Colonization, Sublation & Boggis, Bunce, and Bean

Cover photo: Català: Festa Major de Gràcia 2022 (Barcelona), carrer de Mozart by Enric, retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:088_Festa_Major_de_Gràcia_2022_(Barcelona),_carrer_de_Mozart.jpg. Used under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en)

“For a colonized people the most essential value, because the most concrete, is first and foremost the land: the land which will bring them bread and, above all, dignity”

Fanon, Frantz. “Concerning Violence.” Wretched of the Earth, Grove Press, New York, NY, 1963, p. 44.

---

On and idyllic hill amongst endless, sepia fields of grain, a Fox plucks an apple from a tree. A thief by nature and by trade, he takes the rare opportunity to indulge in natures' bounty for free. Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009), directed by Wes Anderson, is a stop-motion animation film based off of the Roald Dahl story by the same name. Both stories depict the life of an anthropomorphic fox, offering a facsimile of the material world, and an allegory for the human-animal relationship. In Fantastic Mr. Fox’s world, the conflict between Mr. Fox, and the main antagonists, Boggis, Bunce, and Bean demonstrates that the nature of a fox, his means to survival, and his dignity are constantly in question in his world, and ours. On the surface, the film is about a family of foxes living outside of a small, rural town, among a collection of farms. The three major farms, known for their innovation in unique animal products are owned by the three magnates of the region: Boggis, Bunce and Bean. Throughout the run-time of the film, Anderson explores the dialectical relationship between the animals and the farmers, and the internal identity crisis of the fox. In order for the animals to exist, they must avoid conflict with the farmers, and in order for the farmers to exist, they must exert a level of control over the animal world, and impose themselves upon it. As the events of the film unfold, it becomes clear that systemic violence, eradication, and all forms of pseudo-colonization of the animals (who only steal meager amounts of food) are not even a question for the farmers, but a way of life. The livelihood of Boggis, Bunce, and Bean depends on a philosophy of crime and punishment, law and order, and principle, rather than any material effect to the profits of the farms themselves. In fact, they only lose the stock of their storehouses after pushing the animals to their limits, after attempting to starve them, washing them away into the furthest recesses of the sewer with a flood of apple cider in the film's second act. The world of Fantastic Mr. Fox is not the animals' world, or the foxes world. Despite the existence of animal schools, law firms, and realty, the film's central conflict makes it clear that the animals live in the world of Boggis, Bunce, and Bean. The apple picked from the tree upon the idyllic hill is a rare occurrence, and one that's fleeting. The farms exist as an imposition upon the natural world, and do just as much to characterize the three farmers as their design and the cinematography. This idea is expressed within the true opening sequence, where following the tranquil picking of an apple, we are introduced to the real Mr. Fox. He is a thief, an acrobat, and almost childlike in nature. The farms themselves are his playground, his convenience store, the "scenic route" in an otherwise monotonous world. They are a projection of the society in which he lives, one that he must deal with. He does so with grace, leaping across a planimetric shot and performing impossible stunts, even for a stop-motion fox. He and his wife stare inquisitively at a Squab Farm, as one does with the latest store that pops up on a corner you've known all your life, or a new McDonald's where a local restaurant used to be. The farms are as much a part of nature and his urban landscape as the rolling pastures, the clouds that paint the sky, and the apple tree from which nature's bounty can be picked for free. The land will bring him bread, and dignity, but it does not belong to him. Boggis, Bunce, and Bean, and the empire of human-kind are not a force that exists by the residents' choice, but one that defines their society all the same. Even before the inciting incident of the plot, where Mr. Fox decides to steal from each of the three farmers, his pregnant wife, who literally glows with happiness and hope for life, is almost killed alongside him for attempting to steal a single squab. The characterization of the fox through the two opening sequences, the serene picking of an apple, and the acrobatic prologue (set to sound of the Beach Boys' "Heroes and Villains") is meant to demonstrate the protagonist's fatal flaw (a love for fun, thievery, and whimsical mischief); but further elucidates a theme that continues through the rest of the film... in order to live and live happily, a fox must be a fox, even if it breaks the rules.

Photo: Sleepy Fox by Peter Trimming, retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/55426027@N03/5297190935 Used under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en) What is happiness for an anthropomorphic fox? What are its terms and conditions? What more could a fox want than a home, a family, and a job? These are the textual questions that are presented by the film and its characters in the first act. Following his near-death experience with his pregnant wife, Mr. Fox makes a promise that he will "never steal another chicken, goose, turkey, duck, or squab, whatever they are" and lives a quiet life as a newspaper columnist with Mrs. Fox and the son they almost lost, Ash. The essential moments of act one focus solely on ideas of Mr. Fox's happiness and his place within the world. He laments to his wife that nobody reads his news column and that he does not want to live in a hole anymore because "it makes [him] feel poor”. His wife retorts that her friends do and that "[they] are poor", pausing a moment and adding that “foxes live in holes for a reason”. He leaves home to check out a new tree, somewhere above ground where he and his family can live a more luxurious life. The first act continues to build upon ideas of Mr. Fox's identity and bring the impending conflict with Boggis, Bunce, and Bean into full view.

The three are properly introduced as Mr. Fox stares out of the window of his prospective new home. The three farms are visible directly across from the home and in classic Andersonian fashion, they are each centered perfectly. This stylistic choice serves a direct purpose, these farms are inescapable, looming, and are methodically etched into the mind of Mr. Fox through the camera. Each is shown in turn, Boggis.... Bunce.... Bean. The weasel realtor (voiced by Wes Anderson) interrupts, "May I ask what you do for a living Mr. Fox?". He remarks that he "used to steal birds but [he's] a newspaper man". It goes without stating that if anyone actually did read his newspaper column, they would never ask this, but I'll state it anyway. The weasel's reply is even more damning, a simple "Oh sure, I've seen your by-line.", which is followed by an equally damning "Hm." from Mr. Fox. Without the need for any explicit declaration, we understand, as viewers, that the fox is not happy with his station in life. He has a home, a family, a job, and is about to purchase and even better home, but he does not have even the same freedom shown in the opening sequence, agency over the land, or the animals he hunts. There is clearly a subconscious desire that exists within Mr. Fox. He states that he doesn't want to be poor "and [he's] gonna do something about it". This line perfectly characterizes his motivations throughout the story, he knows something is wrong in the back of his mind, attributing his feelings to superficial aspects of his life. On a larger level, which is clear to the viewer through the depiction of Mr. Fox's life and his home, it is clear that something is amiss with the woods in which the animals live. They seem happy, are depicted in beautiful tones of yellow and orange, and the cinematic lighting of Wes Anderson's worlds, but as is often the case in his movies, the protagonist senses that something is wrong and goes about fixing it in a way that is unique to them, and without a clear goal in mind. Anderson depicts a beautiful day at the Foxes new tree home, pne of family, fun, and relaxation, but close-ups of the protagonist staring wistfully into the fields make it clear that this is not enough for Mr. Fox. The inciting incident has already occurred. Even if it is not explicitly revealed to the viewer yet, Mr. Fox will take on Boggis, Bunce, and Bean and we can sense it just as much as he can. His identity as a husband and father cannot override the struggle within and his other identities of a thief, and first and foremost, a fox. He laments this on the roof of the home with Kylie, as he reveals his Master Plan. He ponders against the background of the deep blue night sky, "Who am I Kylie?" why a fox why not a horse or a beetle or a bald eagle?... how can a fox ever be happy without.. a .. you'll forgive the expression.. a chicken in its teeth". Kylie replies, "I don't know what you're talking about but it sounds illegal".

Photo: The Grand Budapest Hotel SXSW 2014-.jpg by Anna Hanks, retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/annaustin/15630130517/ Used under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en) What is a fox without a chicken in its teeth? What is a concierge without guests to serve? What is a young playwright with no one left to direct? These questions of identity come up frequently in Wes Anderson's films and drive the central conflict and contradictions of the characters in them. Monsieur Gustave H. takes the utmost pride in his work as a concierge at The Grand Budapest Hotel (2015) but it takes almost the entire film for us to understand that what he really wants is a legacy. Max Fischer from Rushmore wants to be a director, to take on as many responsibilities as possible at his school, but by the end of the film we realize he only wants familial, and sexual, love. Characters with unknown and contradictory desires are nothing new in cinema, but the erratic nature of Anderson's characters are a hallmark of his films and add to their enigmatic nature. Despite his storybook approach to filmmaking, his characters cannot survive on a storybook definition of happiness or success, and often sense there is something that they need to do but cannot determine what it is until throwing a hundred solutions at the wall. This is where the story of Fantastic Mr. Fox really shines and where the protagonist's inner struggles explain more about his character and his world than any amount of exposition could. It takes the full events of the film unfolding for answers to start coming to the surface. Additionally, the irony of the conversation is purposeful by Anderson: to Kylie, it sounds illegal for a fox to act on his most primal instincts, to hunt prey, and it in fact is in the world of Boggis, Bunce, and Bean. The nature of the animals, their need to mimic humans, and stay away from trouble is one that spans the entire film and is the most central theme in the film. Nearly all animals depicted in Fantastic Mr. Fox fill societal roles which are influenced by the human world. Most animals fulfill these roles, they are happy with their homes, families, and jobs. Lawful animals, those who do not confront humans, or those who directly serve them, such as Bean's rat security guard, survive (for a time). This sentiment is expressed directly by the lawyer Badger, following the assault on the tree by the farmers. He states that "a lot of good animals are probably gonna die because of you", addressing Mr. Fox directly. This sentiment is meant to be personal, but circles back to a larger theme in the story: Those who disobey the "natural" order of the world of Boggis, Bunce, and Bean face the consequences. As previously mentioned, Mrs. Fox states that "Foxes live in holes for a reason", and this statement begins to make sense in practice, and painful irony as the first act comes to a head. When Mr. Fox returns to his thieving ways and steals a few chickens and a bag full of geese, the entire group of animals in the film is put in perilous danger and they are all forced not only to live in a hole, but descend deep underground to remain alive. Only through Mr. Fox do we see the contradictions of the system of subjugation come to fruition. It is not the teachers of the animal students, the realtors who stay in their domain, only selling trees, the lawyers who only meddle in animal affairs, or the chef who only serves his fellow animal. It is only when Mr. Fox interferes directly with human business that the forces of the farmers begin to affect every animal in the region. Animals are a class lower than humans in Fantastic Mr. Fox, they are a guest in a land that belongs to humans, and in their view, was populated by nothingness and savage animals until their towns, farms, and grocery stores were built.

---

“The only language he understands is that of force... In fact, as always, the settler has shown him the way he should take if he is to become free. The argument the native chooses has been furnished by the settler, and by an ironic turning of the tables it is the native who now affirms that the colonialist understands nothing but force.”

Fanon, Frantz. “Concerning Violence.” Wretched of the Earth, Grove Press, New York, NY, 1963, p. 84.

---

At the midpoint of the film, where, traditionally, the protagonist begins to overcome their contradictions and take a new approach to dealing with problems, we see the fox create a new master plan. This is where the true thematic genius of the film comes into play, and in this writer's opinion is best understood through a colonizer-colonized relationship. Where many would say the foxes pivotal flaw was his thievery, and giving into his selfish desires for notoriety and delicious food was his initial downfall, I do not believe this to be the case. As has already been explained, I believe the fox's heists from the farms of Boggis, Bunce, and Bean were orchestrated because of a subconscious desire to escape the conditions of the world in which he was born. Mr. Fox does not want to be simply a columnist, a husband, a father, and a member of a society that is a simulacrum of human (colonizer) society, but he wishes to be a fox and use his natural instincts to take control over his own natural world. Due to the world being dominated by two diametrically opposed forces, the humans and the animals, doing so brings about the conflict that takes up most of the movies run-time, but is not a conscious desire by the fox. Nevertheless, this conflict inevitably occurs and forces all of the animals to react in ways they normally wouldn't, especially in their comfortable lives prior to the attacks by Boggis, Bunce, and Bean. The midpoint of the story, then, involves the animals taking things into their own hands, and stealing "everything" from the storehouse of the three farmers. This, in my opinion, is a form of revolutionary violence. We have already seen how the only possible response by the three farmer's to a small amount of chickens being stolen, was the proliferation of guns, bombs, and bulldozers, meant to kill any animal they come in contact with and the total destruction of animal society. The strategy by the farmers was so starve out the animals, leaving them with nowhere left to turn. At this point in the story, the only logical conclusion is for the animals to find some way to survive, and instead of digging across the river, or to another area free of farms, they choose violence. This is where the climax of the story begins to take shape, and the importance of the sublation within animal society and the Fox's inner mind comes to fruition.

Photo: Isle of Dogs press conference at Berlinale 2018. Wes Anderson, Koyu Rankin, Liev Schreiber, Jeff Goldblum, Kunichi Nomura, Anatol Weber (moderator) by Diana Ringo, retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Isle_of_Dogs_-_Press_Conference_2.jpg Used under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en) Sublation is defined, per Merriam-Webster, as "to negate or eliminate (something, such as an element in a dialectic process) but preserve as a partial element in a synthesis". Some amount of philosophical rigor in Anderson's films is unsurprising, given that he studied philosophy (not film) at University of Texas at Austin. One could argue that many films use dialectical relationships and sublation in their films as they make for interesting, human stories, but I believe that the stories of Wes Anderson are more concise, and more interesting in that there is a direct intent to create meaningful development of ideas within his films. One criticism that often is leveled towards the filmmaker is that his films are all aesthetic, and no substance, and that the prevalence of quirky characters takes away from the thematic content of the film. My opinion is that the concise story-telling present in his films is what allows for more frivolous and stylistic choices to fill other parts of the run-time. It also, in my opinion, makes for a more entertaining and meaningful experience than certain more "serious" films. Fantastic Mr. Fox is great example of this.

Following scenes where Mr. Fox is dealing with life or death scenarios, ruminating on the meaning of life, dealing with serious marital problems, or launching a direct assault on the forces that have been trying to kill him for multiple "fox weeks", there is always a lighthearted comedic aside, interesting "unnecessary" detail, or seemingly topical quip that is really a confession deeply rooted to the film's themes. This, in my opinion, is actually done to obfuscate the themes of existentialism, self-doubt, revolutionary struggle, consumerism, and monotony of modern life. Fantastic Mr. Fox is a dark film about the fate of animals, modern societies, and our Earth as a whole masked by pretty colors, awkward anthropomorphic animals, and a folk and pop rock soundtrack. Nothing reveals Anderson's hand more than the scenes where he is forced to deal with the conflicts in the film head on, and this occurs within one of my favorite scenes in the film. This scene occurs at the climax of the film (the crisis) itself, where the animals are washed into the recesses of the sewer by a flood of apple cider, after thinking they've totally beaten the farmers by stealing all their food. On a lonely platform deep within the sewers, as scintillating streams of apple cider fall behind him, Mr. Fox hangs his head in defeat. He is lit only as a silhouette, a shadow of his self of five minutes ago. His wife approaches from behind, not to comfort him, but to lament on the nature of Mr. Fox himself: if he had just stayed away from the humans, everything would have been fine. Through the events of the film, the nature of the world and the dialectical relationship between animals and humans, the sublation, and new understanding that the only solution is violence and revolutionary action, Mr. Fox finally answers his own question from act one. "Who am I?" The two converse:

---

FOX
"I think I have this thing where I
need everybody to think I'm the greatest
-- the quote-unquote fantastic Mr. Fox --
and if they aren't completely knocked-
out, dazzled, and kind of intimidated by
me, then I don't feel good about myself."

-Mrs. Fox shakes her head and turns away.-

FOX
"Foxes traditionally like to court danger,
hunt prey, and outsmart predators -- and
that's what I'm actually good at! I
think, at the end of the day, I'm just --"

MRS. FOX
"I know, we're wild animals"

---

She goes on to say that she loves him, but she shouldn't have married him... How does the fox find his dignity in the end? How does he apply this newfound realization from his struggle? Like some war-hero or Messiah he offers himself as a sacrifice to the farmers in order to save the rest of the animals. however, when the security guard Rat who has eyes for his wife appears and starts to attack his family he quickly decides against his sacrifice. What is redemption and heroism if it's for nothing? He says of the rat as it utters its last breath, "Redemption? Sure. But in the end he's just another dead rat in the garbage pail behind a Chinese restaurant." What does it mean to be another dead fox if your family is left alone, your fellow animal left to starve, and humans left to continue their infinite expansion? Unlike the rat, Mr. Fox's dreams and aspirations are more than material, more than just a bottle of Bean's golden cider, and they have already been realized. The sublation of ideas has killed the old concepts of family, a job, and a mediocre life, and transformed them into an understanding that life is worth living, family worth protecting, it is the animals instinct. There will still be prey to hunt, predators to outsmart, and they are at their doorstep. Kristofferson, the cousin of Ash, whom I have not even mentioned yet, is still locked up by the farmers, but the story has all but ended by act 3. The animals attack the farmers sitting above the sewer grate, escape to find Kristofferson, and evade a rabid dog who ends up attacking the farmers. The rat's death marks the end of act 2 and any real struggle for the animals, act 3 is a victory lap in which the Mr. Fox's discoveries are announced, the farmers "defeated" and the animals "freed", at least in some sense. Mr. Fox makes a speech that reaffirms his new self and his respect for his fellow animals. He announces that he sees the animals both in their societal roles, fishermen, lawyers, realtors, chefs, and so on, but more importantly sees them for the animals that they are, and that those unique instincts and skills will allow them to get out of their current situation. Society as a whole must adapt, with animals of all species being called to arms. Regardless of their Latin names, and previous occupations, each animal has something to offer to the cause.

We understand, as viewers, that the fox will come out victorious, turning the rabid dog against the farmers and escaping with Kristofferson and new found hope. The beginning of the denouement is where the story is finally tied together. As Kristofferson, Ash, and Mr. Fox triumphantly leave after freeing Kristofferson, they stop their motorcycle, drawn to a wolf in the distance who seems to be watching over them. Mr. Fox tries to greet him, but quickly realizes his words fall upon deaf ears. The wolf is a true wild animal and cannot understand this foreign, humanoid tongue. As the music rises and Mr. Fox seems even more confused and ostracized, his eyes start to well with tears as he realizes what is happening, and offers a raised fist, a simple sign of solidarity, instead. He finally understands that he has both come one step closer to his animal self, and freedom from the human world, but is still leagues away. While the wolf doesn't understand the fox's words, he lifts his fist in solidarity and the two exchange looks for a moment, before the wolf rushes back into the wilderness it came from. True animals still exist in this world, somewhere and there is hope for them. The animal inside of Mr. Fox, has been awakened and somewhere outside of this small town, outside of the colony of Boggis, Bunce, and Bean, animal-kind still exists, and is free.

Photo: Wolf howling on glacial erratic at Little America Flats by Jim Peaco for NPS, retrieved from https://www.nps.gov/features/yell/slidefile/mammals/wolf/Images/18040d.jpg. Courtesy of the National Parks Service

The final sequences of film shows the contrast of the dejected and bamboozled farmers, who still wait for the fox to resurface, and the animals, who return to their stations in life. They now live in different cells within the sewer, some of which are a doctor's office, or for sale by the realtor Weasel. The animals themselves must survive, and to survive they must occupy their time and continue their own interpersonal relationships. The scene paints a return to normalcy, but with the new knowledge that the animals now move as a unit, a commune of individuals with unique skills, and a love for each other. Mr. Fox leads his family to a supermarket where there is enough food for everyone, and better yet it belongs to Boggis, Bunce, and Bean. Mrs. Fox reveals she's pregnant again, and in contrast to the beginning of the film where she was glowing, Mr. Fox replies "I think we're both glowing", as the camera cuts to semi-translucent versions of their puppets that allow a golden light to shine through. This is a simple, yet beautiful way to express what we, the viewer already know. Following this ordeal, the struggle against the farmers, and new understanding amongst the animals, and Mr. Fox's family, he is happy with his place in the world. Under the "not particularly flattering light" of the supermarket aisle, he delivers his final toast, one filled with hope and understanding that life will never be perfect. He states, "They say my tail needs to be dry-cleaned twice a month, but now it's fully detachable... see? They say our tree might never grow back, but one day something will". Through his own actions, he has found a new type of happiness and optimism for the world, without the need for an ideal storybook ending. He ends the toast by stating "To our survival", a showing of understanding that survival is all life is, especially for a wild animal. The film ends and the camera hovers above the seemingly endless aisles of the Boggis, Bunce, and Bean International supermarket, and a dark, grey parking lot. Though victory has been achieved for the animals, it is unclear what lies ahead, and if their small size and reach on this world will have any effect at all on the humans.

And so I ask again, what is a fox without a chicken in its teeth? What is a concierge without guests to serve? What is a young playwright with no one left to direct? These are the questions that define a majority of the Wes Anderson's plots and the questions that define the ways his characters take ownership over themselves and agency in a world that doesn't need them, or that actively tries to exterminate them. In the end, the events of the film and the conflict with Boggis, Bunce, and Bean lead to sublation and new answers to Mr. Fox's question of identity. He, and all the other animals, are just that... animals. "Animals with scientific-sounding Latin names". However, they are also animals with families, jobs, hopes, and dreams. They are different from true animals, even other animals within their own world, but are still animals all the same. Through their own unique skill sets, they are able to challenge the dominance of the farmers, but in the end, not uproot in completely. What is uprooted, however, is their sense of themselves, their sense of society, and their relations to the humans that increasingly dominate their world. Through Mr. Fox's own ambition, an ambition that pushed the diametrically opposed forces of humans and animals in a direction that changed both societies, the animals in the film were forced to come to terms with their own identities, become closer to them, each other, and to sow the seeds for liberation.

Per, Frantz Fanon, “Conclusion.” Wretched of the Earth, Grove Press, New York, NY, 1963, p. 311.:

---

“Come, then, comrades; it would be as well to decide at once to change our ways. We must shake off the heavy darkness in which we were plunged, and leave it behind. The new day which is already at hand must find us firm, prudent, and resolute. We must leave our dreams and abandon our old beliefs and friendships from the time before life began. Let us waste no time in sterile litanies and nauseating mimicry... we must turn over a new leaf, we must work out new concepts, and try to set afoot a new man.”

---