Sometimes we just need two robots to show us what humans can really be.
Today I was thinking about the Pixar’s animated movie “Wall-E” (IMDB, Wikipedia): to me, it’s one of the best movies of the decade. I saw it several times, and each time I deeply enjoy it. It makes me laugh and it makes me cry over and over.
What makes this even more amazing is that the movie’s main characters are two small robots, and in the first half there’s practically no dialogue: just sounds.
This time, though, I noticed another layer in it: the two robots are “gendered”, but they overturn most of usual gender stereotypes.
- Wall-E is a waste collector: its box shape, rough features and low-pitched sounds make it obviously “male”.
- Eve (Extraterrestrial Vegetation Evaluator) is egg-shaped, sleek, glossy and “sexy” (she has definitely an Apple-ish look): she’s unmistakably “female” – not to mention her name.
If you’re beginning to think Wall-E will be the hero and he will save Eve… think again. No, this isn’t your standard “manly-man hero vanquishes all foes and saves helpless damsel” story. Here Wall-E will be a hero, sure, but thanks to his good-hearted nature, not his strength, and it will be Eve who saves him. Feminist supremacy, then? No, because it takes two to accomplish the mission, and no one wins alone here.
♦◊♦
The part of the movie I want to emphasize is how the common gender traits are mostly reversed:
- Wall-E is gentle and caring, and he’s never violent – Eve easily gets upset, and she’s ready to shoot on sight
- Wall-E is cheerful and friendly – Eve is often unkind and sharp
- Wall-E is curious, joking and reaching out – Eve focuses on doing her job
- Wall-E never ceases to interact with what’s around him – Eve shuts down once her goal is reached
- Wall-E is sentimental (he loves old musicals) – Eve is cold and logical (in the first half of the movie)
- Wall-E has humble and limited skills – Eve is hi-tech and amazing
- Wall-E is practically harmless – Eve has heavy weaponry
- Wall-E’s job is cleaning up – Eve’s job is research and discovery
- Wall-E is bound to the ground – Eve flies effortlessly (in elemental symbology, the Earth is female and the Sky is male)
Now, it may sound like Eve is the jerk and Wall-E is the kind soul. And, at the beginning, it looks like that. But while the story develops, there’s much more than that: he will show relentless determination and resourcefulness, she will learn a lot from her scrappy friend. Even at the most thrilling point, traditional roles will be reversed: he will sacrifice, she will save the day.
Someone can think “Oh, then it’s a feminist movie: the hero is female now”, but it isn’t. Without Wall-E, Eve would be—literally—lost. This movie doesn’t simply switch the hero’s gender, it tells how much both characters (and, thus, genders) need each other to succeed and triumph, and how much they need to know and understand each other. It’s a story of friendship in the truest sense, and it manages to twist lots of gender stereotypes along the way.
From the list above, someone might think that Wall-E is portrayed the way many men are in modern media: weak and emasculated. Not at all. Although he’s sensitive and caring, Wall-E can be tough and manly:
- Despite the fact that he’s the only one of his kind remained, he goes on doing his duty every day.
- When he’s fascinated by Eve, he pursues her and manages to get her attention.
- When Eve shuts down, he takes care of and protects her.
- When the mission is in danger, he does everything to overcome any obstacle.
- And he never, ever gives up.
In a way, Wall-E is a fantastic role model. This rusty little chap shows that a male can be everything: sensitive and strong, romantic and daring, friendly and resolute, playful and valiant. He can be whole.
Bottom line: throughout the whole movie the gender binary is shaken and broken, and you will be hardly able to define who is feminine or masculine (not that you would care about it, since the two characters had you enchanted long before). Thus, Wall-E not only amuses, moves and inspires (and makes you think about ecology and consumerism, by the way), but it makes you doubt any supposed gender trait.
In the end, it doesn’t matter being male or female: what it matters is supporting your friends, doing the right thing, and sustaining life.
—Photo meddygarnet/Flickr
About Valter Viglietti
I loved that movie! The storyline is amazing and sweet…I cried too.
From the list above, someone might think that Wall-E is portrayed the way many men are in modern media: weak and emasculated.
Of course not. It only shows a side of men that a lot of people (men and women) would rather pretend did not exist.
Danny: “a side of men that a lot of people (men and women) would rather pretend did not exist.”
Dunno. I think many, many women would appreciate human qualities like Wall-E has.
And many men, nowadays, are learning those qualities as well. And they feel better for it.
Why do you think the people you’re referring to, “would rather pretend did not exist”?
Are they afraid? About what?
Wow…You first describe those qualities as emasculating, and imply they are gendered in the feminine (by claiming the common gender traits are mostly reversed), now you’re describing them as human qualities which men must learn (why? because they aren’t human?) and are not inherent… For a writer for a men’s publication, you don’t have a very high opinion of men.
@Mark Neil: I’m afraid you’re trying to read my mind… but it’s not really working.
I never said those qualities are “emasculating”: I said some people might see them that way (I don’t).
@Mark Neil: “You [...] imply they are gendered in the feminine”
Nope. My discourse was mainly about gender portrayal in the media; and I meant “Wall-E” reversed the way genders are usually portrayed in the media.
My article was about genders stereotypes in media; and the way “Wall-E” twist them.
When I quote a stereotype, it doesn’t mean I believe in it or support it.
@Mark Neil: “now you’re describing them as human qualities which men must learn”
I meant them as human qualities that are good for everybody, men and women alike. A good quality is a good quality regardless of gender. 
Nope, again.
@Mark Neil: “you don’t have a very high opinion of men.”
It’s mostly generalizations, stereotypes and prejudices.
I have an opinion of men as high as my opinion of women. No more, no less.
As a matter of fact, I’ve given up comparing men and women long ago.
I can compare individuals, maybe, but comparing genders is as silly as comparing races.
The main point of my articles was against the gender binary; in other words, IMO genders are not two separate entities, but they can have multiple overlapping qualities (as embodied by the two robots).
Men and women are not the same thing, but they aren not totally separate and different altogether; they share much more than what makes them different.
I have no interest in championing one gender over the other. Why? We’re all humans.
I may speculate that you feel the need to defend and champion your own gender.
I don’t, but this doesn’t make me an “enemy” of men: I just see men and women are equals. Thus there’s no need to bash or exalt one or the other.
First point:
“From the list above, someone might think that Wall-E is portrayed the way many men are in modern media: weak and emasculated. Not at all. Although he’s sensitive and caring, Wall-E can be tough and manly:”
“Although he is sensitive and careing”, he can still be tough and manly. This is the line that I attribute to your assertion that you see those traits as emasculating. In order to counter the assertions of others that he may appear emasculated, you conceed (Via “Although”) he is sensitive and caring. why are these conceded to if not to admit these are potential reasons to view him as weak an emasculated. Given you point to the list above to determine where the perception comes from, you make a connection between those gender traits and being weak/emasculated. He then overcomes these via other attributes you then proceed to list.
Second point:
” I meant “Wall-E” reversed the way genders are usually portrayed in the media.”
But what you meant and what you typed are not the same thing. My observation derives from the following paragraph (as in, it’s own point, related, but seperate from the others that came before or after):
“The part of the movie I want to emphasize is how the common gender traits are mostly reversed:”
Had you said stereotypes here, I could understand, and that may very well be what you intended, but what you typed was gender traints. Traits are not stereotypes. To suggest that being “gentle and caring, and he’s never violent” is a common feminine trait (not a stereotype, but a characteristic of the female gender) and “easily gets upset, and ready to shoot on sight” is a common masculine trait (not a stereotype, but a characteristic of the male gender) is offensive, far more so than suggesting these are simply stereotypes.
third point:
“I meant them as human qualities that are good for everybody”
Again, what is intended and what is typed are not the same thing.
” I think many, many women would appreciate human qualities like Wall-E has.
And many men, nowadays, are learning those qualities as well.”
If these qualities are human qualities, then would then truly need to be learned by humans? Your statement that men are learning then is a direct assertion that they are not inherent to men, IE, human qualities are not inherent to men. Do you see where my interpretation is coming from? Then your additiona of “as well” suggests women already have these qualities, and men are learning them as well, IE, women have these human qualities, and men are learning them as well.
With that said, I could accept one of these as a minsunderstanding or typo, or just a different subjective interpretation that doesn’t corespond with your intention. Even two would make me cautious of you going forward, but I could accept it as a combination of the above faux paws. But these combined (as well as how you portray much of the gender “traits” as female positive, male destructive) promote a gendered viewpoint that is not very reassuring.
Can you see where my perception is coming from?
@Mark Neil: “Can you see where my perception is coming from?”
I’m trying to.
But it seems to me you’re inferring from my words something I didn’t say and I didn’t mean. You give your interpretations – and that’s fine – but you project them onto me – and that doesn’t work.
I’m sorry I didn’t make myself clear enough; this might be due, partly, to me being non English mother-tongue.
But it seems to me you’re carving your own meanings into my words; this doesn’t go anywhere. It seems to me you’re nitpicking my words; and in doing so, you’re missing the whole meaning I was trying to convey.
Having said that, I’ll try to explain myself better.
@First point: I never said/thought Wall-E is emasculated. What I meant is, he presents many traits usually associated with females/feminine (in common viewpoints and media).
I’m a better person because I have both (and NOT because one side is better than the other).
To me that doesn’t mean he’s “emasculated”; to me that means he has a “female energy”.
I am a man with a strong “female side”, and I’m proud of it. It makes me richer and better. At the same time, I have my male side as well, and I can kick butt when needed
The two “energies” are not mutually exclusive, because they can be present in both males and females, and in the same person.
@Second point: “common gender traits” (my words) can be seen as stereotypes. It’s what people usually think: “Men are like this”, “Women are like that”…
But it’s a cultural contruct, not something innate: in reversing the “socially standard” roles, Wall-E and Eve demonstrates male and female attributes can exists in both genders – that was my point, against the gender binary.
Again, read the article’s title: that’s the focus point. If you miss that and follow your agenda, you’re missing my point completely (and that’s fine by me, but don’t project your agenda onto me, then).
@Third point: “Your statement that men are learning then is a direct assertion that they are not inherent to men” (your words)
A) Nothing is “inherent”, because we aren’t programmed from birth to be a certain way; we become what we are, through learning and experience.
B) Those “female qualities” are often denied to men by culture: “Boys don’t cry”, “Man up!”, “Be tough!”, and so on. Thus, men who lack those qualities, it’s not because they are “faulty” or “inferior”, it’s mostly because they were taught so; they believe that being “a real man” means denying their female side.
Through the Wall-E role-model, a man can see that having those qualities do not deny his male-ness, but that makes him a better character all-around.
(just like Eve, who can be both a badass and deeply caring, in the end)
Again, my point was:
- There are “female” and “male” qualities, so to speak.
- Both genders can have those qualities – and they can have both qualities: those qualities aren’t necessarily related to gender. So no gender binary.
- Male and female are just “sides of the same coin”, the human being.
Thus, the best way to be is not through polarized opposites (gender binary), but through embodying the best of both worlds. United, not opposite.
(while accepting and respecting individual differences)
*Even at the most thrilling point, traditional roles will be reversed: he will sacrifice, she will save the day.*
I’d argue that male sacrifice (more specifically for the survival of others) is actually a traditional gender role that men are held to. “Women and children first” and what not.
I agree it’s a great movie! I have watched it dozens of times and it is still doesn’t get old.
@Archy: “I’d argue that male sacrifice [...] is actually a traditional gender role that men are held to.”
Yes, I thought about that, and you’re right.
But sacrifice was traditionally a value in female identity. In Christian religion, for example; women are taught to sacrifice for the well-being and happiness of others.
Male sacrifice is usually about extraordinary feats, like risking their lives (something pretty uncommon nowadays). Female sacrifice is more common and widespread, more day-by-day.
Anyway, I was mainly referring to the traditional media depiction, where women make “ordinary” sacrifices and the hero is (was) always a man.
In the film Wall-E sacrafices his body, and almost his life and identity, in order to protect everyone else. Definitely a traditional male hero value. Its not like he was at home baking apple pie while Eve was out saving the day.
But other than than, excellent analysis, and I feel much the same way.
Hee, that’s funny Peter. I’d say mothers sacrifice their body, may lose their lives and can often lose their identities (while cleaning up the mess others leave).
Just shows us how easy it is to project onto things! It comes back to projection and interpretation….what we choose to focus on in the narrative is what we see. So funny.
Why is it that only one gender can be identified as making sacrifices? You claim women must sacrifice their identity, but many men must put away their dreams, their hobbies, their motorcycles, their identities for family too. When a disagreement breaks out, in my experience, men will often defer to their wives decision, under the mantra of pick your battles, these two are sacrifices. When a fight breaks out, it is the man castigated and relinquished to the couch, it is men sent “to the dog house”, and they often do so, sacrificing their good nights sleep for the sake of peace. None of these are universal, but they are very much common, and no more or less so than the sacrifices you describe women as making. So why then must everything always and only be perceived in a feminine/feminist lens? Why is it so hard for feminists to even look at, let alone acknowledge the actions men take as anything but oppressive and abusive, and/ot women as victims?
That’s not actually what I’m saying. I’m not saying that only women sacrifice. I’m saying it’s easy for people (myself included) to project on those characters based on our own experiences.
Peter can see WallE as masculine sacrifice and I can see WallE as feminine sacrifice. That’s what the projection is because the characters are not formally gendered.
Of course men sacrifice. All humans do. This is so clear to me as to nearly be funny that you’d assume I don’t see that. It isn’t funny ha ha at all, but I hope you get my meaning.
You appear (though I could be wrong, so please clarify) to have read my post as a summation of how things are, rather than (how I meant it) a bemused look at how damnably easy it can be to fall into projecting our own experiences onto images that are in many ways quite gender neutral.
Perhaps in your comment to me about feminists universally believing in a male-oppressive/women-victims you are also projecting on me
?
(the wink smiley is indicating that I’m asking that with good will and humor in an attempt to relate to you, lighten the mood and find some common ground.)
What I find quite sad about any relationship, at least the way so many are described is that men and women both lose identity, sacrifice dreams, forget about vital parts of themselves all in the daily grind of trying to live some idealistic modern life. No wonder people stop having sex! We all, men and women both, need to find ways of keeping those vital powerful parts of ourselves alive and pulsing.
Did you see The Incredibles? What an amazing commentary on just that topic.
@Julie Gillis: “men and women both lose identity [...] trying to live some idealistic modern life”
Or, trying to follow a script/role that says “The man must win” (old way), or “The woman must win” (new way, and what Mark Neil was referring to).
New script/roles aren’t better than old ones, they are just reversed; any time someone “must win” (be it man, women, or anything else), there will be a “loser”.
What we are trying to do here, is going out of any script/role.
I in no way disagree. Do you think I do? Moving from a win/lose to something outside that binary is something I’m in favor of.
@Julie Gillis: “I in no way disagree”
Of course I know.
I wasn’t denying your point, just expanding on it – and, in the meantime, addressing Mark’s previous comment.
Ok! Just checking
XO
@Mark Neil: “So why then must everything always and only be perceived in a feminine/feminist lens?”
I cannot speak for others websites, but here I (and many others) are trying hard to see things from BOTH points of view. In a “humanist” POV, so to speak.
And I’m proud of being part of a place where – finally! – the focus is not on “We are right, you’re wrong!”, or “We are best, you’re worst!”… but “We are all in this together”.
(that is about the articles, of course – commenters are free to be different)
It’s the general societal vibe I am referring to. The instinct of so many (amply visible in the comments, even here), when confronted with an issue addressing men, to turn the discussion towards a women’s issue, sometimes related, sometimes not. I see no problem with looking through one lens or the other, it’s good to put some focus on things once in a while, but if you leave a lens focused on something too long, that something starts to burn while that not focused upon easily gets lost and/or forgotten. Once must back away from the lens from time to time, and shift it to other area’s, and from my experience, society does not want that lens shifting towards men.
So Julia, perhaps I am projecting onto you my experiences, I may have been overzealous in my criticism, but I have yet to have a discussion where the effort was not made to change the subject on any mention of men’s concern or redeeming qualities (even when that quality is a willingness to sacrifice ones life for their loved ones). And so when I see that, I usually try very quickly to pull the lens away entirely, so the whole picture can be seen. I hope you understand.
My bad, Julie, not Julia. Not edit to correct.
NP
I do. Thank you for responding and listening to my answer.
Wonderful way to see things…..two souls learning how to be each others hero. Works for me
I found _Wall-E_ to be a daring movie on Disney’s part, but for a whole different angle. It’s a surprising choice of story content for an entertainment giant like Disney. It’s kind of an anti-Disney story. As I watched it, I kept thinking “who at Disney approved this project?”
Think about it. This is a movie about the total disaster that happens when corporations get too big (like Disney/ABC/Time Warner/DC Comics/et al). When consumerism mass produces throwaway plastic garbage that overwhelms the environment (like Disney toys). When children are completely absorbed in round-the-clock entertainment via individual screens (like all Disney movies and the Disney channels). It’s like a post-apocalyptic vision of what would happen if Disney took over the world. It’s a movie that suggests you turn off your video screens, stop buying so much crap, and think for yourself. THAT is what is so unexpected about this movie – it tells the viewer to do the opposite of what made Disney so rich and powerful in the first place.
It would be like Boeing advertising all the good things about crossing the country by train, or Ford celebrating people who ride their bikes to work every day, or Pfizer (maker of Viagra) extolling the virtue of celibacy.
Some possible conclusions:
1. No one who gave the green light for this movie really saw these implications. Maybe the screenwriters slipped a little rebellion past their supervisors.
2. Disney saw the subversive message in this movie and just thought no one would really notice or thought that it was a minor point.
3. Disney saw the subversive message and just figured that Disney was big enough that it had nothing to fear. Disney figured it would make millions of dollars making an anti-Disney movie, just like it makes millions of dollars from every Disney movie.
@That Guy: “It’s kind of an anti-Disney story”
I agree with most of your points. There’s a strong anti-consumerism and ecological message in the movie, and it’s part of its value.
).
I don’t think Disney didn’t see the implications: they were well aware of them, and they choose them on purpose. Although DIsney is a corporation, their core values aren’t just profit. They have a “soul” (more or less
However, I don’t think it’s “anti-Disney”; rather it’s against the excesses of our Western materialistic culture at large.
IMO, “what made Disney so rich and powerful” is the fantasy and creativity and powerful positive messages the Disney stories always had. It isn’t just entertainment. It’s “entertainment with a soul”; it wouldn’t have lasted so long otherwise.