Friends of The Documentary Blog are more than aware of the buzz caused by director Robinson Devor’s documentary ‘Zoo’. The film found early success at Sundance after being picked up by THINKFilm, but it looks like some early reviews haven’t been as favourable as we’d hoped. The wonderous website /Film has given the film a suprising 2 out of 10, stating that horribly exucted re-enactments caused some unintentional laughter throughout the audience. Over at Film Threat, Jeff Goldsmith expressed his dissapointment in the film thanks to a tone that took itself a little too seriously.
I find this interesting. First off, i’ll say that I have yet to see Zoo, so i’m forming my opinioins based on the few reviews that have i’ve read. That said, as much as some people seem disgusted at the idea of a documentary film that deals with beastiality, others are dissapointed at the filmmakers choice to curb the sensationalism (something a film like this would seem to inherently contain) by focusing on less extreme events of the story, choosing to spare the audience of the true shock and horror of what really went on. This may seem like a classy move, but this may have ultimately hurt the film. I think Zoo is a rare example where sensationalism is possibly the only way to go. The topic is so unbelievably ridiculous that treating it with anything other than a sense of humour and brutal honesty would be robbing an audience of an interesting look at an underground culture that’s both hard to understand and tough to take seriously. Sundance programmer John Cooper says Robinson Devor’s filmmaking is ‘as smart as it is eloquent’, which may be the problem. There’s no hiding the fact that Zoo is about a horse having sex with a man, and there’s nothing smart or eloquent about that.
Yeah I think you’re right. It’s pointless to act like this movie would be made if it hadn’t been a horse. If this man had died going to some sort of gay brothel there would be no movie.
It seems the problem is, that besides from having sex with horses, this person isn’t really that interesting, which comes to no surprise to anybody.
A quick update on ZOO, to counter the “disappointing” entry above:
A breathtakingly original nonfiction work by Seattle-based filmmaker Robinson Devor (whose “Police Beat” was among the highlights of Sundance’s 2005 dramatic competition). A subdued, mysterious and intensely beautiful film that presents bestiality not for the purpose of titillation or comic relief, but as a way of investigating the subjective nature of morality. A fascinating blurring of the line between narrative and documentary storytelling, reminiscent of the work of Werner Herzog and Errol Morris. They also offer further evidence of Devor’s gifts as a visual storyteller: When he turns his camera on the world, it’s as though he is seeing everything for the first time, whether it’s the city lights of Seattle shining like diamonds under an evening sky or the unspoiled natural vistas of rural Washington.
Scott Foundras, Variety
One of the most beautiful films of the year, let alone at Sundance. By contrasting the stunning images of nature against the cool environs of civilization, Devor makes a persuasive, provocative and deeply profound case for tolerance and understanding in the face of the seemingly most incomprehensible of acts. A dreamy contemplation of man, nature and morality… and a ravishingly beautiful film.
Anthony Kaufman, IndieWire
It’s hard to imagine a more cinematic Sundance film. Robinson Devor’s Zoo achieves the seemingly impossible: It tells the luridly reported tale of a Pacific Northwest businessman’s fatal sexual encounter with a horse in a way that’s haunting rather than shocking and tender beyond reason.
Rob Nelson, The Village Voice
Remarkably, an elegant, eerily lyrical film has resulted about a forbidden subject. A perfect marriage between a cool and contemplative director and potentially incendiary subject matter. A strange and strangely beautiful film.
Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times
Masterful.
Denis Lim, New York Times
Unsettling precisely because it is more atmospheric than graphic, more romantic than journalistic, Zoo examines the culture of zoophiles, people with an erotic attraction to animals… it has notes of Werner Herzog’s 2005 documentary Grizzly Man, and caused festival goers to launch into heated debates on the shuttle buses and in the cafes of Park City about such unlikely subjects as whether a stallion can actually give consent and precisely how he might do so.
Rebecca Winders, Time
One of the most provocatively made movies at Sundance. The film balances morality, philosophy, and shame with a kind of sympathy for both the men and the animals. It’s an immersive feat of filmmaking.
Wesley Morris, Boston Globe
Never prurient or scandalous, Zoo is a probing meditation on nature and man’s relation to it.
Peter Bowen, Senior Editor, Filmmaker Magazine
Devor treats the subject with a formally sophisticated and almost dreamy beauty. The most truly shocking thing about the movie was how strenuously anti-sensational it was. he only thing that could be more jolting than a movie about men fornicating with horses would be a tasteful movie about men fornicating with horses – which Zoo most decidedly is.
Geoff Pevere
Toronto Star
Hey Alexis,
Glad to see the positive responses. Just wondering what the typical reaction has been to the film. It seems to me like audiences would be somewhat polarized, but according to your comment it looks like there’s a fair share of critical acclaim.
Well I’ve done a few things in my life I’m not too proud of, creating so called humans may indeed be one of them…
That said, there is no such thing as an original sin… the problem here is that you silly humans actually think your seperate from other animals? Newsflash!, your all animals or as I like to think of it, my little experiments… When you realize that your all just food and entertainment for each other you might just get on with life. Or just blow the whole place up! either way I don’t care, your almost there anyways…
I’ve moved onto another Universe, but good luck!
GOD.