There is much care taken by the creators of the episodes to subvert expectations, assumptions and stereotypes that come with genre, i.e. the 'formula' of the creating content.
A children's genre or not?
On the outset, the characters resemble those of any typical cartoon character in the children's genre; these are clearly anthropomorphic animals and a running motif - all (save for Lumpy and Sniffles) share the same pink Care Bear-esque heart-shaped noses and a huge, toothy grin that exposes two front buckteeth.
Furthermore, "[e]ach 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!"." (Wikipedia)
However, it challenges the formula of the children’s genre by creating a hybrid – a mix of various genres ranging from horror, children's 'moral' story and macabre comedy – subverting the expectations of a children’s genre to the extent that it is almost a parody. As noted in Wikipedia: "...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) This derailing of genre defamiliarises the audience from the usual formula genre, bringing to light genre as a construct.
Further, it challenges the expectations of the flow of the plot in children’s genres by upsetting the format of an Aristotelian narrative - problem (mortal flaw in characters), realisation of problem, reversal of fortunes that results in a happy ending - since there is never a happy ending where peace and order is restored. More often than not, all the Happy Tree Friends die very painful, violent, unhappy deaths.
Clearly, the blood and violence featured challenges the stereotyped assumption common to children’s genres that round, cuddly shapes are not belligerent. Outer appearances aside, the characters reveal an inner violent-prone self reminiscent of a Hobbesian view of human nature – chaotic, ‘brutish’ and selfish – as exemplified in the episodes whereby the characters view the only way out is through maiming/annihilating themselves/others.
What does this do? Impact of such subversive use of genre
#1 Does this challenge the assumption that all cartoons are meant for children - a warning to not judge a book by its cover since cutesy-looking stuff have a sinister side to it? A parody of children's cartoons = a greater call for discernment?
We've all heard/read of reports of parents finding out only much later of the 'inappropriateness' of exposing their children to HTF only after actually watching the content instead of simply dismissing it at 1st glance based on the assumption that all cartoons are directed at children, hence appropriate for them to watch.
Reveals another feature of society: hierarchy of cultural capital. Cartoon animation is to children as news is to adults.
#2 Does it propagate a stereotypical concept of masculinity?
My take on it is this form of reading of HTF perhaps could be a form of resistance against 'weaker' sensitive softie. To quote the disclaimer/warning put on the site - "Not for small children and big babies" [my emphasis]. It seems to be putting forward a concept of masculinity that is violent and tolerant (to say the least) of such graphic material. Macho males should find this content entertaining and vindictive.
And it should be noted that while we're on the topic of subversive content in genres, it could argued otherwise.
Hence, nothing seems to be clear, everything is left open-ended for the audience to read and make their own conclusions. What is clear though is that HTF's use of genres brings to light the constructed-ness of cultural texts and thus becomes a site of negotiation of meaning(s), in which the meaning(s) drawn by the audience reflects one's experience and view of society.
Labels: characterisation, cultural anxieties, emily, Genre
Here's a general introduction to the characters featured on "Happy Tree Friends":
note - All images and character descriptions are from the Happy Tree Friends website (http://happytreefriends.atomfilms.com/about_the_show/characters.html)
 | Cuddles | ||
 | Giggles | ||
 | Handy | ||
 |
| ||
 | Toothy | ||
 | Nutty | ||
 | Petunia | ||
 | Sniffles | ||
 |
| ||
 |
| ||
 | The Mole | ||
 | Disco Bear | ||
 |
| ||
 |
| ||
 | Lifty | ||
 | Shifty | ||
 | Cro-Marmot | ||
 | Flippy | ||
 |
| ||
 | Cub Innocent and cute, Pop has his hands full trying to keep this 'lil tyke from crawling into trouble. |
Some reflections on characterisation:
| cultural anxiety: fear of being socially inept | |
| ||
| cultural anxiety: deep concern with outer appearances - socially constructed beauty! | |
| ||
| cultural anxiety: intellectual differences - the brainy nerds vs. the clueless ignoramus | |
| ||
| cultural anxiety: power relations - the psychotics | |
| ||
| the father and son | |
| ||
| the disadvantaged | |
| ||
| the good vs. the evil | |
| ||
Labels: characterisation, cultural anxieties, emily
