Tag: Film

  • 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.

  • Comic Cryptids and Eco-Sustainability in Sasquatch Sunset (2024)

    Comic Cryptids and Eco-Sustainability in Sasquatch Sunset (2024)

    I’ve always had a soft spot for cryptozoology, the pseudoscientific field of fascination with unsubstantiated creatures. Who can resist the romantic allure of the Loch Ness Monster that supposedly dwells in the Scottish Highlands, the chupacabra of Hispanic America, or Point Pleasant’s own Mothman? Cryptozoology’s marriage of ‘kryptós’ and ‘logos,’ translated directly to ‘hidden knowledge,’ reminds us that the world undoubtedly possesses secrets that have not yet been revealed. Beyond the astonishing fervour that a surprising number of conspiracy theorists continue to demonstrate, cryptozoology’s broader appeal reflects an understanding that nature still possesses the ability to surprise and delight us.  

    If there is any cryptid who rivals Disney’s Mickey Mouse or Nintendo’s Mario as an immediately recognisable mascot, it is almost certainly Bigfoot, alternatively known as Sasquatch, the hairy, hulking, bipedal beast that patrols both American and Canadian folklore. As with the Himalya’s own Yeti, or Abominable Snowman, on the other side of the globe, North America’s Bigfoot demonstrates a continued fascination with ape-like and Neanderthalic humanoids that can be traced throughout all our species’ history.

    The Sasquatch has become an important emblem of North American cultural identity, with its origins rooted in the legends and folklore of the Sts’ailes, a community indigenous to Chehalis, in British Columbia, who ‘passed down songs and stories about sasq’ets, a supernatural slollicum, or shapeshifter, that protects the land and people’ (Kadane 2022). As so often occurs with indigenous mythologies, the fascination surrounding these wildmen was soon Anglicised and eventually, after several well-publicised hoaxes by North Western loggers and foresters, translated into a veritable commercial empire.

    Image: Rocky LaRock, Salish, Photo by Bill Jorgens.

    Following a tidal-wave of media interest that reached fever pitch in the late 60s and 70s, Bigfoot has certainly found itself well-represented in film. From horror movies such as Bigfoot (1970), Night of the Demon (1980) and Abominable (2006), which depict its sightings ending in violence and carnage, to saccharine family-friendly adventures such as Cry Wilderness (1987), Bigfoot: The Unforgettable Encounter (1995) and Little Bigfoot (1997), America’s love of the hairy cryptid appears relatively boundless. It goes without saying that the Academy-Award-winning masterpiece Harry and The Hendersons (1987) deserves an article of its own for featuring John Lithgow begrudgingly learning to befriend one of the creatures after hitting it with his station wagon.

    All in all, for contemporary audiences, bigfoots and sasquatches – let’s settle on our plurals now – have come to signal a sense of instability and incompatibility in our own relationship to nature. Whether they depict the cryptid as a rampaging monster or benevolent beast, these are films that collectively draw upon the shared fears and anxieties that are produced when we feel a sense of removal from the natural order we associate with the wilderness.

    Image: Harry and the Hendersons, Universal Pictures, 1987.

    Sasquatch Sunset (2024), one of the more recent attempts to engage in this shared mythology, wears its cult credentials proudly on its furry sleeves. Directors and brothers Nathan and David Zellner had previously dabbled in bigfoot filmmaking with Sasquatch Birth Journal 2 (2010), an absurdist short that is almost entirely constructed around a single take of one of the creatures giving birth while bracing itself among the branches of a tree.

    Sasquatch Sunset maintains this singular focus by featuring no human characters or discernible dialogue. Throughout its entire theatrical running time, audiences are treated to performances of Riley Keough, Jesse Eisenberg, Christophe Zajac-Denek, and Nathan Zellner himself, elaborately costumed as a family of nomadic bigfoots who go about grunting, whooping, and huffing through the wilderness.

    Image: Sasquatch Sunset, Bleeker Street, 2024.

    The Zellners’ film relies on a strange concoction of crude scatological humour, sexual encounters, and full-frontal sasquatch nudity with an eerily beautiful depiction of the American wilderness. Life as a bigfoot is represented as comically visceral and bawdy, yet underscored by a wordless and ever-present sense of existential melancholy. If this is a film that either intrigues or repels you, you can probably already tell. Sasquatch Sunset is undeniably a passion project produced by like-minded collaborators who vibe with its tonal shifts and absurdist humour, with Eisenberg even footing some of the production budget himself when an initial financier backed out (Salisbury 2024).

    The film’s most remarkable quality is that it is framed as a fabricated nature documentary, taking inspiration from the Patterson-Gimlin footage of 1967 that supposedly captured images of a bigfoot striding purposefully through Six Rivers National Forest. ‘It’s one of the most famous pieces of film in film history,’ David Zellner would argue, describing the fascination that he and his brother developed after watching the footage in an episode of the 1970s paranormal investigation series In Search of… hosted by Leonard Nimoy (ibid).

    Image: Roger Patterson and Robert Gimlin, 1967.

    Sasquatch Sunset might best be defined as a kind of cryptid mockumentary, playfully mashing up conventions of satire and documentary just as its subject stalks the boundaries of science and pseudoscience. While paranormal investigation series such as Finding Bigfoot (2011-2018) have helped perpetuate the creature’s myth, the Zellners’ film is presented as if it were a David-Attenborough-esque nature documentary, minus the presenter’s dulcet narration. Similarly, the film’s drama is depicted as emerging naturally from the four sasquatches as they meander around their woodlands, rather than conforming to the tightly plotted regimes of scripted filmmaking.

    Sasquatch Sunset’s ridiculous central premise, that of human performers stomping about in bigfoot costumes, satirises the seemingly unimpeachable authority that Matthew Brower argues is often falsely attributed to wildlife photography: a ‘nonintrusive, environmentally friendly activity that shows proper respect for the fragility of nature’ (2011: xiii). Our media’s representations of the natural world have, of course, always been the product of deliberate construction. Disney’sWhite Wilderness (1958), for example, grotesquely featured filmmakers carolling a group of lemmings off a cliffside to emulate mass migration, while, more recently, the BBC defended its decision to record scenes of a polar bear giving birth in a Dutch zoo for its Frozen Planet (2011) series (Burrell 2011).

    Image: White Wilderness, 1958.

    The refusal of Sasquatch Sunset’s subjects to behave in a manner that might see them appropriate for wide-spread documentation is undeniably part of their charm. Scenes in which they variously consider having sex with a hole in a log after being rebuffed by a potential mate, throw a recently birthed placenta to distract a hostile mountain lion, or embark on a hallucinatory rampage after consuming a psychoactive cocktail of berries, aren’t just silly, they are amusing precisely because they are delivered in the straight-faced and erudite delivery of the wildlife documentary. By revisiting Patterson and Gimlin by way of Attenborough, the Zellner brothers identify, as with all good mockumentaries, an appropriate target for ridicule. The sasquatches’ antics remind us that nature is, in contrast, equal parts funny, tragic, grotesque, and absurd.

    Sasquatch Sunset undermines another significant fallacy that Brower identifies, one that acts as a lynchpin of the Bigfoot myth. This is the argument that wildlife footage and photographs ‘function as a substitute for a real nature that the images themselves assert is impossible for humans to enjoy’ (2011. xiv). Brower’s claim here is that the pleasure of watching animals in the wild is often credited to the act of looking into a world that we believe we are excluded from. Just as Bigfoot’s status as a wildman emphasises our own seemingly distinct identity as modern and civilised beings, so too does the nature documentary’s erasure of signs of human observation help to reinforce the myth that our species is ultimately separated from the wildlife that surrounds us.

    This perspective is often masked under noble intentions, that of conservationism, yet belies an anthropocentric arrogance that defines much of our species’ experience. The idea that humans are different, distinct, and no longer bound to a natural order is everywhere. René Descartes famously labelled species different from our own as ‘automata,’ machine-like beings incapable of thought or reason (Brown 2018), while Aristotle and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola respectively cited humanity’s seeming rationality and self-determinism as evidence of our apparent distinctiveness (Aristotle 1925 [circa 350 BCE]: X.7, Pico della Mirandola 2016 [circa 15th c.]).

    Humanity’s innate belief in its own exceptionalism is not aided by the fact that we are the last surviving Hominina species. Our developing understanding of taxonomic threads such as Neanderthals, Denisova, Luzonesis and Floresiensis actively remind us that our direct siblings have only been extinct for a brief span of our existence. The mystique of the ‘missing link’ is a testament to the perceived gulf that can, with enough evidence, be breached. That, surely, is part of the appeal of Bigfoot; the idea that we might bump into a fellow family member were we to delve deep enough into the surrounding wilderness. We might, we imagine, not be as alone as we first assumed.

    Image: Pexels, 2021.

    Attempting to explain his movie’s ambitions beyond its gross-out humour, David Zellner would argue that he wanted to subvert the tradition of films featuring Bigfoot, as well as similar monsters and cryptids, that privilege a human perspective and point of view: ‘we really wanted to have it reversed where the humans assume that position, where they’re the mysterious alien life form basically that you’re only exposed to to a certain degree’ (qtd. in Frank 2024). As such, Sasquatch Sunset reframes its bigfoots from being the supporting and antagonistic figures most predominantly depicted in media, into full-ledged protagonists. Audiences are then invited to play at being ethologists, deciphering the nature of their relationships, reactions, and rituals entirely non-verbally.

    Watching Keough playing the sole female in the group, we gradually come to understand her resolve to keep her family together despite the hedonistic impulses of Zellner, whose territorial and aggressive personality quickly gets the better of him. The grunts and huffs of Eisenberg’s curious sasquatch teach us that he is attempting to dabble with basic arithmetic, although he struggles to make it past the number three, while Zajac-Denek’s youngster of the group carefully watches and learns from his elders’ interactions.

    Sasquatch Sunset’s positioning of its audiences amongst its hairy subjects reflects how our relationship to animals is ordered by the very acts of spectatorship and subjectivity that film-watching itself is defined by. As Murray Smith argues, character engagement is constructed through various processes of ‘recognition, alignment, and allegiance,’ or, rather, the human need to find a point of identification through which we can experience a narrative (2022: 73). The team behind the film were well-aware of the potential problems that they might encounter when dramatising a story that features a cast entirely buried beneath fur suits and thick latex prosthetics. Eisenberg enlisted the movement coach Lorin Eric Salm, whom he had worked with when playing Marcel Marceau in Resistance (2020), and the Zellners ran a ‘Sasquatch School’ to help the performers cultivate a consistency between their behaviour and mannerisms (Nemiroff 2024).

    Image: Sasquatch Sunset, Bleeker Street, 2024.

    Despite the already laborious make-up process, the decision was made to avoid using contact lenses, with David Zellner explaining that ‘we wanted the actors’ real eyes to be seen because so much information was going to be communicated through them. Especially with Riley, because she’s so expressive. She has these bright blue eyes that pop and telegraph so much info.’ (qtd. in Salisbury 2024). Zellner’s comment that it is the performer’s eyes that act as the gateway to a meaningful connection recalls popular discussions of similar opportunities to develop human-animal empathy. As Jane Goodall wrote of her first close encounter with the apes that would forever shape her life and work, ‘staring into the eyes of a chimpanzee, I saw a thinking, reasoning personality looking back’ (1999: 2).

    Whether through sight gags, such as the compulsion of Keough’s sasquatch to repeatedly sniff at her fingers after scratching her crotch, or scenes of despair, as experienced when a newborn infant suffers from asphyxiation, the film’s seemingly raw and observational nature emphasises its connection between observer and subject. The film’s chief delight is reconciling the sasquatches’ strange behaviour with relatively primal impulses that we, as humans, are all familiar with. More sinisterly, this process acts as an opportunity to question our species’ tendencies towards anthropomorphism, and the dangerous consequences that occur when our ability to empathise is primarily motivated by whether or not we can position ourselves alongside the identities of those different to us.

    Image: Sasquatch Sunset, Bleeker Street, 2024.

    As well as reflecting questions of human experience and subjectivity, the myth of Bigfoot evokes the concerns of countless species that are on the brink of extinction due to human encroachment upon their habitats. The Zellners don’t need to articulate directly that this clan may be the last of their kind as we are all too familiar with the fact that the sasquatches’ elusive aura is sustained by their scarcity. Folklorist Joshua Blu Buhs connects the creature to various tales of similar spirits and wildmen, arguing that ‘sasquatch became a symbol of the environmental movement, a myth created to re-enchant the world and make its preservation a sacred task’ (2009: 234)  

    An existential sense of loneliness seeps throughout Sasquatch Sunset as successive misadventures see their number slowly dwindle. At various points in their journey, we watch as the family ritualistically drums upon tree trunks with branches, beating out a call that echoes through the forests. Prominent Bigfoot trackers who have heard such noises, called tree-knocking, coming from woodlands have argued that the sound likely acts as a means of communication by the species (Carrol Sain: 2020). Whatever the case, when Sunset Sasquatch’s protagonists send out their call, there is no answer but silence.

    Shot in Six Rivers National Forest, the same region that the Patterson-Gimlin footage was captured, Sasquatch Sunset is something of a pilgrimage for the Zellner brothers. The landscape photography of cinematographer Mike Gioulakis is suitably awe-inspiring, depicting acres of coniferous forests and towering redwoods that sweep across the Klamath Mountains into a seemingly endless expanse of greenery.

    Image: Sasquatch Sunset, Bleeker Street, 2024.

    The stalking image of Bigfoot has become what ethnohistorian Robert Walls describes as ‘a kind of charismatic megafauna’ (2022), indivisible from the greater ecology of the Pacific North West within which it lives. Eisenberg would consider these themes a primary motivator for his interest in the fictional cryptid, stating that sasquatches ‘represent our connection to nature and other creatures in a mythological—or perhaps not mythological—way’ (qtd. in Frank 2024).

    Throughout most of the film, the Zellners depict this wilderness as a liminal space, completely devoid of any markers that we can grasp upon to locate ourselves within a specific period of time. That is, until the film establishes its final act, and the sasquatches encounter a road. The family react in abject horror at the enormous and alien strip of tarmac that carves through their territory, urinating and defecating upon it to express their displeasure. Soon after. they quizzically attempt to decipher the strange ‘x’ marks that have been branded upon several trees, flee from a forest fire that bellows smoke in the distance, and stumble upon an abandoned campsite where they rummage through the decidedly human artefacts that have been left strewn about.

    The finest sequence in the film is undoubtedly the one in which Keough’s sasquatch lifts a boombox aloft and, fiddling with the device, plays a tape which has Erasure’s hit, ‘Love to Hate You’ (1991), recorded upon it. Keough stands as if in a trance as the synth-pop tune blares from the boombox’s speakers. When the refrain of ‘Waoh Oh Oh Oh!’ begins, she appears captivated by what are, significantly, the first human voices that we have heard in the entire film. They are almost certainly the first that she has heard in her entire life. Her response, when she finally moves, is one of primal rage and loathing, and she proceeds to destroy every constructed human object that is within her reach. 

    Image: Sasquatch Sunset, Bleeker Street, 2024.

    This is the moment where the gulf between the sasquatches and their human audience is at its largest. They are completely unaware of the nature of the strange world they have entered, while we, of course, are able to experience it with easy familiarity. Yet, although the dramatic irony experienced through our differing understanding might be distinct, the anger directed at humanity’s encroachment of the forest is certainly not.

    In April of this year, soon after taking office for his second term, Donald Trump rescinded various environmental protections that applied to over half of the U.S.’s national forests. The administration cited attempts to control wildfires as the cause of their decision (Brown 2025), but fingers were quickly pointed at Trump’s desire to cut lumber imports and his statement that ‘we have massive forests. We just aren’t allowed to use them because of the environmental lunatics who stopped us’ (qtd in. Milman 2025).

    Researchers and state foresters have argued clearly and vocally that the strategy of preventing wildfires via increased logging requires careful and precise management if it is not to worsen the situation, and can only be of potential aid if done selectively (Cornwall 2025). Such recent changes in policy are only the tip of an ecological and biological collapse that decades of climate change and industrialisation have wrought. Sasquatch Sunset might dramatise the moment that its family of bigfoots stumble upon the Anthropocene, but the tipping point that announces the irreversibility of our own relationship to our forests is, sadly, already far behind us.

    Image: Pexels, 2019.

    However, just as the myth of Bigfoot encourages the human propensity to anthropomorphise the natural world into a human form, so too are there dangers to overly-sentimentalising our wildernesses. The cryptid’s commercialisation throughout popular media in the 1970s brought with it what Joshua Blu Buhs defines as a particularly middle-class fantasy of the natural world: ‘the paradise that Bigfoot guarded was a place where leisure was valued over work,’ he writes, ‘where walkers and hikers and backpackers knew the world better, survived the world better than those who worked in it’ (2013: 45).

    The particularly bourgeois tendency to imagine the wilderness as a place that should be cleansed of human influence threatens to erase the countless communities, trades and businesses that are inexorably tied to its well-being. The current administration’s rolling back of environmental laws and heavy tariffs have been announced as the remedies for the struggling logging towns scattered throughout the Pacific North West, but forestry experts contend that doing so does little to assist their long-term survival (McNichols 2025). Similarly, plans to entirely close the U.S. Forest Service’s headquarters in the region under the guise of cutting public spending will effectively dismantle the vital presence of rangers, firefighters, ecologists, and researchers who help maintain the area (Ehrlich 2025).

    Image: Sasquatch Sunset, Bleeker Street, 2024.

    The ecosystems that the legend of Bigfoot encourages us to engage with are, to put it mildly, extraordinarily complex. Sentimentalism and anthropomorphism are not the answers to the region’s survival, but empathy for the realities of the beings that live there is essential. It is notable, therefore, that Sasquatch Sunset concludes on imagery that complicates the mythologies that it helps to advance. The surviving bigfoots never encounter a living human throughout the duration of their long journey, but they do conclude it by staring up at a strange effigy that our species has created in their own image.

    This endpoint is a 25-foot statue called ‘Oh Mah Bigfoot’ that stands at the entrance of Willow Creek-China Flat Museum, self-proclaimed ‘Gateway to Bigfoot Country’ (‘Willow Creek’ 2025). This encounter, static though it may seem, enables the Zellners to flip the position of observer and subject that has sustained the production so far. The camera lingers as Keough and Zajac-Denek stare, dumbfounded into the statue’s face, seeking recognition in the warped, uncanny totem that stands alone within this utterly alien world. In our desperate attempt to give form to ideas and mythologies that we do not truly understand, humanity’s attempts to represent the sasquatches mean little to the creatures themselves. As Margaret Atwood wrote in a poem she once penned about the ever-mysterious cryptid, ‘sasquatch can never be known: he can teach you only about yourself.’ (1970: 20).

    Head Image: Sasquatch Sunset, Bleeker Street, 2024.

    Abominable. 2006. D. Ryan Schifrin, Film, USA: Freestyle Releasing.

    Aristotle (1925 [c.350 BCE). The Nicomachean Ethics: Translated with an Introduction. Translated by David Ross. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Atwood, Margaret. 1970. ‘Oratorio for Sasquatch, Man, and Two Androids,’ Poems for Voices, Toronto: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

    Frozen Planet. 2011. TV Series, October 26 – December 28, UK: BBC.

    Bigfoot. 1970. D. Robert F. Slatzer, Film, USA: Ellman Enterprises.

    ‘Bigfoot.’ 1977.  In Search of…, TV Episode, April 28, USA: Alan Landsburg Productions.

    Bigfoot: The Unforgettable Encounter. 1995. D. Corey Michael Eubanks, Film, USA: PM Entertainment.

    Brower, Matthew. 2011. Developing Animals: Wildlife and Early American Photography. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Brown, Deborah J. 2018. ‘Animal Souls and Beast Machines: descartes’s mechanical biology’, in Peter Adamson, and G. Fay Edwards (eds) Animals: A History, New York: Oxford Academic: 187-210.

    Brown, Matthew. 2025. ‘Trump administration rolls back forest protections in bid to ramp up logging,’ Independent, April 4: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/donald-trump-joe-biden-forests-congress-great-lakes-b2727730.html.

    Buhs, Joshua Blu. 2009. Bigfoot: The Life and Times of a Legend, Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Buhs, Joshua Blu. 2013. ‘Camping with Bigfoot: Sasquatch and the Varieties of Middle-Class Resistance to Consumer Culture in Late Twentieth-Century America,’ The Journal of Popular Culture 45:1: 38-58.

    Burrell, Ian. ‘BBC denies fake polar bear scene was misleading,’ Independent, December 13: https://www.independent.co.uk/hei-fi/news/bbc-denies-fake-polar-bear-scene-was-misleading-6276283.html.

    Carrol Sain, Johnny. 2020. ‘Finding bigfoot: in the woods in search of North America’s great, wild ape,’ Hatch, September 25: https://www.hatchmag.com/articles/finding-bigfoot/7715127

    Cornwall, Warren. 2025. ‘Trump wants to log more forests. Will it really help prevent wildfires?’ Science, April 17: https://www.science.org/content/article/trump-wants-log-more-forests-will-it-really-help-prevent-wildfires.

    Cry Wilderness. 1987. D. Jay Schlossberg-Cohen, Film, USA: Visto International Inc.

    Ehrlich, April. 2025. ‘Time is running out to weigh in on Forest Service overhaul that would close Pacific Northwest headquarters,’ Oregon Public Broadcasting, September 27: https://www.opb.org/article/2025/09/27/forest-service-northwest-headquarters-closure/.

    Smith, Murray. 2022. Engaging Characters: Fiction, Emotion, and the Cinema, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Finding Bigfoot. 2011-2018. TV Series, May 29 – May 27, USA: Animal Planet.

    Frank, Allegra. 2024. ‘There’s Much More to Sasquatch Sunset Than Piss and Poop,’ Daily Beast, April 20: https://www.thedailybeast.com/obsessed/sasquatch-sunset-is-about-so-much-more-than-piss-and-poop/.

    Goodall, Jane and Berman, Phillip. 1999. Reason for Hope: A Spiritual Journey. New York: Warner Books.

    Harry and The Hendersons. 1987. D. William Dear, Film, USA: Universal Pictures.  

    Kadane, Lisa. 2022. ‘The true origin of Sasquatch,’ BBC, July 21: https://www.bbc.co.uk/travel/article/20220720-the-true-origin-of-sasquatch.

    Little Bigfoot. 1997. D. Art Camacho, Film, USA: Republic Pictures.

    ‘Love to Hate You.’ 1991. Erasure, Song, Chorus, UK: Mute Records.

    McNichols, Joshua. 2025. ‘Could Trump’s tariffs bring back the Pacific Northwest lumberjack?’ Oregon Public Broadcasting, July 20: https://www.opb.org/article/2025/07/20/washington-lumberjack-trump-tariffs/.

    Milman, Oliver. 2025. ‘Outcry as Trump plots more roads and logging in US forests: “You can almost hear the chainsaws,”’ The Guardian, October 6: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/06/trump-logging-forests.

    Nemiroff, Perri. 2024. ‘Riley Keough Opens Up About Having a Sasquatch for a Director,’ Collider, January 27: https://collider.com/sasquatch-sunset-riley-keough/.

    Night of the Demon. 1980. D. James C. Wasson, Film, USA: VCII, Inc.

    Pico Della Mirandola, Giovanni. 2016 [circa 15th c.]. ‘Oration on the Dignity of Man’, translated by Richard Hooker, Brians: https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/11/14/pico-della-mirandola-oration-on-the-dignity-of-man-15th-c-ce/

    Resistance. 2020. D. Jonathan Jakubowicz, Film, USA, UK & Germany: IFC Films.

    Salisbury, Mark. 2024. ‘How Jesse Eisenberg “saved the day” by helping to fund Sasquatch Sunset,’ Screen Daily, February 15: https://www.screendaily.com/features/how-jesse-eisenberg-saved-the-day-by-helping-to-fund-sasquatch-sunset/5190541.article.

    Sasquatch Sunset. 2024. D. Nathan and David Zellner, Film, USA: Bleecker Street.

    Walls, Robert. 2022. ‘Bigfoot (Sasquatch) legend,’ Oregon Encyclopedia, September 7: https://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/bigfoot_sasquatch_legend/.

    ‘Willow Creek.’ 2025. The Humboldt County Visitors Bureau: https://www.visitredwoods.com/listing/willow-creek/118/.

  • Frankenstein (2025) and Vegetarian Monstrosity

    Frankenstein (2025) and Vegetarian Monstrosity

    Guillermo del Toro loves monsters. If there is any connective thread that runs through the director’s work, it is the very-same that the zealous Frankenstein uses to stitch together the patchwork flesh of his own creation. Whereas the latter would become horrified by the monstrous appearance of his life’s work, del Toro hopes to enthral us with his representations of outcasts who are demonised for their rejection of social norms.

    The anticipation surrounding his adaptation of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus (1818) has been fuelled by its seeming inevitability. ‘The creature of Frankenstein,’ del Toro would argue, speaking of Boris Karloff’s portrayal, “was a more beautiful martyr figure than Jesus with the exposed fracture. And I started adoring him’ (qtd. in Sweet 2025). This veneration is on full display in his adaptation, not only through his casting of the impossibly chiselled Jacob Elordi, but through the dialogue of Elizabeth, Mia Goth, who questions the incredulous Frankenstein, Oscar Isaac, ‘What if, unrestrained by sin, our creator’s breath came into its wounded flesh directly?’ (Frankenstein, 2025).

    Image: Netflix, 2025

    Del Toro’s messianic depiction of his Creature reflects his ongoing attempts to relate the special-effects driven spectacle of genre cinema through stories that feature marginalised individuals that are villainised for their social difference. So too has Mary Shelley’s own work continually been opined as a significant opportunity to explore nineteenth-century attitudes towards issues such as sexuality, gender, and social strata from an almost endless array of perspectives.

    As George Haggerty argues in ‘What is Queer about Frankenstein?’ ‘there is nothing normative about the relationship between Frankenstein and his creature: the almost by-definition dysfunctional family relations are transgressive from the start’ (Haggerty 2016: 116). The scientist’s own fervour, after all, is defined by his willingness to deviate from expected roles regarding reproduction in the pursuit of the ‘perfect’ male form, while the resultant Creature is defined by its inability to find social acceptance.

    One act of defiance that the Creature claims for itself is its choice to refrain from eating meat, stating to his creator that “My food is not that of man; I do not destroy the lamb and the kid to glut my appetite; acorns and berries afford me sufficient nourishment.  (Shelley 1818: 149). Notably, Carol J. Adams linked the Creature’s diet to feminist scholarship by dedicating an entire chapter of her book, The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory (1990), to its exploration. ‘Vegetarianism, like feminism,’ she writes, ‘is excluded from the patriarchal circle, just as Mary Shelley experienced herself as being excluded from the male circle of artists of which she saw herself a part’ (Adams 1990, 119).

    Image: Theodor von Holst and William Chevalier, 1831

    The Creature’s revelation of his plant-based diet has several different functions in Shelley’s novel. Being a veggie, for him, is a means of persuading Frankenstein to create a female mate. His reasoning is that, if he were to have some companionship, he would have no incentive to harm anyone and could live out the remainder of his life beyond civilisation’s reach. A rejection of carnism, therefore, is an attempt to evidence both his moral dignity and his desire for social withdrawal.

    The idea that vegetarianism is a sign of monstrous deviance is everywhere in our contemporary culture. Think for a moment, of the many vegan and vegetarian characters who are depicted as fanatics or oddballs, smug moralists, or even dangerous psychotics. Tom Clancy, for example, seems to find the prospect of such lifestyles utterly baffling, depicting them in Rainbow Six (1998) as a sure-fire means of identifying extremist eco-terrorists hell-bent on humanity destruction. Worse still, refusing to eat meat is frequently depicted as a rejection of presumed maleness. ‘The vegan monster offers a monstrous embodiment of human desires,’ writes Emelia Quinn, ‘threatening, as a result, existing discourses of meat-eating that work to shore up and insatiate a particular ideal of white, Western masculinity’ (Quinn 2021: 17).

    So, how did these culinary contexts make their way into Frankenstein? As the child of pioneering women’s rights campaigner Mary Wollstonecraft and political author William Goldwin, Mary Shelley was profoundly influenced by the social circles that she encountered throughout her life. She would rub shoulders with several Romantic-era advocates for vegetarianism, including Joseph Ritson, John Frank Newton and, notably, Percy Bysshe Shelley, the writer with whom she would elope and begin a tumultuous relationship.

    Image: Richard Rothwell, c. 1831-1840

    Percy Shelley himself would produce a pro-veggie pamphlet in which he argued that, were it not for the Promethean theft of fire, we might not be so willing to tuck into the flesh of other animals: ‘It is only by softening and disguising dead flesh by culinary preparation that it is rendered susceptible of mastication or digestion, and that the sight of its bloody juices and raw horror does not excite intolerable loathing and disgust’ (Shelley 1813: 13). Food, as it were, for thought.

    By imagining another Promethean creation similarly falling from grace, Shelley’s writing acts a cornerstone of the Regency and Victorian-era Romantics who helped to develop criticisms of industrialisation, the potential hazards of over-agriculturalisation and inequality driven by starvation and malnutrition, developing many of the country’s first animal welfare laws. When Michael Owen Jones collated several articles that explore the relationship between food and culture, for example, he chose to title it Frankenstein Was a Vegetarian: Essays on Food Choice, Identity, and Symbolism (2022).

    With this history in mind, where does this leave Guillermo del Toro’s recent production, and his own obsession with the vegetarian monster that haunted Shelley’s imagination over two-hundred years ago? The director had stated in 2015 that watching The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) had ‘made me a vegetarian for four years’ (qtd. In Alexander 2015), and he has similarly delivered a graduation commencement speech for the entirely vegan MUSE School in Los Angeles, where he argued that “we’re living in a world that is really on the brink in so many ways, ecologically, socially, full of injustice that seems to change, then comes back’ (MUSE School CA 2019).

    Image: MUSE School CA, 2019

    It’s in del Toro’s own body of work, however, that it becomes clear that his monstrous protagonists are all, in some way or another, shaped by issues surrounding speciesism and humanity’s fascistic approach to animal welfare. It is no coincidence that when the Creature of this film first encounters human civilisation, it is through an encounter of hunters stalking prey. Alone for the first time and wandering disorientated through the woods, Frankenstein’s creation encounters a deer peacefully grazing upon a bush. Approaching tentatively, he retrieves some berries and eats one himself, before extending his palm out to the animal in an invitation to feed. Bang! Suddenly this moment of serenity is shattered when hunters kill the deer with a single shot of a rifle.

    Despite being a product of man-made intervention, del Toro frequently positions his Creature as a force of nature, having a group of cottagers refer to him as ‘The Spirit of the Forest’ when he offers them unseen benevolence. Even when held captive within the bowels of the great stone tower that Frankenstein uses as his laboratory, the Creature is fascinated with the few elements of the natural world that he can interact with from his confinement, marvelling at leaves as he sets them upon water, watching them float down a small gulley that passes through his otherwise barren basement.

    Image: Netflix, 2025

    If the Creature’s identity is defined by his relationship to nature and vegetarianism, then Frankenstein’s is as carnivorous as one can imagine. It is an act of meat eating that establishes the toxic nature of his parents’ relationship and the scientist’s subsequent desire to penetrate the natural order of life and death. Charles Dance, coldly demands that his pregnant wife, Mia Goth in her second role, eat a piece of bread that has been dipped in the red juices of a particularly rare cut of meat, explaining to her that ‘the salts will enrich your blood.’

    Describing the shocking amount of flesh that covers many of the film’s sets, Oscar Isaac would describe his laboratory as a ‘meat banquet’ (qtd. in Hall 2025). Indeed, Frankenstein’s workshop opens into a butchers’ market that is decorated with a row of pigs’ heads hanging on a rail, carts of meat, and even a bucket of bones and offal. When the scientist invites his soon-to-be benefactor, Henrich Harlander, Christoph Waltz, inside, the audience is treated to a close-up of the latter hopping over a puddle of blood that has spilled down the street. It should be remembered that Shelley herself utilised similar imagery in her own novel, with her scientist stating that ‘The dissecting room and the slaughter-house furnished many of my materials; and often did my human nature turn with loathing from my occupation’ (Shelley 1818: 55).

    Image: Netflix, 2025

    Although they seem dissimilar, both Frankenstein and his creation are bound by their shared desire to understand the circumstances of their life, birth, and eventual death. What distinguishes the Creature’s gentle observations from his creator’s unempathetic zeal is their treatment of other living beings. It’s impossible to watch the film without comparing the scientist’s cruel conduct towards his creation, pulling him up in chains, barking instructions and beating him with a metal rod to real-world acts of animal mistreatment and captivity. Notably, when the scientist begins preparing for his final confrontation with his creation, he is asked by a merchant what he is hunting; his reply is, simply, ‘big game’.

    Frankenstein then, is not a character that del Toro depicts as one who would have any interest in animal lib. Instead, it is Elizabeth that allows the director to offer comparative acts of compassion. The dual casting of Mia Goth as Frankenstein’s deceased mother and unrequited paramour allows her to represent the life and love that the scientist is impotently unable to dominate. It is Elizabeth who challenges Frankenstein’s assumptions that humanity’s infliction of pain on other animals can be justified due to their seeming lack of sentience. ‘What is pain,’ Elizabeth proposes, ‘if not a mark of intelligence?’

    Image: Netflix, 2025

    Mary Shelley’s most enduring legacy is, perhaps, the rage expressed by Frankenstein’s ‘monster’ once it realises that its existence will not be tolerated by humanity. Some have chosen to explore this anger as an expression of the many traumas that the author endured throughout her life, especially the patriarchal injustices that she was subjected to as an intellectual (Tillotson 1983: 175). Others have continued to find courage in her Creature’s indignant wrath. ‘My Words to Victor Frankenstein above the Village of Chamounix: Performing Transgender Rage,’ for example, acts as a powerful example of Shelley’s novel being transformed into a performance piece designed to ‘harness the intense emotions emanating from transexual experience – especially rage – and mobilize them into effective political actions’ (Stryker 1994: 237).

    As for del Toro, his speech at the plant-based and sustainably-driven campus reflected similar concerns. ‘One of the energies you have as young people is rage. Most people tell you not to use it, to put it away, to be nice,’ he would claim, “I say make peace with it and use it. Be enraged at what you are inheriting. Be enraged at what you cannot do and what’s possible before and change it […] What makes you “stubborn” and “impossible” makes you tenacious’ (MUSE School CA 2019).

    The power of Mary Shelley’s creation has resonated across two centuries, in far greater effect than those of her male contemporaries. Del Toro’s newest incarnation of her Creature reminds us that rage is a natural response to injustice and that if we want to continue defining humanity through our seemingly humane natures, then we drastically need to rethink our relationship to the natural world that we exploit for the sake of our own pride, ambition, and gluttony.

    Head Image: Netflix, 2025

    Adams, Carol J.  1990. The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory. New York: Continuum.

    Alexander, Thomas. 2015. ‘[Interview] Guillermo del Toro on Serenading Crews, Silent Hills and Crimson Peak,’ October 7, Bloody Disgusting: https://bloody-disgusting.com/news/3364524/interview-guillermo-del-toro-on-serenading-crews-silent-hills-and-crimson-peak/.

    Clancy, Tom. 1998. Rainbow Six. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

    Frankenstein. 2025. D. Guillermo del Toro. USA, Film: Netflix.

    Haggerty, George. 2016 ‘What is Queer about Frankenstein?’ Andrew Smith ed. The Cambridge Companion to Frankenstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 116-127.

    Hall, Gerrad. 2025. ‘Oscar Isaac on creating Frankenstein’s doctor — and giving him a ‘rock star’ quality,’ September 4, Entertainment Weekly: https://ew.com/oscar-isaac-frankenstein-doctor-victor-rock-star-exclusive-11801021.

    Jones, Michael Owen. 2022. Frankenstein Was a Vegetarian: Essays on Food Choice, Identity, and Symbolism. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.

    MUSE School CA. 2019. ‘2019 MUSE School Graduation Commencement Speech,’ June 26, YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NokdAkdjzFw&t=95s.

    Shelley, Percy Bysshe. 1913. A Vindication of Natural Diet. London: Smith & Davy.

    Shelley, Mary. 1818 [2013]. Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. London: Penguin Books.

    Sweet, Matthew. 2025. ‘How Netflix turned Frankenstein Catholic,’ November 11, The Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/how-netflix-turned-frankenstein-catholic/.

    The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. 1974. d. Tobe Hooper. USA, Film: Bryanston Distributing Company.

    Tillotson, Marcia. 1983. ‘“A Forced Solitude”: Mary Shelley and they Creation of Frankenstein’s Monster,’ Julian E. Fleenor ed., The Female Gothic. Montreal: Eden, 176-175.

    Stryker, Susan. 1994. ‘My Words to Victor Frankenstein Above the Village of Chamounix: Performing Transgender Rage,’ A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 1:3, 237-254.

    Quinn, Emelia. Reading Veganism: The Monstrous Vegan, 1818 to Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.