Mateo Kahoun | Staff Illustrator

I just saw “Hoppers,” the new Pixar film that isn’t a sequel, and I had a lovely time. The film was sweet and funny, and I do really appreciate the fact that something original is finally coming out of Pixar again, since the studio is known for producing many, many sequels. However, I couldn’t help but think that the way it addressed environmentalism missed the mark. 

A common critique leveled at recent Pixar films is that they assume their audience, children, is unintelligent and or uninterested in higher-level thinking. I tend to agree with this. While a sweeping generalization, I would claim that most recent Pixar films aren’t super interested in making substantial, layered claims about the nature of humanity or something along those lines. 

In “Hoppers,” this is pretty much the same. However, I would argue that kids’ movies having detailed, nuanced plots is extremely important: After all, people develop their taste and morals through the media they consume while young. People should demand more, not less, complex kids media, and stop assuming that young people cannot handle complicated stories. 

Spoilers for “Hoppers” ahead!

The film centers around the main character, a Japanese American girl named Mabel Tanaka, who cares deeply for the outdoors because of the role a shared love for nature played in fostering a loving relationship between her and her grandmother. The film hinges on her opposing the destruction of a glade that is emotionally significant to the two of them. The mayor of her town, Mayor Jerry, wants to tear it down to support the development of a highway. The movie ends with Mabel and Jerry resolving their differences and Mayor Jerry turning the glade into a nature preserve.

Overall, it’s a very cute and funny film! However, my issue comes at the resolution of differences. The whole film felt quite neoliberal in how the resolution to these greater issues, such as the destruction of the glade and disruption of the animals and their ecosystem, was resolved by just talking it out! How is this ever the solution in real life? While it’s a nice fantasy, these easy environmental solutions are impossible due to our economic system.

My first thought upon exiting the theater was, “What other films have addressed this theme of reconciliation between nature and humanity? Have there been others that do it better, especially for kids?” Take, for example, “Wall-E,” a Pixar film from 2008 that is widely considered Pixar’s greatest film. “Wall-E” is anything but soft-handed, depicting a post-industrial Earth with raw poignancy and a new class of humans that are lazy and corrupt with power after depleting the Earth of its greenery.

Clearly, Pixar is (or was) able to create nuanced films (there isn’t even any dialogue for over 30 minutes into the film!), and it did well with both audiences and critics. 

In terms of non-Pixar films, I landed on “Princess Mononoke,” a Studio Ghibli film directed by Hayao Miyazaki that, while often considered a masterpiece now, did not do particularly well with American audiences. The reason for this is that the material within it, while directed at children, was more mature than audiences had experienced before. 

“Princess Mononoke” centers on Ashitaka, a young man, and his relationship with San, a girl raised by wolves. The two’s relationship is backdropped by a conflict between man and nature, a forest of nature gods in conflict with a nearby industrial town led by a woman named Lady Eboshi. 

The film ends with Lady Eboshi killing the forest god which causes cascading bad events to occur, such as the land being poisoned. After Ashitaka and San restore the land to a lush state by appeasing the deceased god, Lady Eboshi repents for her actions. Miyazaki has gone on record in interviews talking about his unique ecophilosophy which is explored in the film, which I understand as arguing that human and nature can’t coexist perfectly, but, through much effort, can find a way to live amongst each other. 

I’d argue that even though Miyazaki goes for a take that’s straddling both ends of the argument, similar to “Hoppers,” he handles it in a much more nuanced way. There are three main prongs in which he makes his argument in “Princess Mononoke.” The first prong is that, in the film, certain characters like Ashitaka support the idea that humans can exist with nature, given his connection to the Kodama, little spirits in the film that are analogous with nature. 

The second prong of the movie’s argument is that there is a mutual dependency portrayed between the two characters representing nature vs. industry, Lady Eboshi and the Deer God. The two need each other to survive. The third prong is that the narrative depicts this collaboration as part of Japan’s larger religious and cultural code, Shintoism. These prongs layer onto one another in a natural way which leads most viewers to think that the film is arguing for a harmonious coexistence with nature. 

There are further nuances to “Princess Mononoke” that “Hoppers” lacks. Lady Eboshi and her town are home to disabled individuals and empowered women who wield weapons. However, even though the town is portrayed as a progressive space for these disenfranchised people, it is still shown to be hostile to the natural environment.

On the other hand, “Hoppers” lacks this nuance. There is no critique of neoliberalism or our system in general. While “Princess Mononoke” is most definitely for kids and centers on a beautiful romance between a man representing humankind and a woman representing nature, it is able to communicate a larger critique of capitalism and industry’s drive for expansion in a way that feels earned, thoughtful, and (mostly — save for a graphic opening scene that was later censored) age appropriate.

I bring this all up to demonstrate the layered and detailed argument Miyazaki makes throughout the film which “Hoppers” lacks. In “Hoppers,” reconciliation is reached through the use of technological augmentation: the main characters use technology to “hop” into the minds of robotic animals that perfectly imitate actual animals. This seems ripe for analysis, especially given our current moment. Ecologists and environmental scientists, for example, are split on whether advances in AI will be able to fix our climate situation before the energy usage of AI destroys humanity. However, this tension between technology and nature is not further interrogated or explored by the film. 

None of this is to discount anyone’s enjoyment while watching “Hoppers.” I thought the movie was fun to watch and does a good job at what it wants to do, limited as it may be. However, I do think it’s worth critiquing the neoliberal and flat way in which the film makes its argument for ecological coexistence. Let’s demand better, more nuanced children’s cinema!