Robinson Devor, 2007
A premise that automatically makes a film the most confronting and controversial entry wherever it plays requires many things. Compassion is certainly not the least of them, but is something that quasi-documentary Zoo has in spades. Without at least a sense of empathy, any sense of loaded ol’ Objectivity can be easily forgotten, and thus any notion of attempting to understand the subject’s matter and, moreover, its likely repellent content; said content being, here, the true tale of a farm commune where men who so desired could be – to be so blunt – fucked by an Arabian stallion.
So. Now I have yr attention.
Bestiality is not exactly a cinematic buzzword, and outside of porn (and I’m assuming largely amateur at that), it has been strictly the domain of smutty low-brow gags and outright parody. A cursory IMDB keyword search reveals neither serious consideration of this snuff-like near-mythical topic, nor anything even closely resembling a primary theme. Obviously as far as dramatisation is concerned, it is problematic. How does one even begin to conceive of seriously portraying that sexual relationship? And furthermore, with what license does one “examine” this psychologically murky yet arguably deceptively simple subject?
Considering the headline-grabbing real-life genesis of the story (this is, dramatisations or not, a documentary of sorts), Zoo’s investigation could easily have slid into pat “isn’t it all so strange?” simplifications, or judgemental “this isn’t right!” assertions, or even some pointless Nick Broomfield “investigation” into uncovering the actual people’s real faces. Hell, there’s probably a quirky small-town/big-issue documentary in there somewhere, but mercifully questions of normalcy or acceptability are largely left to the tabloids, instead opting for asking an infinitely more interesting and confronting question (and asking its audience, no less): why do you think it’s so strange?
Although, to be truthful, Zoo asks many questions of its audience, and in attempting to evoke some sense of universal animalism explores many issues: the bonds between human and “animal”; the role of communities in establishing notions of morality; the nature of sexual communication, and indeed the very possibility of sexual consent between two creatures who cannot communicate their consent through any way other than actual performance.
So. Is Zoo timely? Needed? Necessary, even? Are there anarco-primitivist debates about to inflame some sections of our free-thinking societies? I doubt it. Even The Unabomber’s antics failed at that. Will Zoo ignite a passionate debate about sexuality and nature? Even in some Western societies, sex with our own species is considered taboo, both hetero- and homosexual, and in some illegal. So, again: unlikely. Does this all actually kind of make Zoo possibly the most thematically interesting doco of MIFF ‘07? Maybe.
Is it anyway? I say yeah, it is.
