This blog post was originally composed as a YouTube comment on this video. I enjoyed the revisit and analysis of The Fox and the Hound; it's been ages since I saw that movie. Thanks to KeyTheLich for making it.
Now, here's my two cents...
There's an aspect of the conflict here that I'm surprised not to see brought up in the comments yet. You mention themes of war. But not specifically of class warfare, police, and criminals - or people considered to be more likely to resort to crime.
I don't think it's any mistake that the names of the dogs are "Chief" and "Copper" - nicknames for a police chief and a cop. They defend and empower a particular order of things, which in turn empowers them. That's Amos, in this film. By contrast this puts the fox in the role of a criminal - or someone accused and presumed a criminal. Foxes are often cast in such a role. He is accused outright - Amos claimed he was trying to steal chickens. We can understand the assumption, but he's wrong; Tod only wanted to play with his friend Copper.
When Tod manages somehow to dodge the train, it's not his own action which hurts Chief directly, but he is nevertheless blamed for leading him into a deadly situation. This blame, warranted or not, causes him to lose everything: the shelter and support of the widow who doesn't believe she can protect him anymore. And also the respect of Copper, too overwhelmed by hurt about Chief's injury (or death) to stop and think about whether it's Tod's fault. Hunting Tod is something he can do with the grief and rage, so he doesn't stop to question whether it's *right* anymore.
The analogy? People accused or suspected of crimes are often reviled and pursued. Partly by people who are desperate for something they can do to make up for a bad situation, much like this - who are tempted to act without slowing down to make sure that their actions are directed in the right place. The damage to the reputation of the accused cost them dearly, and subject them to isolation and loneliness - people of higher standing may shun them or turn their backs because they don't want to be associated with "criminal types". All of this can happen even when the individual is entirely innocent of any crime - and it can easily happen as a response to them acting outside the role expected of their race or background, which other people will look upon with suspicion, thinking there's no good reason for someone "of that type" to be where they are, or doing what they're doing.
Yes, I think this cartoon film is an effective allegory of race and class profiling, stereotypes and the struggle of those caught trying to uphold a "duty" which can push them to go too far. They are in Copper's position, struggling to resolve the conflict between a desire to excel in their role and all the good it stands for like defending the innocent... and the empathy to recognize that the people they are ordered to "protect" against may be innocent too. Or could have been friends.
It's incredibly hard to break out of the roles defined by a system, like that.
Tod needed to go to heroic lengths, showing great personal bravery and integrity of character, before Copper was willing to look at him with fresh eyes and realize that none of it had ever really been Tod's fault and he was still 'a good person'.
Copper, someone "inside" the system, standing up to his leader and directly refusing his orders, was a similar act of bravery which was also necessary to put an end to the persecution - he is in much less danger standing up to Amos than Tod was standing up to the bear, since Amos doesn't want to hurt him, but it's still a big scary risk he's taking. He might lose his position, and his leader's respect.
I think it's important that Copper never attacks or threatens Amos. In silent but clearly communicated body language, he says 'no', and persuades him. Amos has the power to physically move Copper aside and kill Tod anyway, but he doesn't... Because there is enough of a bond between Amos and Copper that Amos is willing to "listen" when Copper "tells him" that what he's doing is wrong, and it hurts him so much to be asked to participate in it that he'd rather put his job and his master's respect on the line than continue.
Yes. I think that is pretty much what it takes to fight unjust persecution.
And what does that say about our anti-villain? Amos, who trains and employs the hunting dogs / police?
Well... that's society and politics, isn't it? The story can be a happy one, when we're willing to accept the pain and embarrassment of admitting our mistakes, letting go of our foolish preconceptions and vendettas, and hobbling home to find some other way to deal with our wounded pride.
No comments:
Post a Comment