While the main theme that Happy Tree Friends is dealing with is violence and gore, I feel that this episode actually provokes more emotion than the rest. Its sadistic nature goes beyond the usual motif of cute little characters getting killed in horrible methods. Why do I say so?
In this episode of Read 'Em and Weap, Pop and cub are the main characters. Pop read a horror story as cub’s bedtime story, resulting in cub being possessed. Cub goes on a rampage and starts to eat people. Finally, the priest Lumpy arrived and managed to conduct an exorcism to rid the evil in cub. However, Pop does not know that Lumpy has succeeded and killed his son by accident.
Coming from an Asian society whereby relationships are valued strongly, I felt repulsive after watching this. People may argue that Pop was trying to get rid of the evil in our society, that he’s actually doing his part as a citizen, but, how could he have the heart to kill his son so easily? Is there another method that could actually solve the problem instead? Lumpy managed to purge the evil out cub without violence, so does it mean that there’s an alternative? And when all things fail, do we have to resort to violence as the ultimatum?
If we read about a case in the newspaper about parents killing their own children, we feel disgusted. How could parents kill their own blood? Yet, when this situation is manifested in the cartoon, people do not even give a second thought about it. Why is this so? Maybe people would think that cartoons are meant to be taken lightly, that we should not confuse the virtual and the reality. But doesn’t this actually reflect the sadistic nature of humans, their indulgence in violence and perverted fantasies?
E.F.M. Durban and John Bowlby have argued that human beings are inherently violent. And this gives as some insight to the establishment of such a website (cartoon) and its growing popularity. It is scary to think that violence is within us, that all the time, we are actually suppressing this emotion. This leads us to another question. What will happen when all these emotions are released one day?
Labels: cultural anxieties, geck ying, personal opinion
3 Comments:
As much as I can't say I disagree entirely with EFM Durban and John Bowlby on human beings being inherently violent, I disagree to some extent on how cartoon serves the function of an outlet for repressed violence.
I don't quite get how watching violent images can serve as an outlet for repressed violence when the viewer himself still can't perform those violent acts anyway -- he is still bound by the same restrictions that forces him to live out his sadistic fantasy through an animated cartoon character.
But that doesn't mean I don't see any merit to this point either. After all, we see people in constant warring states and in conflict. Look at the US, Burma, Sudan. More specifically, the people clamouring for power exhibit this need for violence against their fellow man.
Nonetheless, I'm still quite perplexed. Should any satisfaction be gained from unleashing repressed violence, shouldn't it be by the creators of the shows rather than the audience? After all, they are the ones who are able to actively do something about this inner violence rather the passive audience.
Emily
By 
htfculture, at
November 7, 2007 at 10:17 PM
I would agree with Emily that the HTF cartoons would not serve as an effective outlet for repressed violence, but the HTF Online Games would sure seem like a good one to me. The games, especially CubShoot, Dynamit and Gogo Toothy, give us control over the characters, and we would actually decide their fate -- to live or to die(and whether to suffer a horrible death). Though this does not enable individuals to externalise their violent fantasies, I guess it does somehow aid in releasing such suppresions.
By Sin Yee, at
November 8, 2007 at 1:24 AM
As much as I can't say I disagree entirely with EFM Durban and John Bowlby on human beings being inherently violent, I disagree to some extent on how cartoon serves the function of an outlet for repressed violence.
I don't quite get how watching violent images can serve as an outlet for repressed violence when the viewer himself still can't perform those violent acts anyway -- he is still bound by the same restrictions that forces him to live out his sadistic fantasy through an animated cartoon character.
But that doesn't mean I don't see any merit to this point either. After all, we see people in constant warring states and in conflict. Look at the US, Burma, Sudan. More specifically, the people clamouring for power exhibit this need for violence against their fellow man.
Nonetheless, I'm still quite perplexed. Should any satisfaction be gained from unleashing repressed violence, shouldn't it be by the creators of the shows rather than the audience? After all, they are the ones who are able to actively do something about this inner violence rather the passive audience.
