You are here:

It's Tough to Be a Bird

Name: It's Tough to Be a Bird
Director: Ward Kimball
Released: 1969
Duration: 21 min

1969

Director

Ward Kimball

Runtime

21 minutes

Average Rating

No ratings yet

Synopsis

Part cartoon and part documentary, this film offers a humorous look at birds and the ways people perceive them.

Where to Watch

Diversity & Representation

Overall Score

3.8/10

Limited

Category Breakdown

LGBTQ+ Representation

Limited

The film lacks explicit LGBTQ+ characters or narratives. Its focus on avian biology and human perception precludes the exploration of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Gender Representation

Fair

Representation is limited to biological observations of avian species. The film does not actively subvert or reinforce human gender hierarchies due to its non-human subjects.

Racial & Ethnic Diversity

Limited

The documentary lacks a diverse human cast or intersectional human identities. It reflects the observational limitations of its 1969 era by focusing strictly on the natural world.

Religious & Cultural Diversity

Fair

The film critiques the human gaze and our perception of nature. However, it avoids engagement with systemic critiques of religion, capitalism, or Western institutions.

Disability Representation

Minimal

There is no evidence of representation for physical or neurodivergent disabilities. Neither human characters nor avian metaphors address these themes.

Strengths

Avoids the active reinforcement of human social hierarchies by focusing on non-human subjects.
Uses animation to deconstruct the idea of human intellectual superiority over the natural world.

Areas for Improvement

Lacks intentionality regarding human identity, intersectionality, or progressive social narratives.
Fails to engage with systemic critiques of Western institutions or cultural structures.

AI Analysis

Ward Kimball’s work functions as a specialized observational study of the natural world. By shifting the lens toward avian behavior, the film avoids the active promotion of human social hierarchies. However, this focus comes at the cost of social depth. The film lacks the intentionality required to address human identity, intersectionality, or systemic reform. It remains a product of its era, prioritizing naturalism over the exploration of social architecture. Ultimately, while the film avoids many traditional tropes by centering on animals, it offers no meaningful engagement with the diverse spectrum of human experience.

How are these scores produced? →