Happy Feet

[snopes]

"Happy Feet" - not so happy

This message is from a mom in our school. Thought it might be helpful as
you think about whether or not to see this movie...

My family and I went to see Happy Feet and were absolutely flabbergasted
by the message. I whole-heartedly agree. We all felt attacked and
swindled out of the price of the tickets.
World magazine calls it a "bait and switch" in its December 2 issue and
goes on to say "parents should avoid taking their children to see this
movie."

Please read the following e-mail and let others know about this movie.
It's not for children...or adults for that matter.
My wife took our two children and our niece to see Happy Feet last night,
lured by the promise of an endearing tale of penguins (my daughter's
favorite animal) and amazing animation. Boy, was I disappointed, not with
the cute penguins and amazing animation, which were indeed very well done,
but with being assaulted the entire time. This was nothing but a two-hour
crusade against Christianity. It was an overtly political movie about
environmentalism and humanism over Christianity.

The main character, Mumble, is different from others because he dances
instead of sings. He is ostracized from the "elders" and blamed for the
food shortage because their god wouldn't approve of his alternative
lifestyle. These elders look more like vultures than penguins and are
clearly representing the pious leaders of the Christian church.
They actually make him choose to "turn or burn." He must "repent" of his
ways and conform to their traditional views. The point is clear.
Christians aren't accepting of people different from themselves, won't
allow them to be a part of our church, and are harsh and judgmental.
I'm surprised Mumble didn't come "out" by the end of the movie as a
homosexual penguin. On his journey to discover the true reason why the
fish supply is dwindling, he meets a televangelist-like penguin who
accepts payment for words of wisdom and then hooks up with multiple
penguins. The film actually depicts this character leaving his pulpit to
go to the couch with four females, and he asks "Which one of you will be
first?"
In fact, this movie has a LOT to say about sex...and a lot to sing about
it too. It was very uncomfortable to watch adult and children penguins
singing "You don't need to be beautiful to turn me on, I just need your
body, baby, from dusk til dawn" and jamming to the very inappropriate
"Let's Talk About Sex, Baby." And then, to top off the attack on
Christianity, the first building you see when Mumble and his friends come
across the human fishing outpost is a dilapidated (obsolete?) Christian
church with a cross on top, followed by scenes of garbage floating in the
ocean. A church...in a fishing outpost in the antarctic.
This building wasn't necessary in the film, except for the movie makers'
not-so-subtle agenda.
Christians, don't be suckered in by penguins, Robin Williams' brilliant
voice-overs, and incredible animation. This movie is an attack on YOU.
My biggest disappointment other than having wasted an evening that could
have been spent in a much more enjoyable way, was having rewarded
Hollywood for this attack on me.
There's nothing like paying someone to insult you!
Do NOT make the same mistake. Stay away from this film and tell others to
do the same.

[AnglRdr]

While I don't think it is an appropriate movie for younger kids (parts of it are pretty scary, and the sexual themes are definitely there), I also completely missed what was the "attack on Christianity." In fact, my church's youth group went to see it as an activity, and they all loved it. The adults in the group apparently missed the anti-Christian message as well.

Unless, of course, "Christianity" is represented by mindless overusing of finite resources, then, they're right.

[One-Fang]

Given the description above, if anything, I would call it an attack on Phelps-style Christianity, not mainstream.

Y'know, someone said this movie sucks and not to go see it. Now, after reading that, I want to.

[UEL]

I felt that it was more an attack on the practice of exclusion.

It did not matter that he danced instead of sang, or that he remained fuzzy instead of maturing at the same rate; it was his society that excluded him. He could be a different religion, race, sex, gay, speak a different language, they are all the same when one is excluded.

Mind you, I saw the overbearing religious leaders, but they were more, they were also representing our political leaders, and cultural leaders. And any leader who refuses to change through evolution, will face revolution.

And that lesson was plain as day in Happy Feet.

[wanderwoman]

I haven't seen "Happy Feet", but isn't this the same premise as "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer"? Basically, somebody being ostracized because they are different? So is "Rudolph" anti Christian too?

Actually, for all I know the same people saying this about "Happy Feet" are also saying it about "Rudolph". And I've probably had too much wine to be trying to make serious comparisons anyway.

[lynnejanet]

Actually, even though I think the OP is an over-reaction, I agree with it, in principal. The movie was very thinly-veiled social commentary, and clearly was condemning stereotypical Christianity. I was also very uncomfortable with the sexual music, and I noticed the comment to the 4 female penguins, about who wanted to go first on the couch.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not calling for a boycott or for censorship. I was, though, disappointed that a movie that caters to kids went for cheap sexual humour and heavy-handed social commentary. I found myself wondering what the process was for choosing the songs that were highlighted, because they didn't even suit the plot very well.

My kids' response was luke-warm. We won't be buying it.

[snapdragonfly]

Originally Posted by lynnejanet

Actually, even though I think the OP is an over-reaction, I agree with it, in principal. The movie was very thinly-veiled social commentary, and clearly was condemning stereotypical Christianity. I was also very uncomfortable with the sexual music, and I noticed the comment to the 4 female penguins, about who wanted to go first on the couch.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not calling for a boycott or for censorship. I was, though, disappointed that a movie that caters to kids went for cheap sexual humour and heavy-handed social commentary. I found myself wondering what the process was for choosing the songs that were highlighted, because they didn't even suit the plot very well.

My kids' response was luke-warm. We won't be buying it.

Well, that dissappoints me a lot. I think it's not a secret that Phelps and his ilk disgust me and I have no problem at all with attacks on him - attack at will!!! - and I also have no problem with sex on the screen, but, if it's an animated movie that is clearly marketed for kids - not an adult anime - then yeah, I have a serious problem with that sort of stuff. I feel it's deceitful on the part of the producers - does anyone really need it explained to them that most parents assume a cartoon will at least be *very* mild if it references sex? The old Bugs Bunny cartoons got a wee bit racy - eyes bugging out and "aaOOOGa" noises when a shapely female walked by - and something that goes as far as that, I think we are used to. ~Though I believe Bugs was originally for adults or at least intended to work on two levels.


What was Happy Feet rated, anyway? Something like that would warrant pg13, from the sound of it.

[AnglRdr]

Originally Posted by lynnejanet

Actually, even though I think the OP is an over-reaction, I agree with it, in principal. The movie was very thinly-veiled social commentary, and clearly was condemning stereotypical Christianity.

Where? When??

[Loyhargil]

I'm with AnglRdr, I didn't see a direct attack on anything but, at most, fundamentlism of any sort (not limited to Christianity). I thought UEL said it well, it seemed like an attack on exclusion because of narrow-mindedness and unwillingness to accept change. Those qualities are certainly available to anyone, not just Christians.

Although I have to say, I also thought it was a bad film for small children. It was heavy-handed, very sexually oriented, and quite frankly I thought it was driving home the idea that no one's whole until they have a partner, which I don't agree with. I also thought it was a pretty heavy social commentary for a small child to digest.

The music rocked, though.

[Mickey Blue]

I havn't seen this film, but going from the OP..

World magazine calls it a "bait and switch" in its December 2 issue and
goes on to say "parents should avoid taking their children to see this
movie."

World magazine is one of the more uber-conservitive rags I've seen (my doctors office, for some reason, stocks them) and just flipping through them shows countless incorrect facts and idiotic opinions (yes, I"m sure there are lots of liberal ones too before anybody brings it up).

Please read the following e-mail and let others know about this movie.
It's not for children...or adults for that matter.

I love the attitude some people have (be they liberal, conservitive, christian, muslim, atheist, jewish, etc, etc) that anything that challenges your views is evil and wrong and shouldn't be looked upon.. I figure these are the same sorts of people who would rule out a person as a friend based solely on their beliefs.

The main character, Mumble, is different from others because he dances
instead of sings. He is ostracized from the "elders" and blamed for the
food shortage because their god wouldn't approve of his alternative
lifestyle.

Sort of like blaming homosexuals for a terrorist attack on a major city?

They actually make him choose to "turn or burn." He must "repent" of his
ways and conform to their traditional views. The point is clear.
Christians aren't accepting of people different from themselves, won't
allow them to be a part of our church, and are harsh and judgmental.

The hell you say..

I'm surprised Mumble didn't come "out" by the end of the movie as a
homosexual penguin.

Thank you for making my point..

On his journey to discover the true reason why the
fish supply is dwindling, he meets a televangelist-like penguin who
accepts payment for words of wisdom and then hooks up with multiple
penguins. The film actually depicts this character leaving his pulpit to
go to the couch with four females, and he asks "Which one of you will be
first?"

Corrupt televangelists who don't really care about their message and are only peddling the religion to get cash? Nothing like that in the real world..

In fact, this movie has a LOT to say about sex...and a lot to sing about
it too. It was very uncomfortable to watch adult and children penguins
singing "You don't need to be beautiful to turn me on, I just need your
body, baby, from dusk til dawn"

Well, again I havn't seen, so hard to comment, but the existing of the songs in the first place is not inherently bad.. I've seen songs like "I like big butts" and other sexual innuendo in Shrek without it being an issue.. But again, havn't seen it.



So ok, from what I am reading it sounds like its speaking about against the exclusionary practices of Christianity in America, not all Christians, but the Robertsons, the Phelpses, the Fallwells. However I think its resonable that you could extend the overal message to all groups that exclude others for any variety of issues.. And the religious aspects specifically (again from the OP) could be extended to nearly any religion.

Again, havn't seen it, maybe I"ll rent it but not gonna see it in the theaters, still I think its targeting what we lovingly call pCms, rather then all Christians.

[Astra]

So this movie actually DOES use "Let's Talk About Sex?" I read that in a review and thought it was a joke!

"I Like Big Butts" is a little risque by some standards, but I think it's so silly that most kids are okay with it. "Let's Talk About Sex" is a completely different story, at least to me.

[Mickey Blue]

Originally Posted by Astra

So this movie actually DOES use "Let's Talk About Sex?" I read that in a review and thought it was a joke!

"I Like Big Butts" is a little risque by some standards, but I think it's so silly that most kids are okay with it. "Let's Talk About Sex" is a completely different story, at least to me.

Not saying its not, as I said I havn't seen it, just saying how a song that sounds sexually explicit may be presented in an acceptable way.

Heck Ice Age II had some sexual humor/situations in it too for that matter.

Still, as I said, that point is far more acceptable to me then this idea that its an all out assault on Christianity.

[AnglRdr]

Let there be no misunderstanding: the sexual themes in Happy Feet are very present and not particularly subtle at all.

The condemning Christianity, though, has been way too subtle for us to find.

Yep lets stop children seeing, listening, or reading anything with sexual references in it...wait a minute wasn't there a lot of begetting in the bible? and what about Mary Magdalene's job title?

[Elbe]

I just saw the movie and thought it was cute.

I could see, however, a weak analogy to jesus. Mumble is preaching love, even to those that are different (himself, mostly) and those in power don't like it a vow to be rid of him. He sacrifices himself to try and save his people where he is believed dead (after following the fishing vessel). He spends some time with the god-like "aliens" and eventually returns to his people making a pact, of sorts, with the aliens to stop their fishing so the penguins can survive.

How's that? It's not too good, but it makes as much sense as "environmentalism = anti-christian"

[snapdragonfly]

Originally Posted by lazerus the duck

Yep lets stop children seeing, listening, or reading anything with sexual references in it...wait a minute wasn't there a lot of begetting in the bible? and what about Mary Magdalene's job title?

What on earth do either of those have to do with the appropriateness of sexual content for young children?

What is your point, exactly? That because the Bible recorded human history which does include reproduction (the Mary Magdalene being a prostitute is incorrect) that children shouldn't have any sort of screening of sexual content whatever? We can just have Johnny Holmes right in there with Toy Story 4?

~Of COURSE there are appropriate and inappropriate materials for young children on all topics, in particular sex and violence. I'm quite sure I am misunderstanding you because it sounds as if you don't think so and that's clearly a ridiculous position to take.

[WingedBear]

Originally Posted by Astra

So this movie actually DOES use "Let's Talk About Sex?" I read that in a review and thought it was a joke!

"I Like Big Butts" is a little risque by some standards, but I think it's so silly that most kids are okay with it. "Let's Talk About Sex" is a completely different story, at least to me.

While it is sung to "Let's Talk About Sex," the lyrics are clearly: "Let's talk about eggs"

A lot of the songs have to do with mating, but most of it was bowdlerized, or at least penguified.

I personally didn't like the movie all that much. The environmentalism was a bit too preachy for me, and there are huge plot holes near the end.

Originally Posted by snapdragonfly

What on earth do either of those have to do with the appropriateness of sexual content for young children?

What is your point, exactly? That because the Bible recorded human history which does include reproduction (the Mary Magdalene being a prostitute is incorrect) that children shouldn't have any sort of screening of sexual content whatever? We can just have Johnny Holmes right in there with Toy Story 4?

~Of COURSE there are appropriate and inappropriate materials for young children on all topics, in particular sex and violence. I'm quite sure I am misunderstanding you because it sounds as if you don't think so and that's clearly a ridiculous position to take.

No it's just talking about levels, anyone willing to even conceive that the content of happy feet is unsuitable for children must by logical extention be against teaching the bible to children. It's a simple extention of the same argument.

[geminilee]

Surely if you wish to look for inappropriate-for-children passages in the bible you can do a lot better than the begats.

I have not seen the movie, but from my position of complete ignorance I say it can't really be a whole lot worse than other cartoons that are meant to be watched by children and adults. As has been mentioned before, look at Warner Brothers' cartoons; one of the ones with Little Red Riding Hood and the wolf, or maybe Foghorn Leghorn. IF the kids are too young to understand it and/or do not already have the knowledge, the jokes will not make sense. Sure, they may laugh along, or maybe ask why it was so funny, but hearing veiled sexual references (even if pretty thinly veiled) will not suddenly convey the knowledge. The kids who know what they mean knew what it meant before they heard the joke.

I just want to add that I am not arguing that we should censor nothing our kids watch because obviously very graphic sexual jokes and/or portrayals will convey that information. I just think that hearing the occasional mildy dirty joke is unlikely to be harmful or prematurely sexualizing for a child; they will probably either forget it or puzzle over it for years, only to laugh at it much later when they finally do get the knowledge.

[Nick Theodorakis]

Originally Posted by lazerus the duck

...and what about Mary Magdalene's job title?

What about it? Just what was Mary Magadalene's job title?

Nick