A Tale of Tolerance: Why “Fantastic Mr. Fox” Transcends Political Correctness
A charming, yet cunning and exceedingly carnivorous fox takes up residence near the farms of three prominent agriculturalists. The farmers are, understandably, alarmed.
One anonymous viewer online perfectly encapsulated the film: “It’s so refreshing that Wes Anderson made a film without those overused actors.” “Fantastic Mr. Fox” truly dispenses with the “overused” actors, and for viewers unable to watch the original, even their voices are absent. George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Bill Murray…
This wealth of talent is reserved for those who understand English or, at the very least, don’t mind subtitles. However, there’s a strong belief that even those unable to appreciate the original voice acting will find much to marvel at. The fact is, with its furry characters, jerky animation, and atmosphere of warm absurdity, “Mr. Fox…” is reminiscent of the golden age of “Soyuzmultfilm” productions.
Remember those great puppet animations that children were reluctant to watch, yet adults adored? This is “Mr. Fox…,” with the added caveat that “Soyuzmultfilm,” for various production reasons, never made full-length puppet features.
The Heart of the Story
If we peel back the layer of charming madness that Wes Anderson drapes over each of his creations, the story of Mr. Fox emerges as a rather traditional tale of rebellion (a similar approach was taken, for example, in the latest “Shrek”). Enslaved and pacified by adult family life, the protagonist openly demonstrates to those around him that one cannot go against nature.
A badger must remain a badger, a rat a rat, and a fox will be a fox, despite writing a newspaper column and living under the reproachful gaze of his wife.
The Question of Instinct
And should we condemn the fox for raiding the henhouse? There is no easy answer to this question. “I am, after all, a wild animal,” says Mr. Fox, urging the viewer to take a closer look at themselves while convincingly and predatorily devouring pancakes.