Questioning of Flynn's "Fat and the Land: Size Stereotypes in Pixar's Up"

Kate Flynn's "Fat and the Land: Size Stereotyping in Pixar's Up"... interesting is a good word to describe this article. In this article, Flynn analyzes "childhood obesity" portrayed in Up and displays the clash between the fat boy and the aesthetics of nature. While I felt that Flynn started off with a compelling argument, she draws in several irrelevant sources and pieces of evidence that reduced the credibility of her argument. Similarly, there were many spots where she extrapolates too much, drawing too many assumptions from things that were meant to be simple. 

Flynn opens with a comparison to Wall-E, emphasizing that both movies "pay close attention to bodily fat" (435). She notes that Wall-E most indolent characters are "overdeveloped,""large, round and soft," and "gelatinous blobs" (Stanton and Reardon 27-34). Flynn depicts Wall-E largely as a commentary on obesity, though its main message is to illustrate the negative consequences of consumerism and its potential damages. While I understand why Flynn focuses only on the instances where Wall-E applies to obesity, she doesn't do the movie's overall message justice. She should accurately represent the movie for what it is than twist it unjustly to fit her argument.

It is important that Flynn includes Pixar's notion that "body shape is a key part if conveying the essence of characters' personalities." This sets the stage for her argument concerning Russell's "obesity" and how it relates to his personality.

Flynn juxtaposes Russell's body with Ellie and Carl's body. She details Ellie's "long, narrow body" and her dynamic actions and Carl's rounded limbs that lead to his clumsiness; however, she notes that he thins with age, matching the body needed to be adventurous and explore. Russell, a chubby eight-year old, according to Flynn is "ill-suited to the outdoors because of his size" (436). He's a wilderness explorer, yet Flynn argues that he struggles with the outdoors, complains about the length of walks, and is unable to correctly put the tent together. Thus, somehow from this she deduced that fat people are "clumsy, over-reliant on home comforts, and unappreciative of the natural landscape" (436). ??. Not sure I understand the logic Flynn used to make that point. Firstly, Russell is a young boy who has not yet lost his baby fat and is still a bit chubby. While he may be bigger for his age, he is not necessarily obese and his chubbiness should not be reason for his "ineptitude" in the outdoors. Children at that age tend to be impatient, lazy, and one for instant-gratifcation, thus it MAKES TOTAL SENSE that he's tired of walking miles on miles and complains incessantly. Okay and Flynn hints that Russell's obesity causes him to be unappreciative of the aesthetics of the landscape that surrounds him; essentially, "Russell's fatness excludes him from the national identity constructed in Up" (438). Translation: Russell's fatness means laziness and laziness means he can't appreciate beauty in nature. Forreal??? He is an EIGHT YEAR OLD BOY! What child that age truly can appreciate and understand the beauty of nature and nature's importance at that age? Of course Russell can because he is an experienced adult and has been aspiring to experience Paradise Falls almost his entire life, but how can you compare an experienced old man's view of nature to that of a child who still has so much to learn??? If ya couldn't tell this point definitely irked me. 

Okay, another point that made absolutely no sense. Flynn ties Russell's Asian-American identity to Kant's concept that Asian American explorers who could not own property and were incapable of appreciating the sublime because it did not pertain to their "ethnicity and country of origin" (439). Thus, because Russell is an Asian-American, (qualifying him as not fully American??) he can't appreciate American landscape? That is racist on so many levels and establishes a multicultural conflict that is not necessary by any means. Also, Flynn tying in Immanuel Kant's view on aesthetics completely lost me and I thought it was so irrelevant to say the least? 

And a direct contradiction! Flynn, pardon my French, has been shitting on Russell's fatness this entire  time, but then says that his fatness is "in part rendered normative because [Russell] is still a child. Endowed with a child's body, his fatness can be constructed as cute"(440). Enough said. 

Lastly, Flynn asserts that "Russell is positioned to resemble this othered land more than he is the explorer"  because the "Bible, as any good Puritan would know, refers to the land as fat" (269; Gen. 45:17-18). The bible verse actually has nothing to do with people being fat, it just implies that the land has substance and is something that is resourceful and of use. This is another instance where Flynn twists the meanings of texts to fit her argument. 

Overall, wasn't a fan. Up is a great movie and the interpretations of it in scholarly article's such as Flynn's don't do it justice and overanalyze the simplicity and beauty of Pixar movies.

Peace Love Disney :))