.Tuesday, November 6, 2007 ' 1:56 PM Y
BOO!!
Cultural Anxieties
A warning against the encroaching influence of the media?
A parody of children's cartoons, a greater call for discernment? - On the outset, the characters resemble those of any typical cartoon character in the children's genre:
"All the characters are anthropomorphic animals. Many of them show two front large buckteeth when they smile. All the Happy Tree Friends except for Lumpy and Sniffles have the same pink Care Bear heart-shaped noses." - Wikipedia
"Each episode starts with introduction credits resembling a children's book, which portray the show's logo, the episode's name, which is usually a pun, and cast. After the ending credits, a moral follows. Examples include "Wash behind your ears!" and "Don't bite off more than you can chew!". While adding to the children's book theme, the moral sharply contrasts with the violence portrayed in the episode. Since the episode "Happy Trails Part 2", the moral is an ironic reference to what happened to the characters in that episode." - Wikipedia
However, it turns out that HTF is a hybrid - a mix of various genres ranging from horror, children's story, 'moral' story, comedy. Does this challenge the assumption that all cartoons are meant for children - a warning to not judge a book by it's cover since cutesy-looking stuff have a sinister side to it?
Upsets the moralistic Aristotelian narrative characteristic of - problem (mortal flaw in characters), realisation of problem, reversal of fortunes that results in a happy ending.
Could the sadistic and violent nature of the cartoons be challenging the stereotypes typical to genres, i.e. the belief that round, cuddly shapes are not belligerent?
Human paranoia
"At the beginning of each episode, the characters are typically found in everyday situations. However the situations always escalate to violence, mostly because of very unfortunate, surprising accidents with common, otherwise, harmless props." - Wikipedia
Could this be reflective of a fear of man's inability to fully control one's environment, and thereby one's fate? (Power issues)
At the same time also reflecting a fear of death and the sudden loss/robbing of one's youth?
Or is it working as a social commentary, reflecting the sadistic, selfish state of human nature in the producers' eyes?
Also, is it trying to say that life is meaningless because we will all die (in a less spectacular , graphic way) anyway?
Relationships: parental, self, urbanscape/nature, heterosexual love,
Case study: “And the kitchen sink” – parenting 101? Benign descriptions of the episode that are rather unsuspecting of its twisted nature. Moral: “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater” – to show how dated this saying is?
Case study: “Ipso Fatso” – obsession with outer appearances/weight? Episode starts off with a concern about weight and tracks how this pursuit to cut down on weight leads to disaster where everyone dies – even those who are not concerned (or do not need to be) about achieving this goal. Ends off with the blind guy weighing his head that shows he is much much lighter now. Moral: the way to one’s heart is through his stomach.
(Re)defining the boundaries of accepted norms and values
At the same time, does the gruesome, violent and sadistic nature of the cartoon help (re)define the boundaries of what norms and values are acceptable in society?
In the beginning, I remember finding some of the clips funny despite its gory nature - could laughing be a coping mechanism? - but subsequently, it gradually became not funny at all, almost like a turn off.
The exaggeration of such everyday scenes leading to and ending in violence and death could come across as disgusting and far-fetched, perhaps even wrong, thus helping to show that this violent behaviour is unaccepted and thereby reinforces how behaviour in society should be (think reverse psychology?).
The differences between web minute episodes and TV episodes: a less distinct
Some new thoughts: does the violence and gory nature actually deter people from watching? Does the messages of violence and gore encoded into the text really have an effect on the audience or are these messages reappropriated by audiences to mean something else? Are the messages encoded of violence and gore or are we simply looking at these episodes through the rose tinted glasses of ideology? If so, what sort of ideology is being perpetuated?
Labels: cultural anxieties, emily
