Radio IST List: Graham Williams
Austinist's Will Mills Gets Dunked For Charity [Video]
Bibles and Rhymes: An Interview with Why?'s Yoni Wolf
We heard a lot of buzz around Robinson Devor's dramatic bestiality documentary Zoo at South by Southwest this year, but we just couldn't fit any of the screenings into our already-packed SXSW schedule. So when Zoo showed up on the schedule at Toronto's HotDocs festival last month, we jumped at the chance to see it.
Here's the thing about Zoo: it's about dudes having sex with horses. Or rather, horses having sex with dudes, if you know what we mean. Specifically, it's the story of "Mr. Hands", a Seattle man who died of internal injuries after a sexual encounter with a full-sized stallion at a farm near Enumclaw, Washington in 2005. And while that might sound like an exploitive, sensational subject for a documentary, Devor's gorgeous visuals and sober, compassionate tone almost trick you into thinking that it isn't.
Just in case you're wondering (and we know you are), there is no explicit stallion sex in the film--though there's some squirm-inducing talk of horse genitalia, and a scene with very brief snippets of a horseytime home video. Most of the film, however, is made up of slick, stylized dramatic recreations, with narration provided by some of the other zoophiles involved in the infamous incident (not all agreed to participate in the film). It's an unusual format for a documentary, and it probably makes the film infinitely more watchable than if it were the usual talking heads and still photos.
But here's the tricky part--Devor very obviously goes to great lengths to humanize the zoophiles. He asks us to accept these people as regular, all-American folks who just happen to "love the horses" more than most. And at the film's best moments, he succeeds. For a brief period, Zoo had us questioning our who outlook on horse sex--maybe even our entire definition of love. After all, these folks didn't break any laws (at the time, bestiality was not illegal in the state of Washington), they reportedly didn't injure any animals, and they seem to genuinely care for their four-legged lovers. So what's the big deal?
But after the lights came up and we'd gotten in our car and driven home, we realized that we'd been tricked. We didn't empathize with the characters because they'd been wronged in any way--we empathized with them because of the sad music, the lopsided representation and the slow-motion drama. We'd been convinced by the form, not the facts. So now we were confused about how we felt (and still are, to be quite honest).
Devor himself has said that he "aestheticized the sleaze right out" the film, and maybe that's true. If it is, it raises interesting questions about the nature of documentary filmmaking. Is it okay to be biased, as long as you're upfront about it? Is it okay to exploit a sensational tragedy, so long as it doesn't feel exploitive? Are all documentaries exploitive by nature, redeemed or condemned only by their aesthetics?
We still have a lot of thinking to do about Zoo. So while we can't give you a simple thumbs-up or thumbs-down, we can tell you that you'll definitely leave the theatre creeped out. And then you'll talk about it endlessly. Sound good to you?
Zoo is screening for ONE WEEK ONLY at the Dobie theatre, starting tonight.
Showtimes and tickets here.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
i'll go out on a limb and predict the folks that ride horses won't agree with you
Um... okay. On which point?