Horton

Horton heard a Who tonight, and among the zany animated characters and a theater full of small children, two philosophies clashed head-on. Yes, as the world of Whovill floated toward a horrific scalding death I wondered what obligation Horton or any of the jungle community had toward the Whos'.

Spoiler alert....

I mean, I agree, if I suddenly found myself the sole protector of a small world of invisible English speaking people, I might feel some sense of obligation as well. If I developed a relationship with them, I might put myself in danger too. But, does "a person's a person, no matter how small" suggest we must risk our reputation, health, and life on something merely because we identify with it in some intangible way? Is it proper, or morally correct to do such a thing?

Horton must have lived a simple life. He must never have been scorned by another Whoville colony who, upon risking his life to save, killed his family for amusement afterwards. Will the next Whoville be just as innocuous? Perhaps they are small, and that makes them harmless. The Spanish Flu virus was also small. It killed between 20 and 40 million people. Good thing it wasn't as charming as Steve Carell.

There are many wonderful themes in this story...

• "I meant what I said and I said what I meant, an elephant's faithful, one hundred percent." Horton is a benevolent, honest, courageous and determined nonconformist.
• The town wants to continue the celebration, which illustrates the tyranny of the majority.
• When the burden of proof besets both of them, they each produce hard evidence.
• Even a small voice, left to follow its dreams, can tip the scale.
• Unthinking monkeys travel in mobs and perpetuate violence indiscriminately.
  

I like that they showed the children blindly following Horton, carrying their own clover. It reminds us of the obligation we have to keep our mouths shut when we can't explain ourselves well enough or produce any proof. That sometimes people we care about will follow for no reason at all other than the fact we are older or seem wiser. Seeming is being in some ways I guess.

I think the film is directed to the person who does know something important, whatever that is, and asks that care is taken to ensure it is handled properly. Speaking of handling it properly, perhaps if the mayor had achieved his position on his own merits, his reputation would have allowed him to convince everyone that Whovill was virtually doomed. (A nice little argument for a meritocracy.) If Horton had kept Whoville to himself until he could prove its existence, he wouldn't have saved a lot of trouble and wouldn't have needed the baby kangaroo to snatch it milliseconds from its boiling grave.

What are the two philosophies? Well, the movie seems to suggest an inherent duty toward fellow man, universal human worth, and unconditional forgiveness. I can think of at least one prominent 20th century philosopher who would argue against at least two of those points. A lot of weight for an animated film, but at least it should get kids thinking.