Zootopia is a fantastic family film that deals with a number of contentious political and social issues in a deceptively simple way. It is the unassuming story of a bunny that becomes a cop in a world of diverse and complex species. What I have always found interesting about the film is its attempt to present a perspective on things like prejudice and bias from two sides. In the film, the world is largely divided into two groups: predator and prey. The predators appear to hold the majority of the power; they are in high positions of authority, leading the government and the police force. They easily trample on those smaller than them, sometimes gaining advantages over prey animals through sheer force and intimidation.
At the same time, prey animals retake some of that power throughout the film. Our bunny becomes a cop, and cracks a big case wherein she initially tells the world that predators are inherently violent as a result of their biology. What confuses me most about this is the film’s analogy. At this point, it appears to crumble; predators account for only ten percent of the population, and they are the animals feared for their “innate” tendency toward violence. They hold power, but are subject to extreme prejudice. In fact, it would seem that every species is subject to some form of harmful stereotyping in the film. On some level this makes sense, but it also feels dangerously close to equivocating the experiences of oppressed groups and those who oppress them.
I know the movie is about coming together to celebrate difference, but I do not believe that it is perfectly analogous to the world we live in. To believe such would be to accept that every person is capable of delivering the same amount of harm on one another through things like bias and stereotyping, and this is not true. There are discrepancies in power that should be exposed and challenged. The film’s focus on law enforcement is an interesting context to choose for the message of the movie, which appears to be that the world is complicated and everyone can be small minded. I understand the thought behind it, but there are moments that make the film feel less like a metaphor for inclusion, and more like a dangerous palliative that tells us we are all given access to the same set of opportunities, and all have biases to overcome regardless of social location. Thoughts?
I really liked Zootopia! =)
I’m really glad I finally got to watch it, because it is really well-made, and has a beautiful message!
With respect to the analysis, I agree with a part of it, and disagree with another one :p.
In general, I’m don’t agree with your statement that the movie attempts to “present a perspective on things like prejudice and bias from two sides”. Not because I don’t agree with the statement itself (I do), but because I don’t agree with the binarity that the sentence suggests.
Although, yes, the movie depicts prejudices in two different ways (the difficulties of Judy being accepted by Officer Bogo in the ZPD due to her size and nature, and the hatred towards “predators” in the second part of the story), I think those consist on two entirely different contexts.
First, I need to disagree with the statement “The predators appear to hold the majority of the power, they are in high positions of authority, leading the government and the police force”.
Mayor Lionheart does fit into that, but we don’t know anything else about the government composition. The movie attempts to mimic modern society, so it’s probably safe to assume they live in a democratic regime (also because of the discourse of unity and because, if they didn’t, Mayor Lionheart would hardly be arrested after the missing animals were found). In this sense, we don’t know anything about the Congress or the Senate and their composition. Numerically, we can even argue these are formed mostly by “prey”, since 90% of Zootopia’s population is of “prey”. So “predators” would be the power minority in question even though Mayor Lionheart is a “predator” himself.
As for the ZPD, we don’t have evidence that “predators” hold power. What matters most, in the beginning-of-movie ZPD, is size and natural strength. Officer Bogo, for example, is not a “predator”: he is a cape buffalo, a herbivore. There are elephants in the ZPD as another example. We’re led to assume that Officer Bogo is the highest authority in the ZPD (since we’re not presented with anyone above him), so “predators” don’t have the majority of power in the ZPD either. The movie itself even acknowledges this somewhat (though this argument of mine is probably a biiiiit of a stretch too): Officer Bogo doesn’t accept Nick’s testimony as he deems foxes untrustworthy. If “predators” had power in the ZPD for being “predators”, that probably wouldn’t have happened. (This is probably a bit of a stretch, since foxes are the most discriminated species in Zootopia by far. But, still…)
In that sense, I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say that “predators” occupy high positions in power. Because it doesn’t seem to be the case in the ZPD and we know very little about the government other than Lionheart himself (and although we can argue that the government is mostly formed by “prey”, that’s just speculation).
I’m also not sure I agree with the idea that seeing the movie as analogous to our world means accepting that “every person is capable of delivering the same amount of harm on one another through things like bias and stereotyping”, because I don’t think the movie means that. As an example, take Judy and Nick. Judy suffered prejudice because of her size because animals (from her parents to Gideon Grey to, later in the movie, Officer Bogo) didn’t believe she could be a police officer. So people didn’t believe in her capability of doing a specific task. Nick, on the other hand, suffered prejudice by not being considered trustworthy, which is much more generic and powerful. And we see the results of that: Judy overcame others’ doubts and became a police officer, while Nick became a criminal.
Overall, although I really liked the movie, one critic I have towards it (and which I’ll elaborate more in my post, because this commentary is already waaaaaay too long XD) is that it tries to talk about too many topics in too many different ways at the same time (though, admittedly, it’s fitting for the big city environment), which means each individual topic and way is weakened. So I see where your interpretations come from (what I mean with this is, for example, that part of my arguments are based on things the movie did not show, such as the government composition and how Nick became a criminal. In that sense, even though I don’t agree with some of your statements, I see why your opinion is that the movie implies them =) )
Also, be careful. You accidentally put the “DO NOT USE” one as a tag for this post! 😮