fantastic mr fox: humanising animals, animalising men, and an exploration of masculine identity
âthis story is too predictable.â / âpredictable? really? what happens in the end?â / âin the end, we all die. unless you change.â
mr fox, the titular character of wes andersonâs 2009 stop-motion adaptation of roald dahlâs childrenâs book, is a portrait of two conflicting manifestations of masculinity. he is built to demonstrate the crossover between tradition and modernity, between wild and civilised. characterised as a charming gentleman, almost renowned for his recklessness, mr fox combines his undomesticated instincts with a carefully crafted domestic life. he appears to spend more time manufacturing a perfect home and family than he does actually participating in it. the events of the movie serve to strip away his facade and present both the audience and protagonist with a harsh reality to deal with: the juxtaposing aspects of his identity that he must contend with in order to survive his situation. these aspects are demonstrated through the use of anthropomorphic animals. in essence, the text attempts to convey the message that while you can associate your actions with animal or human traits in order to characterise and frame them, you cannot change their value and their consequences. it serves as a critique of how the nature of male identity is exploited to shunt responsibility, and the movie specifically promotes a more collectivist mentality.
there are four key scenes that mark mr foxâs journey in terms of his identity. initially, we first see his identity openly questioned once he has moved into a new home (a large and expensive tree), just prior to him revealing his âmaster planâ to kylie, who becomes his assistant of sorts. he asks, âwhy a fox? why not a horse, or a beetle, or a bald eagle? iâm saying this more as, like, existentialism, you know? who am i? and how can a fox ever be happy without, youâll forgive the expression, a chicken in its teeth?â he attributes his identity with the ability to fulfil his base desires, like he could in his youth. aspects of his later life such as employment, family, and safety restrict his ability and leaves him feeling untethered from himself. the movie opens with his youthful vibrance and recklessness, and is quickly contrasted with his dissatisfaction with his job, home, and life in general.
i dont want to live in a hole anymore. it makes me feel poor.
we are poor, but weâre happy.
does anyone actually read my column?
having been moved out of the hole and into an expensive tree, mrs fox asks her husband:
constructing the ideal domestic space for himself and his family does not satisfy mr fox and he yearns for more, which is where is existentialism and âmaster planâ come into play. domesticity was never going to satisfy mr fox, as he yearns for something youthful and risky and dazzling, adjectives not usually applied to a quiet and content home life. the consequences of this dissatisfaction are drastic and almost immediate.
soon, having been forced out of his new home and underground by an attack from the farmers, mr fox is faced with a situation he cannot charm his way out of. he attempts to apologise to his son and recite a speech to raise the morale of his family, and both of these attempts are shut down by those around him. the facade of his elaborate home, his monologues, even his suits, are abruptly stripped away leaving him with only his actions which he cannot charm his way out of. the reality is that he and his family, his neighbourhood, is stuck underground with no means of food as a result of his selfish actions. this prompts yet another key scene; his argument with felicity, which begins with her viciously hissing and scratching his face.
because im a wild animal.
you are also a husband, and a father.
im trying to tell you the truth about myself.
i dont care about the truth about yourself. this story is too predictable.
predictable? really? what happens in the end?
in the end, we all die. unless you change.
mrs foxâs physical attack on her husbands face serves as a display of genuine animal ferocity, making mr foxâs claim to being a âwild animalâ appear as a flimsy excuse for his behaviour. his chicken theft, which he was insistent upon regardless of the consequences, was motivated not by animal instincts but a selfish desire to feel a particular version of his own masculinity. disregarding the safety of his family actually seems like a natural byproduct of his master plans because he is trying to reclaim his masculinity from a time before his family existed, and in his eyes, restricted him. the very recent loss of his tail, combined with this conversation with his wife, is a harsh reality check for mr fox in terms of the dangers of his masculinity.
the audience sees the outcome of this conversation later on, in the waterfall scene. here mr fox admits to his insecurities and suggests sacrificing himself to the farmers to save the local community.
darling, maybe theyâll let everyone else live!
foxes traditionally like to court danger, hunt prey and outsmart predators, and thatâs what im actually good atâŠi guess at the end of the day im just-
i know. weâre wild animals.
the difference between this admission to animalism and the one from his argument with felicity is that here, both parties gain some acceptance of their animalism without using it as an excuse for their behaviour. the inclusion of others in animalism â âweâreâ wild animals, rather than âi amâ a wild animal â contributes to illustrate how wildness is not specific to masculinity. it is not femininity vs masculinity but animals vs man.
the movie also questions the nature of an animal in the final key scene known as âcanis lupus.â wes Anderson referred to this scene as âthe reason im making this movie.â throughout the movie, mr fox alludes to his âphobia of wolvesâ and shuts down any conversation surrounding them:
scared? no, i have a phobia of them!...a wolf? whatâs with all the wolf talk? can we give it a rest for once?
arguably, these reactions are representative of mr foxâs aversion to competitive masculinity. he shuts down any opportunity for those around him to discuss something he sees as more masculine than himself in order to feel secure in his own masculinity. critic shana mlawski argues that âthe wolf is described as the wildest, most frightening, and yet most beautiful creature in the world. mr fox fears the wolf and yet wants to be exactly like him. we can thus say that mr fox fears pure, wild masculinity yet also yearns to own it himself.â the scene holds an eerie familiarity to it; mr fox is recognising something that he thought would be a reflection of himself, but the wild animal is no longer familiar to him anymore. he now accepts his role as a husband and a father and no longer fights to overtly express his animalism in the same way as the wolf. the most he can offer the wolf is raising his fist in solidarity. he calls out to the wolf, âi have a phobia of wolves!â, which is an interesting moment to admit this in. itâs his acceptance that allows him to admit this. the scene is entirely compromised of male characters: mr fox, kristofferson, ash, kylie and the wolf. mr foxâs admission to his fear allows him to be vulnerable in front of these people he cares about, and to use this as a teaching moment for the young boys.
what a beautiful creature. wish him luck out there, boys.
here mr fox openly admits his admiration for someone elseâs masculinity in front of others without showing signs of his own insecurity. he can admire the wolf for what he is without seeing him as competition. the scene allows the audience to see and directly compare two forms of masculinity and animalism, and to understand that there is no one true expression of either of those traits. the wolf has connotations of violence and ferocity, whereas mr fox and his suit and display of multilingualism are entirely modern, but both are masculine animals who are valid in their own right. either way, both animals rely on violence for survival at times.
kupfer frames violence in three ways: symbolically, structurally and as a narrative essential. there are various forms of violence within this narrative, namely mr fox killing chickens and squabs, and the three farmersâ attack on the animal community. symbolically, mr foxâs chicken theft is attributed to his masculinity. while it is often presented as thought-out âmaster plansâ, his desire to enact this violence in the first place supposedly stems from his âwild animalâ instincts. he associates a time where he felt secure in his masculinity with his actions at the time (violence). structurally, we see the potential for this violence in the opening scene, where mr fox takes his wife chicken-stealing and they become trapped. he is stuck in a fox trap with his wife when he receives the news of his impending fatherhood, a relatively obvious symbol for his view of fatherhood in general. the news of his wifeâs pregnancy disrupts his ability to continue stealing chickens, not just on this specific occasion but through the coming years as well. mr fox appears to view family life as an unfulfilling, less raw expression of his masculinity, and is shown to be wholly dissatisfied with his life.
the violence on the farmersâ behalf is almost always in reaction to mr foxâs violence, already giving it a structural framing. boggis, bunch and bean are referred to early on in the film as the âmeanest, nastiest and ugliest farmers on the side of the river.â their violence against mr fox and subsequently the local animal community is an attempt to gain back power and status. mr foxâs actions are âhumiliatingâ and the local news coverage of this exchange between the farmers and animals raises the stakes as now the reputation of these farmers is on the line as well as their power. violence here serves as a narrative essential because it drives mr fox into a situation that forces him to confront his issues with masculinity and splitting between his animal and human traits, giving the text/movie a fulfilling arc. violence is
introduced as inherently masculine, but is decoupled from masculinity by the ending. mrs fox also plays a small but significant role in this; at various moments in the movie she exhibits her own displays of aggression equal in intensity to the men around her, suggesting to the audience that forms of violence should be categorised as human vs animal rather than male vs female. examples of this behaviour include her clawing at her husbandâs face, and a parallel between her and a male human character wherein they both connect two wires and shout âcontact!â, causing an explosion. while this moment is brief, it highlights a distinct difference between animals being violent and men. humansâ aggression is driven by the need for power, whereas that of animals is driven by the need for survival. the man paralleled with felicity only sparked the explosion to destroy mr foxâs home and assert the dominance of the three farmers, while mrs fox used the same form of violence to enact a plan to save her nephewâs life. peteyâs song even alludes to this sentiment: âwell he stole, and he cheated, and he lied just to survive.â
mr foxâs tail becomes a symbol of power; bean wears it as a necktie, and mr fox feels emasculated by his loss.
one of those slovenly farmers is probably wearing my tail as a necktie right now.
i cant even imagine how painful, even just emotionally, that must be for you⊠oh but foxy how humiliating, having your tail blown clean off by-
the use of the tail as a necktie is a symbol of the power that mr fox and the farmers end up jostling to achieve: at first it belongs to mr fox, then to the farmers, and is eventually reclaimed once more by the fox.
[through gritted teeth] iâm not leaving here without that necktie.
when he reclaims his tail towards the end of the movie, it has been torn to shreds and needs âdry cleaning twice a weekâ to maintain itself. this can be interpreted as a symbol for his evolved definitions of masculinity and power: his masculinity is no longer defined by impressing people or stealing or killing chickens, but in the quiet satisfaction of having a family. the final scene reveals that mrs fox is pregnant again, and instead of her glowing and her husband giving an awkward grin like in the opening scene, both of the spouses âglow.â the structural framing of these pregnancy reveals bookending the events of the movie allows anderson to demonstrate mr foxâs growth and change in his priorities. the domestic life appears to be enough for him, and he no longer seems to find it emasculating,
what stands out as particularly modern about mr fox is how he unconsciously separates himself from both his wildness and his suburban self in his effort to combine them. he uses his âwildnessâ as an excuse for his violence and selfishness, but is ultimately not willing to participate in truly wild forms of violence and selfishness, such has hunting. his chicken thefts always include infiltrating a human site, like boggis, bunce and beanâs farms, and the fun of it is in outsmarting them, rather than finding those animals himself out in the wild. the local animal community essentially functions as we would expect a rural village occupied by humans to function: everyone knows everyone, there is one local school and various small and quaint homes. while the setting reflects andersonâs signature style, it is also reflective of dahlâs framing of the community in the original text.
mr fox comes across as an individual who believes himself to be above the somewhat backward mentality of his village, that he is the most civilised and dazzling and original, and he exaggerates these traits in himself out of insecurity: âif they arent dazzled and blown away and kind of intimidated by me, then i dont feel good about myself.âthis is also reflected in his consistent âtrademarkâ, his whistle-and-click combination that he uses to set himself apart from other foxes. his home is also a reflection of this:
you know, foxes live in holes for a reason.
[grunts and tilts head in disagreement]
this insecurity and desire for outsider approval and individuality is inherently human, a quality of his that cannot really be associated with his animalised parts. this precarious sense of identity and self doubt separates him from his âwildnessâ as it stands, which is only intensified by the fact that he compensates by exaggerating his human traits in order to be liked and feel worthy, as those are the traits he believes have the most value. towards the end of mr foxâs character arc, he is forced to admit that his need for external validation is flawed and unsustainable. when the façade of carefully constructed grandeur is literally washed away by bean, he is left with nothing but his actions and their implications for those around him. foxy reconciles with the relative insignificance of an identity based on otherâs perceptions of you when rat dies soon after, reacting to the suggestion that he redeemed himself last minute by revealing ashâs location:
redemption? sure. but in the end, heâs just another dead rat in a garbage pail behind a chinese restaurant.
this moment is also used to inadvertently allow the audience to evaluate the significance of motivation and intention to the value of an action. although rat did reveal useful information to aid the group in saving Kristofferson, mr fox recognises that he only did so because he realised he could not win this fight.
would you have told me if i didnât kill you first?
mr foxâs own motivations throughout the movie have devalued his actions as they have mostly been self-serving. as his motivations evolve to centre around his family, he gains the perspective to understand why oneâs intentions are so important. while intention does not entirely dictate how good oneâs actions are, they certainly characterise the person whoâs action it is. your actions have value and consequences as they are, and that cannot be changed by dressing them up or animalising them to distance yourself.
in essence, fantastic mr fox is a lesson in the value of including those around you in your mentality and worldview. it paints masculinity as something that is inherent and complex in nature, but promotes the idea that it is not stuck with its traditional connotations of violence and egoism. mr foxâs emotional development throughout the text mostly centres around his own insecurities surrounding his masculinity and how that causes him to overcompensate in ways that harm those around him. by the end he recognises that more tame and domestic forms of masculinity are just as valid, and that basing his self-worth on how âdazzledâ his peers are by him is immature and not constructive. his family now liberates him and allows him to be vulnerable rather than restricting how he feels he can express himself, and as a unit the animals beat the farmers in their game of power-seeking. mr fox recognises and appreciates both his human and animal traits, without using them as a means to excuse his behaviour or to feel bad about his worth.
i guess my point is, weâll eat tonight, and weâll eat together. and even in this not particularly flattering light, you are without a doubt the five and a half most wonderful wild animals ive ever met in my life. so letâs raise our boxes â to our survival.
