FS 371 Final Paper: Unnatural Nature
Unnatural Nature:
A Look At Nature in the Animated Family Features Ice Age, Ice Age: The Meltdown, and Madagascar
Since the late 80’s post-modernity (as ideas and themes) in Hollywood cinema has appeared in many films. Though today Hollywood cinema is still primarily composed of classically themed stories other types of film are beginning to emerge There is, however, a genre of film that has seldom fallen into post-modern characterization: Family Film. Family films, traditionally, have been classical tales of right and wrong, or of love and loss, and triumph in the face of struggle. The same holds true more so when considering animated family movies. Most animated feature releases have belonged to the Disney family of films. Movies like The Little Mermaid (Ron Clements and John Musker, 1989), The Lion King (Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff, 1984), Aladdin (Ron Clements and John Musker, 1992), and The Incredibles (Brad Birdman, 2004) are perfect examples of this classically ideal type of movie. However, as the technology and the resources (not to mention demand) for these kinds of films have increased, and become more accessible, other major studios have begun releasing their own animated family films. Studios like 20th Century Fox and DreamWorks SKG have recently released their own animated films. However, some of these possess darker truths and hollow resolutions that loom over the type of classical ideal you normally find in these movies. In this essay I will explore the films Ice Age (Chris Wedge, 2002), Ice Age: The Meltdown (Carlos Saldanha, 2006), and Madagascar (Eric Darnell and Tom McGrath, 2005) for themes and ideas that can be considered post-modern. By looking at the portrayal of nature, and ideas of what’s natural in these films I hope to bring to light a new trend in animated feature films.
The films that I have selected to analyze for this paper all have animals as the main characters for the film. As such, a major source of conflict and moral focus is how the characters in each film feed themselves. Food is a necessary element in sustaining any sort of animal life, and it is no secret that animals consume other animals to stay alive. This is normally not problematic for the viewer, however, but now that these animals have taken on human characteristics (i.e. sentience with complex and higher thought) moral imperatives come into play. For instance, when the character of Alex the Lion, from Madagascar, is consumed by his natural hunger and feels the need to consume his friends (specifically, Marty the Zebra) this is seen as a terrible and frightful development. Though it may be unsettling to the viewer is it really that surprising? Wrong, even? We know that an animal like Alex has to consume another animal to survive. Recall his perfect sirloin steaks from the beginning of the movie. Where are they coming from? Does the movie expect us to assume that these steaks are some how organically grown vegan steaks? It is only when Alex views his own friends as dinner that it becomes barbaric and wrong to consume meat. Miraculously, though, within the last five minutes of the movie the crafty penguins introduce Alex to the “better than steak” replacement that is sushi. Apparently fish (at least the kind used to make sushi), because they exist outside of Alex’s sphere of existence, are not worthy of consideration and are probably incapable of complex thought processes.
What, as the audience, can we take away from this? The deus ex machina solution to Alex’s hunger is so much a joke that as a viewer we cannot take it seriously. With that in mind, we are then forced to examine the conflict and to figure out why it seems okay to resolve this conflict in this fashion. If one interprets the humanization of the animals as also equalizing, in moral worth, them we are left with a very dark truth about how, as people, we operate. Assuming, of course, that we are all created equal the movie reflects either our xenophobia or callous indifference to individuals who exist outside of our spheres of existence. For example, how we falsely feel that we are connected to the rest of the world via TV, and the Internet, and arrogantly purport to “care” for everyone around the world. We say all this while exploiting underprivileged peoples in ghettos and third world countries.
The films Ice Age and Ice Age: The Meltdown do not deal with this issue any better. In fact, both films avoid the issue completely. Granted, in Ice Age, there is a brief reference to the humans hunting for food and pelts (which we assume to be fore survival). This issue, however, is skirted by drawing the audiences attention away by introducing terribly evil and vengeful Soto, and the slapstick follies of the main characters. This issue is neglected, even contradicted, in the sequel Ice Age: The Meltdown. The film takes place well after the first and notably, still, does not deal with the issue of hunting for survival. In a veritable tropical paradise the character Diego, the bad turned good sabre-toothed tiger, romps about with his motley crew of vegetarian friends. This all begs the question, “Where does Diego get his food from?” Are we to assume that some willing animal, possibly with a family, willing gives their life so that Diego can live? Or, is there some distant neighboring herd of animals that nobody cares about? All this aside, instead of dealing with this issue Ice Age: The Meltdown contradicts itself with the introduction of the aquatic reptile predators. Though they may look menacing do not speak and it would be fallacious to assume that they are consuming different animals out of malice. Instead, their lack of dimension, I believe, would imply that they are acting out of a natural (though vicious) instinct. Now, all of a sudden there is some moral imperative that allows Diego’s consumption of animals to be allowed and the reptiles not. Maybe, just maybe, I’m not supposed to cheer when Manny the Mammoth defeats the reptiles. Am I now supposed to believe that if you can survive predatory attack that’s all well and good but if you cannot then its your fault for being weak? This idea seems more problematic than not dealing with the issue altogether. Unlike most animated family features before it there is no real way of telling what the directors were thinking on this issue. It may be the case that the issues in question were to complex to be able to deal with in a clean-cut kind of way. The omission of this subject, I believe, is the director’s is a way of tacitly saying that the need to kill out of necessity, or survival, is legitimate. However, at the same time it raises questions of our own exploitation of others and does not answer them. Ultimately, one this topic the films provide less resolution than one would expect.
At this point I would like to draw attention to the portrayal of nature, or wild, in the Ice Age movies. Undoubtedly, the portrayal of the outside world is negative and harmful to those who inhabit it. First, and most readily readable is the apparent physical dangers. In the first movie, Ice Age, the danger is of course the lethally cold weather that all the animals must flee. The second film has a reversal of the weather which results in a massive flood that threatens to wipe out all known life in the area. There is also, of course, the constant presence of predators waiting for the right opportunity to consume you. What all this does, in effect, is create a sense of danger and estrangement with the characters and nature in the movie which subsequently is passed onto the audience. This is counter-intuitive for what one would consider a family film. The idea the natural environment for all the animals seems to be working against them leaves us to wonder about our own environment and how it acts against us. The best example for this is, of course, the adventures of Scrat (the protosquirrel) and his constant struggle involving his acorn. For the entire movie this poor protosquirrel, to the delight of the audience, constantly faces perilous heights, collapsing glaciers, dangerous ice, treacherous water, and even molten lava, all in an effort to find peace with his acorn. The world around him being such a cruel and unusual place Scrat never does get his acorn which is of course a sad and strange moral about the world. Further, even at the end of the movies we know that these animals are bound for extinction. We know that the mammoth and the sabre-toothed tiger will become extinct either by virtue of being killed by the changing climate or another predator. This is unsettling and hangs over the end of the movies like a big proverbial, “So, what?” Granted some may go on to survive, and maybe even find some measure of happiness, but really in the end there is no escape. Once again, this time in Ice Age: The Meltdown, Scrat and his acorn struggles best embody it. Finding himself in even more precarious situations Scrat is still unable to find peace, that is, until he dies and finds himself in heaven. It becomes clear that the message here is that no happiness or salvation to be had in life on Earth, and the best hope you have for such things is to be found in the afterlife (if such a thing exists).
Looking at Madagascar the idea of behavioral nature is where the harm and displacement stem from in the environment. For instance, if we were to look at Alex the Lion again we would see that much of estrangement the characters experience is due to giving into natural behavior. We understand lions to be the king of the jungle, the top of their food chain, but for Alex giving into such behavior results in the loss of your friends and social contact altogether. That aside, the animals of Madagascar associate and carry on in a way that would imply that there isn’t comfort to be found in those who are characteristically like you; Rather, there is only comfortable association in those that are equally as estranged from their own. How else would one explain a lion, a zebra, a giraffe, and a hippopotamus get along so well? The same holds true even for the mammoth, the sloth, and the sabre-toothed tiger of the Ice Age movies. Returning back to Madagascar, this idea is enforced even further by the predatory Foosae (plural of Foosa) that inhabit Madagascar. In the movie the Foosae are the only animals that act naturally and truly live a “wild” life and as a result are vilified and live unintelligibly in relative squalor. There seems to be, then, only undesirable consequence from nature. Recognize the dangers and find that you are not apart of it and become estranged, or be a part of it and fall victim to it. Ironically enough, however, the wild and natural impulses that Alex had which drove his friends away ultimately are what save the lives of his friends and the lemurs. Still, it seems the best that you can hope for, really, is to be acquired by some sort of caretaking being so as to be isolated (and thus protected) from the painful world around you. This is strange considering that not too long ago films like Free Willy championed the cause of animal freedoms along with many other organizations out there that protest against animal captivity. According to the Ice Age films, as well as Madagascar, the world is a vile and horrible place and there is no happiness to be found in it. To be truly happy you must me in a closed, controlled and maintained (read: distant, but not separate from killing), environment so that any natural impulses you may have can be snuffed out or bypassed.
The stories for the movies are relatively the same - a motley group of animals is placed in danger and through friendship and teamwork prevail over the antagonist forces, etcetera, etcetera. Though these animated family films were widely watched box office successes they were not without darker and unsettling elements. In a genre dominated by the certainties of black and white certainty Ice Age, Ice Age: The Meltdown, and Madagascar exhibit moments of moral grayness and raise many questions only to leave them unanswered. I don’t believe that these things are intentional results placed consciously by the different directors. Instead, I feel that these ideas are recent trends that are beginning to invade a traditionally classical genre as a result of the changing world around us. As the world becomes less ideal so do the movies we watch. It is only a matter of time before a complete reflexivity is reached in family movies and the didacticism comes from an awareness of the world around you. Just then we may find that there really wasn’t any hope after all.
A Look At Nature in the Animated Family Features Ice Age, Ice Age: The Meltdown, and Madagascar
Since the late 80’s post-modernity (as ideas and themes) in Hollywood cinema has appeared in many films. Though today Hollywood cinema is still primarily composed of classically themed stories other types of film are beginning to emerge There is, however, a genre of film that has seldom fallen into post-modern characterization: Family Film. Family films, traditionally, have been classical tales of right and wrong, or of love and loss, and triumph in the face of struggle. The same holds true more so when considering animated family movies. Most animated feature releases have belonged to the Disney family of films. Movies like The Little Mermaid (Ron Clements and John Musker, 1989), The Lion King (Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff, 1984), Aladdin (Ron Clements and John Musker, 1992), and The Incredibles (Brad Birdman, 2004) are perfect examples of this classically ideal type of movie. However, as the technology and the resources (not to mention demand) for these kinds of films have increased, and become more accessible, other major studios have begun releasing their own animated family films. Studios like 20th Century Fox and DreamWorks SKG have recently released their own animated films. However, some of these possess darker truths and hollow resolutions that loom over the type of classical ideal you normally find in these movies. In this essay I will explore the films Ice Age (Chris Wedge, 2002), Ice Age: The Meltdown (Carlos Saldanha, 2006), and Madagascar (Eric Darnell and Tom McGrath, 2005) for themes and ideas that can be considered post-modern. By looking at the portrayal of nature, and ideas of what’s natural in these films I hope to bring to light a new trend in animated feature films.
The films that I have selected to analyze for this paper all have animals as the main characters for the film. As such, a major source of conflict and moral focus is how the characters in each film feed themselves. Food is a necessary element in sustaining any sort of animal life, and it is no secret that animals consume other animals to stay alive. This is normally not problematic for the viewer, however, but now that these animals have taken on human characteristics (i.e. sentience with complex and higher thought) moral imperatives come into play. For instance, when the character of Alex the Lion, from Madagascar, is consumed by his natural hunger and feels the need to consume his friends (specifically, Marty the Zebra) this is seen as a terrible and frightful development. Though it may be unsettling to the viewer is it really that surprising? Wrong, even? We know that an animal like Alex has to consume another animal to survive. Recall his perfect sirloin steaks from the beginning of the movie. Where are they coming from? Does the movie expect us to assume that these steaks are some how organically grown vegan steaks? It is only when Alex views his own friends as dinner that it becomes barbaric and wrong to consume meat. Miraculously, though, within the last five minutes of the movie the crafty penguins introduce Alex to the “better than steak” replacement that is sushi. Apparently fish (at least the kind used to make sushi), because they exist outside of Alex’s sphere of existence, are not worthy of consideration and are probably incapable of complex thought processes.
What, as the audience, can we take away from this? The deus ex machina solution to Alex’s hunger is so much a joke that as a viewer we cannot take it seriously. With that in mind, we are then forced to examine the conflict and to figure out why it seems okay to resolve this conflict in this fashion. If one interprets the humanization of the animals as also equalizing, in moral worth, them we are left with a very dark truth about how, as people, we operate. Assuming, of course, that we are all created equal the movie reflects either our xenophobia or callous indifference to individuals who exist outside of our spheres of existence. For example, how we falsely feel that we are connected to the rest of the world via TV, and the Internet, and arrogantly purport to “care” for everyone around the world. We say all this while exploiting underprivileged peoples in ghettos and third world countries.
The films Ice Age and Ice Age: The Meltdown do not deal with this issue any better. In fact, both films avoid the issue completely. Granted, in Ice Age, there is a brief reference to the humans hunting for food and pelts (which we assume to be fore survival). This issue, however, is skirted by drawing the audiences attention away by introducing terribly evil and vengeful Soto, and the slapstick follies of the main characters. This issue is neglected, even contradicted, in the sequel Ice Age: The Meltdown. The film takes place well after the first and notably, still, does not deal with the issue of hunting for survival. In a veritable tropical paradise the character Diego, the bad turned good sabre-toothed tiger, romps about with his motley crew of vegetarian friends. This all begs the question, “Where does Diego get his food from?” Are we to assume that some willing animal, possibly with a family, willing gives their life so that Diego can live? Or, is there some distant neighboring herd of animals that nobody cares about? All this aside, instead of dealing with this issue Ice Age: The Meltdown contradicts itself with the introduction of the aquatic reptile predators. Though they may look menacing do not speak and it would be fallacious to assume that they are consuming different animals out of malice. Instead, their lack of dimension, I believe, would imply that they are acting out of a natural (though vicious) instinct. Now, all of a sudden there is some moral imperative that allows Diego’s consumption of animals to be allowed and the reptiles not. Maybe, just maybe, I’m not supposed to cheer when Manny the Mammoth defeats the reptiles. Am I now supposed to believe that if you can survive predatory attack that’s all well and good but if you cannot then its your fault for being weak? This idea seems more problematic than not dealing with the issue altogether. Unlike most animated family features before it there is no real way of telling what the directors were thinking on this issue. It may be the case that the issues in question were to complex to be able to deal with in a clean-cut kind of way. The omission of this subject, I believe, is the director’s is a way of tacitly saying that the need to kill out of necessity, or survival, is legitimate. However, at the same time it raises questions of our own exploitation of others and does not answer them. Ultimately, one this topic the films provide less resolution than one would expect.
At this point I would like to draw attention to the portrayal of nature, or wild, in the Ice Age movies. Undoubtedly, the portrayal of the outside world is negative and harmful to those who inhabit it. First, and most readily readable is the apparent physical dangers. In the first movie, Ice Age, the danger is of course the lethally cold weather that all the animals must flee. The second film has a reversal of the weather which results in a massive flood that threatens to wipe out all known life in the area. There is also, of course, the constant presence of predators waiting for the right opportunity to consume you. What all this does, in effect, is create a sense of danger and estrangement with the characters and nature in the movie which subsequently is passed onto the audience. This is counter-intuitive for what one would consider a family film. The idea the natural environment for all the animals seems to be working against them leaves us to wonder about our own environment and how it acts against us. The best example for this is, of course, the adventures of Scrat (the protosquirrel) and his constant struggle involving his acorn. For the entire movie this poor protosquirrel, to the delight of the audience, constantly faces perilous heights, collapsing glaciers, dangerous ice, treacherous water, and even molten lava, all in an effort to find peace with his acorn. The world around him being such a cruel and unusual place Scrat never does get his acorn which is of course a sad and strange moral about the world. Further, even at the end of the movies we know that these animals are bound for extinction. We know that the mammoth and the sabre-toothed tiger will become extinct either by virtue of being killed by the changing climate or another predator. This is unsettling and hangs over the end of the movies like a big proverbial, “So, what?” Granted some may go on to survive, and maybe even find some measure of happiness, but really in the end there is no escape. Once again, this time in Ice Age: The Meltdown, Scrat and his acorn struggles best embody it. Finding himself in even more precarious situations Scrat is still unable to find peace, that is, until he dies and finds himself in heaven. It becomes clear that the message here is that no happiness or salvation to be had in life on Earth, and the best hope you have for such things is to be found in the afterlife (if such a thing exists).
Looking at Madagascar the idea of behavioral nature is where the harm and displacement stem from in the environment. For instance, if we were to look at Alex the Lion again we would see that much of estrangement the characters experience is due to giving into natural behavior. We understand lions to be the king of the jungle, the top of their food chain, but for Alex giving into such behavior results in the loss of your friends and social contact altogether. That aside, the animals of Madagascar associate and carry on in a way that would imply that there isn’t comfort to be found in those who are characteristically like you; Rather, there is only comfortable association in those that are equally as estranged from their own. How else would one explain a lion, a zebra, a giraffe, and a hippopotamus get along so well? The same holds true even for the mammoth, the sloth, and the sabre-toothed tiger of the Ice Age movies. Returning back to Madagascar, this idea is enforced even further by the predatory Foosae (plural of Foosa) that inhabit Madagascar. In the movie the Foosae are the only animals that act naturally and truly live a “wild” life and as a result are vilified and live unintelligibly in relative squalor. There seems to be, then, only undesirable consequence from nature. Recognize the dangers and find that you are not apart of it and become estranged, or be a part of it and fall victim to it. Ironically enough, however, the wild and natural impulses that Alex had which drove his friends away ultimately are what save the lives of his friends and the lemurs. Still, it seems the best that you can hope for, really, is to be acquired by some sort of caretaking being so as to be isolated (and thus protected) from the painful world around you. This is strange considering that not too long ago films like Free Willy championed the cause of animal freedoms along with many other organizations out there that protest against animal captivity. According to the Ice Age films, as well as Madagascar, the world is a vile and horrible place and there is no happiness to be found in it. To be truly happy you must me in a closed, controlled and maintained (read: distant, but not separate from killing), environment so that any natural impulses you may have can be snuffed out or bypassed.
The stories for the movies are relatively the same - a motley group of animals is placed in danger and through friendship and teamwork prevail over the antagonist forces, etcetera, etcetera. Though these animated family films were widely watched box office successes they were not without darker and unsettling elements. In a genre dominated by the certainties of black and white certainty Ice Age, Ice Age: The Meltdown, and Madagascar exhibit moments of moral grayness and raise many questions only to leave them unanswered. I don’t believe that these things are intentional results placed consciously by the different directors. Instead, I feel that these ideas are recent trends that are beginning to invade a traditionally classical genre as a result of the changing world around us. As the world becomes less ideal so do the movies we watch. It is only a matter of time before a complete reflexivity is reached in family movies and the didacticism comes from an awareness of the world around you. Just then we may find that there really wasn’t any hope after all.
posted by claver at 12:36 a.m.
0 comments
