Untangling the Mixed Messages of ‘Zootopia’

To the surprise of nobody, Disney has another animated hit on its hands. “Zootopia” has raked in terrific box office returns, thanks to a film that is genuinely entertaining, and features two of the best voiceover performances in recent history — by Jason Bateman and Ginnifer Goodwin.

Yet there’s been some disagreement as to exactly what messaging the film delivers. With some art-house films, one might expect a variety of interpretations for both the narrative and the subtext. With a Disney film, however, any allegories are likely to be much more straightforward. That the message is muddled is more likely the fault of the film’s creators, as opposed to audiences designing multiple interpretations.

The reason for the confusion lies entirely in the film’s set-up. Zootopia is a literal utopia where predators and prey have learned to live in harmony. Predators have, essentially, had their predatory nature suppressed. They also only represent 10 percent of the population.

Off in the rural farmlands, we are introduced to Judy Hopps. She’s a cute female bunny who dreams of being a police officer. She’s told that bunnies simply don’t do that. Yet after acing the police academy, she is brought into the ranks of Zootopia’s police force.

However, the only reason she’s hired is because of the “Mammal Inclusion Initiative,” i.e. affirmative action. So on the one hand, we are handed messaging that anyone can achieve their dream if they work hard enough. Judy earns her place on the force, to be sure. Except the message is undercut by the affirmative action plot point. The point of affirmative action is to toss out a meritocracy, and create quotas for minorities.

In the film’s zeal to make an “important point,” it instead creates confusion. So Judy’s hard work didn’t matter? She would have been hired anyway, meaning her work was in vain? Or is it that bunnies are the film’s minority? Aren’t predators the minority? Or are bunnies a minority only in the police force?

Huh?

[lz_third_party includes=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFi57DWkLp4″]

It would have been much simpler for her to have earned her place and simply not be accepted by her colleagues.

Yet that’s a minor fumble compared to the overarching thematics, which are even more confusing. Apparently, some dastardly unseen villain is secretly testing a mind-altering drug on the predators, turning them back into the unthinking, savage creatures that nature created them to be.

At first, this appears to be a metaphor for the crack epidemic that destroyed the African-American inner cities. However, because the nature of predators is to attack and consume, maintaining the consistency of the allegory set up thus far implies that the true nature of African-Americans is to be unthinking, savage predators.

So goes the explanation for why the film is racist. It isn’t racist, though. It’s just sloppy storytelling that got subverted because of the zeal to deliver a message.

To cap off the sloppiness, we discover this is all a plan hatched by the Mayor’s assistant, a meek lamb. Apparently, having a 90 percent majority isn’t enough for the prey. Some zealots want to eliminate the 10 percent of predators that do exist so the prey’s power can be absolute! (If a 90 percent majority, with a 10 percent docile minority, doesn’t provide the majority with absolute power, then clearly there must be some kind of undisclosed “superdelegate” rules in Zootopia).

[lz_related_box id=”61874″]

Thus, the film’s thematics are all over the place, so it’s no wonder there is disagreement among critics and viewers. It also demonstrates the pitfalls of allegory. Alfred Hitchcock famously said, “If I want to deliver a message, I’ll use Western Union.” Clearly, the film’s creators were so intent on providing audiences with a message, that it got confused, and has been unintentionally flipped on its head.

It’s unfortunate, because there is a central conceit between bunny Judy Hopps and fox Nick Wilde that delivers a very powerful message in exactly the right way. Nick admits that he was taught that the world would always see him as a “sly fox,” i.e. a criminal. He now lives a life that aligns with that stereotype.

That’s great stuff, and very simple. It is demonstrative of the burden of minority stereotyping, and how the most effective messaging will frequently be delivered by parents. The parent, in its desire to protect the child by presenting “hard truths,” imprints on the child’s entire development. That teaching is internalized.  “The world will always see me a criminal, therefore I am a criminal.”

Perhaps the ultimate missed opportunity of the film is that parents must design narratives that support self-confidence, personal responsibility, accountability, and a strong work ethic, for children to succeed.