Zootopia's Machines of Loving Grace

Pixar wimped-out on creating a timeless classic

This is my first paywalled post. I deeply appreciate everyone who reads this Substack. I’m hoping that increasing my paid subscriber count will be able to fund an exciting new phase of this publication. Those who subscribe within a week will receive 20% off their paid subscription in the link below.

The theatrical release of Zootopia is one of the most schizophrenic films I have ever experienced. If there was ever a movie whose underlying message clashed with the reality of the world it showed, this was it. The core premise is about a small rabbit who dreams of becoming a police officer in the big city. Her parents are, of course, ambivalent about the idea, but she leaves her podunk rural town and follows her dreams. Through her wits and gumption, she unmasks a dark conspiracy that tried to frame the once predators of the town, the lions, bears, foxes, etc. as never overcoming their violent natures. The core message is that various types can live in harmony, and it's possible to create a civilization that is multicultural (in the case of the movie, multi-species) and live in harmony with one another.

The problem is the entire movie deals in stereotypes that contradict the core message. The foxes are sly and crafty, the lions are dominant leaders, and the rabbits breed like, well, rabbits. There’s even a spiteful sheep who ends up being the villain, driven to madness by her jealousy and suspicion of the Lion mayor’s power. Amusingly enough, it gives an unintended lesson on the inability of natural slaves to understand rulership. While this is largely for comedic purposes, it’s clear why it had to be animals in this movie. The human equivalent would be a country bumpkin with a wheat stalk between her teeth moving to a city full of black people eating fried chicken, Middle Easterners haggling shopkeepers, and Hispanics wearing ornate sombreros. Then there's the elephant in the room (and movie) that fails to explain how the predators got rid of their carnivorous ways. The entire thing is glossed over, and even questioning whether such impulses are part of their nature is seen as a moral blemish. It just sort of happened.

Going through the earlier phases of the movie, it started out with a far more morally ambiguous premise. In the original, the predator's nature was assumed to be still present, even if deeply restrained, requiring them to all wear shock collars in order to live in the city. In one deleted scene, we see a father bear glumly giving a speech for his son's “Taming Party”. The son is giddy with excitement at finally being an adult, not knowing what that entails. The father puts the collar on the son and balloons are dropped in celebration. The sons laughs and dances as they come down, only to get the first electrical shock of his life. The son, forlorn, looks back at his father in dejection as the father shakes his head in helplessness. The most fascinating aspect is the Rabbit Cop had no idea what the ceremony entailed, meaning that it's likely none of the prey in Zootopia realizes the lengths gone through to keep their once enemies in line.

It's not something the predators ever get used to, and it's heavily implied the shock collar is a constant heavy burden on their psyche well into adulthood. In a later scene, the fox goes to the doctor, who is forced to remove the shock collar. The fox gets a short respite, imagining running freely in joy along the meadows and riding a roller coaster, finally able to feel emotions tucked away for ages. It then goes back into harsh reality as the collar is put back on and he's stuck in his suppressed emotional stupor.

It's clear why the movie got reworked, as disappointing as the result was. This Zootopia didn't seem like much a Utopia, and the message that a large portion of the population has to be restrained brings with it a lot of hard questions. What's clear is the comfort of what would be prey in the animal kingdom is at the expense of the natural predators. There needs to be powerful technology to keep them in check.

And probably the most poignant observation in the original cut was the understanding that the same impulses and drives that cause the predators to attack and devour prey is what gives them deep happiness, that rush of adrenaline that is a core part of their being. Once the shock collar is in, not only is their propensity for violence restrained, but also their ability to experience fulfillment and joy.

Even in the theatrical release, it’s clear the prey outnumbers the predators by a wide margin. Given the democratic nature of the city, it’s logical that they gang up against the predators to keep themselves safe. Even so, they elected a Lion as mayor, almost like they understand that beings that are docile and subservient by nature make lousy leaders.

It's been the aspiration of our political leaders since the post-war consensus to remove barriers between different peoples and cultures, with the implicit assumption that proximity would remove the prejudices inherent in different types of people. The idea of democracy was to remove the advantages of those who were born with more natural abilities, power, or prestige and give everyone an equal voice. The natural hierarchies that have always been part of human societies needed to be rooted out for everyone to be on an equal footing. hence why the fox is at the mercy of a rabbit police officer and the lion is at the mercy of a band of rabble his savanna ancestors would devour with glee.