Halloween is officially over, and as the clock struck midnight on the first day of November, I was immediately filled with the urge to rewatch the best movie of all time, The Grinch Who Stole Christmas (2005). Jim Carrey’s iconic depiction of perhaps my favorite book character, the Grinch, holds a special place in my heart. Being born just months before the movie’s release has created a unique bond between me and this near-perfect film—I am happy to report that I have never experienced a Christmas without it.
While there is absolutely nothing I would change about this impeccable Christmas classic, I have, as an introvert, always been peeved by the narrative of the Grinch as the bad guy. Perhaps I, as a self-proclaimed hater and homebody, am too jaded by my preferences to see the error in the Grinch’s actions. My official position, however, still stands: you guys seriously have the Grinch all wrong.
For a town so obsessed with perhaps the most charitable of holidays and one that so heavily subscribes to the idea of community unity, they sure are some judgmental people.
Since my first watch of The Grinch Who Stole Christmas (2005), I have had a serious bone to pick with the Whos of Whoville. For a town so obsessed with perhaps the most charitable of holidays and one that so heavily subscribes to the idea of community unity, they sure are some judgmental people. The moment the Grinch entered the community, they were perplexed by his green color and somewhat different outlook on life to such a degree that they excommunicated him. In school, he was insistently bullied for no clear reason other than that he was different from the other Whos. His school crush, Martha May Whovier, requited his love but was socially pressured to repress her feelings just because the other Whos found him strange. Even after all of Whoville’s residents successfully bullied the Grinch into isolation, they just could not let him be. The Whos, being so weirdly obsessed with the Grinch, decided to spread a type of folklore about him—one that made him into a sort of boogeyman for the newer generation of Whos.
Can you imagine being the Grinch? You retreat to Mount Crumpit after being rejected by your entire community to live a life of isolation, and instead of peace and quiet, you are harassed.
Can you imagine being the Grinch? You retreat to Mount Crumpit after being rejected by your entire community to live a life of isolation, and instead of peace and quiet, you are harassed. First, the teenage children of your former school classmates scale the side of your house, looking to invade your space and provoke you. Then, the Whos (being the worst neighbors ever) throw big holiday celebrations that are so loud, you can hear them from your mountain condo. Not to mention that the mayor of the city you reside in doesn’t recognize you as a resident?! He labels you as a Grinch and not a Who, so therefore, you have no rights or protections under the Whoville law. The Grinch’s lack of legal protection not only harms his social status within the community but also hinders him from seeking legal action for his decades of maltreatment.
When considering the horrendous treatment the Grinch has had to endure as a result of Whoville’s residents, I don’t think stealing Christmas was an overreaction; if anything, it was an underreaction. After all this time, the only thing the Grinch did to rebut all the hurt the Whos caused him was to steal their holiday so he could have one day where the thundering noise from Whoville didn’t disturb his peace. Not to mention that instead of the Whos using this as a wake-up call, they decide to sing.
I also have a particular issue with the idea that the Grinch’s heart was three times too small. This is harmful in the way that it presents a biological reason as to why the Grinch is different from the rest of the Whos. Pathologizing identities in this way is a harmful form of discrimination perpetuated by Whoville residents. I maintain that the Grinch’s heart was always normal-sized; his lack of compassion for the Whos was not a result of biological difference but rather a reaction to decades of being ostracized.
The only Who who is truly worthy of redemption is our favorite non-discriminatory, compassionate, red-bow-wearing girl, Cindy Lou Who. Cindy truly was the only Who to not buy into the idea that the Grinch is the monster of Mount Crumpit. She spoke out for what she knew was right. Similar to the stories of all true activists, there were many attempts to silence her within the Whoville community. Cindy, however, was relentless in her fight and used her privilege properly to ensure the Grinch became a recognized citizen of Whoville.
I propose a sequel in which the Whos are forced to pay reparations to the Grinch for decades of Grinch-ism.
While The Grinch Who Stole Christmas (2005) doesn’t paint the Grinch as a complete villain, the film definitely does give the Whos way more grace than they deserve. The Whos were not simple or innocent Christmas-loving creatures; they are active enablers of discrimination and should be treated as such. Further, I find that the acceptance of the Grinch into the Whoville community at the end of the book and movie is not enough. The ending promotes the idea that it is the responsibility of victims to forgive their abusers. It creates a harmful narrative and alleviates the evil Whos from bearing any guilt. I propose a Grinch sequel in which the Whos are forced to pay reparations to the Grinch for decades of Grinch-ism.
While my scathing review might suggest otherwise, I maintain that The Grinch Who Stole Christmas (2005) is as perfect a movie as can be. My gripe with the film is solely with the portrayal of the Whos in Whoville. I hope that in reading my analysis, you, too, will sympathize even further with the Grinch than you would have before. As you all cozy up this Christmas season for a mandatory Grinch rewatch, I encourage you to look at all the ways you’ve gotten the Grinch all wrong.
