A Critique of Zootopia, a Movie by Byron Howard and Rich Moore

Zootopia is a metaphor for minority struggle and racism. Zootopia is never a one-to-one straight comparison to some minority groups, as attempts to draw direct comparison might become awkward if one wants to call the disadvantaged dangerous, barbarians of the past. Instead, the film borrows aspects of real life to illustrate the successes and trials different disadvantaged could face integrating with the larger society. It is broken down by character, and of course, unmarked spoilers ahead.

In this discussion, we commence with the most powerful/influential animal in the film: Mayor Lionheart.

Whereas this animal himself is never focused on extremely deeply, the manner he communicates regarding the population turning on him for the “savage" or "ferocious” missing predators hearkens to mind an idea of a compelled elimination by the relationship with worse of a “species”. Lionheart, as seen by Judy, appeared increasingly interested in his work than actually safeguarding the city, however, he acknowledged that once Zootopia sighted predators lashing out without explanation that it could divide the city, and "destroy Zootopia”.

Get quality help now

writer-Charlotte

Verified writer

Proficient in: Zootopia

4.7 (348)

“ Amazing as always, gave her a week to finish a big assignment and came through way ahead of time. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

It was something of a divide by genus. Another smallest aspect which is not straightly focused on yet is implied by the dialog of Bellwether towards the end. This is the notion that Lionheart was a disadvantaged voted into power. That albeit Zootopia was established as "anyone can be anything”, the symbolism of having the predator at the top implies something which other people get less than enticing/appealing.

Linked to this is the main character, Judy Hopps.

The rabbit who needed to be a police officer. Based on the beginning of the film, there had never been a rabbit officer prior to Judy, calling to mind when the disadvantaged break job obstacles which traditionally were another area of the animal. How Judy reacts to this remains the “minority model” technique of keeping Judy's head down and working hard to achieve his goals. Judy ultimately earned her trainer's respect, subsequently, Lionheart appears with the “mammal inclusion initiative”. Judy is accorded a political appointment to work at the highest level, however, she runs into problems almost immediately, as, despite the skills she has, Judy new work team remains somewhat skeptical of her capabilities/abilities. It is further debated in the Alternate Character Interpretation whether Bogo remained to mean alongside dismissive, providing a rookie a gradual and small beginning or might have certain kind of speciesism, but irrespective, Judy stood disgruntled regarding being provided Parking Duty. This is something that Nick rubs in Judy's face as they meet. That despite how hard she tried getting in, there is a glass ceiling of kinds which Judy cannot go all the way with.

Linked to this is the case of Mr. and Mrs. Otterton. Whereas not straightly stated in the film, supplemental substance highlighted that portion of the rationale the Otterton case stood pushed aside due to the assumption that Otterton-as an otter, stayed just being playful as well as lazy, and might return any time. This does not only call to mind immediate stereotyping but also ideas that some "species' could get preference over others as a result of preconceptions or even lack of pressure for the pursuit in certain instances.

The compassion of Judy had her move in, commence her chase to get Mr. Otterton, and culminate in her huge team-up with Nick. Nick stays disadvantaged that at first, gave up. He highlights that he needed at a young age to become a "boy scout” of sorts in his backstory, but stood hazed by his team that "a fox might never become trustworthy." Therefore, Nick vowed subsequently that he would not only never let other people see how they “got to him”, but also he would become the best Fox there was as sly alongside cunning as anticipated. However, via being dragged along by Hopps' probe, he starts to realize that there is more to battle for than just oneself, and his "street smarts” even assisted get a few more leads in the course or process. Nevertheless, as he stood a victim of “speciesism”, which makes Nick calling out Judy on her individual racist beliefs more effective. Not only were Judy and Nick were friends who turned on each other, but also Judy was never as incorruptible as she mentioned she was. Beginning at Judy's saying the predators stood "reverting to their ferocious means,” and subsequently pushing a bit more on certain preconceptions alongside subtle biases she held. First with “it does not lie a bunny might get savage” and subsequently getting down to her communicating regarding a “them” or “that kind of predator”. This is a case of profiling, yet wrapped in animalisms.

This subsequently leads us to our last character: Bellwether. She is a sheep who takes the advantage of prevailing fears alongside feelings and attempts to utilize them to play the system to provide herself the desired power. Compelling Judy forward at some steps to bring down Lionheart and subsequently get herself the position of Mayor. Whereas not definitely opposed to predators, Bellwether does appear to see them as the desired or convenient target to not only hold the power against, however, to unite the entire city against. Therefore, she scapegoats one group to uplift a "competing” other.

Zootopia can also be understood as an exploration of double standards in particular. This stays an indirect reaction to prevailing criticism, particularly, the argument that Zootopia “does not get” how real prejudice operates. Scrutinizing the movie, the theme it explores appears to be: That bigotry is never simple, clear-cut, or even one-sided, in real life or fiction. In respect of Animal Stereotypes, they remain complex because every applicable stereotype stays a mix of both falsehood and truth. This is the exact real-life stereotype-the best anchored on truth and such complexity carries over to everything else. The predator-prey association, for example, is not a straight allegory for a given race, and it is not attempting to be.

Predators, in-universe, actually had a biological inclination towards hunting. This is about the same as recognizing, correctly, that humans evolved to become predators. Put differently, however, historically speaking, they stood the ones with power; prey animals remained the hunted, the victims traditionally. Presently, this has been reversed; predators have turned out to be disadvantaged. They never started out this way; but with time, the prey has become the top dogs. And the point remains; merely inverting status quo never solve a problem; it solely perpetuates the same problem, only in the reverse. This demonstrates that if the previously oppressed merely invert the balance of power alongside take over, this culminates to past oppressors becoming victims in turn of novel abuses-which is true historically.

It has taken place in the past; Maoist China, for a thing; and everything like it. The cop killing which is perpetrated as a backlash against the brutality of the police, for the latest illustration. The power and prejudice remain flawed. It remains more often than not utilized to excuse bigotry arising from “oppressed”-yet it is a narrow, exceptionalism, exclusive definition, which stretches in the opposing direction: examining the significance of systemic segregation at the expense of recognizing other forms. Moreover, failing to recognize that multiple facets of “power” are available, which even systematic segregation can and does occur both ways in various settings.

A double standard exists as the hidden side of bigotry that nobody wants to acknowledge since it remains easier to think of things based on Bad or Good, Wrong or Right, White and Black. And they remain the most absolutely in effect on individuals, system level and institutional alike, if such an example is any indication. Bellwether might stand for anyone who has every posited “Kill All Men" and implied it. Any civilian who has ever mentioned “Kill All Cops" and meant it. Anyone who has ever utilized previously as the excuse to carry forth old grudges since they imagine the living need to be blamed for crimes of the dead. Any person who abuses such fears of past for their individual selfish gains; it remains absolutely common. The weak preying on strong is never better than strong preying on weak, and this is the point. Is each side affected by segregation equally in various ways? This is actually how it operates in the real life-solely-just as in the film, some of it remains visible while others are ignored, downplayed or even excused outright.