Horton Hears a Who!

Movie Information

The Story: Horton the elephant finds himself the protector of an unseen world living on a speck of dust. The Lowdown: Dr. Seuss' classic children's book gets the big-screen treatment with mixed, but fairly enjoyable, results.
Score:

Genre: Animated Kiddie Flick
Director: Jimmy Hayward and Steve Martino
Starring: Jim Carrey, Steve Carrell, Carol Burnett, Seth Rogen, Will Arnett
Rated: G

The emergence of this highly promoted and already rather highly regarded cartoon rendering of Dr. Seuss’ 1954 children’s book Horton Hears a Who! has been educational. For instance, I’ve learned that probably 50 percent of those on message boards with an opinion on Dr. Seuss can’t spell his name. More alarmingly, I’ve discovered that in the world of Seussian cinema you’ll draw critical applause if you manage to simply make a movie that isn’t as appallingly bad as Ron Howard’s How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000) or Bo Welch’s The Cat in the Hat (2003). The first wouldn’t be too hard and the second is something I suspect my grandmother could pull off—and she’s been dead for 28 years.

I’m not saying that Horton is actively bad. It’s not. It’s probably terrific if you’re between the ages of 3 and 10. In fact, I overheard one small child telling his mother it was a “great film,” so bear that in mind if you’re looking at the movie from the standpoint of taking a youngster. And even for adults, it’s moderately entertaining. There’s a splendid scene involving the Mayor of Whoville (Steve Carrell) whose arm goes limp due to a novocaine accident, and there’s a visually stunning sequence with Horton (Jim Carrey) in a field of clover. But claims that the film truly captures Dr. Seuss’ story and spirit are at the very least exaggerated.

Probably the closest anyone ever came to really pulling that off was Bob Clampett with the 1942 Warner Bros. cartoon Horton Hatches the Egg, which ran slightly under 10 minutes. After that, there’s Chuck Jones’ TV perennial, How the Grinch Stole Christmas (1966), which at a mere 26 minutes still contained padding. And that’s where the problem arises—the need to stretch a very slender story to feature length (in this case 88 minutes). I’m not saying it couldn’t be done, but it’s a task that defeats screenwriters Ken Daurio and Cinco Paul. Considering that their credits include College Road Trip (2008) and The Santa Clause 2 (2002), this is not that surprising. Nor does it come as a great shock in our postmodern world to find the film decked out in random pop-culture references. It may be depressing to find Horton remarking, “I love the smell of bananas in the morning,” but it’s not a shock—except to the degree that invoking Apocalypse Now (1979) is pretty old hat.

The real problem lies in the barrage of thematic inconsistencies of the tweaked material—sufficiently inconsistent that the overall movie seems to be suffering from multiple-personality disorder. Yes, the basics of the story are intact. It’s still the story of an elephant, Horton, who inadvertently finds himself in charge of protecting and saving Whoville, a community inhabiting what to normal-sized eyes appears to be a speck of dust that has become dislodged and is floating around in the air on the way to almost certain disaster. Catching the speck on a clover flower, he proceeds to make himself look ridiculous in his quest to save the microscopic community, since no one without his enormous ears can hear the residents of Whoville and therefore no one believes in their existence.

The story has always been open to interpretation concerning its possibly deeper meanings. For example, Horton sticks to his principles (which the movie turns into a kind of joke by tacking on a “Jim Carrey moment”) even when the officious Kangaroo (Carol Burnett) who rules the jungle of Nool demands that he recant—a point that has always suggested that the story’s overall tone was anti-McCarthy. Given the book’s 1954 publishing date, this is likely the case. And the phrase “a person’s a person no matter how small” has given rise to multiple interpretations—including an attempt (scotched by Seuss) at being co-opted by antiabortionists.

However, some rather peculiar things have been added to this version of the tale. The villainous Kangaroo has been handed the phrase—used more than once—“If you can’t see it, hear it or feel it, it doesn’t exist,” which, taken in context with Horton’s expanded role of savior of the Whos, starts to feel a little agenda-driven in a markedly un-Seussian, very fundamentalist way. Whether or not this troubles you, it sits awkwardly next to her McCarthy-esque tactics, her insistence that Horton is a menace “to the children” (a rallying cry that gets everyone worked up without a moment’s thought), and her own insistence on having her offspring “pouch-schooled.” It’s all simply too mixed up to make sense. Other additions—the Mayor’s emo son and the father-son clash of their relationship—are simply Hollywooden filler. None of this will matter to kids, of course, but to adults who know the material, it’s a far cry from the claims that the movie “finally got Dr. Seuss right.” Rated G.

SHARE
About Ken Hanke
Head film critic for Mountain Xpress since December 2000. Author of books "Ken Russell's Films," "Charlie Chan at the Movies," "A Critical Guide to Horror Film Series," "Tim Burton: An Unauthorized Biography of the Filmmaker."

38 thoughts on “Horton Hears a Who!

  1. nka

    For a poor review, you seem to give this a rather high rating. 3.5 stars is not the score to give a movie that you feel was “exaggerated” and overstretched. Your score gives the impression that you are recommending the film, but your review does not.

  2. Ken Hanke

    I didn’t say the movie was exaggerated. I said the claims of its faithfulness to Dr. Seuss was. And I’d say the review recommends the film with reservations — and with less reservations as concerns taking young children to it.

  3. Vkumar

    Directors and importantly producers have to cover kids and adults alike to make such a movie a box office hit. What would be a five star movie for a kid could be one star for adults and vice versa. Even the ones that did a good job at covering everyone (Toystory, Lionking etc) had sequences that were interesting for adults but boring for kids.

    Maybe there should be a review of such movies form a kid’s point of view probably buy a kid critic.

  4. Ken Hanke

    The idea of a “kid critic” has been trotted out before and I’ve never seen a way in which the concept — which sounds okay on the face of it — can be made practical. For instance, what age critic would you suggest for a movie like this or an ALVIN & THE CHIPMUNKS?

    Let’s presume for the moment that you’re proposing a kid critic in the age range of the movies’ proposed demographic of 3 to 10. Generally speaking, it’s impractical to expect a review from that age group to be of much use to the more likely readership, which is largely adult and more prone to want to know if the film is suitable for a child and if it’s painful for an adult. Granted, those are hard calls to make with any certainty, but they’re not calls that are apt to be made at all by a “kid reviewer.”

    Take it a step further in age and say you move up to teenage reviewers. First of all, do you really want a teenager deciding what’s appropriate for a young child? But beyond that, you’ve wandered into another realm altogether — the potential for a reviewer who’s too grown up to care about this “kid stuff.”

    This is why I say it won’t work. I could cite other reasons from personal practical experience — like young reviewers not understanding deadlines or losing interest after a few weeks — but for me it’s ultimately just a question of basic impracticality.

  5. I have two kids, and they RARELY hate a film, except for Jumper and Seeker.

    The question should be if kids films need be reviewed at all. Most suck, but your children will drag them to them anyway. I’m sure that Ken and Justin won’t mind.

  6. Ken Hanke

    That’s more viable conceptually, but we do try to be as complete and thorough as possible. Plus, how do you determine what exactly constitutes a kid film? Would that include LILO AND STITCH, which made my best of the year list? Or the first two SHREK movies? THE GOLDEN COMPASS? See the problem? Once you start limiting what’s worth reviewing before actually seeing it, you’re opening a can of worms of some note. Also, you’re shutting yourself off from the bigger picture of the state of movies, and that strikes me as a bad move.

  7. Well, you know in advance what you should review and what you should just mention. OVER THE HEDGE and MONSTER HOUSE I could tell would be good films, and I could tell that ALVIN AND THE CHIPMUNKS would not.

  8. Ken Hanke

    “Well, you know in advance what you should review and what you should just mention. OVER THE HEDGE and MONSTER HOUSE I could tell would be good films, and I could tell that ALVIN AND THE CHIPMUNKS would not.”

    That’s a very slippery slope you’re looking at there, because that concept could be applied to anything. I could pretty much tell that everything that came out this week — with the possible exception of CITY OF MEN (which I haven’t seen yet) — was going to be mediocre. Should I have gone with that and just mentioned the films? I’m saying no. Again, it’s that business of trying to get the bigger picture of the state of movies, and you don’t do that if you start deciding that this or that isn’t worth reviewing sight unseen.

    Surprises do happen. I can name you three movies — LOVE ME TONIGHT (1932), TOMMY (1975) and MOULIN ROUGE (2001) — that have at least two things in common. No. 1: they’re in my top five personal favorite movies. No. 2: I didn’t want to see any of them when I first saw them and was fully prepared to hate them. OK, so that’s not going to happen with LARRY THE CABLE GUY GOES TO THE TAXIDERMIST, but the concept’s the same.

    Then too, you do realize that at least part of the readership is reading the column specifically for the reviews of bad movies.

  9. t.t.

    Kids love candy. Doesn’t mean it’s good for them. As adults we have a responsibility to expose children to things (books, movies, art, music, etc.) that are high quality. If we all can manage to avoid/boycott the rubbish it won’t make money and won’t be viable. Children deserve things that nourish the soul.

    Has anyone mentioned that the bad guys always have non-English or working class accents, as they do in this movie? What’s the message here for children?

  10. Ken Hanke

    “Has anyone mentioned that the bad guys always have non-English or working class accents, as they do in this movie? What’s the message here for children?”

    I haven’t mentioned it here, but I’ve mentioned the foreign (including English) accent as Hollywood shorthand for bad guys on other occasions. It’s not limited to children’s films either.

    I hadn’t noticed the working-class accents in HORTON, though. That’s actually a little unusual, since the English accent (upper class variety) is often used to generate suspicion of anyone who might be (God forbid) educated.

    I understand your point and sympathize with it, and I do think that an adult point of view can be useful to parents. However, you’re probably never going to prevent rubbish from making money. It’s far too popular.

  11. Moss Bliss

    Posting this by request of Ken Hanke:

    Horton Hears A WHAT???
    I sit and cringe at what I see
    They’re selling movies on TV

    Producers do to Dr. Seuss
    What they would not to Mother Goose

    They strip a story of its rhyme
    The change the plot, they change the time

    And think that they have done so well
    But I cannot ignore the smell

    Reviews are just one single word
    A sentence, whole, is never heard.

    I will not watch it in a seat
    I will not watch it on my feet

    I will not watch it with Jim Carrey
    (I would not, even with Dave Barry)

    I will not watch it on a screen
    In my house it will not be seen

    If this is what they do to Ted,
    I wish they would just leave him dead.

    - Moss Bliss, 3/21/08

  12. Here’s a small one in spirit…

    Jim Carrey as THE GRINCH was quite puturbing
    When THE CAT hit on Mom, it was quite disturbing

    From the top of my head to the tip of my toes
    Oh how I’m glad that HORTON was not like those

  13. Vince Lugo

    Of all the movies I geek out on, I tend to geek out on animated films the most. It’s pained me that in the last few years, animated films have been such a mixed bag. On the one hand you have greats like Ratatouille, on the other you have stinkers like The Wild. I wouldn’t go so far as to call Horton one of the greats (although that may change on repeat viewing), but I thought it was a wonderful, thoroughly charming film. I am familiar with the original story (I have it as part of a Seuss omnibus, in fact), but I didn’t have a problem with the padding. Going in, I accepted it as a given that there would be a lot of it and judged the film on its own merits, which are many. The animation is gorgeous and most of the humor is spot on (especially Steve Carell as the Mayor). The obligitory pop song at the end, while an odd choice, somehow works nicely and last but not least, the Kangaroo’s turnaround at the end is convincing without being sappy or overdone (which it easily could have been). I personally would bump it from 3 1/2 stars up to four.

  14. The Stiphness

    Has it occured to any one of you that you read entirely too much into a film? Was this movie a brilliantly perfect adaptation of the original story? No, not at all. Was it a horrible movie? Quite the contrary. It won’t win an oscar for it’s screenplay but it definitely wasn’t horrible.

    I enjoyed it honestly. It was visually amazing at times, it was quite funny at times, and I enjoyed it as a whole. This desperate need that some people have to appear enlightened as if it is their obligation to society to find SOMETHING wrong with absolutely everything… well, it is just disappointing. I have no problem with someone pointing out the flaws in a film, but when it seems like they are working entirely too hard to find them (“IT IS AN ANTI-ABORTION REFERNCE! GET THE PITCH FORKS!”), I simply cannot take them seriously.

    Do yourself a favor. Go to a movie sometime with no performed notions of what the film is. Don’t build an opinion before you even see it based on the reviews of others because you feel some desperate need to go against the grain. See a film and just enjoy it for what it is… an hour and a half of entertainment.

  15. Kristin

    Maybe you could review “kids’ movies” with a kid. Perhaps you work alone, but writing a review with a child would give both perspectives and give you some amount of control in meeting deadlines, etc. I think kids are way smarter than they get credit for. My son usually can tell if his sister, who is younger, will like a movie, and he also usually knows if his dad and I will like it. He “hates” the documentaries and independent films we usually get but of course watches them anyway. I am glad he is exposed to some of what I think is good cinema, but I think we, as parents, run the risk of turning our children away from good art or turning them into elitest snobs by forcing them to only see “good art,” which of course is radically subjective anyway.

  16. Ken Hanke

    “The obligitory pop song at the end”

    Right there you have my basic problem with it as a concept — the obligatory pop song. Why should this be obligatory? It’s become one only because nearly every film of this type has a bad case of Shrek envy.

  17. Ken Hanke

    “I have no problem with someone pointing out the flaws in a film, but when it seems like they are working entirely too hard to find them (“IT IS AN ANTI-ABORTION REFERNCE! GET THE PITCH FORKS!”), I simply cannot take them seriously.”

    If you will look at the review, you’ll see that I said nothing of the sort, but noted that the phrase had suffered an attempt at being taken over by anti-abortion activists — an attempt thwarted by Geisel. This is not working entirely too hard to find a mistake. It’s merely reportage of a fact related to the material.

  18. Ken Hanke

    “Maybe you could review “kids’ movies” with a kid.”

    I suppose I could rent one.

    “I am glad he is exposed to some of what I think is good cinema, but I think we, as parents, run the risk of turning our children away from good art or turning them into elitest snobs by forcing them to only see ‘good art,’ which of course is radically subjective anyway.”

    While I admit I’m not entirely against the idea of having an increase in elitist snobs in a world where ALVIN AND THE CHIPMUNKS rakes in $200 million, I largely agree with your attitude. It’s actually not terribly far afield from my insistence on seeing as much of the current crop of movies as practical in that it offers something closer to a full picture.

    In fact, it plays into an issue that I am bothered by, which is the complete fragmentation of “art” into niche markets. This is going to sound like one of those curmudgeonly “back in my day” rants that persons tend toward when they reach a certain age, but I do think we’ve lost a lot in terms of a frame of reference via niche marketing.

    When I was a kid — in those deprived years of AM radio and three TV networks — you found yourself being exposed to a greater variety of material. Sure, you watched crummy sitcoms (and sometimes good ones) and silly thrillers (and sometimes good ones) on TV, but you were also apt — by accident and lack of choice — to bump into something like Peter Hall’s film of A MIDSUMMER NIGHT’S DREAM (a CBS TV special showing) or Orson Welles starring in a somewhat misbeggoten version of THE MAN WHO CAME TO DINNER (an NBC offering) or Robert Ryan starring in a telecast of the hit Broadway revival of THE FRONT PAGE (again a CBS special presentation). And there was also a terrific syndicated production of the musical PICKWICK (so forgotten today that it’s not even listed among star Harry Secombe’s credits on the IMDb). It wasn’t all skittles and beer, sure. There was a total disaster CBS production of OF THEE I SING with Carrol O’Connor that cut most of the show’s Gershwin songs.

    The same was true of being stuck with a handful of local AM radio stations where you were likely to find the Beatles, Barbra Streisand and Louis Armstrong keeping company. You might not like it all — I didn’t like it all — but you were exposed to it. You could accept or reject it, but you knew what it was. With niche programming, that’s not going to happen, because no venue is that eclectic. You no longer are forced to stray outside of your comfort zone. I think that’s unfortunate.

  19. Vince Lugo

    Re: “The obligatory pop song”

    Walt Disney once said (paraphrasing) that the most important element of a film is the ending because that’s what the audience is going to carry with them as they leave the theater. Because it has become so firmly enmeshed a trend, I have accepted as standard that most animated films will have a song to close things out. When it really works (as in “Burning Love” from Lilo and Stitch) it’s wonderful and it gives you something to hum on the way home. When it doesn’t (whatever the entirely forgettable song was in Shrek the Third) it falls embarrasingly flat. I’m more forgiving than most on things like this so I largely don’t see it as a problem, at least most of the time. If they had to put a song at the end of Horton, they could have done much worse than the song they ultimately chose. It may not totally fit lyrically, but musically, it suits just fine.

  20. Ken Hanke

    “Walt Disney once said (paraphrasing) that the most important element of a film is the ending because that’s what the audience is going to carry with them as they leave the theater. Because it has become so firmly enmeshed a trend, I have accepted as standard that most animated films will have a song to close things out.”

    I can understand that. I don’t even completely disagree with it, though I don’t think “Burnin’ Love” at the end of LILO AND STITCH would’ve occurred to me, since that’s credibly used over a well-done montage of how life proceeds after the story, giving it something more than the makeshift production number. I suspect that the difference in our attitudes on it here — apart from me being a hard-sell on animated films vs. you being a soft-sell — is that the song didn’t work at all for me and felt both grafted on and even done rather half-heartedly.

  21. The Stiphness

    “If you will look at the review, you’ll see that I said nothing of the sort, but noted that the phrase had suffered an attempt at being taken over by anti-abortion activists—an attempt thwarted by Geisel. This is not working entirely too hard to find a mistake. It’s merely reportage of a fact related to the material.”

    The fact that a handful of yahoos took it upon themselves to try and strengthen their argument about abortion with a line from a kids film doesn’t equate to a problem with the film itself. Your review is about a film, not a handful of nutjobs.

    Her rallying cry that Horton was a danger to the kids and her insistence on her child being “pouch-schooled” are nothing more than an over-protective mother trying to be too controlling in the lives of their child. There are (*gasp*) real life parents that act far more irrational than her as far as this goes. Go to a local little league baseball game sometime and observe a handful of psychotic parents turn a fun afternoon for the kids into some political blowout about who can control the organization the most. Enjoy a fun day at one of those beauty contests for 8 year olds, and watch a pile of overweight mothers attempt to live vicariously through their daughters because their looks have left them. To say it is illogical, unrealistic, or agenda driven for a mother to try and control every aspect of their child’s life is just plain silly.

    “If you can’t see it, etc etc…. then it’s not real” could just as easily be a mother trying to dismiss something that she lacks the knowledge to explain (another sign of an over-controlling parent). I am sure that someone else could see it as a religious message, but that is what I mean when I say that people look too hard to find SOMETHING wrong with everything. Just see a film and enjoy it or hate it, but if you hate it… be sure it isn’t because you injected messages into it that weren’t there to begin with.

  22. Ken Hanke

    “The fact that a handful of yahoos took it upon themselves to try and strengthen their argument about abortion with a line from a kids film doesn’t equate to a problem with the film itself. Your review is about a film, not a handful of nutjobs.”

    No, Stiphness, the review is about the film and the cultural impact of Dr. Seuss overall, which is part and parcel of the bigger picture. A movie that is adapted from a popular, culturally significant work does not exist in a vacuum. In fact, the persons in question did not grab onto this line out of the film, but tried — unsuccessfully — to do so out of the book, which I thought was made clear in the review. I cited it because I was making the point that the book has always been open to interpretation. It follows that the film version may well be, too.

    “‘If you can’t see it, etc etc…. then it’s not real’ could just as easily be a mother trying to dismiss something that she lacks the knowledge to explain (another sign of an over-controlling parent). I am sure that someone else could see it as a religious message, but that is what I mean when I say that people look too hard to find SOMETHING wrong with everything. Just see a film and enjoy it or hate it, but if you hate it… be sure it isn’t because you injected messages into it that weren’t there to begin with.”

    I see, it’s incorrect to read the possibility of it being a clumsy bit of anti-atheist sentiment (the idea, by the way, is not, I believe, from the book), but it’s correct to read it as your interpretation of just an example of an over-controlling mother. If you want to read it that way, that’s fine. I have no problem with that. We all come to a thing with our own sets of ideas and our own baggage — as witness all the things you cite about controlling mothers to bolster your reading of the film.

  23. Nic

    By making JoJo a character who is the Mayor’s son, Blue Sky has made a more realistic character. He is by no means “emo,” and by calling him such you obviously show your lack of knowledge of what is emo and what is not, you idiot, and in order to provide a story that can run over an hour there had to be fluff. The kangaroo is the villain of the story and must come across as such by basically destroying what we believe in, much like the modern-day politicians and liberals who want to kil God. Horton is portrayed as a wonderfully innocent character, and I think Jim Carrey pulls that off quite well. I found nothing in the film wrong or exaggerated, because if Dr. Suess’ wife is happy with it, which, according to Blue Sky and her own interviews she has made, she is, then why do we have to sit here and say Doc Suess is going to be pissed about this one? It’s a wonderful story that I am willing to see again, and I’m 18. So, Mr. Hanke, there can be no other conclusion except that you are too demanding when it comes to adaptations of novels and the like.

  24. Ken Hanke

    Why I should bother responding to anyone who calls me an “idiot” and can’t spell Dr. Seuss in the context of discussing his work and adaptations, I don’t really know. However, if you honestly believe that a person with a financial interest in the film — Mrs. Geisel is the executive producer — isn’t going to say she’s happy with the end result, you probably ought to have a credulity check-up. And, I never said that Dr. Seuss is going to “pissed about this one.” The fact that he’s…well, dead precludes that eventuality. I said that the claims that the film “finally got Dr. Seuss right” were exaggerated. I still say that. I don’t have to say it and you don’t have to agree with it. It’s what’s called an opinion.

  25. tatuaje

    Get ‘em, Ken. Haven’t seen the movie and probably won’t, but I rather enjoy watching you verbally spar with those of our populace who should know better than to step into the ring with you….definitely worth the price of admission.I have this image of little pixelated curs running from the computer with tails between legs…Who would’ve thought this movie would end up being one of the most discussed topics of the week?

  26. Ken Hanke

    “Who would’ve thought this movie would end up being one of the most discussed topics of the week?”

    That, to me, is the most unfortunate thing about all this. I don’t mind the verbal jousts. I certainly don’t expect or even want 100% agreement — how boring would that be? I do take issue with the idea that disagreement needs to descend to name-calling. That said, this seems like a disproportionate amount of discussion to be generated by a middling review of HORTON HEARS A WHO. (And, yes, I realize I just added to it.) Even with the largely uninspiring crop of movies out right now, there ought to be more worthwhile things to discuss.

  27. I saw this movie with a 2.5 year old and a 5 year old and I don’t think either one of them knew what was happening for pretty much the entire movie, but they liked the pretty pictures. They also liked when my girlfriend and I sang to them at the end.

  28. Steph

    a pro-lifer has already tried to use the “a person’s a person” line from horton in a random evangelical tirade on a FA blog, so i think the reference to similar co-opting from the book remains quite timely. i think she’s nuts, but the fact remains that people *do* pull this sort of thing out of children’s movies and then run with it.

    i personally loved horton hears a who. i’d have been just as happy to read seuss books aloud for an hour and twenty minutes as to watch an unnecessary screen adaptation, but it was pretty and colorful and funny, and jim’s carrey-ness didn’t overwhelm the character of horton like it has done in so many other movies. my boyfriend and i laughed from beginning to end. it’s definitely not going to dethrone lilo and stitch as my favorite animated film, but it was a good movie.

    for the raging eighteen-year-old, jojo’s sombre coloring, hairstyle, and slump-shouldered posture were obviously meant to evoke the idea of emo. he’s a mostly-silent supporting character. of course he isn’t going to be the full embodiment of your personal emo philosophy. he’s essentially a sixty-second sketch of the stereotype, and the reviewer is on the ball in recognizing it.

  29. Ken Hanke

    “As children of the 80’s, we’d forgotten what we’d started fighting for.”

    Well, that’s understandable.

  30. doug r

    My family tried to see this about a week ago. It was ok, as much as we saw-until there was a power failure at the multiplex about 40 minutes in. My wife was falling asleep and I was hoping the story would pick up-the scene on the bridge was a good sign.
    None of my family fell asleep during Alvin and the Chipmunks. Sure, it’s a gimmick, but it’s new to my child, and even though I was prepared to hate it, I didn’t.
    It used the typical media/success plot like about half the pictures out there, but it seemed to have a natural flow this time. The chipmunks shenanigans wasn’t too overdone, for example the mess they make and clean up didn’t seem too exaggerated for a comic live action/animated movie.
    We’re going to give Horton another chance soon, maybe the padding won’t seem so tedious this time.

  31. Ken Hanke

    “jojo’s sombre coloring, hairstyle, and slump-shouldered posture were obviously meant to evoke the idea of emo. he’s a mostly-silent supporting character. of course he isn’t going to be the full embodiment of your personal emo philosophy. he’s essentially a sixty-second sketch of the stereotype, and the reviewer is on the ball in recognizing it.”

    Thank you. He certainly comes across like the persons I know who claim emo status. Is there a textbook definition of emo, by the way? I wouldn’t mind hearing it if there is.

  32. The villainous Kangaroo has been handed the phraseЧused more than onceЧУIf you canТt see it, hear it or feel it, it doesnТt exist,Ф which, taken in context with HortonТs expanded role of savior of the Who

    Alternate interpretation:

    You didn’t hear it, you didn’t see it
    You won’t say nothing to no one
    Ever in your life, you never heard it
    Oh, how absurd it, all seems without any proof

Leave a Reply