The Lion King

[29 Feb. Link: http://tiny.cc/ijudf]
Click here to watch film.

The empathy mood in this 1920’s film is set in the first scene by showing a mother and her cute cubs in the African savannah. The film then cuts to a majestic powerful lion. Suddenly the explorer man meets the lion in battle! They fight each other for a few seconds, until the man stabs the lion to death with his pocketknife. As much as the fight seemed acted, I felt bad for the lion… but I also didn’t want the man to die.

The final scene of the film shows the artifice of film. A different camera films the camera that was filming the wrestling incident. The point of view changes from voyeuristic to the presence of the film crew, and the acting of both man and animal. What I found the most intriguing was my feelings of despair and empathy for the lion. Hiroshi Sugimoto, on his artist statement for Dioramas, writes, “However fake the subject, once photographed, it's as good as real.” Film and photography, as much as we are aware of the artifice, has a powerful way for affect and to change realities.

Marey and the moving animal

Photography allows for the eye to see what it cannot normally see. Marey’s nineteenth century photographs depict animal locomotion in a slower rate than that of the human eyes. The wings of the birds expand from side to side, revealing fractions of seconds. The ghost-like images were done for scientific experiment to further understand
animal movement.

I believe Marey’s photographs are poetic and beautiful more so than scientific documents of natural history.

What is it about the moving animals? I believe moving animal suggest life. We understand something is alive if it moves. A rock is not as interesting to observe for long periods of time because it cannot move. Also, if it doesn’t move, it doesn’t do anything. It just sits there. On the other hand, ones sight is easily lost on an aquarium with constantly moving fish and soothing sounds. This may be why film, with the moving image, easily gets my eyes to look. The static photograph, however, freezes time to invite the eyes to scrutinize and contemplate specific moments.

Marey’s photographs of animals are suspended in another time, a time that in real life we cannot detect, and ask us to contemplate in spatiality and movement of animals.

The Look of Tanner

Tanner refused to look at me after I came back for a short visit. His tail wagged for everyone else, except for me. I looked at him and said, “Tanner! Hi! I missed you!” No respond. It had been three months since my departure from my mom’s house. It was difficult to get the cold shoulder from the dog I loved, but I could not blame him.

Do animals look back?

The assumptions are that animals make us happy or give unconditional love no matter what. Tanner was not this “type” of dog. He responded with affection only if you took care of his basic needs of food, water and exercise. Otherwise, he simply chose not to see you. The look of the animal is hunting because is how we make up for the verbal communication barrier. The look also tells us the animal is aware of our presence. Tanner’s refusal to see me was a way to communicate discontent. I immediately became aware of my actions and my relation to him, and vice versa. Tanner looked back at me when I looked at him too.

This took years for me to figure out! Once I realized my dog was not there to only make me happy, but I needed to make him happy as well, our relation was much healthier. I believe the animal look cannot be ignored because a mutual gaze needs to be acknowledged for the relation to work.

About Grizzly Man (documentary by Herzog)

In the Grizzly Man documentary, Treadwell travels to Alaska every summer because he believes that protecting the grizzly bears from humans is his calling in life. He makes videos of himself to tell stories of his “adventure” of coming into close contact with the bears. Treadwell also gave presentations to kids about the importance of taking care of nature when not in Alaska, but besides that I struggled through the movie to understand how was he “protecting” the bears while he was in Alaska.

From the video footage, we mostly get to know Treadwell and his view of the bears as a majestically animal, while getting few bits and pieces of the daily life of bears. Treadwell is always present in all of the shots and he also talks about his take on women and other life concerns.

I was particular interested in the guy’s wanting to be a bear. Treadwell tells us in his video that he finds comfort and happiness with being with the bears, which it is something that I can understand, as I too find comfort in animals. I think this is something a lot of other people would say about animals, especially pets. I believe part of the reason has to do with our inability to believe that the animal can “respond.” We look at the animal as one that can’t look back… It is not going to tell us that we are not smart or overweight. It is going to give us its unconditional love.

On page 269 in Why Look at Animals? Berger says, “The zoo to which people go to meet animals, to observe them, to see them, is, in fact, a monument to the impossibility of such encounters.” Although Treadwell was not going to a zoo, he was going to Alaska with the same expectation to want to meet the bears and be their protective friend. I believe this reasoning that the animal can’t respond makes it easier to be idealized as one that does not kill or causes harm or does anything evil.

Treadwell seemed very conflicted every time he found signs of death. For example, the only time I remember learning something new about bears from this video footage was when Treadwell speaks about bears eating their young when food is scarce. He seemed angry by the thought of a “father” killing his “children” for food. I don’t think there is anything wrong with mystifying animals, but it is problematic if you can’t make the distinction from reality. Treadwell was not able to look at the bears outside of the world he had made up for them.


[Photo: 18 Feb., 2012. http://www.impulsegamer.com/dvdgrizzlyman.html]

Angles and Insects

The movie Angels and Insects has a dark storyline about the relationships that take place in a mansion between the aristocrat family members, and also their relation to workers and servants. Animals are used as metaphor to unfold the narrative.

For example, William is a scientist and a guest in the mansion, who is helping Sir Halard, the owner of the house, with the organization of his private collection. William is attracted to his daughter Eugenia, who is depressed after her fiancé passed away. In a scene, William brings out rare butterflies to show Eugenia. The butterflies fly over them, but also stick to her body. He then takes out moths to show and tell, but when the moths stick to Eugenia’s body, she screams for help. This particular scene, to me, indicated the good/bad about Eugenia’s character. The butterfly was used to convey emotions of happiness and delight, while the moth was used to let the viewer know Eugenia dark side. As the story progresses we find out about Eugenia’s secret and the controversy happening in the mansion.

This movie brings up some questions about the use of animals as metaphor to understand stories and people. How were these metaphors created? Why do we think of a bird as a free animal? Or moths and roaches as sings of darkness? Could these metaphors be reversed?

Dogs are on my mind

After many attempts to ask my parents for a dog as a kid, I remember resorting to pretending to be one. My oldest sister also liked my idea because she was the trainer that commanded me. However, my role as a dog started to be problematic when I chose to be a biting dog. My sisters and friends decided to give me the nickname of perro Chihuahueño*, which I translated to mutt. I find it strange that at the age of six, I was offended by not being seen as an imaginary purebred dog. I wanted to be Lassie!

Dogs are on my mind lately because they are the one animal that is considered part of a family, lives with us in the house, and humans breed them for certain traits. For example, the movie Best in Show is a parody to the culture of dog shows. However, the movie doesn’t go too deep into what is that makes a dog win best of show or the breeding opportunities from winning. The terrier that wins isn’t necessarily the most spectacular dog in terms of physical, but it is the dog that seemed the most obedient and loyal. On Chapter V of the novel Beautiful Joe, there is a line where they describe a dog as a good dog because “he is patient, quite, and obedient.”

Recently on CNN they made a segment on a guy who photographs his dog with food on his head. This animal stories and others seen on the segment are told because we are surprised by the well-behaved animal. To watch the video click here.


*Until writing this post I believed a perro Chihuahueño translated to a mutt. My sister thought it was a made up name. However, according to wikipedia, a Chihuahueño dog is the Spanish name for Chihuahua... I was a purebred after all ;)