A few weeks ago my genial co-host Mr Jett Loe acclaimed Dreamworks’ gorgeous, fun and sassy animated astonishment ‘Kung Fu Panda’ in the wake of its upset victory over ‘Wall-E’ at the Annie Awards.  He included some rather delightful screen caps to bolster his case.  I got around to watching last week, delayed by other more pressing matters (the inauguration, a couple of snow days, a cold, catching up with ‘Lost’ and ‘Battlestar’, fearing that Jett might be right).  And there’s certainly more reason to view the Chinese cuddly mammal show than you might expect on the basis of its marketing – presented, as it was, and as Jett said, as if it were an Eastern ‘Shrek’.  Not that I have anything against the first ‘Shrek’…’Kung Fu Panda’ is vibrant, funny, features a few fleshed-out characters, and is, most of all, one of the most beautiful-looking animated films I’ve ever seen.

But it’s not ‘better than ‘Wall-E’.

(I should acknowledge at this point that ‘better than/worse than’ is often the lazy critic’s way out.  I’m not even sure that ‘Wall-E’ and ‘Kung Fu Panda’ should be compared to each other; just because they’re both computer-animated family-friendly films doesn’t have to mean anything.  ‘Citizen Kane’, ‘Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid’, ‘Stardust Memories’ and ‘Schindler’s List’ are all black and white – but I don’t see anyone making a case that they should be compared just because they have the same colour schemes.  That said, I’ll take the lazy critic’s way out: ‘Kung Fu Panda’, while delightful in many ways, is not better than ‘Wall-E’.)

Why?  Let me count the ways:

While both tell an old story – outsider conquers adversity and saves the world – the invention, imagination, sense of place, and demand for sustained attention from the audience in ‘Wall-E’ are beyond anything I had seen in an animated family film before.  And most of all, ‘Wall-E’ transcends traditional genre norms by inviting no cathartic violence; whereas ‘Kung Fu Panda’ climaxes all too predictably with the gentle giant being fuelled to kill.  Up to the point where the Panda (Spoilers ahoy!) kills the tiger/leopard/monster thing, I had hoped that something other than murder would be used to make a point, but it was not to be.

In ‘Wall-E’, however, something far more complex – and better for the world – is attempted; sure, the HAL-like computer is disabled, but we’re not supposed to draw an analogy between this and violence against humans: I’m not sure the computer represents anything other than what it is: inanimate power with far too much authority over human life.  The tiger/leopard/monster thing in ‘Kung Fu Panda’, however, is the latest in a long line of cinematic villains whose motivation – childhood disappointment – is used to explain their behaviour, but, like human beings who engage in bullying in the real world, are still not allowed to receive anything like mercy in socially acceptable discourse.  I know this might sound pompous – so, dear listener, if you want to comment below to tell me that it does, please know that I’m already there -  but I think it’s simply obvious from the way we deal with people who behave ‘badly’ – you only have to think of how rare the generosity of not taking revenge is in public life to see it.

In that sense, ‘KFP’ does something that so much of our common entertainment does: endorses social Darwinism, salutes force above intellect, and ultimately negates every earlier sweet moment about meditation and Tao and Zen and love-all-the-creatures schtick in favour of total war.  (It’s also tremendous fun and stunning to look at.)

‘Wall-E’, on the other hand, re-invents the world, without violence: this film climaxes when someone plants a tree.