There is a gorilla that knows sign language. Sure, everybody has heard of Koko by now, but when you actually sit back and think about it, it’s a little strange. This gorilla can sit there and express what it wants and what it’s feeling in very basic terms using sign language. ‘Koko: A Talking Gorilla’ gives us a look at this amazing gorilla’s life (in the late 70’s when the film was shot of course), and the dedicated research of her caretaker/teacher/maternal figure, Dr. Penny Patterson.

Director Barbet Schroeder, who’s better known for his fictional films (Barfly, Single White Female, Desperate Measures), and cinematographer Nestor Almendros (John Lennon: Imagine, Kramer vs. Kramer) capture some great moments between Koko and Dr. Patterson. We see Koko looking through a View master, playing with dolls, and putting on makeup with predictably ‘cute’ results. But among those moments of amazement and curiosity are questions of ethics in regards to Koko’s life as a human. Patterson herself admits that she thinks of Koko as a person, and assumes that if Koko were to return to a zoo environment, she would become depressed and probably eventually die. An interview with Saul Kitchner, the Director of the San Francisco Zoo, gives us the other side of the story. Kitchner strongly believes that Koko should be living her life as a Gorilla and that Dr. Patterson’s research is instilling human traits into something that is not human. Gorillas don’t know good or bad, they just exist as Gorilla’s. Of course he admits that he will be looked at as the ‘bad guy’ because of his views, but he says it doesn’t bother him.

For me, watching this film had me torn. I didn’t see Kitchner as the bad guy. Even though Koko’s abilities amazed me, I couldn’t help but be slightly put off by watching a wild animal ‘acting’ human. This raises many difficult questions. If Koko has the communication skills of a small child, does it in turn deserve the rights of a human child? The film’s narrator asks if someone were to murder Koko, would they be given the same punishment as if they killed a human? The answer is probably pretty clear…no. But what separates Koko from us? The ability to feel, self-awareness, self-reflection…these are all things that are human. I do believe that Koko has seemingly expressed some of these human traits. But it’s pretty easy to humanize something. (Anybody see that Ikea commercial where you feel sorry for the lamp?) But just when you begin to forget that Koko is a wild animal, there are moments in the film which bring you back to reality, and the realization sinks in that at any moment, Koko could seriously harm or even kill Dr. Patterson.

Although I was aware of Koko before seeing this film, I knew very little about the methods in which she was being taught and raised. Some viewers may think of ‘Koko: A Talking Gorilla’ as a sort of love story, celebrating the bond between a human caretaker and her pet gorilla. Through more cynical eyes, it’s a film that deals with the question of ethics, evolution, and what makes us human. Or in this case, what makes Koko human.