Visual Research: ‘White Morning’ by Paul Barritt

 

While doing research for the project my lecturer Paul said to have a look at his animal cruelty animation/short film ‘White Morning’ written, directed and animated by Paul Bill Barritt himself in 2012/13.

Full short film, ‘White Morning’: http://www.paulbarritt.com/white-morning 

The short film begins with a bunch of boys accusing one of the boys of doing something. This usually implies something bad or wrong has happened, this is presented by one of them saying “if Boggs told bellis to do it, he would” and “Boggs told bellis to do it”. Accusations imply they know that the situation is wrong, so they are not oblivious to it. That’s perhaps why that phrase is repeated through out the animation, to remind us that they know what they did is wrong, although they still did it. 

There is many wrong things that the boys do just because they were dared or told to and at the beginning, the boy is told to get into field with a bison, when specifically a sign saying not to, but the boy does happily. This is important, because it a way boys typically play, being physical and being in thrilling situations, which sometimes lead to horrible situations when one of their friends having different motives then the others. 

Again we see the boy being told to something for the banter and this time to show himself naked in front of a girls playing tea party. However, it clear he’s doing it to get a funny reaction from the girls. Right after the girls transform into rabbits and continue normally eating grass, while the boy runs naked in the background of the scene. This reminded me of Jacques Derrida, “The animal, therefore, is not naked because it is naked. It doesn't feel its own nudity. There is no nudity "in nature."” (Derrida. J., 2002, p.374). Maybe the girls’ wish in that moment, was that they’d be the rabbits in the background, unconscious of the meaning of nakedness, because it wouldn’t be uncomfortable if they were unconscious.

The short film then continues with more wild commands, then finally the boys are doing something very wrong and start hitting the ducklings to their death without any remorse.  

The whole film reminded me of the book by William Golding’s Lord of the Flies (1959), where the boys are forced to make their own working society which fails miserably. It’s interesting that I’m reminded yet again of this book as I’ve mentioned this in my Frank Ascione reading report. “We don’t condone the boys’ behavior but, with our current knowledge about the effects of exposure to community violence...loss of parents, and experiences of abandonment and displacement to an unfamiliar and dangerous land, the behavior of the boys is, at least, understandable.” (Ascione, F., Children and animals. p.43). It seems that the moment boys are away from authority figures (both in this film and Golding’s book) they believe they must be the authority, thus having a hierarchy. Just like our society having a horrible leader will only lead to horrible outcomes, which in this case it’s the ducklings’ deaths.

I learned from Derrida that animals react and response in a instinctual way because they are more closer to nature, maybe the boys being taken away from the rules of society they become more instinctual, closer to nature, more savage, thus hunting other animals becomes the want. However, the boys in Barritt’s animation aren’t abandoned on a island so that isn’t an excuse, although they are still incredibly similar. This is why topics like physical, emotional or sexual abuse should be investigated on children, to find the reason for killing and abusing innocent animals. 

Continuing, we then see the animation becomes much darker in concept, with quick snap shots of the photographs of detailed blueprints perhaps to emphasise the complication of the mind or maybe just of the whole situation. Furthermore, lots of photographs of adults some of them are presented below. 

The snaps shots wouldn’t be shocking if presented on it own, however seeing these within a child influenced animation is what makes it more malaise. I believe the reason for big amount of photos of adults is because of the great question we’re all probably asking, ‘where are the parents?’ or ‘what do they have to say about this?’ Which is something we think about often but we never act open it. Ascione talks about the devastating truth that animal cruelty cases are neglected just like how some child abuse cases are also neglected. Perhaps if the boy’s case had been noticed and helped in his past he wouldn’t seek pleasure from hurting animals, thus being less animal cruelty cases. 

We see something interesting again towards the end of the film, the boys and ducklings turning into army soldiers and the boys shooting them with army guns. This is to suggest the boys see the ducklings as the enemy when they’ve done nothing. It could be about themselves, seeing the innocence in the ducklings, which is something that has probably been taken away from them. The people in their lives didn’t give them that privilege by being innocent so why do the ducklings get this privilege? Would probably be their mind set. 

Colour = dull, neutral and earthy tones = suggests nature. Feels like the life has been sucked out of them, perhaps the life of the ducklings 

In addition, the animation turns red as the plot thickens and the situation bends even more malicious, with the duckling transforming into a human with the beating nonstop. I believe, its to imply how animal abusers grow up into the crime live. Beat an animal at 10 years old, then beat a women at 18. The red, a strong, bold, intimidating and opposing colour to emphasise the terrifying situation. The devil in the second image can also mean the common phrase people say to get away with their wrong doings, ‘the devil made me do it’ which brings a whole another topic of religion into the mix.

Sound = always on edge, dramatic and tense = to shock viewer with loud and horrible sounds to set the mood of the scenes.

Childhood is constantly reminded to us in his animation, with the child handwriting in the background, children voiceover, childlike drawing style and the situations that that the boys are in. For example, a scene where he’s dared to throw a water balloon at a grumpy old lady for fun.  It’s to really emphasis the harsh truth that children are capable of doing something an adult couldn’t be able to do, but not for any reason, because there’s always a reason for their actions. That’s why animal abuse cases should always be looked into and not neglected.

His work isn’t completely explicit as it reaches the end of the film, and can have many interpretations. Overall, we still can see the main purpose of this animation which is about animal cruelty especially by kids. It’s interesting that Barritt doesn’t show any past abuse on the boys, perhaps to show how the great number of neglected child abuse cases. I’m not certain if what I’ve said is completely what Barritt meant, but its an interpretation, which is, I think what he wants his animation to be. Open to opinions and debates. Paul told me ‘White Morning’ was a personal story of his and I enjoy that about his work, since personal stories hit the heart more and show the truth through real life occurrences.   

This links to my graphic media work, as I will use his work as inspiration for my own children and animal cruelty animation.  It will have a strong impact to shock the viewers towards the end like Barritt’s does and with no clear answers, but will be free for the viewers own interpretations, in the same way Barritt does too.

Bibliography:

Barritt, P., 2013. Paul Barritt – White Morning. [online] Paulbarritt.com. Available at: <http://www.paulbarritt.com/white-morning> [Accessed 24 April 2021].