Detachment and Isolationism or On The Collective Delusion of Optimal Community
The year 2016 saw the release of two animation works, which seemed to challenge the status-quo on the volatile and highly competitive entertainment market: Zootopia, the story of an utopian universe in which mammals, both preys and predators, co-exist in peace and harmony, and The Angry Birds Movie (also known as Angry Birds), telling about the brutal intrusion of pigs into the highly tranquil village of a secluded island with flightless birds as inhabitants sharing a happy, undisturbed life. Zootopia presents an utopian universe where mammals, both prey and predators, coexist in peace and harmony, reinforcing the microscopical vision of the concept “unity within diversity” and the hidden challenges – as well as promises – included in it. As Judy Hopps, the main character, explains at some point, faith and courage are necessary to overcome old paradigms of behavior – but is it really that simple, this colorful utopia of a perfect coexistence in accordance with the principle “unity within diversity”? On the ther hand, Angry Birds tells the story of the brutal intrusion of pigs into the highly tranquil village of a secluded island inhabited by flightless birds sharing a happy, undisturbed life. This seemingly idyllic community embodies the bleak vision of a closeted society with little room for individual peculiarities and freedom. Thus, the principle “all for one and one for all – but only among ourselves,” as enticing as it might seem at first glance, loses its brightness – and opens the gate for a warmer, softer encounter with the others. Both Zootopia and Angry Birds came on the background of the lurking xenophobia and isolationist policies in rich countries, with leading politicians increasingly under pressure by frightened citizens to reinforce measures to stop the wave of newcomers flooding from poorer areas of the planet towards the affluent North-West.
Angry Birds is a computer-animated comedy film released in Finland and the UK on May 13, 2016, and in United States on May 20th, 2016. Also known as The Angry Birds Movie, the plot is based on Rovio Entertainment’s eponymous video game series, and it was produced by Columbia Pictures and Rovio Animation, and distributed by Sony Pictures Releasing. It was directed by the debutant directors Clay Kaytis and Fergal Reilly. The film received mixed reviews from critics reflecting deeper ideological undercurrents that warrant exploration, as to be detailed further below, but was a box-office success, grossing over $352 million and becoming the second highest-grossing film of all time, worldwide, to be based on a video game behind Warcraft ($433.5 million). At the same time, it remains the most successful Finnish-produced film of all time.
The plot of Angry Birds is quite linear: A reclusive, temperamental outcast bird named Red lives in a village on Bird Island with other flightless birds. When his temper causes a “premature hatching” of another bird’s egg, he is sentenced to take an anger management class. Red’s classmates – Chuck (who is hyperactive and can move at hypervelocity) and Bomb (who can cause explosions with his anger and fear) – try to befriend him, but he avoids them. One day, a boat docks at the island’s shore, damaging Red’s house. The birds are greeted by green-colored pigs and their captain Leonard, who claim to be peaceful explorers bringing offerings of friendship. However, as the time passes and the festivities abound, it becomes clear that the pigs’ intentions might not be that honorable. It turns out that, in fact, they want to steal the birds’ eggs and eat them. Confronted with the disappearance of the eggs, the birds must choose between laying new eggs (and giving up on the stolen ones) or fighting for rescuing the stolen eggs. Although initially they wanted to choose the first option, Red encourages them to fight for their “unborn kids”, and after uselessly looking for help from the Mighty Eagle – who appears to be overweight, self-absorbed, leading the life of a slacker without having flown in years –, they set on a journey to save the eggs from the Piggy Island. They return victorious, with Red as their leader and reconstruct the vandalized village, while Red moves in the house repaired by the birds in the center of the village.
Despite of its financial success, Angry Birds received internationally mixed reviews, ranging from “pretty thin gruel” (Rafer Guzman [May 18, 2016], The Angry Birds Movie review: Like the app, not thematically rich; Newsday.com; retrieved July 3, 2024) to “pointless” (Alonso Duralde [May 7, 2016], The Angry Birds Movie Review: App-Based Cartoon Has All the Fun of Avian Flu; TheWrap; retrieved July 3, 2024). However, the film’s funny, vivacious script and brightly colored, appealing animation initially overshadowed its ideological shortcomings. Upon closer examination, the film raises several significant issues, the most preeminent being the particular focus on the ideas of conformity and apparent harmony resulting from unquestioned submission of oneself to the rules and regulations of the community. The discrimination against any upsetting element which sticks out goes completely unacknowledged, or, if ever perceived, is accepted as a necessary price paid for the well-being of the conformist whole.
Firstly, Angry Birds portrays an over-protective community isolated from the rest of the world, living in undisturbed bliss under the undisputed reassurance of an almighty figure, the Mighty Eagle, and his all-too-self-absorbed self-appointed representative. Any social element, like Red, who stands out due to unusual traits, is quickly excluded from communal life. Happy conformism and a total lack of self-awareness are the norm, but what happens to those who are different? Open discrimination in the form of ignorance and oblivion seems to be the answer. However, it is the fresh, non-conformist instinct of the excluded Red who clearly sees the danger, warns the others, and ultimately offers the authentic solution of fighting for one’s rights and loved ones – not the superficial option of giving up and hiding behind cowardice and lack of vision.
Secondly, there is the blind trust in outsiders, which turns out to be disastrously wrong. The inhabitants of Bird Island have forgotten how to communicate openly with strangers and to show a minimum amount of foresight and caution. Their final solution after the victorious return with the rescued eggs – a softly veiled symbol for “energy” and “future” – is to close themselves off again, ignoring the development of the outside world. Even Red, with all his temper and tantrums, cannot overcome this paradigm; he gains new close friends and acceptance and has been accepted by the community, but his vision of life and his position in it remain unchanged.
Thirdly, there is the absence of constructive solutions. Bluntly, put, from beginning to end, there is no character development or existential philosophy which allows the characters to send a specific message to audiences, overcoming the fourth wall. In life, there is a middle way between completely closing off to strangers and indiscriminately opening the gates to all newcomers. There is an infinite spectrum of nuances between black and white, which does not appear in Angry Birds. This lack of progress towards a future oriented to communication and understanding is a significant shortcoming. However, the final mid-credits scene, where the three little blue birds use the slingshot to launch themselves out towards the ocean, may hint at an escape from a suffocating community. This scene might symbolize the need to escape from a community suffocated by its own self-indulgency and complacency and threatened to collapse rather under the internal indifference and fear towards change, and not under the external pressure of opening up to new forces and impulses.
Angry Birds provides a vivid portrayal of an insular community grappling with the challenges of isolationism and conformity while promoting socio-economic policies marked by detachment from global events and exceptionalism as a means to cope with historical reality, which, appear successful in fighting the outsiders, who are keen on stealing the “eggs” – a powerful symbol of future and of energy (whatever this “energy” might mean in practical terms: existential vitality, natural resources, biological freshness). There is the “all for one and one for all – but only among ourselves” tendency, strongly moving against the all-encompassing globalizing wave. When confronted with the threat represented by common enemies coming from the outside of the self-sufficient community, its members instantly become one homogeneous group with a clear unique goal – regardless of how estranged or fragmented they might have been previously. In theory – and in the imaginary universe of the animated medium – this seems like an ideal scenario, joyfully driving into oblivion personal differences and the fact that individual inconsistencies cannot be deleted that easily. In real life, though, things get messy when individuals, previously hardly aware of each other’s presence or bluntly denying each other’s presence, are supposed to work, all of a sudden, towards a common goal: particularly issues of leadership and planning tend to turn nasty, when more often than not it becomes clear that those traditionally in charge might not have the best ideas for solutions or the most feasible plan.
Angry Birds’s engaging animation and humor subtly critiques the dangers of over-protection, blind trust, and the lack of constructive solutions. While the film’s narrative concludes with a superficial return to normalcy, it raises important questions about the balance between communal harmony and individual freedom, as well as the importance of communication and openness in facing external realities – or external threats. Ultimately, Angry Birds serves as a reminder of the complexities of community life and the need for a nuanced approach to societal challenges, one that embraces both individuality and collective well-being. Simultaneously, it prompts reflection on the balance between community cohesion and openness to the outside world – a balance crucial for fostering genuine understanding and progress in both fictional and real-life societies. Angry Birds transcends its status as an animated adventure; it offers a commentary on societal dynamics and human behavior. Through its portrayal of Bird Island’s insulated community and their encounters with the outside world, the film prompts reflection on the pitfalls of conformity, blind trust, and the necessity for nuanced, inclusive approaches to communal life. Despite – or precisely due to – its vibrant animation and comedic elements, Angry Birds encourages viewers to consider the complexities of community building and the perils of unchecked isolationism. As such, it stands as a timely allegory for navigating contemporary challenges in an increasingly interconnected world.
