NBC Uses 'The Lorax' to Push Environmentalism, Mocks Idea of Movie Having Agenda
While interviewing actor Ed Helms about his role in 'Dr. Seuss' The Lorax' On Monday's NBC Today, co-host Matt Lauer seemed puzzled that anyone would question the environmentalist message of the book or movie: "...believe it or not, Dr. Seuss has sparked controversy with this movie because Lou Dobbs weighed in on this..."
Lauer quoted criticism from Dobbs: "The Lorax is an example of the President's liberal friends in Hollywood targeting a younger demographic using animated movies to sell their agenda to children." Helms sarcastically joked: "I am so excited that Barack Obama, who is my best friend, got us going on this. Because we're going to indoctrinate a lot of people. If this goes well, I hope." He then exclaimed: "Lou, come on! What are you talking about?"
Helms declared: "It's about a good guy who gets greedy. These are unimpeachable values, you know, like be responsible to your world."
At the beginning of the segment, Lauer outlined the plot of the children's story: "The Lorax is the guardian of the forest, so naturally, all heck breaks loose when a young entrepreneur, voiced by Ed Helms, starts cutting down trees to make a product he calls a thneed."
Helms described his character in a similar fashion: "So, the Wuncler is kind of the – he's kind of the villain but he's not a bad guy. He just – he's an entrepreneur who gets carried away and goes down the black hole of greed and avarice."
A story about a greedy businessman who chops down trees, what could possibly be liberal about that?
On Wednesday, Lauer talked to the voice of the Lorax himself, actor Danny Devito, who proclaimed: "Dr. Seuss wrote to everybody. He was prophetic. He talked about what was going on and how we have to take care of everything in the – you know, on our planet, to make it – to make it sustainable for all of us to live happy, long lives together as a species." The headline on screen touted Devito as a "Tree Hugger."
Here is a transcript of Lauer's February 27 exchange with Helms:
8:44AM ET
MATT LAUER: We're back now at 8:43 with one of the stars of the new animated 3d movie, "Dr. Seuss' The Lorax." The Lorax is the guardian of the forest so naturally, all heck breaks loose when a young entrepreneur, voiced by Ed Helms, starts cutting down trees to make a product he calls a thneed....For people who aren't familiar – it would be surprising if people don't know "The Lorax" because it's such a great book – but if they don't know the story, the Wuncler is?
ED HELMS: So, the Wuncler is kind of the – he's kind of the villain but he's not a bad guy. He just – he's an entrepreneur who gets carried away and goes down the black hole of greed and avarice.
LAUER: He sounds like a bad guy but you say he's not.
HELMS: But he's redemptive, he's like a-
LAUER: I know, he's naive, more than a villain.
HELMS: He's also just, like all of us, he's vulnerable to these things, but it doesn't make him an evil guy.
LAUER: Alright, so you know now, this movie, believe it or not, Dr. Seuss has sparked controversy with this movie because Lou Dobbs weighed in on this, the television host, and said that, "This is about a woodland creature who speaks for the trees and fights rampant industrialism," and then went on to say, "The Lorax is an example of the President's liberal friends in Hollywood targeting a younger demographic using animated movies to sell their agenda to children." Go!
HELMS: I am so excited that Barack Obama, who is my best friend, got us going on this. Because we're going to indoctrinate a lot of people. If this goes well, I hope. It's about – Lou, come on! What are you talking about? This is – I – he couldn't have seen the movie yet either. Right?
LAUER: Or maybe read the book, I'm not sure.
HELMS: Or maybe read the book. It's – it's about a good guy who gets greedy. These are unimpeachable values, you know, like be responsible to your world.
LAUER: Here's what Dr. Seuss said about it. By the way, the guy sold about a billion books worldwide. He said, "The Lorax doesn't say lumbering is immoral. I live in a house made of wood and write books printed on paper. It's a book about going easy on what we've got, it's anti-pollution, anti-greed."
HELMS: Boom! There you go. Theodor Geisel, the original-
LAUER: I think he said that after that, "Boom! There you go."
HELMS: Dr. Seuss said, "Boom!"
(...)
- Kyle Drennen's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Absolutely no concept of.....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 5:55pm.
irony.
I hated going to the Pokemon movies when my kids
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 5:58pm.
were little.
I would gladly sit through one of those before I sat through this.
The Lorax has a nice message.
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 6:10pm.
The Lorax has a nice message. Is that an agenda? Love Ed Helms for mocking the criticism.
The Grasshopper and the Ant
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 6:19pm.
Conservatives will get off Hollywood's back when they make a similar message movie about how it's good to work hard and provide for one's self and to not collectively rob from the productive.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
No they won't
Submitted by mandrake on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 6:24pm.
I think they already did that. A movie called Atlas Shrugged. Conservatives still on Hollywoods back.
Wrong again....
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 6:37pm.
.....grasshopper.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
What?
Submitted by mandrake on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 6:46pm.
Don't I even get argument or link? "Wrong again"..that's it?
(I would put in more ????. but that would be excessive)
Sorry
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 7:08pm.
Here you go. Patience, grasshopper.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
They did. It was called
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 6:27pm.
They did. It was called "Blazing Saddles."
Hal
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 6:21pm.
Your missing the point. Helms mocked the criticism and denied a message, then talked about the message.
No he denied an agenda, an
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 6:24pm.
No he denied an agenda, an effort to push environmentalism on people. He acknowledges there's a message, it's just not why they made the movie. The DNC didn't ask them to do the movie and fund it.
Good grief Bal
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 6:45pm.
Good grief Bal learn to read. Helms said his best friend Barack Obama got him to do it and they're going to indoctrinate a lot of people.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
I can only assume
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 7:49pm.
you're joking, and that you understood that Helms was making a joke as well. Right?
Oh boy...
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 8:10pm.
Oh boy...
You mean to tell me they didn't make The Lorax to push
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 8:56pm.
environmentalism? Seriously?
Yes, seriously. They made it
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 9:00pm.
Yes, seriously. They made it because they think it'll make money.
Then take a good look at this...
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 9:03pm.
http://www.theloraxmovie.com/index.php#/splash
and tell me why all the green stuff and trees stuff is on there?
Marketing.
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 9:06pm.
Marketing.
I don't think you beleive that.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 9:09pm.
.
Of course they're going to
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 9:12pm.
Of course they're going to find angles to sell the movie, tie-ins to up website hits. But I do not in any way believe that when they were pitching this movie idea their main focus was, "Hey here's a way we can further push the green agenda on people!"
Of course not Bal...
Submitted by sentry_99 on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 9:17pm.
They wouldn't do that, or make the protagonists eeeevil wall street executive looking greedy capitalists either. Been awhile since I read the book, those guys were in the book too right?
Obviously the film has a
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 9:24pm.
Obviously the film has a message-but Bal's probably right-the producers weren't sitting around their conference table thinking "how can we help the world and push a green agenda...".
More likely they were saying, "you know what's big right now?!? Going Green! How can we capitalize on that?!? Isn't there a Dr. Suess Property that we haven't thoroughly ruined yet?"
Obviously, I don't think very highly of producers-but they think about the bottom line-at least on these big films they do. I'm sure the writers and the directors all felt good about the message of the film, but at its core, it is a money making machine. That's why the lorax is schilling for 30+ products already. The schilling doesn't really meld with the message of the film that you seem to think is the sole purpose of its being.
Knock me over with a feather!
Submitted by sentry_99 on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 9:26pm.
Hollywierd libs are hypcrites too? You don't say?
You can't have your cake and
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 9:46pm.
You can't have your cake and eat it too-if I point out something that counters your argument, crying "hypocrite" doesn't suddenly make your argument valid again.
You seem to be lumping all "Hollywierd" types into a single category-that's your mistake. To make this overly simple (yet still pretty accurate) there are, primarily 2 types in Hollywood. The creatives and the suits.
The creatives are the ones that everyone here would take issue with. They're the ones with the agendas and the messages and the speaking out etc etc.
The suits, however, don't care about agendas or messages or talent or quality. They care only about the money (and again, I'm simplifying, but that's pretty accurate nonetheless). That's why you have Transformers 3-though every iteration of the series has been pretty universally loathed-they'll keep making them until they stop making money.
So a big studio film like the Lorax isn't made for its message-its made because a bunch of suits think it'll make money (and perhaps, specifically, because they see that "message" as "trending"). If they truly cared about the green message, the Lorax wouldn't be in a Mazda commercial.
Again, the creatives that actually made the film may be genuinely into the message of the source material. But that's not why the movie was greenlit in the first place.
Hmmm..sounds good but...
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 9:51pm.
What explains the suits at Comcast buying MSNBC and not changing the lineup to get viewers and make money?
How would you change it?
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 9:54pm.
How would you change it?
Stop with the leftist news
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 10:22pm.
and report the truth. Novel idea isn't it?
Sounds so easy...
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 10:25pm.
Sounds so easy...
That's a scary statement.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 10:27pm.
The truth is easy.
Well, first off-I did say
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 10:22pm.
Well, first off-I did say that it was an over simplification. It may apply in most cases, but it isn't universal.
And secondly, I can easily see the marketing decision for the network. They see the success of Fox News and figure that they can tap into the equally large "other half"-it hasn't panned out nearly as successfully as Fox. But they're aiming for an audience that is roughly the same size-they're just not as good as hitting their target as Fox is. So that's the "suits" side of it.
Your explanation makes no sense
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 10:36pm.
It's a business. Most business's are in it to make money, what we are debating here is the possibility that some are more interested in promoting an ideology than in making money. If the owner's of MSNBC were interested in making money they would have changed their business model by now. Universal is also interested in promoting an ideology. Yes, they hope to make money, but I still don't think it's their first motivation in making this movie.
Thats crazy talk,
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 10:38pm.
Thats crazy talk, respectfully.
Trust me...
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 10:42pm.
At this point, Universal's ONLY motivation is making money-they're suffering worse than any studio. That's why they're sending their Lorax out to schill for everything! They're desperate for hits.
And MSNBC isn't hemorrhaging money-it just isn't as successful as Fox News. And they also know that they can't scrap their entire business model and then chase after Fox News' audience. A) they wouldn't win and B) it would cost them what audience they already had. So it would be a lose/lose for them if they scrapped their entire lineup and filled with conservative pundits.
Sorry Bos, I don't trust you
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 10:48pm.
Universal is owned by NBC and GE, two groups known to push progressive causes. And GE makes a disgusting amount of money on it's "Green" merchandise, so they don't need to make money on this movie if the indoctrination works.
You answered your own
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 10:56pm.
You answered your own criticism there: "they make a 'disgusting' amount of money on it's 'Green' merchandise". They're in it for the cash.
And NBC-Universal is suffering-it has nothing to do with its corporate parents, the company has been suffering for the past few years. That's why they sold the majority stake of the sucker to Comcast-they're desperate for cash. I work in the industry, and its a daily discussion of "what is NBC-Uni gonna do?".
Bos
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 11:02pm.
So in other words, the whole movie is to promote an agenda. Thanks.
Hurm.
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 11:03pm.
I have no clear where you got that from my post...
⇒ Breathtakingly stupid.
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 11:07pm.
A subsidiary has "nothing to do with its corporate parents?"
I was going to ask, "you must work in the industry if you're that dense", but you answered that one.
Bal is an economic wizard
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 11:12pm.
Compared to this guy
Ha
Submitted by BosTarus on Thu, 03/01/2012 - 2:20pm.
I wasn't trying to imply that NBC-Uni has nothing to do with their corporate parents. I meant the issue of their current success (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with GE (and their current majority owner, Comcast-shows how much "I don't know").
It's a division that is losing money-that's why the sold the majority holding to Comcast in the first place. My point was, NBC-Uni is desperate for cash-and their corporate parents don't change that fact.
Thanks Teddy
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 03/01/2012 - 1:04am.
Countering my opinion with yours isn't much of a rebuttal. My use of the word "hypocrite" was simply me mocking you.
Bartholomew and the Oobleck..........Now that's a green story
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 03/01/2012 - 3:06am.
A story about how the folks in charge wanted to change the weather... Prophetic I'd say.
Oobleck is GREEN!!!!!
At least the king apologized for screwing up... ain't going to happen with these batch of kooks in office.
You Didn't Build That.
Those "tie ins" don't make them any money.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 9:24pm.
So they are promoting the whole green thing with this. Why didn't the Bourne movies promote the CIA?
Wait
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 9:27pm.
Do you seriously think that the product tie-ins aren't making them any money? Because that's bunk. All of that nonsense is raking it in for Universal!
The Web tie in's
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 9:47pm.
I don't think Universal is making any money from Read Across America.
...why would you promote the
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 9:28pm.
...why would you promote the CIA?
Which is your favorite
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 9:33pm.
Gov agency?
I'm partial to the Tennessee
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 9:37pm.
I'm partial to the Tennessee Valley Authority.
Dam lover
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 10:46pm.
eh
Seuss Tablets
Submitted by CJohnson on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 6:25pm.
I think Moses delivered a more compelling message.
Was Andy Barnard saying O'Bozos his best friend?
Submitted by NJRightWinger12 on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 6:36pm.
Either that was sarcasm at its highest, or The Office just lost another viewer!
Ed Helms
Submitted by stratman on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 7:50pm.
Worked as a correspondent on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
"....entrepreneurs that get
Submitted by big.league.slider on Thu, 03/01/2012 - 3:46am.
"....entrepreneurs that get greedy.......rampant industrialism........"
Sounds like Hollywood to me.
Please remember Balboa thinks
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Thu, 03/01/2012 - 4:08am.
Please remember Balboa thinks Martin Sheen was president and Oliver Stone films are documentaries.
To Balboa
Submitted by ahusser on Thu, 03/01/2012 - 4:41am.
Nothing has a spin, there is no agenda in any movie ever made. Like there was no message in Avatar, or Platoon or JFK, The Day after Tomorrow or any Matt Damon flick and by the way I know Matt Damon isn't a left wing shill/flack-wink-wink (notice correct spelling of shill) and ultimately the Bourne movies were at most anti-US and least anti-CIA (disclaimer I liked the Bourne movies even with the underlying message). I am always incredulous of Balboa's comments as in "he can't be that dumb or blind" so the only thing I can say is he is being contrary just to be contrary or just being a typical liberal.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
Again, there's a difference
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 03/01/2012 - 7:59am.
Again, there's a difference between a movie having a message and having an agenda. The Day After Tomorrow was not made because the left thought it was a great way to push environmentalism on people.
Exactly!
Submitted by BosTarus on Thu, 03/01/2012 - 2:40pm.
It boils down to what I said above. On the whole, a movie is made with the intention of making money-at least studio films. They may have a message in them, but that is on the part of the creatives who are actually creating the film. But at the root, the film is green lit by the studio executives to make money-not to spread an agenda. At that level, if there's a message in the pitch, they would only greenlight it if they felt that message had an audience that would pay to hear it.
Yes movies are supposedly
Submitted by ahusser on Sun, 03/04/2012 - 1:57pm.
made to make money ( A lot of liberal bombs were made during the Bush years) I will submit there probably is no agenda per se in the movie making business but that the overwhelming number of movies and TV shows exhibit liberal/left message(s) (mostly topical of the liberal cause dejoure). I would submit that the writers, directors and producers are furthering a liberal agenda with liberal messages and the studios hope to make money or at least get enough tax write offs from their bombs to even make the unprofitable profitable. They may have no concrete defined agenda but they certainly have a left slanted point of view which comes out in these movies/shows. Liberals who believe there is no bias in any media are kidding themselves but of course these messages to liberals are the "truth" and therefore can not be slanted or biased.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'