Top Tens – Film: Top 10 Animated Films (9) Zootopia

Poster art of the film’s extensive character cast

 

 

(9) ZOOTOPIA

(ZOOTOPIA 1-2 2016-2025 – yes, I’m anticipating the sequel)

 

Who doesn’t love anthropomorphic animals? Of course, Zootopia is a whole world exclusively of anthropomorphic animals (and it won’t be the only such world in my top ten animated films), a world very much like ours but with every other mammal in our place.

Although…when you take it too seriously (and I take my fictional worlds way too seriously), Zootopia is not quite the utopia its name suggests. As Cracked has pointed out, for the sake of a few rabbit sex jokes, Zootopia is about to go post-apocalyptic from total ecological collapse – in about a week or so. “Zootopia is a movie about the brief halcyon days of an imperious city as it remains wilfully blind to its inevitable doom”.

Alternatively, as I have mused before, is The Island of Doctor Moreau the grim backstory of Zootopia? You know, after he unleashed his army of beast-men and women on an unsuspecting humanity…

But enough of that – Zootopia is a film that is equally cute, funny and heartwarming, a “3D computer animated buddy cop comedy mystery adventure film” as cute protagonist rabbit police officer Judy Hopps, pairs up with slick fox con artist Nick Wilde.

The animation is lush and visually spectacular – they developed fur-controlling software (iGroom) – with thoughtful themes for the contemporary society the animal world reflects.

I’m looking forward to the sequel film coming out in 2025.

 

FANTASY OR SF

 

Well perhaps SF with some extensive genetic engineering but I’m going to rank this as fantasy – classic beast fable mode!

 

COMEDY

 

Definitely a comedy – from the odd couple protagonists to gags on animal characteristics as adapted to what would otherwise be an human urban environment.

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP-TIER)

Top Tens – History (WW2): Top 10 Nazi-Soviet Wars / Nazi-Soviet War Iceberg (Part 4: 9-10)

German advances during the opening phases of Operation Barbarossa from 22 June 1941 to 25 August 1941 – public domain image map by the History Department of the US Military Academy

 

 

(9) SOVIET-BULGARIAN WAR

 

And now we have the first of two wars that were effectively separate from the Nazi-Soviet war but connected to it.

Bulgaria was an Axis ally of Germany but was careful not to declare war against the Soviet Union and to remain as neutral as possible in Germany’s war with it, although Bulgaria was very much involved as a Germany ally against Greece and Yugoslavia.

I say as neutral as possible because the Bulgarian navy did participate in Axis convoys in the Black Sea as well as skirmishes with the Soviet Black Sea Fleet. Bulgaria also sent delegations of high-ranking officers, including the Chief of General of the Bulgarian Army, to German-occupied territory in the Soviet Union, as demonstration of its commitment to the alliance.

However, Bulgaria’s stance of official neutrality towards the Soviets did not save them from Soviet occupation or installation of a communist government, despite Bulgaria scrambling at the last moment to declare war against Germany. The Soviet Union declared war on Bulgaria, such that on 8 September 1944 Bulgaria “was simultaneously at war with four major belligerents of the war: Germany, Britain, the USA, and the USSR”.

Of course, of those four belligerents, only one counted – the Soviet Union, which invaded Bulgaria the following day without resistance by Bulgaria.

 

(10) HUNGARIAN-ROMANIAN WAR

 

The second of two wars effectively separate from the Nazi-Soviet war but connected to it – although the term war is overstating the hostility between them, which did not break out into actual war, at least while both were allies of Germany. Cold war might be a better term.

There was a Hungarian-Romanian war but it was in the immediate aftermath of the First World War, from 13 November 1918 to 3 August 1919. Not surprisingly, Romania won, given that Hungary was one part of the dual monarchy of the Austro-Hungarian Empire that had gone down to catastrophic defeat by the Allies.

During the First World War however, it had been Romania that had gone down to catastrophic defeat on the Allied side, although it had a reversal of fortune from the final Allied victory.

That saw Romania gain the longstanding source of hostility between it and Hungary – Transylvania, which had a majority Romanian population but which had been controlled by Hungary, either as a kingdom of itself or as part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Another Hungarian-Romanian war loomed as Hungary sought to reclaim Transylvania, but Germany “arbitrated” the cession by Romania to Hungary of Northern Transylvania in August 1940 – obviously favoring Hungary as an ally as opposed to a Romania that was still nominally a British ally by Britain’s military guarantee to Romania (in much the same terms as its guarantee to Poland).

Romania became a German Axis ally under the new fascist government of Antonescu on 23 November 1940 but remained hostile to Hungary, such that Romanian troops in the Soviet Union could not be stationed alongside their Hungarian counterparts for fear of them fighting each other.

Romania under Antonescu apparently considered a war with Hungary over Transylvania an inevitability after German victory over the Soviet Union. As it was, Romania got its war with Hungary as well as Northern Transylvania back – not under Antonescu or as a German ally but on the Allied side fighting alongside the Soviets against the Germans and Hungarians from September 1944.

Top Tens – Tropes & Other: Top 10 Stone Ages / Stone Age Iceberg (Part 4: 6-7)

Gjantija Temples in Gozo, Malta, 3600-2500 BC, by Bone A and used as the feature image for Wikipedia “Stone Age” under license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

 

 

(6) GOLDEN STONE AGE

 

Paleo paradise!

Or Neolithic mommy utopia?

“Man was born free and everywhere he is in chains!”

It’s the Golden Stone Age – that recurring rosy-eyed view of the Stone Age or at least our primal past as Garden of Eden, from which it’s all been downhill for humanity afterwards.

No, seriously – I may be caricaturing it somewhat but there has indeed been recurring claims or theories of the Stone Age as ideal or idealized state of humanity, although they differ widely in detail and intellectual rigor (or elements of truth).

There’s probably enough for their own top ten but perhaps the most famous is the French philosopher Rousseau’s state of nature, itself preceded by the longstanding European concept of the noble savage.

Throw in notions of a peaceful prehistory, environmental harmony, Neolithic matriarchy, Marxist primitive communism, Marshall Sahlin’s Stone Age Economics or Original Affluent Society, anarcho-primitivism or so on and you’ve got yourself a heady if eclectic brew.

However, one thing such claims of the Golden Stone Age have in common, consistent with the Stone Age as Garden of Eden, is a fall – although where that fall, well, falls differs on the details where they place the Garden.

A commonly argued one is the horizon between the Paleolithic and Neolithic – with the advent of agriculture, and even more so the state as it moved into the Bronze Age. Personally, I like to see the fall argued in the other direction, with the fall of homo sapiens from Neanderthal paradise or a hominin Garden of Eden. Or to borrow from the words of Grant Morrison writing for the Animal Man comic – “We should never have come down from the trees. We’ve fallen so far and there’s still no bottom”.

 

(7) DARK STONE AGE

 

“The life of man…solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”.

Bellum omnium contra omnes – “the war of all against all” or Hobbesian state of nature.

It’s the Dark Stone Age, the competing contention to the Golden Stone Age – although I am inclined to believe that the real Stone Age had elements of both.

Claims or theories of the Dark Stone Age are perhaps not quite as varied as those of the Golden Stone Age, with a focus on violence. English philosopher Thomas Hobbes famously proposed that the original “state of nature” of humanity was inherently violent – the war of all against all in which “the life of man” is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”.

That proposal of violent prehistory continues – it essentially boils down to those who argue for prehistoric war and violence, potentially at even higher rates than those in recorded history (at least as supported by evidence of violent deaths), against those who argue for more peaceful prehistory. I tend towards the former, influenced by books such as Azar Gat’s War and Human Civilization.