Skip to main content

I mean, I am just a dumb bunny, but, we are good at multiplying.

Zootropolis
(2016)

(SPOILERS) The key to Zootropolis’ creative success isn’t so much the conceit of its much-vaunted allegory regarding prejudice and equality, or – conversely – the fun to be had riffing on animal stereotypes (simultaneously clever and obvious), or even the appealing central duo voiced by Ginnifier Goodwin (as first rabbit cop Judy Hopps) and Jason Bateman (fox hustler Nick Wilde). Rather, it’s coming armed with that rarity for an animation; a well-sustained plot that doesn’t devolve into overblown set pieces or rest on the easy laurels of musical numbers and montages.



So credit is due to Zootropolis' – or Zootopia as our American cousins refer to it; the European title change being nothing to do with U2, but down to a Danish zoo, it seems, which still doesn’t explain the German title, though –key personnel. Namely, co-directors Byron Howard (Bolt, Tangled) and Rich Moore (of The Simpsons, Futurama, and latterly, the great until it kind of rests on its laurels Wreck-It-Ralph) and Jared Bush (presumably one of the three was really good at making tea?). And the SIX other credited writers for bashing this thing out. They don’t wholly get there, but they’re close enough.


I feared a Blue Sky-DreamWorks sugar rush rainbow early in the proceedings, as Judy arrives in the titular city to the accompaniment of a Shakira tie-in dance anthem (she’s a Gazelle, called, remarkably, Gazelle). For a couple of minutes Zootopia is reduced to life-affirming vacuity by way of aural bubblegum, and all the worse for it (likewise, you’re not missing anything if you don’t stay for the reprise over the end credits). But, that aside, those NINE credited writers have clearly done their best brainstorming the ins-and-outs and ways-and-means of this world, often to clashes in terms of internal logic but mostly imaginative effect (Nick’s money-making nous in servicing several different species’ wants through a mixture of astute recycling and vertical integration is particularly winning).


But regarding that allegory. Devin Faraci’s (very well-argued) review a month or so back asserted Zootopia is a muddled movie in terms of meaning, one where, rather than the clearly defined lines of Animal Farmthe animals are laid over the political message”. I have some sympathy with this take, as the picture certainly confronts us with its own set of pre-conceived definitions in forwarding the idea of predator-prey prejudice. It’s difficult to imagine prey not being justified in their fear of predators, particularly as the general starting point in campaigning against prejudice and for equality is that such fears and intolerance aren’t and never have been reasonable. But I don’t think it’s as difficult to move past the barrier of interpretation as Faraci suggests, particularly since the picture plays fast and loose with its metaphors, and evidently purposefully so. It becomes fairly clear Zootropolis wants to take in prejudice very broadly, rather than applying itself to specific signifiers and groups.


We’re told the traditional predator-prey relationship evolved into one of mutual equanimity a long time - thousands of years –  ago. But, as with prejudices generally, the filmmakers ensure they are very much alive in the voiced present. One might expect such crutches as affirmative action programmes to have long since become unnecessary, all creatures having moved into a place where they happily co-exist, but each species brings with it its own set of ingrained ideas, something the filmmakers both work against and play off.


All animals are carrying them around all day, every day, so it makes you wonder how any of it is expected to work. And thus how any big city environment is expected to work. Rabbits continue to fear foxes and weaker, smaller animals still haven’t mustered respect from their peers (except in the criminal underworld, where the shrewish can become godfathers). Nick doesn’t have a problem because he’s prey so much as his species is seen as inherently untrustworthy.


Nick and Judy are each battling prejudice and stereotyping in their own ways, while – since this is an animated comedy, it has little other recourse, and so rightly so – most of the gags revolve around stereotypical animal posturing, from v-e-r-y slow sloths, to rabbits breeding like rabbits (the Bunny Boro sign) and only mostly growing carrots, to weasels doing what they do best. But they’re both, at different points, guilty of prejudice and stereotyping themselves. Everyone’s at it, not necessarily like rabbits, which makes the picture’s imbalances perversely inclusive, and also quite untidy in a very likeable way.


We see Judy’s prejudice against predators (Nick), and theirs against “weaker” prey (so addressing traditional gender roles, via the Mammal Inclusion Initiative). Neat metaphors are mustered that can apply to racism or sexism or even religious intolerance, such as using certain words (only Judy can refer to herself as a cute bunny), while her Fox repellent pepper spray incorporates both. And, of course, the villains of the piece are traditionally oppressed sheep. So yeah, Zootropolis can be a tad an ungainly as a catch-all for prejudice, but that is its self-confessed theme (“Zootopia, where anyone can be anything they want”; one in the eye for the absence of aspiration, Judy’s parents encouraging her to know her place). And, if its grasp exceeds its reach, it’s nevertheless to be praised for trying.


The makers have gone to a lot of trouble populating their zoological melting pot in intriguing and mismatched manners, often in ways that are appealingly oddball rather than making cohesive sense; the attempts to include all shapes and sizes (although insects seemed not to get much of a look-in, aside from the ones buzzing around Tommy Chong’s head – Chong yet again avoiding typecasting by playing a stoned Yak), from the miniature city-within-a-city where Mr Big’s daughter hangs out, to the frankly bizarre depiction of an animal naturist retreat, where the various creatures’ shamelessness is rather diffused by their computer-airbrushed absence of genitalia. I’d like to think that was the joke, but this is a Disney movie, so it it isn’t; the directors could at least have included some Bewoulf-esque outrageous concealment of bits.


Which goes to highlight the Zootropolis is more engaged with plot than non-stop jokes, to an extent that’s ultimately refreshing (and it’s not like the absence of funnies has damaged its box office; mind you, the sloth alone guarantees its classic scene longevity). There are numerous asides, sight gags and quips (I particularly like Duke Weaselton – Alan Tudyk - selling movies and sequels not even on release yet, referencing existing Disney properties, of course) but they’re very much in their place, secondary to a plot relishing detective work that puts most bona fide detective movies to shame. Zootopia has a Chinatown-esque span to it, revealing a web of corruption that extends to the highest office in the land, and if it rather neatly locates its arch-perpetrator at the end, she at least isn’t an obvious suspect (well, as far as the picture goes, only having so many potentials in its cast of characters).


Mostly, it’s just refreshing to see animations stretching themselves (the design isn’t exactly ground-breaking, referencing Bugs Bunny’s female alter ego with Judy’s sexy rabbit – as far as I’m aware Disney haven’t called the film Zoophilia anywhere – and Disney’s own Robin Hood in the design of Nick). It’s surprising – and heartening – that it should be Disney that has recaptured this territory, where competitors are mostly mired in frivolous, frothy fare. Even Disney-owned Pixar’s Inside Out, very good as it is, is ultimately extremely cosy and unthreatening in its scope (like the majority of Pixar’s movies). If Zootropolis doesn’t quite get there, it receives full marks for trying. And it also uses Idris Elba to show-stealing effect as the traditionally irascible police chief (here a water buffalo); given how poorly Hollywood has served the actor post-The Wire, that’s something of a minor miracle.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?