Anthropomorphism in American Film

Humankind’s relationship with animals tells a twisted, hypocritical tale. While we consume nonhuman animals for food, kill animals for recreation, and lock animals in cages to gawk at, we also attempt to educate our children about them, save them, and protect them. Embedded in this human-nonhuman tale is the humanization of our furry friends. Not surprisingly, this habit has flooded into our popular culture and entertainment. Perhaps the most telling example of this human practice is the motion picture industry. Continuing in the traditions of the animal acts of vaudeville, American cinema has consistently displayed animal anthropomorphism in its animated films, and now, more recently, the technique is being redefined by the usage of computer-generated imagery (CGI). These films provide a supplement for America’s obsession with anthropomorphism, which stems from a paradox of humankind’s superiority and loneliness.

Anthropomorphism is defined as “an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of human or personal characteristics.”¹ While it is seen in today’s entertainment industry with other nonhumans as subjects, such as vegetables (Veggie Tales) and toys (Toy Story), few would argue with the fact that animals are subject to this treatment most often. Animal anthropomorphism is continuing to increase in American culture, which encourages filmmakers to continue integrating it into film. Today’s pet owners view themselves as their pets' parents now more than ever. A survey conducted in 2002 showcases this, as 83% of pet-owners call themselves "Mommy" or "Daddy" in reference to their pets (up from 55% in 1995), 66% specially prepare foods for their pet (up from 48%) and 59% celebrate their pets’ birthday (up from 50%).² The majority of households with pets embrace anthropomorphism—a good starting point as to why this practice has carried over to the big-screen. America is obsessed.

From an historical perspective, the use of animal anthropomorphism as an entertainment form has been taking place for centuries, but the focus here is vaudeville, which has directly influenced American cinema more than any other medium. Vaudeville became recognizable as a distinct entertainment medium around 1881. It consisted of short sketches performed by comedians, dancers, short narratives, acrobats, singers, composers, and, most importantly for our focus, animals.³ The animal acts most often included monkeys, elephants and dogs, though other animals were also used extensively. Part of the intrigue for vaudeville audiences was watching these nonhumans, under the direction of their human masters, perform human feats, such as rollerblading, jumping rope, dancing, and skipping. In one particular video clip of a vaudeville animal act, an elephant can be seen sitting at a dinner table and ringing a bell for service; in another, a baboon dressed in a white sailor uniform can be seen playing a violin and roller-skating. Without a doubt, one can say that animal anthropomorphism was alive and well during the vaudeville era.⁴

The direct transition of anthropomorphism from vaudeville to film is not as clear-cut as a baboon-playing violin, but the spilling of ideas from one medium to another is undoubtedly present. Vaudeville produced a plethora of movie stars in their respective categories: comedians (W.C. Fields), dancers (Fred Astaire), short narratives (The Three Stooges), singers (Al Jolson, who starred in the first motion picture with sound, The Jazz Singer, in 1927), acrobats (such as stunts performed by Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd) and composers (Irving Berlin) all made the transition successfully. When something works, why fix it? If a feature brings in money, why do away with it? Cinema had all but erased vaudeville by 1932, and animal anthropomorphism, riding the coat tails of the vaudeville animal acts, jumped on the ideological train along with the others. 3 Amidst this cinema revolution—now that sound had been introduced—one company, particularly one man, was ready to turn anthropomorphism into profit: Walt Disney.

Mainstream animated anthropomorphism was born with the introduction of Disney’s Mickey Mouse in 1928. Mickey received a few anthropomorphic buddies throughout the 1930s, such as Goofy, Donald Duck, and Minnie Mouse.⁵ In 1940, with the release of Pinocchio, one of the most notable examples of Disney’s anthropomorphic characters was introduced: Jiminy Cricket. This top-hat-and-suit-wearing, umbrella-holding cricket is still appreciated today as a symbol of intelligence and wisdom. In one scene, he lectures Pinocchio—and the human audience in turn—about temptations:

Jiminy Cricket: Now, you see, the world is full of temptations.
Pinocchio: Temptations?
Jiminy Cricket: Yep, temptations. They're the wrong things that seem right at the time... but... uh...even though the right things may seem wrong sometimes, or sometimes the wrong things, may be right at the wrong time, or visa versa. Understand?
Pinocchio: [shakes his head] Uh-uh. But I’m gonna do right.
Jiminy Cricket: Atta boy, Pinoke! And I'm gonna help ya.⁶

Disney continued to thrive off of anthropomorphic personalities from the 1940’s up through the 1960’s—Dumbo, One Hundred and One Dalmatians, and the arts-and-crafts mice in Cinderella to name a few—but, with the death of Walt Disney in 1966, Disney was left with a new generation of executives, animators, and, unfortunately, a teetering monetary situation. By 1972, Disney was in financial shambles. The following year, Disney decided to adapt the classic tale of Robin Hood using an all-animal cast. Why? Animators, when asked about the reasons behind this decision, remarked that to get out of its financial woe, Disney would “continue to do what they do best…make characters out of animals.”⁷ And that is just what Disney has done, as thirty-four of their fifty animated releases since have featured anthropomorphic lead characters.

Other animation studios have sampled the anthropomorphism platter—most notably DreamWorks. Chicken Run, a stop-motion film about a coup of chickens and their dream of flying over their fences someday, was released in 2000 and features a scene where Rocky, a new rooster at the farm, displays his humanized swagger freely:

Hen: And what brings you to England, Mr. Rhodes?
Rocky: Why, all the beautiful English chicks, of course.
Rocky:  You see, I'm a traveler by nature. I did that whole barnyard thing for a while but I couldn't really get into it.  Nope! The open road, that's more my style. Yep, just give me a pack on my back and point me where the wind blows. In fact, you know what they call me back home? You're going to love this: The Lone Free Ranger.⁸

Also in the DreamWorks canon is Madagascar, a film about zoo animals and their quest to escape confinement, and Kung Fu Panda, which displays animals exactly as the title suggests.

Live-action anthropomorphism is much harder to achieve—although it has been done with films like Babe, Homeward Bound, and Airbud—but with the evolution of technology, computer-generated imagery (CGI) in live-action films is creating a new wave of realistic anthropomorphism. Animators are now able to make anthropomorphistic animals more closely resemble their real-life counterparts. These believable anthropomorphic creations are then added to an authentic setting and surrounded by actors, bringing them that much closer to reality. Observe, for example, Peter Jackson’s remake of King Kong, released in 2005. Kong is entirely computer-generated and is a direct result of a human performance (Andy Serkis). Serkis wore a motion capture suit, performed as Kong—down to every last chest beating—and let the computers and animators translate the performance into Kong’s three-dimensional frame. Glenn Whipp, in a review of Kong for The Los Angeles Daily News, boldly states that Serkis “nails the monkey's movements and gives the beast a recognizable soul.”⁹ Another example: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, also released in 2005. The fantasy tale features children protagonists who enter a world where animals—notably Mr. and Mrs. Beaver—eat jam with every meal, complain about bath time, and listen to the sound of a crackling fireplace each night. The beavers are also entirely computer-generated. The children protagonists are mesmerized by the quaint little home of the beavers, and as they look about the abode, one wishes that they too could live the lives of a beaver.¹⁰

Having discussed vaudeville’s role in anthropomorphic film and observed the films themselves, the question still remains: why is anthropomorphism a bankable technique? Entertainment industries are willing to produce material that works, and judging by the amount of anthropomorphic material discussed earlier and the success of the corporations that produce it, anthropomorphism rakes in money. Many scholars and writers frown upon the ethics of the method, such as Rebecca-Anne Rosario, who, on the subject of Disney, states, “As soon as Disney animation made animals—-even trees and flowers—talk, walk, sing, dance and dress like the human beings, Disney began to blur the binary opposition of nature and culture."¹¹ While Rebecca-Anne Rosario and others like her may ridicule its consequences, popular culture, where the mass amounts of money are found, embraces and enjoys it. Society as a whole is drawn to anthropomorphism because of two particular thoughts that control human reflection:  humankind’s superiority on earth, and humankind’s loneliness on earth; and while scholars agree that these reasons do not compensate for its shaky ethics, they do cite these two traits with definite correlations regarding the use of anthropomorphism.

In his article “People In Disguise: Anthropomorphism and the Human-Pet Relationship”, James A. Serpell argues that there is “no doubt” that loneliness acts as a variable in the usage of anthropomorphism in our culture:

Anthropomorphism and pet keeping are powerful antidotes to what Searles once called the existential loneliness of the human condition. By enabling us to participate in nonhuman lives not just as observers but as active social partners, anthropomorphism provides us with a unique opportunity to bridge the conceptual and moral gulf that separates humans from other animals.¹²

It seems apparent that humans long to be accepted and liked by their companions, and studies have shown that the more friends one has, the happier they are.¹³ Our reason for existence on Earth remains a scientific mystery, and the universe is infinite, so it is no wonder that friends—of any stature—are more than welcome. Sarah Stebbins, a contributor to Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, comments on the enticing nature of human companionship with other mammals: “We find mammals of any species with large rounded heads, large eyes, and small rounded features appealing; these include babies and Betty Boop, but they also include puppies, kittens, and Mickey Mouse.”¹⁴

While humans have unanswered questions that lead to an “existential loneliness”, we are sure of one thing: our title as the rulers of the planet Earth. In our ability to read, write, create and orchestrate, we are fully aware of our status, and sometimes, especially for entertainment purposes, it is amusing to parade this grandeur on the silver screen. After Serpell comments on the loneliness of humankind and how anthropomorphism is capable of bridging the gap that separates humans and nonhumans, he is quick to point out that we are focused on the self-gratification that is acquired when referencing our superiority to animals: "Sadly, however, instead of accepting and appreciating companion animals for what they are, we seem more inclined to abduct them across the animal-human divide, render them in our own 'image,' and transform them in the process into a motley collection of deformed or mutilated cultural artifacts."¹²

Greg Mitman, co-editor of Thinking With Animals: New Perspectives on Anthropomorphism, supports Serpell’s observations about our “deforming” of animals just because we can, saying that anthropomorphism seems linked with anthropocentrism, which is defined as “considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe.”¹⁵ This leads to the projection of our own thoughts and feelings onto other animal species because we believe ourselves to be the center of the intelligent universe, and, because of this, animals should want to be more like us.¹⁶ This argument coincides with other perspectives as well. Nikki Atkinson, in her thesis entitled “The Use of Anthropomorphism in the Animation of Animals”, cites Bela Balazs in Theory of The Film (1952) as she argues that “the root of art is man” and that “when we see the faces of things, we naturally do what the ancient people did in creating gods in man’s image or breathing a human soul into them.”¹⁷

True, the motion picture industry has taken advantage of our shortcomings and emptiness, but most people do not seem to mind—four of the top ten highest grossing movies of last year  (2008) were stuffed with anthropomorphism (Wall-E, Kung Fu Panda, Dr. Seuss’ Horton Hears A Who, and Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa).¹⁸ It is in an industry’s nature to produce profitable material, and cinema has been doing so since its transition from vaudeville. Unfortunately, stemming from the paradox of loneliness and superiority, it is in our nature to sculpt and transform animals to more closely resemble us, and, at the same time, allow their incapability to fully become human entertain us. Anthropomorphism in cinematic history simply reinforces a much broader, ongoing issue regarding human’s inconsistent treatment and attitudes towards animals. These findings and reflections will not stop America from flocking to theaters to see Toy Story 3 and Kung Fu Panda 2 when they come out, but we cannot neglect the reasons behind anthropomorphic film; they are reasons that expose our conflicting and often times vindictive relationship with those that surround us. Perhaps this exchange between Preston and Jack Driscoll as they discuss filmmaker Carl Denham in Peter Jackson’s King Kong say it best:
           

Preston: He was right. There is still some mystery left in this world, and we can all have a piece of it, for the price of an admission ticket.
Jack Driscoll: That's the thing you come to learn about Carl, his undying ability to destroy the things he loves.²⁰

¹“Anthropomorphism,” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009. http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/anthropomorphism.

²“Pet trend: Anthropomorphism," Growth Strategies, August 1, 2002, 1-2. http://www.proquest.com/.

³ "Vaudeville," The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2008. Encyclopedia.com. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-vaudevil.html.

⁴Historic Footage- Vaudeville Acts 1898 to 1910 (Part 1 of 2) [Video]. (2008). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZo4imTt4Og.

⁵  Walt Disney Company, “Mickey,” Mickey & Friends, http://disney.go.com/mickey/html/meet/mickey.html.

⁶ Pinocchio, DVD, directed by Hamilton Luske, Ben Sharpsteen. (1940, Walt Disney Home Video, 2009).

⁷ Grant, John, ed. Encyclopedia of Walt Disney’s Animated Characters. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1987.

⁸Chicken Run, DVD, directed by Peter Lord, Nick Park. (2000, DreamWorks Home Entertainment, 2000).

⁹ Glenn Whipp. "’King Kong’ Raises the Bar For the Art of Filmmaking," review King Kong (Universal movie), The Los Angeles Daily News, 13 December 2005.

¹⁰The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, DVD, directed by Andrew Adamson. (2005, Buena Vista Home Entertainment, 2006).

¹¹Rebecca-Anne DoRozario, " The Consequences of Disney Anthropomorphism: Animated, Hyper-Environmental Stakes in Disney Entertainment," Femspec. 7 (1):51-65.

¹²J.A. Serpell, “People In Disguise: Anthropomorphism and the Human-
Pet Relationship,” Thinking With Animals: New Perspectives on Anthropomorphism, ed. Lorrain Daston and Gregg Mitman (USA: Columbia University Press, 2006), 132.

¹³“The More Old Friends You Have the Happier You Are, Scientist Say,” InfoNIAC, http://www.infoniac.com/science/the-more-old-friends-you-have-the-happier-you-are.html.

¹⁴ Sarah Stebbins, "Anthropomorphism," Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytical Tradition 69, no. 2/3, 119.

¹⁵“Anthropocentric,” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009. http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/anthropocentric.

¹⁶ Lorrain Daston, Gregg Mitman, ed. Thinking With Animals: New Perspectives on Anthropomorphism. USA: Columbia University Press, 2006, 4.

¹⁷ Nikki Atkinson, "The Use of Anthropomorphism in the Animation of Animals," (thesis/abstract, Bournemouth University National Centre for Computer Animation, 2006), 6.

 

¹⁸ IMDB.com, Inc., “2008 Domestic Grosses,” Box Office Mojo, http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2008&p=.htm.

¹⁹ King Kong, DVD, directed by Peter Jackson. (2005, Universal Studios Home Entertainment, 2006).