- This topic has 7 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
This is not a review of the movie. The movie was good, go see it. Instead, this is an analysis of Zootopia as a piece of Cinema. What works, what does not work, and how it came to be. Yes, critique is a rationalized form of opinion. My purpose is not to “prove” it is good but instead show if it was effective. My interest is less finding out who liked the movie or not. I want to know the how and why, as a piece of Art, it is able to evoke an emotional reaction and spur introspective thought specifically. This post is an open dialogue, anyone can contribute. Please try to be structured in your contribution.
Yes, you are still allowed to highlight favorite scenes or characters. Just be prepared to look at why these might be deeper moments or smarter design choices than you first realized.
Let me start by stating this lesser known fact. This movie had a troubled production cycle. It came out late and over budget, with a fair load of behind the scenes “creative disputes”. If you want to get an insight to some of that, or just be really entertained for next 45 minutes, feel free to watch this documentary.
let the dialogue begin!
Lets look at the Theme of this movie. This is one area the movie really hits it out of the park, but not quite for the reasons most people think.Most people think this movie is about racism. Heck even the original inception of movie was to make it about racism. Seems very clear with the predator/prey dichotomy.
Some people think it is about sexism, as that seems to be true in that many people’s perception about Judy’s challenges and her context. I can easily see that.
A few have even suggested Clawhauser may have a challenges of homosexuality in the workplace theme. A stretch but sure, why not.
But the genius of the movie is that is not about any of these per se. It is all explained in that documentary.
The Movie is about BIAS. And understanding bias is a far more challenging topic than just racism, sexism or homophobia. Racism is bad, that is easy. But bias is a more insidious aspect of our human condition. The fact that it is part of our nature is what makes it a more difficult issue to address.
It may surprise you, everyone has Bias. I know the belief that a sign of a well adjusted person is to be unbiased, but there is an element of impossibility here. Bias inform how we see the world.
Bias occurs due to everything we learn as we grow up. Every experience adds to our biases. Media , friends, family, school, authority figures, personal experience all add to our individual pile of biases. We may try to mitigated it with reason, but just like our emotions, bias is a default in our behavior if reason is not being used or does not have context. Also, not all biases are “bad”. I have been bitten by snakes in the past, so I am afraid of them and give them a wide distance from now on. Not a bad idea when meeting a snake in the wild. However, it can become bad if we draw false conclusion from that experience. You may say, “All snakes are evil, they live to bite people.” Nope! Too much bias! That suggest a myopia rather than a general statement of fact. Yes, you may “rightfully” feel that way, but it does not make it true.
Now here is the kicker in all that. If you are reading this, you likely have some strong biases. How do i know that? Well, you are a Furry. NO, you are not a bad person, but Furry means you appreciate the animal aesthetic and how it informs the human condition. example: Sly/cunning/trickster fox. Surprise surprise, many cultures around the world have this perspective of foxes. Many people who take fox persona, consciously or unconsciously, admire or appreciate that cultural perception. That whole pile of characteristic are based of the aesthetic of anthropomorphism of any animal. The Animal does not have these characteristics, but their animal behavior reminds us of the human behaviors and characteristics we have in us. This is how Furry works.
Now for the sake of the movie, they play this game almost perfectly. This is why we have the “cute” joke. This, I believe, was deliberately put up by the writers as highlighting the game we were going to play. I know some people have got bent out of shape because this was just a forced joke about the “N”word issue seen with African American communities. I really think people are missing the point of a greater literary game being played here. This secret is this joke works for just about every culture. Word ownership issues because negative societal bias is a common cultural occurrence around the world. Two women who are freinds can call each other a B****, but from a male it is insulting. 2 homosexuals can call each other a F** but from others it is insult. The list goes on. Guess what? Around the world, you see similar examples.
The funny thing is we are using the word “cute”. Cute seems a positive word, right? But is it? Could the word actually be bad and derogatory in certain context? Absolutely, to bunnies, easily believable. Imagine being someone who could only ever be seen as cute? Limited because if you are not cute, something must be wrong with you, you do not look like a “proper” bunny. If you act “uncute”, like being a cop, you are not a proper rabbit. I have to admit, I personally thought Judy was a “cute” character design. But also felt sympathetic and guilty when the world could see here as nothing but a “cute” character. This is why Nick’s dismissive “and some toy shop is missing its stuffed animal” is suggesting Nick also believes she is cute. However, is also suggests that is ALL she is to him.
The Disney writers were playing a very specific and clever game in this bit as if to say “we are making a joke about being “cute” so you check all you biases now”. This sets up a later “gotcha” and is what makes the press conference hit with all the power of a baseball bat. We likely sympathize with Judy. We believe she is right, she is the hero of the story so far. We have followed the same investigation she does and likely had the same conclusions. So when she missteps, we trip and fall just like she does. We betray our friends, and make the same mistake. Are we a biggot? No (well hopefully not). But neither is Judy. But we CAN still make the same mistake she did because of our biases. The movie warned us not to do this with the cute joke, and we did it anyway. And, guess what, it’s NATURAL. That is the big theme of the movie. We will do it. The issue is not if we will do it, but how will we react when we do it. She knows she has done something wrong, but not why. The entire, clunky as it is, 2nd to 3rd act transition is all about her guilty realization that she is just as bad as everyone else and not seeing it when SHE did it. The underlining moral is not that you did it, but what are you going to do to fix it.
This gets at another critique of the movie that i think misses the point. Why did she have to get just Nick to “save the city”? It would be smarter if she just got the ZPD, Bogo in particular, to help solve this instead of just one fox. Well, yes, it would. But that does not make for good story. This is all about personal development and the theme of the movie is not about solving the case but about confronting our biases and making things right. This is why I believe this transition is clunky. Instead, the focus of the movie is about role reversal and having Judy admit she was wrong and that she WAS bias and did make a mistake. Identifying and admitting your mistake is an important piece of growth. In some ways, nick was right all along, Zootopia is a city built on biases.
Now with that being said, Should Nick stay upset and just let the city burn? Why not? He has every “right” to and I’m sure he could make a profit from all the panicked and confused animals. But he has come to respect Judy and the ideals she stands for. This is why the movie ultimately works. It is not about racism, sexism, or the mystery of who is doing what, or even the night howlers. It is about recognizing we WILL have biases, we will make missteps because of them. But by acknowledging and accepting we have them, we will continually attempt to grow past them, just like Judy’s speech at the end reminds us.
Ta da! Narrative cohesion!
I do like after all of that, the very end of he movie has to give us one last “gotcha” to see if we were paying attention to the themes of the movie.
Just a little update for you all:http://www.rotoscopers.com/2016/04/13/zootopia-the-highest-grossing-film-of-2016
BTW, this movie has not even release in Japan yet (opens April 23). Just looking at some of the art and buzz generated from some Kemonomimi sites I visit, this movie will likely go CRAZY over there.
Artistic merit and critical analysis.“Life is more than just a slogan on a bumper sticker. Real life, is messy” Judy Hopps.
I’ve already pointed at some of the structural flaws of the movie, the use of a Macguffin to drive plot, and some really awkward pacing issues in 2nd and 3rd acts.
In spite of these, the movie got a 98% rotten tomatoes score, but a lower 8.3 on IMDB and 78% on Metacritic. So what is going on here? These are some widely varying scores even from the “aggregate” sites suggest vastly different opinions and interpretations on the quality of this movie.
This caused me to read way too many of these critiques to dissect the thinking of each reviewer. Yes, all reviews are opinion. But some are better than others, mostly because some actually try to apply rules of aesthetics and artistic theory to explain why something works or does not work. Even among furries, opinion has varied from “best film ever made!” (which it is not) to “sucks because Zootopia did not have my fusona’s species!” (which is myopic and petty)
Yes, movies can be good because they are just well made. On one level, Die Hard is very basic movie. But it all fits together so well based on good characterization, writing, acting, cinematography and directing that it is just very watchable, in spite of thin plot and kinda dated message. Hence, it is scene as a benchmark for action films.
Quick aside: Rotten Tomatoes rates a aggregate of “thumbs up/thumbs done” while IMDB is aggregate of either 1-10 stars and Metacritic 1-100% scoring. Which means 98% of Tomatoe’s critics GENERALLY liked the film and would recommend it (even if movie has some flaws), While IMDB and Metacritic is showing total score, which allows them to rate a movie with a score of 7 or 70%: a movie worth seeing but maybe not the best movie ever made.
With that being said, what was others analysis of Zootopia?
I did tend to discount reviews that scored low and started from premise of “social messaging in movies is wrong”. Sorry, I could not give merit with these arguments. Art has a history of being a bulwark of social change, to discount anything that even hints of social issue eliminates the influence of massive swaths of artistic history. Imagine modern rock music (or really any music) without the social experimentation and discontent of the 60’s and 70’s. By that same yard stick, even movies went through collapse and rebirth to better movies in same time period for many of the same reasons, the counter culture and cultural realignment. Coincidentally, this is same time period “furry” was created. Little bit of trivia here, Know what movie “changed everything”? Star Wars. Seriously, look it up or read up on following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easy_Riders,_Raging_Bulls
One issue brought up by some 50-70% is how broad a brush the movie used at some times and then nuanced out later on i.e. The movie paints a black vs white with Judy Hopps but then turns completely around gets confused over its own message by making herbivores like her the oppressor. This is likely from a reviewers who either A) does not understand how bias works and/or B) Does not know history. History is filled with examples of where the oppressed becomes the oppressor when the tables are turned, and usually do so unconsciously. It is a basic dynamic of power many people do not seem to understand. Just because you have BEEN oppressed does NOT mean you are unable or be unaware to BEING the oppressor. The reality is that is more likely for this to happen, as you see your actions as vindication or comeuppance. This is why the the “real villain” of the movie is such a great reveal, because it makes sense AND we were blind to the possibility because our assumption (and her character design) makes it such that we unconsciously say, “there is no way she could be the villain, she was abused!”. Guess what, one of the the points of the movie is that abuse of power is abuse of power. The is no “good reason” for it. Sowing seeds of cultural strife to segregate society has no viable justification. Creating a state of fear for the sake of a power grab is just morally wrong. It seems several people (and politicians) in today’s society just don’t get that. This, again, is why Judy’s speech at the end is so important. It is not about having the fear or showing a bias, we will always do that. It is about recognizing and fixing when we do and making sure we treat each other with a spirit of equity.
Where it got really interesting is scores/reviews that seem to get hung up on the movies use of metaphor. Obviously the movie uses species to identify easily identifiable issues of sexism or racism and other abuses of bias. However, it seems to get bogged down when reviewers tried to equate specific 1 to 1 comparisons for these to “real society”. The lines of reason tended to go this way: Well Judy obviously represents woman and carnivores “obviously” represents African Americans. But wait, didn’t we see a female polar bear training all the cadets? Also, It was stated that 90% of this society is herbivores and only 10% were carnivores, and yet Zootopia clearly shows all the carnivores had all the money and power? Wait, these analogies don’t work because our society doesn’t work that way, the movie is obviously flawed or sending mixed messages.
This is needless nitpicking in what is obviously a metaphorical movie interested in internal logic rather than trying 1 to 1 comparisons to real life. As stated before, the movie is more interested in showing the dynamics of bias and how power flows and gets manipulated in these circumstances. I’m brought to remember how in Bill Holbrook’s long running Furry comic Kevin and Kell ( http://www.kevinandkell.com/ ) on the stigma of “domestication”. In many ways, we can see the analogy of Domestication in their world is a really good reference to the social challenges and stigma’s facing LGBT society and was very topical back in 1996-1999 when comic focused on this. But some complained it broke down because Kell was obviously in a heterosexual relationship with Kevin so it was useless metaphor. I would disagree. The reason why comics and metaphors work is there are allowed an internal logic and high meta use of analogy to allow us to see a contemporary issue from a different angle. We basically ruin that spell if we over apply reality, Meta only works and is useful if we can suspend disbelief. Yes, there are dangers with false dichotomies and some metaphors use bad rhetoric over good reason, but understanding how they work makes one more able to see where they work well, especially when highly nuanced.
Many of the 70-90% reviews seem to be where I was at: noting structural, pacing or minor plot issues that seemed to detract from but not ruin the movie. Some people had issues with Gazelle, the theme song, or too much “bloated A-list star voice casting”. I seem to be in the 90% band because, although I could see all the issues and missteps, and felt that the movie could have been better, it worked overall and did what furry use to do so well. Use anthropomorphic art as a medium to socially challenge to “real life”. I find it ironic that Disney and Furry have seemingly switched places between 1971 and 2016.
That bring us to my last point: If nothing else, Zootopia is a work of art and animation way ahead of the curve. What I find so fascinating about this movie is how much variation and how differently people and critics saw this movie. Normally when I follow critics, there is general agreement on the what works and what doesn’t work about a movie. It usually comes down to “I like that type of movie”. Example, I love Equilibrium ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0238380/ ) but then I know that is mostly me because I really dig Sci-fi, high violence, dystopia movies. Hence low critic score because it is an issue of pure opinion if you “dig it” or don’t. What strikes me about Zootopia is critics gave it a high or even okay score, even when they found issues with it. The movie earned a certain level of respect and almost no one thought the movie was “empty”. Think about that for a second: a KIDS movie, from Disney, earned varied and critical respect from people who can take apart the even the most complex movies. To be both that simple and that complex, invoke both agreement and disagreement over same pieces, and admiration even if you personally agree or disagree with the point, all of that at the same time borders on a magic trick. Good art, or at least good cinema, can deserve no better praise.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
