Zoo

Zoo was a difficult film to watch. Not only because its subject matter is so taboo, but also because of its slow pace and difficulties in narration. Like the rest of the world, filmmakers Robinson Devor and Charles Mudede were shocked by the events which took place in Washington after the death of a local man who suffered a ruptured colon after having sex with an Arabian stallion. The man's death led to the uncovering of an Internet community dedicated to zoophilia. Director Robinson Devor felt that the media coverage of these events left out the psychological aspect of the story and said he sought to find the "universal humanity" in the events through his documentary.

The film was certainly objective. The filmmakers remained a step removed from the story, relying on the narration of fellow zoophile acquaintances of the deceased man as well as of the woman who rescued the horses involved in the incident. One problem with this was that the men's voices sounded very similar and it was very difficult to tell who was speaking throughout the story as it skipped around through place and time.

The tone of the film was very somber and as I said, it moved quite slowly. Devor obviously resisted sensationalizing the events and attempted to create a poetic aesthetic experience for the story. He recreated events in order to convey the emotions of those involved, which in many ways interfered with his objective self removal from the story. I am a bit skeptical of his approach, because I do not think that a film maker chooses this type of subject matter with the sole intent to downplay its shock value.

I was very surprised to learn that this film received an award at the Sundance Film Festival and was picked up for distribution by THINKFilm. I just cannot picture anyone walking into Blockbuster and renting or buying this documentary. Also, I personally did not feel engaged by the film. I was glad when it was over, not because I was disturbed by the subject matter, but because the film dragged on. I did not feel connected to the men telling their stories as the filmmakers intended. They were portrayed as complete social outsiders, but there was never really any indication as to why they felt so disconnected from the rest of society and so connected to animals. Only the deceased man was represented as having an actual life, but he was a secondary character, a moment of the past rather than someone to empathize with.

I think the attention this film has received has to do with the shock value of the subject matter rather than the effectiveness of the film itself. It failed to engage me on an emotional level at all.