This was originally posted on blogger. This essay contains spoilers for Shrek (2001). If you haven’t seen it, you have a deep problem that needs addressing.

Though only eighteen years old, Shrek is one of those films that deserves to be in the Western Canon. Its story is the classic tale of the white knight saving a princess from a castle, but with a twist – Shrek, the hero, is an “ugly” green ogre, ordered by Lord Farquaad to rescue Princess Fiona to get back his swamp. Shrek has been revered as a children’s classic, made with stellar animation and subtle adult humor, but I believe that it is much more than just a kid’s movie. In fact, Shrek is a movie about animal rights, deeply probing the notion of human supremacy, and suggesting animality that is within us all.

The story starts with the troubling persecution of “the ogre” near Shrek’s home. A group of villagers, all white males, gather pitchforks and torches and head into the forest. Their task: to kill Shrek, the “menace” they have not yet met. Such persecution, done by common people, is undeniably fascist – it is akin to red-tagging in the Philippines throughout the era of Martial Law, the persecution of Jewish people leading up to the Holocaust, or religious violence against Muslims in India. Farquaad, the ruler of the land, set the orders, but he appealed to a intrinsic fear of the human populations – fear of “the other” too close to home. Shrek is one of many victims of persecution, as evidenced by the creatures from all over the kingdom that seek refuge in his swamp. Shrek, however, does not allow the others into his territory, showing the selfishness that comes when people are put under distress.

The origin of these attacks is Lord Farquaad, the dictator and symbol of human supremacy. We first see Farquaad torturing the Gingerbread Man, pulling off bodyparts and dunking the Gingerbread Man into milk. Later, we see Farquaad questioning the Mirror on the Wall, threatening violence (smashing of the mirror) and forcing answers out of the spiritual being. The power Farquaad exerts over other beings is clear – he holds the threat of violence, he isolates his victims so they have no social support, and he has political power over the entire kingdom. Even the Guards, empty suits of army, are under the command of Farquaad even if he does not do them harm.

Such human supremacy can be directly compared to real-life violations of animal rights. The torturing of the Gingerbread Man is akin to vivisection of animals (often done when they are alive), chemical testing, or psychological experimentation. These exertions of human supremacy are done under the pretense of utilitarian benefit (for medicine or cosmetics), but in every case do nothing for the species harmed. The exploitation of the Mirror can be compared to the dairy industry, which seperates mothers from their children with the goal of extracting bodily fluids, unconsentually and under the threat of violence (cows that do not participate in milking are hit for being “lazy”). Most stark, however, is the psychology of the Human Supremacist, who believes that he (for it is always a he) can exploit others to no end with no consequence.

But if this film is against Human Supremacy, what do we make of the exotification of Fiona, the human female? Fiona holds herself to human female standards in many ways: her voice is clear and refined in contrast to Shrek’s raw Scottish accent; she takes great pride in her human appearance and is shocked when she sees Shrek is an Ogre; and she mostly is able to do domestic labour. Nevertheless, it’s clear that Fiona has repressed animality in her actions. At several points, we see Fiona enjoy getting dirty in the mud of the forest, burp in front of Donkey and Shrek, and rapidly take down Guards with martial arts.

To us, these actions are unexpected because they are both masculine and animalistic. Yet it demonstrates the repression that effects us when we subscribe to patriarchal or anthropocentric frameworks – in fact, the yearning to belch, take down enemies, or roll around in dirt is within us all. To pretend to is to reject our unity with nature, and to pretend that we as humans are not still bound by inner instincts. Of course, a literal manifestation of this is Fiona’s nightly transformations, a statement that no matter how refined, no human can escape the “curse” of animality.

Farquaad is deposeda (and killed) at the end of the film, a supposedly happy ending, but we should still question the validity of the new reign. In democracies and dictatorships alike, foul rulers are only toppled when their pillars of support are shifted, whether it be the military that backs them or a dramatic change in public opinion. In the case of Shrek, non-human creatures still have no political rights, and no voice in this feudal society. They are protected by the technocratic rulers, Shrek and Fiona, but that is no guarantee of long-term safety. Shrek and Fiona have their own biases, internal hatred of non-humans, and violent tendancies, and perhaps for a truly just society a new, democratic regime is needed.

Despite these short-comings*, Shrek the movie stands as a powerful statement for animal rights. It is a story about the tyranny of humans, the beauty of inter-species cooperation, and a movement towards a just world for all. Its message is one that I hope we can carry into the world at large.

* One small foot-note: the jokes making fun of Donkey (“Shrek’s ass”) are speciesist. They recreate the narrative that Donkeys are unintelligent, vile, and unrespectable. Though used comically, the same depiction of donkeys is used to justify their enslavement and commidification for human use. Such jokes are also examples of human supremacy.