Cryptozoo's mythic cryptids
The 2021 movie depicts and exploits magical beings
I watched the January 2021 movie Cryptozoo this weekend and have some thoughts. The movie depicts the idea of a sanctuary for cryptids. They define cryptids upfront as animals whose existence is disputed or unsubstantiated. We are not talking about zoological possibilities, like bigfoots, but fantasy or supernatural animals with magical abilities. Mythological creatures are exactly as described in creative artwork and literature. The movie has two important features that reflect the current beliefs of cryptozoology promoters - supernaturality and exploitation.
I admit I chuckled a bit when two of the main characters were named Lauren (which I heard as “Loren”) and Nick - the names of two modern cryptid researchers. The main villain, Nick, resembled Jamie of Mythbusters. Perhaps these are all coincidences.
The film is animated; at times, it’s stunningly artistic, but in other places, I found it jarringly ugly. The themes include exploitation of rare animals, an effort to protect them from human harm, and the desire for them to be accepted by society. But the problem with the Cryptozoo sanctuary is that it can’t help but be exploitative. It’s called a “carnival”. People see animals as things, novelties, and often as a means to an end. I do not believe many real-life cryptid promoters want much more than monetary reward and personal notoriety. They will make stuff up or sabotage others to get it, which is why hoaxing and bad blood is rampant.
Cryptozoo was similar to Jurassic Park in that humans wished to manipulate animals into a closed system. That never works. This plot was far less creative. I don’t enjoy depictions of animals suffering, even animated ones. The themes (about natural rights) and animation were very reminiscent of Fantastic Planet (1973), a film I have watched several times and liked. But I didn’t like this one too much. It felt too superficially spiritual, with uninspired depictions of good and bad people. The relationships were wooden and silly. The government was secretly operating to try to obtain these animals to use as weapons. Even though they are magical creatures, they can be killed without too much effort, which the film depicts frequently as well as other themes that are unsuitable for children. So, the secret weapon angle is ridiculous. I didn’t find anything in this movie enjoyable enough to recommend it to others.
I did like the cameo appearance by the Jersey Devil. The rest of the cryptids, however, were mostly ancient mythological, and zoologically impossible creatures - the horse-like unicorn, dragons, pegasus, the baku, the castle-sized giant snake, pixies. Even sentient lights were considered “cryptids”. Many of the cryptids were human-like: the gorgon, satyr, and blemmyes.
This trend to call any mythical creature or modern folkloric monster a “cryptid” is a strong shift away from the original definition (1983) which was intended to replace “monster” in the field of cryptozoology as founded by Heuvelmans and Sanderson. It was coined to represent animals that were on the verge of discovery, of being recognized by scientists, and that would fit into modern zoological schema. Because of the lack of standards for this subject, the scope of what it means to be a cryptid, or a cryptozoologist, has been dictated by anyone who had a big enough audience. The term, and also the field of study, has evolved into something that no longer resembles its original form. It’s part of science fiction, fantasy, and horror. Now that the term “cryptid” is mainstream, and every single mystery creature is a “cryptid”, you can’t wrangle the term back to just mean zoologically plausible animals.
Those who consider themselves serious cryptozoologists eschew magical or occult depictions of cryptids. Disagreements about whether a certain mystery animal is a “cryptid” are ubiquitous in cryptozoological circles. These disputes can’t be solved because there is no framework or professionalism. The purists have lost all ground to the whims of worldwide audiences connected via the web. It’s unfortunate that cryptozoology has been entirely usurped by the media and amateur hobbyists with scant professional-level scholarship to speak of. You can read about my current thinking on cryptozoology (and cryptidcore) in this post on Colin Schneider’s blog.
There is a huge difference between the historicity and cultural meaning of a unicorn, a wendigo, or creature from ancient mythology to a pop-culture creation like the rake or chupacabra. It’s sad that distinction is lost. We lose information and clarity when we jumble very different legends together under one overly flexible label. Because I have learned cryptozoology in the original sense, I cannot accept the mythological inclusions, but I also can’t argue that the line is blurry. A concept or word that isn’t properly codified, will evolve to suit its environment.
Today’s cryptozoology consists of people who enjoy belief in magical creatures they can conjure with rituals and then put their opinions or “evidence” on YouTube for personal gain. Remember when Bigfoot used to be just an undiscovered ape, not a supernatural portal-jumper? Note: Bigfoot does not appear in Cryptozoo.
The popular view of a cryptid - that of TV shows, social media content, artwork, and game fandom - will no doubt win out over zoological cryptids. Cryptids have indeed escaped the cryptozoo and are running free.