Reviews » MadagascarAnimals versus Natureby Francesca PoggiWhich is better: the gold tinged prison of a luxury zoo, or a struggle for survival in the Madagascan jungle? If a lion had the choice, would he go on trailing behind zebras in the Savannah, or might he prefer to be served-up steaks in Central Park? As previously seen in Shrek, this most recent “DreamWorks” production has fun switching Disney stereotypes. The wild is a place where freedom is reduced to eating, being eaten or dying of hunger. Thus these animals simply cannot wait to return to New York. 
Four penguins escaping New York on their way towards the Antarctic, tempt the zebra Marty with the idea of passing a law breaking night of freedom. His pals (Alex the Lion, the star of the zoo; the hypochondriac giraffe, Melman and Gloria the hippopotamus) on discovering his flight, unwillingly, embark on a wild goose chase along the streets of the Big Apple, to try and bring the zebra back to his senses. The adventure all goes to pot with the intervention of the police at Grand Central Station. During the round-up, they also discover the team of penguins and two chimpanzees who were going to the Lincoln Centre, to throw poo at Tom Wolfe, the famous and controversial American author. Compliant with animal rights activists, the escape of the nine animals is interpreted as an expression of a desire to be freed; to return to their natural habitats. So our heroes are boxed up and sent on a ship to a nature reserve in Kenya. But the team of penguins (Skipper, Mr Kowalski, Private and Rich) doesn’t surrender: Kenya was not part of their plan and so, (set to the music of Mission Impossible) they stun the ships crew and take control of the vessel. During the disturbance however, Alex, Melman, Marty and Gloria’s crates tumble into the sea and all four sadly end up in Madagascar (though it takes them a while to cotton on where they are). Dazed and shocked by the wild and impoliticly correct environment, our heroes manage to fight their instincts, thanks also to the penguins, who, disappointed with Antarctica, prefer the tropical climate of Madagascar, finally embark on their journey back to New York. As we can already imagine, this is a trip that does not reach its destination: does that mean that there will be a sequel? This latest effort from DreamWorks, is amusing and at times exhilarating, yet never attains the epic of Shrek. As Shrek, however, it retains the taste for the paradoxical and for the inversion of classic Disney stereotypes. The Disney-fied circle of life (see The Lion King), becomes a less comforting circle of nightmares, where freedom is reduced to eating, being eaten and dying of hunger. The very same animals certainly do not aspire to a untamed and wild life: amongst nature they are uneasy and cannot wait to return to New York. Even Marty the zebra, the most nature-loving of the group, flees the zoo for only one night and in the end, will be most contented never to return to Africa, rather to Paris, extinguishing any wish for adventure at the suggestion of a break – Melman the giraffe would however prefer Switzerland and its private health clinics. Most memorable is the scene when the four penguins, on finally reaching Antarctica, stare petrified at the expanse of ice lashed by a blizzard: “Well, this sucks!” bursts out on of the four. As one might have anticipated, animal rights activists held protests: principally in response to the unreliable images of zoos as 5 star hotels. Moreover, the very same activists are not exactly well portrayed during the film: it is precisely their misunderstanding of the animals that condemns our heroes to exile, hunger and the struggle for survival. The protests are however justified: it is true, zoos are not luxurious hotels, even if we need to remind adults and children alike that this is certainly not the only unrealistic aspect of the film. For example, truth be told, animals do not speak amongst themselves; limas do not organise raves in the jungle; monkeys do not know how to read and not drink tea; lions do not eat sushi, nor do penguins cook it. And nor do the latter use sun cream. Of course they should, but alas, they do not. On the other hand, the image of nature is absolutely realistic: a fierce struggle for survival, where the weakest irremediably gives in, similar in fact to any documentary depicted by National Geographic. The point is that this is not so much a cartoon on animals as, moreover, a film about four New Yorkians suddenly catapulted right into the depths of the wildest nature. An environment that is very different from what Marty the zebra had pictured (and who knows how many others imagined the same). An environment within which these four fair very badly, especially the carnivore of the group, Alex the lion, torn from conflict between instinct, the needs of ones stomach and civil and moral values that prevent him from killing animals. From killing, not from eating them: yet at the zoo he had nothing against gobbling down his beloved T-bone steaks and so he resolves his problem in Madagascar by eating the sushi prepared by the penguins. The important thing is that the dirty work is done by someone else: does that not sum-up every civilisation? The anthropomorphic process – so utterly deprecated by animal rights activists, except the praise for those Disney cartoons which have raised generations of animal lovers (Bambi for example) – is thrust to extremes and turned into identification. These animals are not like us: they are the emblem of our civilisation, with all their contradictions and paradoxes. In Madagascar, as in Shrek, the intention to directly address an adult public is evident; as numerous cinematographic quotations bear witness (from American Beauty, to Moments of Gloria, Cast Away and right up to the aforementioned Mission Impossible), perfectly in line with the tendencies of the moment. Yet the problem remains, which has more or less already been addressed, of how a younger audience will receive such a film? As always, the answer depends on the parents. Finally, a negative point emerges with the dubbing in Italian: if the strong New York accent of the four protagonists was perhaps difficult to reproduce (though they might at least have made an attempt), there are no alibis whatsoever to the fact that they totally ignored the chimpanzees English accent. Basically, the decision to chose famous actors, whose performance was rather dubious, over professional dubbing artists, or at least over actors of any esteem, seems absolutely questionable.
English translation by Alice Rowlands |
 |
 |
JGCinema - Jura Gentium Cinema - Cinema and Globalization