Anyone who has seen the quick yet horrifying Mr. Hands clip that circulated the internet has probably had its ghastly imagery tattooed in their memories for a lifetime. After learning of the incident, one cannot help but wonder what happened that led to it, and why was it filmed? How did the man get to that point in his life? Where was this place? Was it an illegal animal sex farm where people could go to have their kinkiest bestial fantasies fulfilled? It is impossible not to speculate. I was interested when I found out that there was going to be a documentary film called Zoo, which focused on the bizarre, fateful recorded moment in time. The more I heard about it, the more it became one of my most anticipated films of 2007. Well, it was released on Tuesday and I got my, um, hands on a copy via Netflix. I was hoping for a thoughtful exploration of what the hell happened the night that video was recorded. Unfortunately, Zoo is a frustrating mess of a movie.
The structure of the movie is way too confusing. It mixes reenactments--which actually isn't as bad as it sounds--with voice overs and interviews from a few of Mr Hands' friends and relatives. The problem is, it only says who is talking the first time you hear them. After that, you're on your own and you have to guess who is doing voice over throughout the movie. And everything is very, very cryptic. Often, speakers start talking about something that is seemingly unrelated to the subject at hand, only to eventually bring their story to a point that is only slightly relevant. The movie is just under 80 minutes, and most of it seems like filler. It could easily have been a 30 minute documentary short. While the interviews and voice overs are confusing and bizarre, the enactments are surprisingly the highlight of the film. Some of them are eerily shot and the score is haunting. Unfortunately, they do cross the silly line, especially during a scene that shows the actor playing Mr. Hands standing naked with a horse, caressing it and wooing it before a lovemaking session.
Wha?! No joke. But that isn't even the strangest part of this movie. It's chock full of random acts of WTFness. Basically, the film is about a circle of friends, of which Mr. Hands was a part. Apparently the filmmaker thought, if we can understand these people, we might be able to understand the incident a little better. These men are zoophiles, meaning lover (no, LOVER) of animals, and actually identify as "Zoo" (adjective!). It all began when a ranch-hand, who loves the horses at the ranch he worked at, finally got on the Internet and discovered others out there who shared there special love of animals. They started having friendly get-togethers, and the reenactments and voice overs make it seem like any old Friday night in bum-fuck Washington. Some have called this an attempt to "humanize" zoophiles, but it comes across more as an attempt to "normalize" them. After all, they're just as boring as any other depiction of small-town folk that I've seen on film. "We started getting together on weekends. We'd just hang out and have a great time. Sometimes we'd talk about being zoo. Sometimes we'd watch movies, drink beer, make mixed drinks in a blender. Sometimes we'd pour different liquors in the blender. And it would be all mashed up and icy." What? Is this a Christopher Guest movie? Were those lines meant to be delivered by Parker Posey?
But more about those curious voice overs from the zoophiles. The "B" word is only uttered a few times in the film. The voice overs are mostly cryptic and evasive. The basic gist I got from their bizarre ramblings is that they believe they are really in love with animals. In general. So it's like mega-polyamory between people and beast. OK, that's fine, whatever. It doesn't sound that different from Herzog's weird-but-sad subject in Grizzly Man right? In fact, the guy even sounds a bit like Timothy Treadwell with his nonsense musings, saying something like "you don't have to worry about talking about everyday things...latest fashion...the last Madonna album." Wait, what?
Anyways, my interpretation of their vague comments ("sex" is mentioned only a couple times in the film) is that these people actually believe that the love they share with an animal leads to foreplay and boinking. OK. The portrait the voice overs paint of Mr. Hands is one of the film's more interesting aspects. Based on the video clip, I assumed this was a depraved (and suicidal) lunatic seeking the ultimate deadly thrill. Turns out he was an unhappy businessman who had been divorced with one kid. He used his weekends on the farm as a escape from his depressing daily grind, and wished he could live the bucolic life full-time. No one who is interviewed was actually there the night of the incident that led to his death. The ranch-hand states that he feels that "Mr. Hands went off with a horse he did not know or trust."
...
So, basically, he was having a dangerous one-night stand. He says that it isn't the horse's fault and it isn't Mr. Hands' fault. At no point here (or elsewhere in the film, for that matter) is there mention of the details of the sexual act between the horse and Mr. Hands. Well, to re-cap the video, what happens is Mr. Hands is willingly on the receiving end of anal sex with the horse. Anyone with a functioning brain knows that the human anal cavity cannot accommodate a horse's penis and an interaction like this would lead to death. This is never mentioned by anyone in the movie. They act like he didn't know what he was getting into. Of course he did, and THAT is what this movie should be about! Not because he didn't know the horse intimately enough. I can't even believe I'm writing that. These people are deludenoids to the 37th degree. No one talks about the video, or who recorded it, or why, or how the video leaked, or who the others abetting in the video are. It didn't look like romantic coddling that got out of hand. It looks like a man at the end of his rope, preparing to die in an extreme way. No one addresses these things in this documentary.
Another bizarre voice over comes courtesy of a relative of the deceased. Apparently at some point Mr. Hands bought one of the horses, so she legally inherits it. I think she's supposed to provide the voice of rationality, but she doesn't do that great of a job with this task. She's quick to show her disgust with the zoophiles, etc. Towards the end, she talks about how she needed to sell the horse, but she feared that some of the local zoophiles would purchase it and therefore she needs to have it gelded.
That's all she says. Like it's logical. I didn't know what "gelded" means, but I sure found out because the next sequence of the film showed the castration of the poor horse. UH, hey PETA, could ya take some time outta your paint-throwing schedule to figure out why this person castrated a horse under the claim that she was protecting it from the rabid zoophiles in the 'hood? I have no idea why this happened, and the ever-so-cryptic voice overs sure didn't provide any answers. The doc implies that she believes that it is less harmful to a horse to remove its genitals than it is to molest it. And this is supposed to be the vocal representation of reason in this film.
There are other interviews and voice overs, all of which are incoherent and only slightly related to bestiality or horses. Most of the questions I had in regards to the "Mr. Hands" video went unanswered by Zoo. Instead, my head was filled with the ramblings of these people who honestly believe that an animal can consent to sex and love on the same cognitive level that human beings do. OK, OK, obviously I'm bringing my own personal beliefs to the table here, but still. Even if I was pro animal abuser--I mean "zoo"--this would still be a crappy film. Though it might be mildly amusing if you pretend it's a mockumentary.
My Rating: 3 sexy horses out of 10.
No comments:
Post a Comment