a movie about the complication abortions bring to someone’s life, it gets less funny. A pregnancy movie at least has a cute baby at the end as a kicker.
*Vera Drake being the odd exception, of course.
or perhaps it’s just a story of a hero rescuing some people in danger, with no allegory, metaphor, or hidden meaning intended.
Vera Drake was a pro choice teen romantic comedy?
At the very least, The Butter Battle Book is a pretty transparent allegory of the nuclear arms race, and it pretty much thinks the arms race sucks. The Lorax is also a call for environmentalism–I think it’d be very difficult to interpret it in any other way.
Daniel
I knew he had done WWII propaganda, I didn’t know he also did anti-racism cartoons. A very strange combination, given the particular subject matter of his WWII cartoons. People are contradictory.
-FrL-
A. Who is “against prayer in schools?”
B. Why would someone who is “against prayer in schools” want to use that cartoon? I can not find a way to interpret it as being against prayer in schools.
-FrL-
In the context of the film, you mean?
Atheists, people who believe school prayer violates the separation of school and state, and probably others.
Probably because it depicts school prayer as being something taboo to talk about in an open setting, as if it were something extremely dangerous or threatening.
No, actually. I am an agnostic bordering on atheist and I have no problem with prayer in schools. I have no wish to prevent anyone from praying to anything anywhere. I only wish to prevent government from forcing anyone to pray, or from endorsing any religion by allowing or requiring a government employee to lead prayer.
What children do of their own volition in the area of prayer is utterly irrelevant to me.
Edited to add: The framing that atheists or secular humanists or civil libertarians are against school prayer is a Republican/Religious Right framing. What they really mean is that atheists/secular humanists/civil libertarians are against forced school prayer led by a government employee.
Of course- there is no single atheist “dogma” that all atheists will agree on. Not all atheists (myself included) are against prayer in schools, but some are- the 1963 case of Murray v. Curlett lead to the founding of the American Atheists, one of the largest atheist organizations in the country, and still fights to remove prayer in schools. (Although some of the things American Atheists have to say are quite interesting, I disagree with many of their policies, such as their attempt to remove all religion period. I just used them as an example to point out that some- but not all- atheists are against prayer in schools.)
Let me try this again. You are promulgating a Religious Right framing of the issue. This is not about prayer in schools. This is about forcing schoolchildren to pray or to attend prayers led by government employees. Children praying voluntarily and outside of actual school time is fine and dandy. Children being forced to listen to most of the class and their teacher praying during class time is not.
Every time we try to say something like “MMO’H got prayer out of schools” we buy into that framing, which is inaccurate, incomplete and deceptive.
Ah, yes, I see what you mean now. Even the organization itself states so. I knew in my head that the fight was about state-sanctioned school prayer, but I didn’t type it. Sorry about that.