Tag: Animation

  • Trial and Error: Coyote vs. Acme (2026) and Animal Experimentation

    Trial and Error: Coyote vs. Acme (2026) and Animal Experimentation

    Like many filmgoers this year, I’ve been rooting for Coyote vs. Acme’s (2016) success. No metric-ton anvil has been necessary to weigh down the bar required for me to enjoy the prospect of Wile E. pitted against the mega-corporation Acme. As a fan of Looney Tunes, courtroom dramas, and live-action/animated hybrids, chances were good that, like its cartoon coyote’s designs on his favourite roadrunner, it was one worth catching. However, the real motivation encouraging so much interest in its box office release has been a healthy dose of spite directed at Warner Bros Discovery and its current CEO, David Zaslav.

    Following Discovery Inc.’s merger with WarnerMedia in 2022, Zaslav has buried several nearly completed productions, denying them a release so that they can instead be claimed as tax write-offs. While it’s not unusual for a major studio to abandon a project during pre-production or filming, it’s a concerning sign for both audiences and filmmakers if a virtually finished feature can be entirely scrapped simply because its owner gets cold feet concerning its returns. Making movies is hard enough already without the heart-breaking potential for a team’s efforts to be unceremoniously shelved. Both Scoob! Holiday Haunt and Batgirl were denied releases in 2022 following their parents’ merger. Four years later, neither has seen the light of day. It’s hard not to consider Coyote vs. Acme’s current theatrical release, after it was similarly cancelled in 2023, as something of a victory.

    Image: David Zaslav, photo by Thomas Hawk, 2017, Flickr.

    Warner Bros.’ decision to ditch Coyote vs. Acme was an attempt to write down $30 million against its $70 million production costs, despite the film reportedly testing well with both audiences and industry insiders (D’Allesandro, 2023). The notion that Zaslav would opt to scrap a project with obvious potential rather than capitalise upon its commercial appeal demonstrated a total disrespect for its teams’ creative talent and a baffling level of incompetence. Rubbing salt in the wound was the revelation that none of the executives responsible for the decision had seen the finished cut of the movie, with Zaslav never having watched it at all (Taylor, 2024).

    Following news of its abandonment, many members of Coyote vs. Acme’s production team took to social media to discuss the labours that had now been squandered. Dave Green, the film’s director, would mount a “funeral screening” on the Warners Bros.’ lot (Couch & Hibberd, 2023) and state that “I am beyond proud of the final product, and beyond devastated by WB’s decision. But in the spirit of Wile E. Coyote, resilience and persistence win the day” (@dgrenmachine, 2023).

    Image: @Discussing Film. ‘A fan dressed as Wile E. Coyote protesting today…’ X, March 11, 2025.

    After hearing of the farce surrounding its release, other industry figures rallied around Coyote vs. Acme’s cast and crew. Fellow director Scott Derrickson would announce that “I think it’s absolute bullshit that a studio can and does shelve the creative work of hundreds of people for a fucking tax break” (@scottderrickson, 2023), while screenwriter Peter Briggs bemoaned that “David Zaslav has turned a functioning movie studio into a mechanism to pay him an obscene amount of money annually, while not actually releasing movies” (@ThePeterBriggs, 2023).

    The irony of Coyote vs. Acme’s abandonment, considering its narrative focus on a David vs. Goliath battle of corporate greed and indifference, was not lost on the public either. One fan, Marco Vaccaro, would dress up as Wile E. himself and picket the entrance of the Warner Bros.’ lot. Eric Bauza, voice of Bugs Bunny and others in the film, would adopt the character of Daffy Duck when making a plea for the film’s case from the podium of the 2024 Annie Awards and help the hashtag #ReleaseCoyoteVsACME to go viral.

    Image: The Day the Earth Blew Up, Ketchup Entertainment, 2024.

    Responding to backlash, Warner Bros. eventually allowed Green to shop his film around to other potential buyers, leaving the director scrambling to create his own PR campaign in the hopes of salvaging the project. After rebuffing a variety of offers from rival media juggernauts, Warner Bros. would sell the feature to indie studio Ketchup Entertainment, who had previously distributed their similarly Looney-Tunes orientated The Day the Earth Blew Up (2024), for an estimated $50 million (Wiseman, 2025).

    Supported by a meagre $10 million in additional marketing costs, the current success of Coyote vs. Acme in theatres owes much to strong word of mouth and, importantly, the tantalising prospect of seeing Warner Bros. with egg on their face. Ketchup would introduce the film’s teaser with Wile E. Coyote plummeting from a cliff with a sign stating ‘Happy Tax Day’ and ‘check your write offs.’ Their official trailer would similarly feature text describing itself as ‘the movie Acme doesn’t want you to see’ while accompanying the Warner Bros.’ logo with the byline ‘a wholly owned subsidiary of the Acme Corporation.’

    Image: ‘Coyote vs. Acme – Happy Tax Day,’ Ketchup Entertainment, 2026, YouTube.

    Coyote vs. Acme’s respectable performance has proven a rebuttal to Warner Bros. and Zaslav’s indifference worthy of savouring. Recent figures estimate that the film has now taken in $57.3 million worldwide, with an opening weekend second only to Spider-Man Brand New Day (2026), handily outpacing Ridley Scott’s flop The Dog Stars (2026) (Lang, 2026). Even if Ketchup are unable to net a sizeable profit from the film, its reception has, like its silent protagonist’s own battle against a corporate behemoth, provided the film with a notable last laugh.

    It’s no surprise that Wile E.’s decision to take Acme to court for a litany of physical calamities and indignities should strike such a chord with modern audiences. Who among us doesn’t wish to step out of the shadows cast by such monopolising corporations? Recast as Erin Brockovich in a fur coat, Wile E. recruits Kevin Avery, a shoestring lawyer played by Will Forte, to help him hold Acme accountable. Together, they face off against the unscrupulous Buddy Crane, John Cena, the hotshot attorney that Acme has assigned to the case. With the stakes set, the film does a commendable job providing a suitably loony spin on various well-established story beats. Bugs Bunny pops up as a whistleblowing informant, Acme’s Head of PR, the Tasmanian Devil, proves characteristically incomprehensible when cross-examined on the stand, while Foghorn Leghorn’s Southern drawl is set to appropriate work as Acme’s ruthless CEO. What’s not to love?

    Image: Coyote vs. Acme, Ketchup Entertainment, 2026.

    The film itself was developed from a satirical 1990 New Yorker article by humourist Ian Frazier. Frazier would consider the merits of a hypothetical claim by Wile E. against Acme based on product liability and inadequate safety guidance. However, the coyote’s plight in the film is not only framed around Acme’s lack of consumer standards, but eventually snowballs into a sinister conspiracy concerning equality-based jurisprudence. Or rather, the disparity of rights between cartoon animals and those of humans.

    The film’s second and third acts reveal that the failures of Acme’s products are part of Project Sisyphus, an initiative designed to maliciously inflict injuries upon cartoons. This data is then collected and used by the company for the purpose of improving human-facing products and services. By depicting Acme’s culpability as deliberate, therefore, the film offers surprisingly direct parallels between Wile E.’s case and the experiences of his very real animal counterparts that are experimented on in our own world.

    Image: ‘Coyote V. Acme,’ Illustration by Luci Gutiérrez, The New Yorker, 1990.

    Visually, Acme’s data is represented as the rich catalogue of cartoons produced for Warner Bros. by the likes of Tex Avery and Chuck Jones. The film opens with a wall of monitors displaying their violent antics, reframed as experiments caused by the company’s numerous defective products. When Bugs Bunny’s intervention leads Forte’s attorney to Daffy Duck, the manic fowl is shown to have been driven even more insane than is characteristically normal, and committed to ‘St. Looneys’ Asylum.’

    Defending his company’s unscrupulous endeavours, Foghorn Leghorn draws right from the playbook of A Few Good Men (1992) by stating “you think progress isn’t worth a little pain? A little discomfort? It is, son. It always has been.” While Coyote vs. Acme is certainly no My Cousin Vinny (1992), Foghorn’s attempt to outweigh the harm inflicted by Acme’s products against their utilitarian benefit is readily comparable to real-world legalese.

    Image: Coyote vs. Acme, Ketchup Entertainment, 2026.

    In the UK, it is the Home Office’s ‘harm-benefit analysis process’ that assesses whether or not animals can be licensed for use in scientific experiments. Inspectors working within the Animals in Science Regulation Unit have the role of considering “whether the likely harms to animals can be justified by the likely benefits” (Home Office, 2015). As with Foghorn’s defence, certain harms have legal definitions which allow them to be legally inflicted.

    Various classifications must be checked, including the distressingly titled ‘severity limit,’ which researchers use to outline “the highest level of pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm that may be experienced by any animal undergoing an authorised procedure” (Home Office 2026a). Importantly, ‘severe’ is the highest definable category of harm that might be inflicted, with no restriction on such limits if the supposed benefits are considered adequate. The legal requirement is that such experiences must not be sustained. If the animal experiences “severe pain, suffering or distress that is likely to be long-lasting,” then it must be ameliorated; if this is no longer possible, the animal must be ‘humanely’ killed (ibid.).

    Image: Mouse, Yu-Chan Chen, 2015, Flickr.

    Last year alone, 2.54 million scientific procedures were conducted on animals in the UK, with the top three research areas reported as the nervous system, the immune system, and cancer (Home Office, 2026b). Almost half of these procedures involved the creation and breeding of animals “whose genes have mutated or have been modified” for the purposes of such research (ibid.). The UK Government records that 99% of the total procedures were assessed as “non-recovery, sub-threshold, mild, or moderate in severity” (ibid.). Even if we were to generously assume that the majority of these animals survived, these statistics infer that 25,400 procedures were conducted on animals that led to ‘severe’ levels of suffering and harm (ibid.).

    In the UK, there are currently 131 institutions licensed to conduct animal research, ranging from universities to biomedical research institutes, pharmaceutical companies, and contract research laboratories (Home Office, 2026b). Interestingly, the UK Government highlighted this year that it has not had reason to refuse a single licence on the grounds of unacceptable levels of harm since 2021, although Lord Hanson of Flint, Labour Peer, noted that “the number of formal refusals is not, however, a meaningful indicator of regulatory rigour” (UK Parliament, 2026).

    Image: Beagle, PIX1861, Pixabay, 2015.

    The experimentations conducted upon the toons in Coyote vs. Acme are, of course, played for laughs. Daffy Duck’s combustion and balding are as funny now as it was half a century ago. However, the real-world equivalents are significantly less comical. The image below, for example, is of a mouse implanted with an osteosarcoma tumour. In this instance, the procedure was conducted to aid measurements of radiotherapy efficiency.

    The stakes for such research could not be higher. While this radiotherapy study was conducted within the GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research in Germany, those undertaken by British institutions like the Francis Crick Institute, the Medical Research Council, and Imperial College London are of equal importance. Even including such imagery in an article concerned with the cultural relevance of a Looney Tunes movie seems almost as brazenly farcical as Bugs Bunny himself. Yet, it would be even more heinously inappropriate to overlook the price that is paid by animals when we subordinate their welfare for our species’ benefit.

    Image: Daria Boscolo et al. 2025. ‘Image-guided Treatment of Mouse Tumours with Radioactive Ion Beams,’ Nature Physics 21. CC BY 4.0.

    While images such as these are remarkably distressing, a quick review of briefs and videos by contemporary organisations that conduct animal research demonstrates an eagerness to reassure the public that the majority of their creatures are not placed in harmful situations. The terminology most frequently used is that of the ‘three Rs,’ being an attempt to ‘replace’ animal testing wherever possible, ‘reduce’ the minimum number of animals necessary, and ‘refine’ processes so that pain, suffering, and distress can be minimised.

    The University of Glasgow’s animal research strategy states, for example, that, such procedures are only used “when there is no other suitable alternative available,” noting that, out of 96,038 procedures in 2025, 0.9% resulted in ‘severe’ harm to the animals in question (2026). Like the national statistics cited earlier, however, these figures determine that, over that single year, 864 procedures were inflicted upon animals that caused, in the University of Glasgow’s own language, “short-term severe pain, suffering or distress, or long-lasting moderate pain, suffering or distress” (ibid.).

    Image: ‘Restrained Macaque,’ Kathleen Conlee, 2025.

    While animal experimentation remains common in the UK, growing research evidences a steady shift in consensus towards the need to emphasise non-animal related alternatives. In 2019, Emily Sena and Gillian Currie published ‘How Our Approaches to Assessing Benefits and Harms Can Be Improved,’ arguing for a rehauling of the practice’s regulation. Notably, they claimed that current definitions of potential ‘harms’ and ‘benefits’ rely on “generally subjective” assessments, and point towards a lack of rigour when determining whether the latter will ever actually materialise (2019: 107).

    Just last month, Cancer Research UK published recommendations that the biomedical sector make further steps to replace animal-based approaches, claiming that “90% of drug candidates fail in clinical trials without ever reaching patients” (2026). They point towards ground-breaking research led by the Human Cancer Model Initiative (HCMI) that “allows researchers not only to reduce animal use but also to improve the quality and translational value of preclinical research” (ibid.).

    Still, in many instances, changes in research methods are not being made quickly enough. Last year, the UK’s National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research claimed that, while animal-derived products such as foetal bovine serum caused “significant suffering for the animals involved,” they still remained in use despite the availability of non-animal alternatives “with significant scientific and ethical advantages” (National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, 2026: 3).

    Image: ‘SOP for Handing and Restraining of Laboratory Animals,’ Research SOP, 2021.

    Thankfully, the testing of animals for the use of cosmetic and household products was banned in the UK in 1998. There is, however, no such federal law present in America and a proper examination of the cruelty inflicted on animals in the name of testing and experimentation lies tragically outside the scope of this single article. When conducting my own research, I was particularly distressed by the appallingly flippant slogan that the American company PLAS-LAB uses to advertise acrylic rabbit restrainers similar to those pictured above. With a level of callousness worthy of the Acme Corporation itself, they boast that “The only thing that wiggles is the nose!” (PLAS-LAB, n.d.).

    Foghorn Leghorn’s legal testimony in Coyote vs. Acme seems cartoonishly arch, but his words are a painful reminder of the lived realities of millions of animals currently being experimented upon around the world. “Yes, yes, our cartoon products sometimes do explode, sometimes they do backfire, sometimes they push the boundaries of gravity and science,” he says, “but do you all want to live in a world without new? Without progress?” The question of the ethical price we pay for such research is easily answered when out of view, but reflective of an issue that demands further regulation and constant reflection.

    Image: Coyote vs. Acme, Ketchup Entertainment, 2026.

    It’s notable that neither Warner Bros.’ nor Zaslav is likely to have had their feathers more than ruffled by Coyote vs. Acme’s vindicated release. It’s appropriate that, in the film itself, Wile E. and Avery are unable to claim victory in court, instead seizing the opportunity to embarrass the company in a public forum, with an epilogue indicating that their Sisyphean struggle will continue.

    Likewise, we live in a world where organisational structures consistently attempt to excuse their harms in the name of capitalistic and anthropocentric benefits. The creatures around us may possess a few limited protections but their voices are notably silent within our legal systems. There will always be those willing to exploit peoples, communities, and species that do not have equal representation. We should, like a certain intrepid coyote, demand that they are held accountable. 

    Head Image: Coyote vs. Acme, Ketchup Entertainment, 2026.

    Cancer Research UK. 2026. ‘The Importance of Patients – the Decade Long Effort to Create Next-Gen Cancer Models,’ Cancer Research UK, August 11: https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2026/08/11/the-importance-of-patients-the-decade-long-effort-to-create-next-gen-cancer-models/.

    Couch, Aaron & Hibberd, James. 2023. ‘Warner Bros. Reverses Course on Coyote vs. Acme After Filmmakers Rebel,’ The Hollywood Reporter, November 13: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/coyote-vs-acme-wb-warners-canceled-reversal-shop-film-1235645372/.

    Coyote vs. Acme. 2024. d. Dave Green, Film: Ketchup Entertainment.

    D’Alessandro, Anthony. 2023. ‘Coyote Vs. Acme: Warner Bros Shelves Finished Live-Action/Animated Pic Completely as Studio Takes $30M Tax Write-off,’ Deadline, November 9: https://deadline.com/2023/11/coyote-vs-acme-shelved-warner-bros-discovery-writeoff-david-zaslav-1235598676/.

    The Day the Earth Blew Up. 2024. d. Pete Browngardt, Film: Ketchup Entertainment.

    @dgreenmachine. 2023. ‘For three years, I was lucky enough…’ X, November 9, 9:21 p.m.

    The Dog Stars. 2026. d. Ridley Scott, Film:  20th Century Studios.

    A Few Good Men. 1992. d. Rob Reiner, Film: Columbia Pictures.

    Frazier, Ian. 1990. ‘Coyote V. Acme,’ The New Yorker, February 19: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1990/02/26/coyote-v-acme.

    Home Office. 2015. The Harm–Benefit Analysis Process: New Project Licence Applications. London: Home Office,

    Home Office. 2026a. The Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA). London: Home Office.

    Home Office. 2026b. Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain. London: Home Office.

    Lang, Jamie. 2026. ‘Coyote Vs. Acme Climbs to Third at Global Box Office; Cars, Akira Re-Releases Score Domestically,’ Cartoon Brew, September 7: https://www.cartoonbrew.com/box-office-report/coyote-vs-acme-cars-akira-paw-patrol-chiikawa-266303.html.

    My Cousin Vinny. 1992. d. Jonathan Lynn, Film: 20th Century Fox.  

    National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research. 2026. Accelerating the Use of Non-Animal Reagents for In Vitro Research: Impact Report 2026. London: NC3Rs.

    @ThePeterBriggs. 2023. ‘David Zaslav has turned a functioning movie studio…’ X, November 9, 10:03 p.m.

    PLAS-LABS. n.d. ‘Rabbit Restrainers,’ Plas-Labs: https://plas-labs.com/products/animal-care-research/rabbit-restrainers.

    @scottderrickson. 2023. ‘I think it’s absolute bullshit that a studio…’ X, November 10, 4:52 p.m.

    Sena, Emily S. & Currie, Gillian L. 2019. ‘How Our Approaches to Assessing Benefits and Harms Can Be Improved,’ Animal Welfare 28: 107-115.

    Spider-Man Brand New Day. 2026. d. Destin Daniel Cretton, Film: Sony Pictures.

    Taylor, Drew. 2024. ‘The Final Days of Coyote vs. Acme: Offers, Rejections and a Roadrunner Race Against Time | Exclusive,’ The Wrap, February 9: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/final-days-coyote-vs-acme-140000578.html.

    UK Parliament. 2026. ‘Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986: Project Licence Applications’, UK Parliament, July 8: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2026-07-08/hl1807.

    University of Glasgow. 2026. ‘Openness in Animal Research,’ University of Glasgow: https://www.gla.ac.uk/research/strategy/ourpolicies/animalresearch/.

    Wiseman, Andreas. 2025. ‘Warner Bros Completes Worldwide Sale Of Coyote Vs. Acme,’ Deadline, March 31: https://deadline.com/2025/03/coyote-vs-acme-warner-bros-sale-complete-ketchup-1236354552/.

  • Animating Animal Activism: Five of the Best Short Films You Can Watch Right Now

    Animating Animal Activism: Five of the Best Short Films You Can Watch Right Now

    Move over Mickey Mouse and Fritz the Cat. In no particular order, I’d like to offer up five contemporary animated shorts that each offer powerful opportunities to explore the lives of non-human protagonists.

    Animals have, for obvious reasons, proven extremely popular subjects in animation. Whether these features possess either the intent or ability to actually reorient our anthropocentrism is, of course, entirely up for debate.

    The selection of animated shorts collected together here attempt to focus upon the lives of our scaled, furred, and feathered companions for just such purpose. All are available to watch right now and collectively showcase the artistry of animation, implemented as activism.

    5. A Trail of Lies (2021)

    Image: A Trail of Lies, D. Ben Sinclair, Keep the Ban, 2021.

    A Trail of Lies is one of many films that mixed-media animator Ben Sinclair has made through his production company, Fire Lily Studio. Much of this work is designed to support various animal rights and environmental issues. Released on Christmas Day, 2021, A Trail of Lies was produced in collaboration with Keep the Ban, an organisation dedicated to exposing popular fallacies surrounding trail hunting and campaigning for its end, as well as attempting to face off against the reintroduction of fox hunting.

    Voiced by activists Chris Packham and Peter Egan, Sinclair’s painterly mix of gouache-style digital animation is sure to evoke the ghastly beauty of Richard Adams adaptations such as Watership Down (1978) and Plague Dogs (1982). Peeks into the behind-the-scenes processes through which he creates his remarkable animations, as well as the films themselves, can be found at Fire Lily’s website. Importantly, Keep the Ban continues their work under the name Protect the Wild, and their current petition to end hunting with hounds can be found here.

    4. Save Ralph (2021)

    Image: Save Ralph, D. Spencer Susser, Humane Society International, 2021.

    Released in the same year as A Trail of Lies, Save Ralph is a stop-motion mockumentary framed around the eponymous Ralph, a rabbit who explores the horrors of cosmetic animal testing through its terrifying banality. Ralph explains to viewers the suffering he endures in his ‘day job’ while variously sat in his living room, eating breakfast, and after staggering back to his locker after a round of tortuous experimentation.

    If the short reminds you of Wes Anderson’s stop-motion features, that’s because its incredible puppets were made by Andy Gent, who worked with the director on Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009) and Isle of Dogs (2018). Save Ralph was written and directed by Spencer Susser in cooperation with Humane World for Animals, with voice work provided by a cast that includes Taika Waititi, Ricky Gervais, Zac Efron, and Olivia Munn. Susser’s work can be found at his website, Blue-Tongue Films, as can videos that document both Ralph’s cause and the painstaking work that goes into stop-motion animation. Humane World for Animal’s ongoing campaign to ban animal testing and research can be found here. This includes coverage of their current initiatives, as well as options to sign their active petition and give a much-needed donation.

    3. The Turning Point (2020)

    Image: The Turning Point, D. Steve Cutts, Fire Lily Studio, 2021.

    Part Orwellian fable of ecological disaster and part thumping pop-rock music video, The Turning Point flips the tables by depicting a dystopian world where it is our animal brethren who unthinkingly exploit human lives and careen towards environmental disaster. The activism of its animator, director, and writer, Steve Cutts, is well known for its biting satire and anti-capitalistic themes. Here, his work provides a suitably baleful accompaniment to Wantaways’ song of the same name, an artist otherwise known as the Melbourne-based musician Ken Soto.

    Cutts’ impressive array of work can be found at his website, while Wantaways equally moving music can be followed on various platforms such as Soundcloud. AlthoughThe Turning Point was not produced with any direct support from environmental agencies, Climate Action Network International acts as the world’s largest network of organisations committed to combating climate change and their website offers various opportunities to provide donations and engage with a wide variety of global initiatives.

    2. Super Cow (2022)

    Image: Super Cow, D. Dustin Brown, Last Chance for Animals, 2022.

    Super Cow is the heart-wrenching story of a cow that makes a bid for freedom as she approaches what seems to be inevitable slaughter. The toyetic stop-motion design of the short is an appropriate fit for both its hero’s fantastical flight of fancy and the grisly circumstances of the abattoir she attempts to escape, both rendered here in miniature. No words are used for narration, only a reprise of vegan activist Moby’s ‘Why Does My Heart Feel So Bad?’ (1999).

    Dustin Brown, Super Cow’s writer and director, swept up a number of awards for the short, as well as several other equally impressive productions. His first upcoming feature, Solidarity (2026), explores the lives of a Mexican seamstress and a Lithuanian butcher who struggle to survive in LA’s Fashion District, which can be tracked on his website. Super Cow was produced with the support of Last Chance for Animals and directly designed to showcase the plight of creatures who lose their lives to the meat and dairy industries. You can pledge to go meat-free and keep up to date with their ongoing campaign on their affiliated Super Cow link here.

    1. Kitbull (2019)

    Image: Kitbull, D. Rosana Sullivan, Pixar, 2019.

    Kitbull is the third film to come out of Pixar’s SparkShorts initiative, a program designed to give the company’s animators both independent reign and financial support. Rosana Sullivan, the film’s director, had worked on numerous Pixar features as a storyboard artist, with Kitbull singling her out as a talent to watch in the industry. Animated traditionally, rather than through the computer-generated imagery the studio is more well known for, the short picked up numerous accolades, including a nomination for Best Animated Short Film at the 92nd Academy Awards, as well as being exhibited before the also-phenomenal feature Turning Red (2024) in cinemas worldwide.

    Sullivan’s film is surprisingly hard-hitting, despite its generally heart-warming nature. As its title suggests, audiences watch the blossoming friendship of a feral kitten and a pit bull that is being abused by its owner. It’s a simple story that relies on recognisable archetypes, but Sullivan’s gritty, yet adorable, designs are profoundly endearing. Although stylistically distinct, fans of the sublime Flow (2024) are sure to be enamoured. As well as acting as an obvious point of reference for Pixar’s upcoming Gatto (2027), rumours are that Sullivan’s successes are leading to directorial duties on her first upcoming feature for the studio. As with The Turning Point, Kitbull was not produced with the support of any non-profit agencies, but consider supporting both Dogs Trust and Cats Protection, two organisations specifically designed to care for stray and abandoned animals.

  • “Ruh Roh, Raggy!” Scooby Snacks and the Polarising Effects of Meat-Free Dog Food

    “Ruh Roh, Raggy!” Scooby Snacks and the Polarising Effects of Meat-Free Dog Food

    Thanks to Scooby-Doo, I am greatly looking forward to my current students’ graduations. Although their taught sessions are now behind them, their enthusiasm has led them to carry on with screenings regardless, picking their own films for us to watch together and bicker about afterwards. I have begun to tease them relentlessly for the fact that, of all the features we have watched together, the only productions that have earned their rousing applause have been those in the double-billing of live-action and Golden Raspberry-nominated Scooby-Doo (2002) and Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed (2004). As well as being a textbook example of Gen-Z’s irony-infused love of camp culture, their spirited ovation has given me ample ammunition if, or should I say when, I desire to embarrass them in front of their loved ones at the end of their degree. When they chose Yorgos Lanthimos’ The Lobster (2015) they may have spent a good hour debating its conclusion, but little has rivalled the sight of Rowan Atkinson being revealed to be a robot piloted by a Great Dane pup.

    The amount of content in the Scooby-Doo empire is frankly bewildering. There have been, to date, fourteen animated TV series and forty-four films. For my students, the live-action films were monuments to the baffling wave of hyper-stylized cartoon adaptations that preceded their births. As a millennial, mine was a generation raised on a continual stream of Scooby-Doo, Where Are You! (1969-1970) re-runs and the cavalcade of Scrappy-Doo-focused series that followed in the 80s. Those before me, Gen X, were the first kids for whom the Hanna-Barbera franchise was seared into their cultural wallpaper. Is it possible, I wonder, to track the changing attitudes of generations through the antics of a scat-singing mystery-solving dog?

    Image: Scooby-Doo, Warner Bros. Pictures, 2002.

    I say this only half-jokingly. Folklorist Mark Norman has recently published an excellent book, Zoinks! The Spooky Folklore Behind Scooby Doo (2024), that explores how the series’ family-friendly approach to its frightful escapades can be traced through changing representations of teenage identity and monstrosity.  “There can be no doubt that, from its very first episode,” Norman writes, “Scooby-Doo has placed at least one paw very firmly into the Gothic camp” (2024: 20). First developed as a direct response to the organisation Action for Children’s Television’s (ACT) complaints that Saturday-morning cartoons had seemingly become too violent, Scooby-Doo exists at a fascinating intersection between horror tropes and children’s parable (Trammell, 2019). The gang of Mystery Inc. serve to rationalise the frightening world of the occult and unknown into reassuring explanations. Just as in the real world, peep beneath the masks of its ghouls and ghosts, and you will most frequently find the exploitative skullduggery of elderly businessmen and landowners. It is usually, after all, “Old Man Jenkins all along.”

    Watching the live-action adaptation with my students, possibly to keep my brain cells in some form of motion, I was taken by its depiction of the vast quantities of junk food that Shaggy and Scooby inevitably consume. I was aware that Casey Kasem, Shaggy’s first and decades-long voice actor, was a vocal vegan advocate and prominent supporter of several animal-rights and environmental causes. Kasem was a notable figure in American popular culture, but he would often argue that his campaigning for social issues was of far greater importance than his achievements in the entertainment industry. “The basic thing is to hopefully stop people from killing anything,” he stated, “and to create a non-violent diet for themselves, because a non-violent world has roots in a non-violent diet” (qtd. in Rushe 2014).

    Image: Casey Kasem by Alan Light, Wikimedia Commons, 1989.

    Scooby-Doo’s cast of characters have been used to promote an endless array of products over the decades, but Kasem quit his role when asked to perform as Shaggy in a Burger King commercial in 1995. In 2002, the same year that the live-action film was released, Kasem would return to the role after producers agreed that Shaggy could be represented on-screen as a vegetarian (Corliss 2014). Since then, the hippie gourmand has often been shown to trade in his trademark stack of towering ham sandwiches, enormous pepperoni pizzas, and triple-patty burgers for vegetarian and vegan equivalents. When Matthew Lillard took over the role, he would voice Shaggy commenting on his preference for tofu, and be seen, in-person, happily grilling up eggplant rather than beef for his burgers. Perhaps most prominently, in a Scooby-Doo and Guess Who? (2019-2021) episode featuring Sia, the glutton is shown hanging out with the singer-songwriter as they gorge themselves on vegan subs and dairy-free cotton-candy shakes.

    Following Kasem’s death in 2014, Shaggy has often reverted to his rampant omnivorism, seen rolling sardines in pancakes in Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated (2010-2013) and wolfing down “his body weight” in beef jerky in Be Cool, Scooby-Doo! (2015-2016). If anything, the cartoon character seems to possess a flexitarian diet. However, watching the 2002 film, I couldn’t help noticing that it was not only Shaggy who, for a time, refrained from eating meat, but also the canine Scooby himself. When the pooch’s beloved Scooby Snacks are introduced, we are informed matter-of-factly that they are “100% vegetarian.” As with his human companion, the Great Dane’s diet was shown in the immediate period following Kasem’s intervention as excluding any representation of animal products.

    Image: Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated, Warner Bros. Animation, 2010-2013.

    While Scooby-Doo’s brief dalliance with vegetarianism appears to have been fairly short-lived, it strikes parallels with a number of hotly debated issues that seem to be currently sweeping through our news and social media: namely, the ethics of canine dietary requirements. As Sylvia Albrizi et al. note in their paper, ‘Dogs that Ate Plants’ (2021) this is not a new affair. Humans have been feeding domesticated dogs meals based on foods such as cereals for much of our combined histories (ibid. 75). Meat-free dog foods have been commercially available in the UK since 1980, with the release of ‘Happidog,’ now known as ‘V-dog,’ made primarily from wheat and soya/pea proteins (‘History of Vegan Dog Food,’ 2024).

    However, rather than acting as a marginal fad, plant-based options have become an increasingly dominant presence in the dog food industry. Globally, a report last year estimated the current market size of the sector as being worth a whopping $6.5 billion and growing (Mordor Intelligence 2025). It should go without saying that these rising numbers have proven fairly controversial. Numerous op-eds have opined that such popularity indicates that owners “are losing the plot about what animals actually are” and prioritising their own ethical concerns over their pets’ immediate welfare (Strimpel 2022). “Now even DOGS are being told to go vegan!” exclaimed The Daily Mail when a study announced that plant-based nutrients could provide adequate alternatives to meat-based diets (Leatham 2025). When, earlier this year, naturalist Chris Packham announced that he had begun feeding his poodles, Sid and Nancy, vegan pet food, he was met with a torrent of public admonishment. “That’s very cruel denying them their preferred choice of food,” replied Nigel Owens, noted rugby referee and MBE, “dogs are not vegetarians” (@Nigelrefowens 2026).

    Image: Chris Packham by Garry Knight, 2018.

    The argument that meat-based dog foods are inherently less natural and processed is, in my opinion, fairly misguided. Writing in her exposé of the industry, Zaria Gorvett argued that “Big Pet Food is a multi-billion-dollar industry which invests heavily in research into ‘palatants’ – ingredients that make our pets want to eat their products” (2021). Numerous chemicals and additives such as cadaverine, heptanal, and sodium acid pyrophosphate are frequently used to intensify flavour and stop the foods discolouring. “While in human food, their levels are sometimes closely monitored as a way of ensuring the freshness and safety of meat,” she writes, “they’re often actively added to cat and dog food, either as offal extracts or lab-made additives” (ibid.).

    Like our own culinary histories, the food we have chosen to give our animal companions can be measured by the evolving roles they have played in our lives, as well as our own shifting methods of production and consumption. There are few sectors that prop up lower-welfare livestock farming as self-evidently as that of pet food manufacturing. The rendering industry’s waste-reduction practices are often rolled out as one of the primary justifications for the more egregious conditions associated with mass-scale animal slaughter. Instead of being dumped in landfills or burned, the immense waste can instead be recycled into “meat and bone meal, hydrolyzed feather meal, blood meal, and various types of animal fats and greases” for consumption by pets (Meeker & Meisinger 2015: 835).

    Image: Dog Food by Anne Hornyak, Wikimedia Commons, 2011.

    Beyond the obvious welfare issues regarding the animals slaughtered, the FDA has frequently issued warning letters and recall notices to such plants due to the presence of unsafe chemicals and bacteria in rendered offal. Such cases have included the detection of pentobarbital, a drug used to euthanise animals (Bonnin 2019), and Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza, otherwise known as bird flu (FDA 2025). Salmonella outbreaks, in particular, can frequently be traced back to rendering facilities, triggered by poor preventative measures and negligent sanitation standards (Carney 2024).

    In Food Pets Die For (1997), journalist and animal welfare advocate Ann N. Martin published one of the most notable attempts to address the scandals surrounding the commercial pet food industry. “I quickly learned that this is a multi-billion-dollar industry that operates with virtually no government regulations and in many ways self-regulated,” she would write in an updated edition (2002: viii). While a degree of oversight was introduced following crises such as the BSE outbreak, these issues remain ever-present.  “When you are dealing with a billion-dollar industry that wants to continue in the same mode, using the same dubious ingredients and condoning inhumane research on animals, change will only come in small increments,” she would argue (2002: viii-ix).

    Image: Rendering Plant by Julian E Beckton, Openverse, 2012.

    What about health and nutrition? Was Shaggy negligent in apparently supporting Scooby’s attempt to go meat free? Well, the growing wealth of academic evidence has begun to challenge assumptions about plant-based alternatives often propagated by meat industry representatives. Two years ago, the British Veterinary Association ended its opposition to canine vegan diets. As well as recognising a number of contemporary studies that observed equivalent health standards between dogs that were fed nutritionally-sound vegan diets compared to those who ate meat, they noted several instances where benefits were present, “such as improvements in skin and gastrointestinal conditions” (BVA 2024: 2). Similarly, the American Kennel Club’s advice compares the omnivorous needs of both dogs and humans, noting that both can safely subsist on vegan or vegetarian diets if the proper nutrients are present (AKC Staff 2021).

    Reflecting the very same reasons that so many of our own species abstains from carnivorism, the most overwhelming evidence supporting plant-based dog food is environmental in nature. A study last year suggested that an alarming “25–30% of the environmental impacts of animal production have been attributed to companion animal diets” (Nicholles & Knight 2025). Another suggested that transitioning all pet dogs to vegan diets could “save greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 1.5 times the UK’s annual output, while providing enough food energy to feed 450 million people, equivalent to the EU population” (Sustainable Pet Food Foundation 2025).

    Image: Bulldog by Kabo, Unsplash, 2020.

    The decision to feed dogs a vegan or vegetarian diet is undoubtedly going to remain a contentious one. However, just as we choose to domesticate animals based on our own questionable sense of authority, we also have a responsibility to understand the impact of this choice upon both their well-being, as well as the well-being of our planet. As Jelena Šuran, veterinary scientist and pharmacologist, summarises, “evidence of the benefits of adding plant ingredients to canine diets is increasing as studies become larger and better designed (2024: 52-53).

    Scooby-Doo might not seem a particularly apt vehicle for the exploration of such polarising debates, but, as evidenced by Kasem’s activism, the gang’s more-than half-century of adventures suggests otherwise. From their Annie-award-winning parody of The Blair Witch Project (1999), a mountain of viral creepypastas, and endless online debates regarding their racial and sexual identities, the franchise has, as my students’ enjoyment testified, rooted itself in countless urban legends and subversive folk tales. My brief look at the dietary questions surrounding Scooby Snacks might just as easily have focused upon edibles and drug cultures. As Lillard’s Shaggy says when introducing himself to Mary Jane, a young woman munching on the biscuits, “like, that is my favourite name.” 

    Image: The Scooby-Doo Project, Cartoon Network, 1999.

    Scooby-Doo is a franchise that gets a frankly ridiculous amount of mileage from the bottomless appetites of its two most cowardly protagonists. Thrust into paranormal dilemmas, Scooby and Shaggy’s death-defying desire to consume every foodstuff imaginable is a necessary element in their constant battle against their spooky adversaries. Their time as vegans, driven by Kasem’s activism, may have been short-lived, but it was pronounced enough to make me wonder how their dietary choices will be approached in the upcoming Netflix series, currently going by the insipid working title of Scooby-Doo: Origins. Still, if Scooby and Shaggy can, even briefly, overcome their hunger and fear, go plant-powered, and stand up to ghastly apparitions, there may yet be hope for us all.

    Head Image: Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated, Warner Bros. Animation, 2010-2013.

    AKC Staff. 2021. ‘Can Dogs Adapt to a Vegan Diet?’ American Kennel Club, September 1: https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/nutrition/dogs-can-adapt-to-a-vegan-diet/.

    Albizuri, Silvia et al. 2021. ‘Dogs that Ate Plants: Changes in the Canine Diet During the Late Bronze Age and the First Iron Age in the Northeast Iberian Peninsula,’ Journal of World Prehistory 34: 75-119.

    Be Cool, Scooby-Doo! 2015 – 2018. Exec Prod. Sam Register, TV Series, US: Warner Bros. Animation.

    The Blair Witch Project. 1999. D. Daniel Myrick & Eduardo Sánchez, Film, US: Artisan Entertainment.

    Bonnin, Evelyn. 2019. ‘WARNING LETTER: JBS Souderton, Inc. dba MOPAC,’ U.S. Food & Drug Administration: https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/jbs-souderton-inc-dba-mopac-574386-04232019.

    British Veterinary Association. 2024. ‘BVA policy position on diet choices for cats and dogs,’ British Veterinary Association: https://www.bva.co.uk/take-action/our-policies/diet-choices-for-cats-and-dogs/.

    Carney, Isaac K. 2024. ‘WARNING LETTER: Mid America Pet Food LLC,’ U.S. Food & Drug Administration: https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/mid-america-pet-food-llc-681516-11222024.

    Corliss, Richard. 2014. ‘Casey Kasem; The Voice of America,’ Time, June 15: https://time.com/2878606/casey-kasem-the-voice-of-america/.

    Food and Drug Administration. 2025. ‘Voluntary Recall of Wild Coast Raw Boneless Free Range Chicken Formula Raw Pet Food Because of Possible Bird Flu Health Risk,’  U.S. Food & Drug Administration: https://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls-market-withdrawals-safety-alerts/voluntary-recall-wild-coast-raw-boneless-free-range-chicken-formula-raw-pet-food-because-possible.

    Gorvett, Zaria. 2021. ‘The hidden reason processed pet foods are so addictive,’ BBC, May 20: https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20210519-the-hidden-reason-processed-pet-foods-are-so-addictive.

    ‘History of Vegan Dog Food.’ 2024. Sustainable Pet Food Association, January 26: https://sustainablepetfoodassociation.co.uk/history-of-vegan-dog-food.

    Leatham, Xantha. 2025. ‘Now even DOGS are being told to go vegan!’ Daily Mail, September 3: https://www.dailymail.com/sciencetech/article-15060639/DOGS-vegan-Plant-foods-nutrients-meat.html.

    Martin, Ann N. 2002. Food Pets Die For: Shocking Facts About Pet Foods, Troutdale: NewSage Press.

    Meeker, D L. & Meisinger, J L. 2015. ‘Rendered ingredients significantly influence sustainability, quality, and safety of pet food,’ Journal of Animal Science 93. 3: 835-847.

    Mordor Intelligence. 2025. Vegan Dog Food Market Size and Share Analysis – Growth Trends and Forecasts (2025–2030). Mordor Intelligence. Available at: https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/vegan-dog-food-market.

    Nicholles, B. & Knight, A. 2025. ‘The environmental sustainability of meat-based versus vegan pet food,’ Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 9.

    @Nigelrefowens. 2026. ‘That’s very cruel denying them their preferred choice of food,’ X, January 8: https://x.com/Nigelrefowens/status/2009395846429987210.

    Norman, Mark. 2024. Zoinks! The Spooky Folklore Behind Scooby Doo. Luton: Chinbeard Books.

    Rushe, Dominic. 2014. ‘Casey Kasem, voice of Shaggy in Scooby Doo, dies on Father’s Day at 82,’ The Guardian, June 15: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/15/casey-kasem-voice-shaggy-scooby-doo-dies.

    Scooby-Doo. 2002. D. Raja Gosnell, Film, US: Warner Bros. Pictures.

    Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed. 2004. D. Raja Gosnell, Film, US: Warner Bros. Pictures.

    Scooby-Doo and Guess Who? 2019 – 2021. Exec Prod. Sam Register, TV Series, US: Warner Bros. Animation.

    Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated. 2010 – 2013. Exec Prod. Sam Register, TV Series, US: Cartoon Network.

    The Scooby-Doo Project.1999. D. Chris Kelly, Larry Morris & Steve Patrick, Animated Special, US: Cartoon Network.

    Scooby-Doo, Where Are You! 1969 – 1970. Exec Prod. William Hanna & Joseph Barber, TV Series, US: Hanna-Barbera Productions.

    Strimpel, Zoe. 2022. ‘Vegan dog food is emblematic of our unhealthy canine obsession,’ The Telegraph, May 15: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/15/vegan-dog-food-emblematic-unhealthy-canine-obsession/.

    Šuran, Jelena. 2024. ‘Plant ingredients in dog food – what does recent research say?’ Pets International, February: 52-53.

    Sustainable Pet Food Foundation. 2025. ‘Plant-Powered Pups: New Study Shows Dramatic Environmental Gains From Plant-Based Dog Food in the UK,’ Press Release Hub, September 25: https://pressreleasehub.pa.media/article/plant-powered-pups-new-study-shows-dramatic-environmental-gains-from-plant-based-dog-food-in-the-uk-55527.html.

    Trammell, Kendall. 2019. ‘“Scooby-Doo” wasn’t just another cartoon. It was a Reaction to the political turmoil at the time,’ CNN, September 13: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/13/entertainment/scooby-doo-50th-anniversary-history-trnd.

  • Turtles All the Way Down: Marine Conservation and The Red Turtle (2016)

    Turtles All the Way Down: Marine Conservation and The Red Turtle (2016)

    Those who know me best probably assume that, of all the films released to general audiences in 2017, Guillermo del Toro’s Academy Award-winning The Shape of Water surely secures the top spot in my heart. Not so. It was pipped at the post, remarkably, by another film about a human protagonist forming a romantic relationship with an aquatic creature. Once is happenstance; twice, as in this case, feels faintly conspiratorial. Whatever the case, I’ve championed The Red Turtle at almost every opportunity. Revisiting it now, ten years after its premiere in the Un Certain Regard section of Cannes, it remains an utterly beguiling animation that inspires reflection on the delicate ecosystems of our planet’s oceans.

    Produced through an alliance of the Parisian arm of the European animation studio Wild Bunch and Tokyo’s own Studio Ghibli, The Red Turtle boasts a transcultural identity that is as adrift as its castaway protagonist. Impressed by the animated short films of Michaël Dudok de Wit, the producers at Ghibli wrote to the London-based Dutch filmmaker in the hope of collaborating on a feature. Watching Dudok de Wit’s prior shorts, it’s clear to see how his silent and painterly expressions of animals and objects, imbued with magical significance, would have charmed the talent at Ghibli.

    Image: Father and Daughter, CinéTé Filmproductie, 2000.

    For the animation enthusiasts among you, I highly recommend watching The Monk and the Fish (1994), Father and Daughter (2000), and The Aroma of Tea (2006), all currently available online, collectively demonstrating Dudok de Wit’s gifts as a storyteller, crafting deeply moving and meditative experiences through illustrations in motion. ‘I aim for audio silence and also visual silence. I call it “timelessness”,’ the animator explains, ‘I find it hard to pinpoint but it’s a very still moment, not because nothing happens, but because whatever happened before and whatever will happen next doesn’t matter. We’re just there, now’ (Williams 2016).

    Toshio Suzuki and Isao Takahata, filmmakers who had worked, respectively, as director and producer on features of such towering brilliance as Grave of the Fireflies (1988), were clearly impressed by Dudok de Wit’s animations and signed on as producers, alongside Vincent Maraval, Wild Bunch’s own representative in France. It’s tempting to dive head-first into deep waters with The Red Turtle, to discuss how Dudok de Wit’s first feature acts as an important landmark in the animation industry as its traditions navigate from East to West and back again. If these are debates that interest you, pick up a copy of Andrijana Ružić’s recent book on the filmmaker, as she offers comprehensive analysis of the cultural exchanges that lie at the centre of his work, arguing that ‘his unadorned drawings reflect themselves vaguely in Hergé’s clear line, whilst his watercolour settings, inspired by compositions from Rembrandt’s etchings and Hakuin’s artwork, evoke transcendence and spirituality’ (2021: xxi). Hefty praise! We, however, are here to talk about turtles and, more specifically, the ways that Dudok de Wit’s film can be placed amidst debates that concern our oceans’ ecologies.

    Image: The Red Turtle, StudioCanal, 2016.

    Like Dudok de Wit’s other features, The Red Turtle eschews dialogue in favour of articulating its story through movement and environment. Inspired by the many adaptations that rework Daniel Defoe’s archetypal tale of shipwrecked adventure, Robinson Crusoe (1719), we watch its nameless protagonist wash ashore a tropical island and construct a new life for himself, far from the reach of his home civilisation. As such, The Red Turtle contributes to a long line of so-called ‘Robinsonades’ that explore the identities of their heroes by relocating them outside of their communities and isolating them in the natural world. Defoe’s novel explores these issues through the lens of Empire-building and colonialism, with Crusoe shipwrecked while on an expedition to procure slaves for his plantation. He is also quick to convert his Native American companion, whom he names Friday, to Christianity, all the while imposing his enlightenment-era sense of moral and rational Englishness upon both the wilderness that surrounds him and the heathen cannibals who threaten his existence.

    For Stefan Č. Čizmar, our fascination with such tales ‘embodies and epitomises the general worldview of the time, especially in the British context’ of ‘ever-growing colonial expansionism, which in turn strengthened the ideas of British racial superiority and the belief in Britain’s need to expand its colonial dominion’ (Čizmar, 2021: 215). How, then, does Dudok de Wit’s transcultural feature re-approach such well-established representations of men lost at sea? The answer comes fairly quickly in the form of its castaway’s interactions with the eponymous turtle herself.

    Image: The Red Turtle, StudioCanal, 2016.

    Upon awakening on the beach, The Red Turtle’s protagonist, somewhat understandably, is determined to return to his homeland and constructs a raft from the forest of bamboo stalks covering the island. He is horrified when he is approached each time by this huge sea turtle, which, looming from within the waves, rams and batters his raft, destroying his sole means of escape. Enraged, the man eventually seeks revenge, attacking it when it comes ashore with a stick of bamboo and flipping it onto its back, leaving it beached and immobile.

    Watching as the hulking creature slowly perishes, the castaway soon begins to feel remorse for his action and attempts to flip the creature upright, failing due to its colossal weight. After running desperately to and fro to fetch water in the hopes of keeping the animal hydrated, he returns to find it dead and collapses in exhaustion next to its lifeless body. As the film’s name suggests, it is the appearance of this mysterious turtle that distinguishes Dudok de Wit’s animation from so many comparable Robinsonades. This is not, despite its nameless hero’s initial intentions, the story of environmental escape or conquest. His own humanistic confidence, desperation, and certainty, invested in his rickety raft, were, after all, disastrously misplaced. The turtle’s actions have saved him from certain death in the roaring ocean surrounding him, and his act of revenge is quickly revealed as one of impotent rage. What follows is, instead, a story of ecological revival and return, where the hero is offered a second option: accept the turtle’s suggested guidance and make peace with the wilderness in which he finds himself.

    Image: The Red Turtle, StudioCanal, 2016.

    Although the turtle’s actions have denied the protagonist his seeming preference for a watery demise over his condemnation to the isolation of the island, its actions have nevertheless provided him with the opportunity to carve out a new existence that he would have otherwise been denied. Change may be traumatic and unwanted but, rather than embrace death, he is now free to recontextualise his identity among the natural world he once sought to escape. Adithian K. describes the film’s titular turtle as representing a ‘renewal of nature,’ writing that ‘humanity has posited itself as an alienated being that is separate from the natural entity, and we have almost forgotten the truth that the destruction of nature will eventually lead to self-destruction, for in essence, we are inseparable parts of a larger unity’ (2025: 33).

    The film’s central hook, driving the entirety of its remaining narrative, is revealed when the unnamed hero awakens to discover that the turtle’s shell has split open and, from within, a red-headed woman has emerged. We watch as the two decide to accept their changed identities, as castaway and newly formed human, overcome their resentments, and build a life with one another. For its remaining running time, Dudok de Wit silently renders their time together on the island in series of hauntingly beautiful vignettes that, frame by frame, maintain a minimalistic palette detailed with elegant, yet rich, texture. We see the two fall in love and raise a son, educate him on his mixed heritage, and collectively fight for their survival when a storm sweeps through the bamboo forests of their home, leaving it a desolate wasteland.

    Image: The Red Turtle, StudioCanal, 2016.

    Eventually, the boy ages and, with an emotional send-off from his parents, swims away with another group of sea turtles that he has befriended, leaving the island that has, since his birth, been his home. The parents age and the man eventually passes away peacefully in his sleep as they lie together on the beach. The woman wakes, gently holds his hand and then, after a beat, returns yet again into the form of a sea turtle before slipping quietly into the ocean. Summarily, Dudok de Wit uses his film to explore the triumphs and tragedies of life, from youth to old age, dramatised through three figures building a home together out of unlikely circumstances.

    Importantly, the familial dynamic of The Red Turtle does not bear any resemblance to the sorts of escapades evident in similar narratives such as The Swiss Family Robinson (1812). Theirs is not a story of salvaging supplies and using their ingenious know-how to attempt to replicate the comforts of civilisation. Just as Dudok de Wit’s style of animation is sparse and minimalistic, so too is he uninterested in depicting the mechanics of their everyday lives. His heroes are perfectly content to get on without language, complex tools, or contraptions. Rather than being defined by the trappings of modernity, the essential merits of their existence are measured by the love and devotion they share, the fundamental roots of human behaviour that life on the island can reveal. The natural world and, in effect, life itself, is depicted as traumatic, tragic and unrelentingly shaped by the forces of change and destruction. Yet it is, in Dudok de Wit’s animation, the same force that provides his protagonists with everything upon which they depend. It is notable that the only man-made object featured in the film is a single bottle that survived the initial shipwreck. This item then inspires the child’s curiosity and allows him to understand that there is a world beyond the island than he is unaware of.

    Image: The Red Turtle, StudioCanal, 2016.

    From Thomas More’s Utopia (1551), William Shakespeare’s The Tempest (1623), Jules Verne’s The Mysterious Island (1875), and William Golding’s Lord of the Flies (1954), we possess a centuries-old tradition of utilising imagined islands to map out landscapes through which dystopian and utopian ideals can be encountered. Patrick Gill argues that The Red Turtle’s ecocritical, anticolonial representation of its family is its most remarkable quality: ‘no longer identified with ideas of civilisation, cultivation and domination,’ he writes, ‘humanity in Dudok de Wit’s film can forgo attempts at physical and verbal empire building and instead be at one with nature’ (2019: 153).

    Reading the animator’s description of his childhood, it’s easy to see where this mindset developed, and how it became such an important component of his works’ shared aesthetic: ‘We lived near heather moors and I would cycle across the moors to school,’ Dudok de Wit would remember, ‘they were part of a vast nature reserve, gorgeous in all weather conditions: snow, rain or mist. They would be covered once a year with lavender coloured flowers. The attraction of the flat polder landscape too lies in its vastness, in its infinity. When you cycle there, you are very aware of the sky and the horizon. Faraway in the distance, you spot a tiny profile of a poplar tree or a church bell tower. All this space was exhilarating’ (Ružić, 2021: 4).

    Image: The Red Turtle, StudioCanal, 2016.

    The romantic coupling of The Red Turtle’s human protagonist and his animal companion might be thought of as a contemporary reworking of Odysseus’ subjugation by Calypso, or the countless selkies, sirens, mermaids, rusalki, and nereids that our cultures have variously imagined seducing men to the lakes, rivers, and oceans within which they reside. However, rather than motivated by fear of entrapment, trickery, and domestication, Dudok de Wit positions his character’s metamorphosis as an opportunity for renewal. As with its reframing of Robinsonade adventure, the threat of the wilderness and its creatures, so often indicative of monstrosity, pales in comparison to the human willingness to dominate and destroy.

    Similarly, while the fantastical transformation of a giant sea turtle into a woman might seem conspicuously bewildering, it participates in a tradition of animal-bride narratives that are as old as civilisation itself. Anthrozoologist Boria Sax, who has written a fascinating book on the subject titled The Serpent and the Swan (1998), argues that such narratives are fundamental components of humanity’s attempts to reconcile its relationship to the natural world. ‘The process we call “civilisation” is, in general, characterised by increasing distance from the natural world,’ he writes, ‘in older tales the world is less likely to be sharply divided into different realms, appropriate to animals, human beings, and divinities’ (1998: 30). The image below is an excellent example of these folk tales immortalised in recent years, showcasing a statue of Kópakonan, or the selkie, the seal woman, shedding her skin upon the shores of Mikladalur in the Faroe Islands.

    Image: Kópakonan, Hans Pauli Olsen, 2014.

    Turtles are, like the seals that inspired the selkie, fundamentally liminal beings. They are able to exist on both land and in water, and have, therefore, often been used within folklore to represent distinctions between diametrically opposed states of being. In the Japanese legend Urashima Tarō, a turtle carries a fisherman who had saved its life to the fantastical palace of Ryūgū-jō beneath the sea. The Vietnamese golden turtle god Kim Quy is seen to be a keeper of great secrets and wisdom, capable of acting as an intermediary between humans and the land of spirits. The Chinese, indigenous Lenape peoples of North America, and Hindus all boast their own variations of a ‘world turtle,’ a beast so large that it supports entire islands, continents, and even worlds on its immense back.

    In contemporary popular culture, there are multiple authors who appropriate and rework such folklore: a world turtle named Great A’Tuin carries aloft Terry Pratchett’s entire setting of Discworld as it slowly swims through space, while Stephen King sees Maturin the Turtle as the overarching protagonist of his own creative multiverse. The popular adage ‘turtles all the way down,’ in reference to such cosmologies, speaks to a sense of existential continuity and infinite regress that positions humanity’s existence as a mere speck within the grand workings of our universe.

    Image: ‘The Cosmic Tortoise, and Mount Meru,’ Thunot Duvotenay, 1843.

    Turtles are employed for similar effect in Dudok de Wit’s film, symbols of a world that is unquestionably beyond the boundaries of our understanding. Just as we are given no information about our nameless protagonist’s prior identity, or the nature of his shipwreck, so too are we left in the dark as to the reasoning behind the red turtle’s own transformation and eventual departure. I have offered my own readings of the film here, but devoid of verbal narration or expository dialogue, Dudok de Wit leaves this completely up to personal interpretation. The film’s inscrutable identity, explicitly refusing to explain its meanings, will either bewitch or frustrate those who seek to engage with it.

    It is notable, however, that the creature featured in the film is based upon the hawksbill sea turtle, a critically endangered species that possesses nesting sites that span throughout the world’s tropics. The practice of eating the hawskbills and their eggs, has led to them being a target for human hunters for centuries, but it is the harvesting of their shells that has had the greatest impact on their numbers. In 2008, a report by the Marine Turtle Specialist Group (MTSG) noted that ‘Japanese statistics document the import of shell equivalent to more than 1.3 million large Hawksbills from around the world between 1950-1992 and more than 575,000 stuffed juveniles from Asia between 1970-1986,’ instigating a population decline that has been measured at approximately 80% (Mortimer & Donnelly). It is apt that The Red Turtle, a film defined by the shifting waters of international cooperation, would orient itself through the iconography of an animal that has been used as a trophy through thousands of years of international trade and conquest, latter European colonialism, and contemporary industrialised exploitation.

    Image: ‘Illegal Chinese Fishing Vessel Seized in Indonesia,’ WWF-TNC Joint Marine Program, 2007.

    Now listed in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), commercial dealing of the creatures has been prohibited, with numerous programs designed to assist conservation efforts. Just this month, The State of the World’s Sea Turtles organisation (SWOT) highlighted promising developments in attempts to bolster existing laws and consolidate information and regulation that is spread across habitats that span across numerous national boundaries. Unsurprisingly, however, they also point towards major issues in ‘the scarcity of funding and technical expertise,’ as well as the immense damage produced by sea turtle bycatch in ‘illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing’ (Hawksbill SSAP Steering Group & CMS IOSEA Secretariat, 2026: 31).

    Beyond the issues of bycatch and trafficking, hawksbills are dependent on a range of different habitats such as coral reefs, seagrass meadows, and undisturbed beaches that are variously threatened by the impact of manmade degradation, climate change and pollution. In April of 2025, President Donald Trump reversed decades‑old protections by signing a proclamation that opened the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument to commercial fishing by the nation’s vessels. “This is one of the most pristine tropical marine environments in the world that already faces dire threats from climate change and ocean acidification,” David Henkin, an attorney for the nonprofit Earthjustice would state, ‘we will do everything in our power to protect the monument’ (Fox, 2025). That same month, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service would similarly publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking titled ‘Rescinding the Definition of Harm under the Endangered Species Act’ (Hays Barho, 2025). Environmental campaigners have argued that changing the definition of ‘harm’ in such a way would profoundly weaken the Act’s existing protections of animals, downplay the significance of their habitat loss, and open up new opportunities for their exploitation (Steinzor 2025).

    Image: ‘Hawksbill Sea Turtle,’ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

    Dudok de Wit was firm in his belief that ‘I don’t see this as a film with an ecological message,’ arguing instead that his animation ‘is just a film that expresses my deep love and respect for nature’ (Pape, 2017). He purposefully designed The Red Turtle so that it did not possess an easily digestible ‘moralistic’ point; ‘the film doesn’t present an answer,’ he would assert, when questioned on the matter (ibid). Visualised through stunning sun-drenched landscapes upon shore and positively luminescent undersea sequences, the animator succeeds admirably in capturing what he describes in another interview as an ‘emotional and intuitive relationship to nature’: ‘I like the word “awe,”’ he would say, ‘it’s about the temperature we feel on our skin, the breeze in our hair.  It’s about the sunlight and the shadows it casts, It’s about the changing of lights outside.  It’s about nature in all shapes, in all senses’ (Jacobs, 2017).

    Michaël Dudok de Wit may not be supplying any answers, but it is impossible, when swept up within the majestic imagery of his debut feature, to prevent that feeling of awe from manifesting into questions about the world’s changing ecologies. Our marine life has long been mythologised as representatives of the interconnected nature between our species and the oceans that surround us. Reframing its shipwrecked narrative upon a creature that is at home on both land and in water, and developed through the international collaboration of its globe-spanning production companies, The Red Turtle is a reminder of common interests that defy national borders and our impulse towards self-segregation. There may well come a time when, castaway and lost at sea, survival may depend on our willingness to unlearn our instinct to dominate.

    Head Image: The Red Turtle, StudioCanal, 2016.

    The Aroma of Tea. 2006. D. Michaël Dudok de Wit, Film, Netherlands: CinéTé Filmproductie.

    Čizmar, Stefan Č. 2021. ‘Colonialism and Capitalist Ideology in Robinson Crusoe,’ Philologia Mediana 13. 13, pp. 215-228.

    Earthjustice. 2025. ‘Earthjustice Statement on Trump Administration Executive Order to Open Pacific Marine Monument to Commercial Fishing,’ Earthjustice, April 17: https://earthjustice.org/press/2025/earthjustice-statement-on-trump-administration-executive-order-to-open-pacific-marine-monument-to-commercial-fishing.

    Father and Daughter. 2000. D. Michaël Dudok de Wit, Film, Netherlands & UK: CinéTé Filmproductie.

    Gill, Patrick. 2019. ‘Dystopian and Utopian Omission of Discourse in Three Modern Robinsonades: Lord of the Flies, Concrete Island, The Red Turtle,’ Porównania 2. 25, pp. 145-156.

    Golding, William. 1954. Lord of the Flies. London: Faber & Faber.

    Hawksbill SSAP Steering Group & CMS IOSEA Secretariat. 2026. ‘Strengthening Collaboration for Hawksbill Protection,’ The State of the World’s Sea Turtles Report, XXI: pp. 30-31.

    Hays Barho, Rebecca. 2025. ‘Agencies Move to Rescind “Harm” Definition under Endangered Species Act,’ Endangered Species Law and Policy, April 17: https://www.endangeredspecieslawandpolicy.com/agencies-move-to-rescind-harm-definition-under-endangered-species-act.   

    Jacobs, Derek. 2017. ‘Interview: Michaël Dudok de Wit talks The Red Turtle,’ Cinema Axis, January 23: https://cinemaaxis.com/2017/01/23/interview-michael-dudok-de-wit-talks-the-red-turtle/.

    K, Adithian. 2025. ‘The Minimalist Poetics of Ecology: A Study of The Red Turtle,’ Creative Saplings 4. 4: pp. 27-37.

    The Monk and the Fish. 1994. D. Michaël Dudok de Wit, Film, France: Folimage.

    More, Thomas. 1551. Utopia. Translated by Ralph Robinson. London: Abraham Veale.

    Mortimer, J.A & Donnelly, M. 2008. Eretmochelys imbricata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/8005/12881238.

    Pape, Stefan. 2017. ‘“I couldn’t believe it” – Michael Dudok de Wit on collaborating with Studio Ghibli on The Red Turtle,’ HeyUGuys, May 24: https://www.heyuguys.com/michael-dudok-de-wit-interview-the-red-turtle/.

    The Red Turtle. 2016. D. Michaël Dudok de Wit, Film, Japan & France: Wild Bunch.

    Ružić, Andrijana. 2021. Michael Dudok de Wit: A Life in Animation, Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Sax, Boria. 1998. The Serpent and the Swan: The Animal Bride in Folklore and Literature. Virginia: McDonald & Woodward.

    Shakespeare, William. 1623 ‘The Tempest,’ Mr. William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies. London: Isaac Jaggard and Edward Blount.

    Steinzor, Nadia. 2025. ‘Wildlife need habitat! Speak out to stop federal agencies from changing the definition of “harm” in the Endangered Species Act,’ Rewilding Institute, April 30: https://rewilding.org/wildlife-need-habitat-speak-out-to-stop-federal-agencies-from-changing-the-definition-of-harm-in-the-endangered-species-act/.

    Verne, Jules. 1875. The Mysterious Island. Translated by W. H. G. Kingston. London: Sampson Low, Marston, Low, & Searle.

    Williams, Fiona. 2016. ‘Michael Dudok de Wit talks ‘Red Turtle’, and being backed by Studio Ghibli,’ Special Broadcasting Service, September 20: https://www.sbs.com.au/whats-on/article/michael-dudok-de-wit-talks-red-turtle-and-being-backed-by-studio-ghibli/5xoyoko5w.

    Wyss, Johann David. 1812. Der Schweizerische Robinson [The Swiss Family Robinson]. Zurich: Orell, Füssli und Compagnie.