As we were watching Wall-E in chemistry, everyone happened to almost sympathize with what Wall-E was going through. For example, when Wall-E was sad, we felt pity. When a situation didn't work out for him, we all went, 'awwww' and 'that sucks'. The way we regard him, is nearly the same way we would regard another human being, even though Wall-E is a robot.
This led to me to recall something I learned in art history class (pretty much the only thing I ever did learn in that class). One day, we were going over pieces from ancient civilizations. We discussed this one stone, in particular, that was kept in one household not to be used as a tool, but rather because it resembled the human face. It had holes and scratches in it that resembled two eyes, a nose, and a mouth. It was kept because the people felt an attachment to it.
There was also this one study where a man stood in front of a group with a doll. Now, even though everyone knew that the doll was an inanimate object. It wasn't human. Yet, when the man cut off its head, everyone expressed either some sort of shock or horror. The study suggests that the group had grown attached to the doll because it shared the features of the human face.
Is this the same as in Wall-E? He doesn't even communicate like a proper human, and yet, we sympathize with his feelings. Is it really because he happens to have a face that resembles that of a human being?
Thoughts?
6 comments:
I am inclined to say that we don't necessarily sympathize with unreal objects/things that have a face that resembles that of a human being. This COULD be a reason that we sympathize with Wall-E, but I think that a better or more accurate reason is the way in which Wall-E acts. His robotic movements yet cute (for lack of a better word) "speech" and show of emotions are what make us say "awwww" and whatnot. Also, the fact that Pixar gave the robot human emotions like sorrow and love greatly adds to our "attachment" to Wall-E. I don't think it is necessarily a result of the fact that he has a (remotely?) human-like face.
Although I don't know the specifics of the study where the man decapitated a doll, I can't seem to understand how it was concluded that the group expressed horror to the doll just because it had a human-like face to which people became attached. Wouldn't a more reasonable explanation be the simple fact that decapitating a doll or any object for that matter is extremely disturbing because it suggests a desire to do the same to a person? Or perhaps the group was caught by surprise at the man's action? (Please fill me in on any missing information, if necessary!)
(Janet Lee)
I think that one of the factors in the fact that we sympathize with Wall-E is the fact that he has emotions, or at least seems to. Beside our physical features, it is emotion that is able to bind people together, or tear them apart. For instance, friendship and animosity. These are emotional connections that we feel that either draw us to or separate us from other humans. In Wall-E's case, he may not be human, but the emotions he expresses are similar to those a human would express (i.e., curiosity, love, etc.); therefore, we are able to empathize with Wall-E and a connection is made. Pixar certainly makes Wall-E out to be more than just a robot.
To go along with Janet's point, I would be more inclined to believe that the people were shocked that a man would do such a thing to a little girl's toy. For me, I connect the doll with the four-year-old little girl who the doll belongs to. This may not be a logical connection, but it seems that the group's reaction was not a logical one, rather, an emotional one.
Emily T.
I believe that we do sympathize with Wall-E partly because he seems almost human in some ways and displays human emotions. As a matter of fact, although Pixar has depicted bugs to monsters to fish and more, almost always the protagonists have very human feelings about them. The first Pixar film (Up) depicting humans as protagonists has just come out. (I don't count The Incredibles as depicting "real" humans as the protagonists, considering that they purposely exaggerated the features and traits of the characters to imitate "super-heroes".)
I wonder if any of you have heard of the Uncanny Valley. It's a theory that states the more a robot resembles a human being, the more we sympathize with it, but only up to a certain point. After the robot resembles a human too closely, we actually are alienated by the too-near-human appearance and consider the robot "creepy." This problem was encountered in The Polar Express, where some viewers thought that the CG-animated humans seemed a bit too human.
-Eric W.
I haven't watched the film, so I apologize in advance for any mix-ups.
It may be that Wall-E faces problems which we have yet to encounter. We don't have any human experiences like those and can only marvel at how awful it would be to go through them. I would disagree that Wall-E's physical appearance resembles that of a human. Instead, it must be the emotion in his eyes, or the speed at which he moves. In just about every picture that I googles, his eyes are drooping, obviously relaying sadness, and we can't help but voice our sympathy. Not to be cynical or anything, but isn't it just odd how we sympathize with animated robots yet never give other humans a second glance after hurting them with our words or actions? Hmm..
I believe that in the film humans have ceased to exist. That leaves us no room to wonder what would happen if a man or woman were to enter the plot. Robots have become the only race on Earth. If the robots had been replaced with human characters, however, the film would continue seamlessly. (Robot Wall-E falls in love with robot Eve, yet a human Wall-E could also fall in love with a human Eve.) So as we have established, the characters embody human traits.
(Sam Maliha)
I disagree on the point that we sympathize with Wall-E simply because of his resemblance to humans. Would this not negate any feelings towards animals (whether they are domesticated or wild) which clearly are not humanoid? I would hardly say that a rabbit resembles a human to any extent of the imagination, but if we see one being hunted down by a predator, it is likely that we will feel at least a twinge of sympathy.
I'd probably attribute this sort of behavior to the human capacity for empathy. After all, our feelings are based upon our own experiences. If we can "put ourselves in another's shoes" then we will, in all likelihood, react to the experience as humans. Wall-E may not be human, but the trials he faces we can somewhat relate to (pursuit of love etc.).
I don't really believe that we sympathize with any objects having a resemblance to humans. How often do people make beheaded Barbie jokes again?
The case of Wall-E is different since he was designed to garner sympathy from the audience. Pixar's forte is animation that is real but not too real. I read an article on the CG done in Rataoutille and how much they struggled to make the food realistic but not too realistic, since it seemed oversaturated and gross. If we were to sympathize with human-looking objects, we would not diffentiate in their degrees of human-ness. After all, all humans are equal and we would pity all of them (except the evil ones, I guess...and still, some people pity them).
So I think the majority of the source of sympathy comes from Pixar's animation team. They even have a reason for why Wall-E's eyes are binoculars. They're supposed to express openness and innocence, a reflection of inner emotions or something like that. The fact that they look something like humans eyes is more for convenience and relatability rather than for ganering sympathy.
Post a Comment