This is one of the greatest movies of our time and it can be enjoyed on many levels. On one level Studio Ghibli has again produced a film that is so far beyond what computers are, and perhaps will ever, be capable of that it says, "Computerize this bitch." And that is a political statement in its own right. But of course the politics of a modern film adaptation of The Borrowers don't end there. Bizarrely enough, though incapable of understanding the beauty of this film, Lou Dobbs is actually right about it making a statement
"Where have we heard this before?" asked Dobbs. "Occupy Wall Street forever tried to put the makers against the takers and President Obama repeating that everyone should pay their fair share in dozens of speeches since his State of the Union address last month.
"The President's liberal friends in Hollywood targeting a younger demographic using animated movies to sell their agenda to children."
Let's just skip to the politically awesome part. First keep in mind that there is no excuse for not seeing this movie in its entirety as no blog can capture it even partially. Second please don your protective awesomeness goggles - it's that awesome.
We enter our scene with the "Being" named Shawn explaining to the tiny person Arrietty that bad things happen and "you can't live on wishes". Shawn is upset about his potential death from a weak heart. Though a member of a race that may be disappearing, Arrietty is proud of her ingenious people's fierce struggle for survival and tells Shawn that he must keep fighting. Then from offstage they hear the cries of Arrietty's mother who is being imprisoned without trial for stealing a kitchen that Shawn forced on Arrietty's family from a dollhouse that was specially built for this tiny race and now stands unused.
What Being / Banker types like Lou have trouble understanding is the difference between survival and stealing. In most Republicans minds the losers of economic games should be good sports and starve in silence. But if your family is starving, stealing is not only moral, it would actually be immoral to allow hunger instead of taking from others that have plenty. In short a society has to work for everyone and not just the "winners".
So now to the ethics of the empty dollhouse. In Arrietty's world the dollhouse was at least built by Beings. In the real world Bankers don't actually build anything so the situation is morally more ambiguous. Do we not have a moral obligation to make sure the dollhouse does not stand unused? Beings / Bankers cannot use their empty houses and so in any normal society they would lose their claim of ownership (as was previously commonly done with unused land).
But as to the great unused capacity of our nation, I cannot expect Republicans to understand it or a movie that touches on it. That I leave to our liberal friends like Adam Smith
private persons frequently find it more for their advantage to employ their capitals in the most distant carrying trades of Asia and America, than in the improvement and cultivation of the most fertile fields in their own neighborhood