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’ (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) 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). 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’s due to 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

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Must the duck be here?

The Favourite (2018)
(SPOILERS) In my review of The Killing of a Sacred Deer, I suggested The Favourite might be a Yorgos Lanthimos movie for those who don’t like Yorgos Lanthimos movies. At least, that’s what I’d heard. And certainly, it’s more accessible than either of his previous pictures, the first two thirds resembling a kind of Carry On Up the Greenaway, but despite these broader, more slapstick elements and abundant caustic humour, there’s a prevailing detachment on the part of the director, a distancing oversight that rather suggests he doesn’t feel very much for his subjects, no matter how much they emote, suffer or connive. Or pratfall.

Whoever comes, I'll kill them. I'll kill them all.

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) There’s no guessing he’s back. John Wick’s return is most definite and demonstrable, in a sequel that does what sequels ought in all the right ways, upping the ante while never losing sight of the ingredients that made the original so formidable. John Wick: Chapter 2 finds the minimalist, stripped-back vehicle and character of the first instalment furnished with an elaborate colour palette and even more idiosyncrasies around the fringes, rather like Mad Max in that sense, and director Chad Stahleski (this time without the collaboration of David Leitch, but to no discernible deficit) ensures the action is filled to overflowing, but with an even stronger narrative drive that makes the most of changes of gear, scenery and motivation.

The result is a giddily hilarious, edge-of-the-seat thrill ride (don’t believe The New York Times review: it is not “altogether more solemn” I can only guess Jeannette Catsoulis didn’t revisit the original in the interven…

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

I don’t know if what is happening is fair, but it’s the only thing I can think of that’s close to justice.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)
(SPOILERS) I think I knew I wasn’t going to like The Killing of a Sacred Deer in the first five minutes. And that was without the unedifying sight of open-heart surgery that takes up the first four. Yorgos Lanthimos is something of a Marmite director, and my responses to this and his previous The Lobster (which I merely thought was “okay” after exhausting its thin premise) haven’t induced me to check out his earlier work. Of course, he has now come out with a film that, reputedly, even his naysayers will like, awards-darling The Favourite

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …