Panel 7: Animal Studies

ECOMEDIA IN THE ANTHROPOCENE (THE 2018 ASLE SYMPOSIUM)

A NEARLY CARBON-NEUTRAL CONFERENCE

Panel 7: Animal Studies

“Dogs and Eco-Trauma: The Making of a Monster in White God

Robin Murray (Professor of English and Women’s Studies and Film Studies Minor Coordinator, Eastern Illinois University) and Joe Heumann (Professor of Communication Studies, Eastern Illinois University)

“‘Neigh Way, Jose’: BoJack Horseman’s Rejection of Cute Animality”

James Cochran (Ph.D. candidate in English, Baylor University)

“‘We Were Being Changed and Made Part of Their World’: Complicating the Human and Animal with Phase IV

Isaac Rooks (Ph.D. candidate, University of Southern California)

“Wilderness and Cat Protagonists in Turkish, American, British, and Italian Movies of the Twentieth and Twenty-first Centuries”

Fazila Derya Agis (Ph.D. candidate in Italian Language and Literature, Ankara University)

Q & A

Have questions or comments? Feel free to take part in the Q&A!

Before posting, you must first register. Note that questions and comments can be intended for individual speakers, the entire panel, or anyone who has posted to the Q&A. Respond directly to a particular question/comment by way of the little “reply” below it. The vertical threadlike lines are there to make it easier to see which part of the discussion (i.e. “thread”) you are taking up. You can choose to be notified via email (see below) whenever a question, answer, or comment is posted to this particular Q&A. Because the email notification will contain the new comment in its entirety, you can both follow the discussion as it is unfolding, as well as decide whether you would like to step in at any point. You can choose to receive email notifications for as many of the conference Q&A sessions as you like, as well as stop notifications at any time. Because the Q&A sessions will close at the end of the conference, all email notifications will also end at this time. Although only registered conference participants can pose questions and make comments, Q&A sessions are visible to the public and will remain so after the conference has ended, as we hope that they will become cited resources.

36 replies
  1. rlmurray50 says:

    Thank you for viewing and listening to our video essay, “Dogs and Eco-Trauma.” We look forward to hearing your thoughts on the connections between people and their animal companions. Please do note that we are just beginning to work out the video essay format and would appreciate any helpful comments about our rudimentary video, as well.

    • Kristen Angierski, Cornell University says:

      Thanks so much for your talk! I enjoyed it *very* much and want to watch the film (though I am 100% sure it will make me cry). I especially appreciated your point about refusing the parable; although this movie can be understood as an allegory of human ills, it is also about dogs– dogs as dogs and dogs as beings who can experience eco-trauma. (I talk about this in my work on Han Kang’s The Vegetarian; there is some telling resistance, I think, to taking the protagonist’s animal rights stance seriously, preferring instead to read her veganism as pre-illness, a trope, “veganorexia,” Lauren Wright writes about in The Vegan Studies Project.)

      I wonder if you could say a little bit more about why the trauma is “ecological”? And would you connect Hagen’s experience of ecotrauma to the father’s work as a slaughterhouse employee– and indeed Hagen’s experience to that of the farmed animals rarely given the same moral consideration and media representation as pets?

      • rlmurray50 says:

        Thank you for your thoughtful comments! Kang’s *The Vegetarian* is next on my reading list (and on my nightstand). In the larger study, we look at ecology first as the literal study of homes (and the urban places where we live).Eco-trauma declares that a traumatized Earth begets traumatized people, but for us, that Earth includes urban constructed and re-constructed spaces where we live. The ecology of *White God* is traumatized on multiple levels–family, apartment building, community. And you’re spot on about the parallels between the father’s work at the slaughterhouse and the dog fight trainer’s “work” toward the ring. The most empathetic portrayals of farmed animals we’ve seen have been in animated (or live action/animated) films. Perhaps we might add the organic farms contrasted with industrial feedlots in documentaries such as *Food, Inc.*? Interesting considerations!

    • EkinGunduz says:

      Thank you for introducing this film White God, I will definitely watch it. The regulations on mix breeds are also interesting.The history of dog breeds is one of the consequences of the anthropocene, and favoring the pure breeds reveals the ongoing human arrogance and domination over non-human. On the other hand, mix breeds and the disturbance they create among humans also manifest the impossibility of the human belief about controlling nature. And controlling nature can be extended to humans as well as non-humans, so in that sense I guess the film encourages further discussions in sociopolitical context.

      • rlmurray50 says:

        Hi Ekin, Thank you for your insights. You are spot on with your expectations for the film, and we hope you get the chance to view it.

    • irooks says:

      Thanks so much for your excellent discussion of an excellent film!

      Ekin mentions how mixed breed dogs undermine the notion that humans can control nature, and the canine rebellion in ‘White God’ certainly seems to offer another spectacular rebuttal to that arrogant notion. At the same time, the film offers a spectacular demonstration of human control. Especially on repeat viewings, when you see all those dogs running down the streets, it can bring to mind how the production staff wrangled all those dogs and got them to “perform.” Almost all “bad” dogs in fictional cinema are going to be excellently trained animals. ‘White God’ potentially puts viewer’s more in mind of that external production context by opening with the disclaimer that all the featured dogs have been placed in homes, so all these rebel street dogs are now house pets. Do y’all have any opinions on how that meta-element might deconstruct, inflect, or nuance reception of the film and its message?

      Smaller secondary question: Do y’all have a take on the significance of the title’s apparent play on Fuller’s ‘White Dog’, another film dealing with a potentially loving pet turned vicious by abuse?

      • Joseph Heumann, Eastern Illinois University says:

        I saw White Dog when it first came out, surrounded by all the controversy, and pretty much suppressed because of the misreading it was given. But we both saw it about 32 years later. It’s all Fuller all the time. I don’t know how it might have influenced the director of White God, but Fuller is a good example for most directors.
        We saw White God large the first time and the opening is so crazy good we had no time to ask how the hell they pulled that off. It was too mesmerizing. After the fact we did our research. That’s a lot of dogs and supposedly only two trainers.
        But any time a film takes on a lot of animals you ultimately have to start interrogating it. Hawk’s Red River had the director commenting on the difficulties of working with so many heads of cattle and so many horses. The stories of animal abuse in the 30’s are all over the place. Anyone who see Charge of the Light Brigade (Curtiz) has to cringe when you realize these animals were wire tripped to “act” shot. They lost a lot of horses doing films like that, and who knows how many stunt people got hurt, too.
        Which leads us back to Blackfish which interrogates animals as trained actors on a never ending entertainment treadmill. Of course, circuses get included. It’s an enormous set of projects out there.
        I might add that in EcoCinema and the City we also look at many documentaries that examine dog fighting and a variety of other dog abuse situations. The eco-trauma that non actor dogs go through is endless, all over the USA and there have been some interesting films examining it all.
        It’s far better to watch dog actors than documentaries about abused animals.

  2. Joseph Heumann, Eastern Illinois University says:

    Hi Issac:
    Having seen every ant film we can get our hands on (Them, The Naked Jungle, Empire of the Ants, Ants(1977) etc) plus, of course, Phase IV, we were pleased to see your take on Bass’ work. It fits neatly into that period that is also represented by The Hellstrom Chronicles, Damnation Alley, and Bug. The idea of some kind of accommodation between the human and non human is, at least, one of the goals of Phase IV. But it’s always fun when the insects are given super intelligent agency. Then humans have to realize that they are not just facing a numerically superior species, but one that is as, or more, intelligent as a survival unit. The abstract/avant elements that you highlight give this film its unique quality. And the refusal to leave us with a clear message or warning, as you point out, made it deadly at the box office. Have you ever seen it on the big screen? One thing we have noticed is the necessity for watching bug films on theater sized screens. Nothing like a forty foot wide ant to really get you into the narrative. Have you ever shown this film to biologists? Ant people? We find communication with natural scientists about these issues to be really interesting.
    Thanks for the presentation.

    • irooks says:

      Hi Joe – glad you enjoyed the talk!
      As you say, I think it’s always worth exploring when a movie plays with how much agency and intelligence an animal species displays. ‘White God’ is also a good example of that. The dogs in that demonstrate unnatural levels of intelligence and organization (their army even outmaneuvers trained soldiers/SWAT officers). The effect is very different from other dog attack movies – where the rebellious dogs are either feral (‘The Pack’), diseased (‘Cujo’), or under the external influence of bad people (‘White Dog’) or some fantastic force (‘Dogs’). Films featuring unusually intelligent animals offer a useful way of playing with and interrogating audience expectations about what non-human animals are capable of.
      Sadly I haven’t had the opportunity to experience ‘Phase IV’ on the big screen, nor in the company of a real-life myrmecologist! I can definitely see how getting a natural scientist’s input on ‘Phase IV’ or other works of animal horror could offer great insights. Some critics seem to object to animal horror on the grounds that it misrepresents animals in ways that make them seem monstrous. I’ve done some work on ‘Jaws’ and one of the most interesting things I’ve found is that biologists will sometimes credit that film as inspiring them to devote their lives to sharks and their conservation.* All animal horror films are works of fantasy, they are just more or less explicit about how fantastic they are. I think animal horror has a lot of potential for turning the public on to how interesting and worthy of attention and respect the animals being depicted in these films really are.

      * A couple of articles discussed this during the various anniversaries of ‘Jaws’. Here are two examples: https://gizmodo.com/40-years-of-bad-science-how-jaws-got-everything-wrong-1712384448 & http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0615_050615_jawssharks.html

    • irooks says:

      Hi Joe – glad you enjoyed the talk!
      As you say, I think it’s always worth exploring when a movie plays with how much agency and intelligence an animal species displays. ‘White God’ is also a good example of that. The dogs in that demonstrate unnatural levels of intelligence and organization (their army even outmaneuvers trained soldiers/SWAT officers). The effect is very different from other dog attack movies – where the rebellious dogs are either feral (‘The Pack’), diseased (‘Cujo’), or under the external influence of bad people (‘White Dog’) or some fantastic force (‘Dogs’). Films featuring unusually intelligent animals offer a useful way of playing with and interrogating audience expectations about what non-human animals are capable of.
      Sadly I haven’t had the opportunity to experience ‘Phase IV’ on the big screen, nor in the company of a real-life myrmecologist! I can definitely see how getting a natural scientist’s input on ‘Phase IV’ or other works of animal horror could offer great insights. Some critics seem to object to animal horror on the grounds that it misrepresents animals in ways that make them seem monstrous. I’ve done some work on ‘Jaws’ and one of the most interesting things I’ve found is that biologists will sometimes credit that film as inspiring them to devote their lives to sharks and their conservation.* All animal horror films are works of fantasy, they are just more or less explicit about how fantastic they are. I think animal horror has a lot of potential for turning the public on to how interesting and worthy of attention and respect the animals being depicted in these films really are.

      * Examples include: National Geographic’s “Jaws at 30” piece & “40 Years of Bad Science” on Gizmodo [I tried to included links in this reply yesterday, but that seems to have just resulted in the post getting stuck in the pipeline. If this response ends up being posted twice, apologies!]

      • Joseph Heumann, Eastern Illinois University says:

        hi Issac:
        It’s hard to communicate with scientists, because they are wrapped up in their work, have no time for laughs, or in the case of some folks, love film and use it to promote their field. That would be May Barenbaum’s Insect Fear film festival at the U of Illinois. She’s the coolest.
        Anyway, it takes time for a loser every man like me to connect with bug guys. Once I told some bug guys about the great Gary Larson cartoon that showed two spiders finishing a web across a playground slide, commenting to each other “That if this thing works we’ll eat like kings.” One beetle expert looked at me and said in all seriousness, “Spiders can’t talk.”
        I actually piqued the interest of a buddy who is a top notch bug guy (his actual field is too hard to explain, meaning I can’t figure it out) about a you tube video we used in our body modification chapter for Monstrous Nature. The spider produced, on it’s own web, a larger image of itself to scare away predator birds that ate the smaller real spiders. He couldn’t wait to see that video and was very impressed. Bug movies? Not so much. Many people watch CSI and get into that business. It’s always something. Or watch All The Presidents Men and want to become journalists. That’s interesting so thanks for bringing it up.

  3. rlmurray50 says:

    Hi James. What a great title for your talk! We’ve sampled *Bojack Horseman* and find it a guilty pleasure. Your talk brings to mind the diverse early American animated film studios and their general (at least partial) move toward the Disney hyper-realist aesthetic. I much prefer the modernist limited animation vision of United Productions of America (UPA) or Chuck Jones’s Warner Brothers’ shorts. Even early Fleischer Brothers shorts take a different approach to animated animals, avoiding cuteness in favor of gag and slapstick. Why do you think this Disney-type aesthetic still resonates so powerfully?

    • JamesMCochran says:

      Hi Robin–great question! Good point about the diversity of American animation. I would have to take that more into account in a longer version of this. To try to answer your question, I think part of the attraction of hyper-realist animation is the quality of cuteness. When animators squash and stretch cartoons, they become exaggerated and then cute (I’m drawing on Daniel Harris here). I think we like our animals to be cute because cuteness (I’d argue) is closely related to the beautiful, and we’re used to Romantic conceptions of Nature as beautiful. Viewing cute animals with stretched out and round faces fits into a wider vision of beautiful Nature.

  4. rlmurray50 says:

    Hi Isaac, Thank you for an engaging presentation! The post-human paradigm in *Phase IV* seems to be constructed as a post-human paradise in the film’s conclusion (reminding me of *28 Days Later*). Joe and I appreciated the film’s connections with *Hellstrom Chronicles* –wildlife photographer Ken Middleham shot the insect sequences for both films. In Middleham’s lens, the ants seem more human than human characters in the film. Thank you for your reading of the film.

    • irooks says:

      Hi Robin – thanks so much for your kind words and for getting the conversation started for this panel!
      Part of what I appreciate about “Phase IV” is that it isn’t ready to commit to the idea that this post-human state will be a paradise – it simply will be. There’s certainly positive potentials, particularly in terms of the ants’ communal mindedness. The ants understand themselves as one part of a larger and more important whole, and that could be understood as a utopic ecological way of being. Still, the ants are ruthless in dealing with competition, both from humans and unaltered non-humans. They clear out animals that threaten their species the same way humans often try to. Although, the ants’ violence against non-human animals comes across as part of their revolutionary impulse. The tarantulas and preying mantises are trying to keep the ant down, and that means (unknowingly and unintentionally) keeping the humans on top. Everything has to be torn down to make way for the new order.
      I wanted to give Ken Middleham a bigger shout out, but it didn’t work for the time allotment. Glad y’all picked up on the reference! Before starting this presentation, I didn’t appreciate the important role Middleham played in 70s insect horror generally. In addition to “Phase IV” and “Hellstrom” (which mixes doc, horror/sci-fi, and avant-garde techniques), Middleham also contributed to “Damnation Alley” and “Bug”, which Joe references above. It’s made me start to think of Middleham as a low-profile version of Ron and Valerie Taylor, whose photography for docs (“Blue Water, White Death”) and fiction (“Jaws” 1&2 and “Orca”) shaped how the public saw sharks in 70s cinema. In relation to animal horror (and animal-centric cinema in general) there’s a lot of work that can be done about the importance of individuals who capture this kind of verite footage for incorporation into fiction films, as well the contributions of animal trainers. For example, where would “White God” be without all its dog wranglers?

      • Joseph Heumann, Eastern Illinois University says:

        Hi Issac:
        The behind the scenes contributors are always an interesting phenomenon. Animal trainers, as we commented on a piece on The Cove, can sometimes become environmental activists after realizing the extent of their behavior, And, of course, Blackfish does a similar thing. We were also intrigued enough to do a chapter in our first book, Ecology and Popular Film, “Film Ecology:Simulated Construction and Destruction in Hooper.” Essentially we looked at the environmental costs to human beings who function as stunt performers.
        Getting insects to “perform” ala Microcosmos, where critics responded to the micro cinematography by calling the various species “actors” is interesting. It has to enter your thinking a lot of the time since you study these areas.

        • irooks says:

          Going along with that, the Taylors (like Peter Benchley) seem to have spent the latter part of their lives trying to make up for their role in damaging the reputation of sharks by advocating for their conservation.
          The notion of when animals on-screen are considered “actors” (and by whom) is always fascinating. I try to notice when the animals make it into the end credits, listed alongside the human performers for playing their part. I think “White God” is rare in going so far as to give the dog second billing (or rather dogs, since they had the two who portrayed Hagan).

  5. rlmurray50 says:

    Hi Fazila. Thank you for your intriguing presentation. I met George Lakoff years ago at a linguistics conference and enjoyed hearing him speak about a variety of conceptual metaphors. His *Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things* influenced some of my early literary criticism. You began to culturally situate representations of cats in the three diverse films you explore–from such different periods and cultural contexts. Thank you for introducing me to such an interesting mix of cat films. Do you think the release dates of these films may also affect their portrayal of cats?

    • deryaagis says:

      Of course, the release dates of these films may affect their portrayal of cats. However, attitudes towards cats are universal; they are associated with humans through their characters and attitudes in these films. They also teach humans to be more compassionate and respect others.

      The White God is also a metaphorical film, alluding to the anger that communism caused in society. As well, the behavior of an angry mistreated dog is associated with the feelings of humans. I appreciated it.

      All the films teach humans to respect the animals’ rights and end the violence and cruelty against them!

    • irooks says:

      Hi Fazila – Going off Robin’s question, could you speak a bit about what inspired you to focus on these texts in particular? ‘Kedi’ seems the highest profile (at least it was the only one on my radar, although the others sound interesting). It seems there are fewer iconic cat texts to choose from than there are dog films, possibly related to the fact that managing/wrangling cats is more difficult.

      • deryaagis says:

        I tried to show that cats could describe their emotions just like human beings universally; for this reason, I chose four different movies belonging to four different cultural groups. A sick kitten may show love towards the person who heals it; cats can teach humans not to neglect or abuse their children; there must be laws to protect animals: a person who performs a violent act towards an animal must be punished; people must not punish others who say that humans are animals (both groups of creatures are animate as indicated by Aristoteles), as well, as in some countries where freedom of expression is missing this may occur; some animals are sacred in some cultures, as cows are sacred in India, cats are sacred in Turkey. These lovely creatures express their emotions to human beings through their body language. As I read many works on the Conceptual Metaphor Theory and observed cats’ body language in the streets of Turkey alongside movies, I decided to refer to the Conceptual Metaphor Theory for constructing an affectionate tie between humans and cats. But I use my name Derya instead of Fazila mostly.

  6. Virginia Luzón-Aguado, University of Zaragoza says:

    Hi Joseph and Robin
    Thank you for introducing us to this film. Sounds like a rather interesting one in the sense that it manages to portray dogs’ feelings and trauma without the need to anthropomorphize them. Or maybe it does, even if a little bit? I wonder what you think about that.
    I was also particularly interested in the “mongrel revolution” idea and its political implications in the Viktor Orbán era (Hungary is not the only part of Europe where “mixed breeds” or the disenfranchised more generally are not welcome, of course, but its government played an important role as far as the failure of the recent Syrian refugee crisis in Europe is concerned). But going back to the “revolutionary” aspects of the film, I wonder what you think of a favourite of mine, Chicken Run. This was a very successful, popular film. Since you have written extensively on animated films and ecological issues I wonder what you think about this particular film.
    Thanks!

  7. Joseph Heumann, Eastern Illinois University says:

    Hi Virginia:
    Yes, we argue a number of times in a few of our books, including the chapter on White God, that it’s ok to be “carefully anthropomorphic,” but also add, as Haraway points out, it’s kind of a two way street. In this case dogs have their own ideas about us.
    The film, though not for us in this work, can clearly be connected to the “mongrel revolution” idea and perhaps it might be used that way when people see it. Using dogs this way also exploits and perhaps in a good way the powers of the anthropomorphic.
    We love Chicken Run and it’s easy use of the POW movies to transition to chickens realizing that they have to break free. We are big Aardman fans and write extensively about Wallace and Gromit in Ecocinema and the City. We thought a lot about Chicken Run when writing about industrial farming for an earlier book. It’s hard to be a chicken these days. The conditions are abysmal, the resulting trauma to animals and to the environment, due to their mass production, is frightening.

    • Virginia Luzón-Aguado, University of Zaragoza says:

      Indeed! I’ll have to check out that section in Ecocinema and the City. Thanks

      • kiuwaichu says:

        Hi Robin and Joe,
        Thanks for the wonderful analysis on White God. While I have not seen the film yet (but really want to see it now after listening to your video), the feelings and behavior of Hagen and his clan do seem hugely anthropomorphised to me, but I agree with the need of some extent of anthropomorphism in cinematic representations of nonhuman animals. And since Virginia has mentioned Chicken Run and animated films you have researched a lot on, I wonder if you’ve thought of discussing White God in relation to Isles of Dogs?

        Best,
        Kiu-wai

  8. Joseph Heumann, Eastern Illinois University says:

    Hi Kiu-wai:
    We haven’t seen Isle of Dogs yet, but we will report on that when we do.

  9. rlmurray50 says:

    Yes, thank you so much for your comment and intriguing question. We’re definitely looking forward to seeing *Isle of Dogs* and hope to make connections with it in later work.

  10. Christy Tidwell, South Dakota School of Mines & Technology says:

    James, thanks for your presentation on Bojack Horseman. This is such a fascinating show and your approach to it is intriguing. I have a couple of suggestions and a question for you.

    First, the suggestions. You might find Thomas Lamarre’s idea of plasmaticity (which I mention briefly in my talk in Panel 1) useful for your discussion of these animated characters. If you’re not already familiar with her work, I’d also recommend Stacy Alaimo’s Exposed: Environmental Politics and Pleasures in Posthuman Times (2016). She writes about some of the same issues you raise with Morton but is more optimistic. She also has a great chapter in that book on queer animals that might be helpful for your argument.

    And the question. You argue in the first half of your presentation that the show resists cute depiction through its queerness and then turn to the specific episode. Can you elaborate further on how those specific ideas of cuteness and queerness play out in the episode? You say, “While the show itself seems to reject this move to make nature and the animal world pleasant, the characters themselves find it difficult to break free from this conception of nature.” Here I see a development of your earlier points about cuteness – what role do you see the show’s queerness playing here?

    • JamesMCochran says:

      Sorry, I missed this! The notification ended up in my spam.

      Thanks for the suggestions. I know Alaimo’s work but not Lammere. I’ll check that out.

      Thanks, too, for the question. As I expand this, I’ll have to be more explicit about how this episode fits into my cuteness / queerness argument. At the end of the “Chicken 4 Dayz” episode, BoJack, Dianne, and Todd end up settling with a pastoral vision of “Nature” with Becca relaxing in a field. I take this pastoral vision to be an ancestor of cute visions of nature (both imagine “Nature” as calm and peaceful). In contrast to this image of cute and pastoral “Nature,” I see Becca as a queer figure, who was designed and raised as a chicken meant for consumption but, because she escapes, Todd interacts with her more as a social chicken. She ends up in this liminal position between food and friend. There’s also something unsettling about Becca’s inability to speak a human language (among all the other animal characters who speak fluently). Watching animals who speak English already pushes against our expectations, and then seeing an animal who can’t speak English pushes against our new expectations (that in BoJack’s world, animal talk). Becca unsettles the audience because of this.

  11. Joseph Heumann, Eastern Illinois University says:

    Hi James:
    Thanks for the piece on Bojack. He’s a ribald update on Mr Ed. I would recommend That’s All Folks? Eco Critical Readings of American Animated Features(2012) for an extended examination of your concerns. There are numerous examples of “non cute” animals and, of course, you have to watch Ralph Bakshi’s Fritz the Cat for the most transgressive creations of animals in American animated features.
    And then there is Brian from Family Guy. Speaks the best English in the family, has sex with plenty of humans, writes for The New Yorker and wants to kill Peter so he can take over his bed with Lois in it. He smokes and drinks martinis, too. Not too mention everything you can see on Robot Chicken.

  12. Joseph Heumann, Eastern Illinois University says:

    Hi James:
    Further cuteness/queerness investigations can also look into Bugs Bunny’s ability to flummox his adversary,Elmer Fudd, by cross dressing, Fudd turns from hunter to smitten in an instant. This long running gag reaches it’s final heights in Chuck Jones’ “What’s Opera Doc?”

    • JamesMCochran says:

      Ah yeah, that’s right. Haven’t thought about “What’s Opera Doc?” in a long time. Now, I know what I’ll be doing this evening. Thanks!

Comments are closed.