This TV episode (available online here: 1 & 2) of HTF features Disco Bear trying to fight the bulge, which ends up with tragic consequences - almost everyone featured in the show eventually dies due to his misadventure - but nonetheless, he attains his goal of losing weight not by shedding pounds but through decapitation, as the Mole illustrates by weighing his head (which he mistakes for a watermelon).A Disco Bear with a bulge is constantly slighted by others, particularly members of the opposite sex. Every attempt he tries at charming the ladies with his disco dance moves is met with rejection and dismissal. Herein lies the notion that what is on the inside doesn't count, so long as the outside appeals to others; a very narrow concept of beauty.
Throughout the feature, one sees the recurring motif of the scale, exercise machines, mirrors
Msg#1c Heterosexuality
Msg#2 Dangers lurk in the urbanscape
Much as Lumpy tries to avoid treading onto danger, he ends up hurting himself anyway. This is a stark contrast to Disco Bear, who enters and leaves the diner unproblematically, without having to deal with the snares that threaten Lumpy.
Labels: cultural anxieties, emily, Ipso Fatso, motifs, TV episodes
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 "
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
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
Similarly, the main feature of HTF clips are the unsavoury, graphic violence - full of shock value. Could it be a form of anti-culture against a dominant ideology?
A site for social interaction
The website is interactive; fans can vote for their most favourite clips, purchase merchandise, join the fan club, interact with one another on the message boards. It supports an extensive web community through RSS feeds and podcasts, online recommendations where people can share various clips with their friends/family, as well as the various features below:
this characteristic gives it the potential to rally people to support their causes, whatever they may be.
Chill on MYSPACE with the gang
IM your friends with the HTF Yahoo IMV
Check out other tasty treats from Mondo Mini Shows
Find out if HTF is on a TV near you
(taken from www.happytreefriends.com)
An integral component of social interaction
Most certainly, HTF is also the common interest that binds the group of fans together (social glue). Perhaps best illustrated by the myspace pages, other online users associate themselves with the host of cute, cuddly yet horribly wrong animals featured on HTF by adding themselves as a friend on the characters' friend pages.
A mirror upon other forms of social behaviour - a 'shockumentary'?
As the other posts have pointed out, the content of the clips are highly subversive, going against convention (in terms of expectations regarding its genre and societal norms) hence achieving the shock value.
Yet, I'm not quite sure if the controversy appropriated to its content can be considered a form of anti-culture. In terms of the messages it propagates, it seems to enforce current social norms as it seems to 'advocate' violence. As the audience watches these clips, there is a fair amount of varying interpretations. Some relish in the sensationalism of visual and audio display of unnecessary violence. Others feel a strong distaste for the violence, which reaffirms the dominant ideological appeal for non-violence.
What it does do, however, is raise certain flags regarding society as we live it, if not the state of American society. It also throws hints at the audience (who looks carefully enough) regarding the gap between reality and the ideals dominant mainstream society perpetuates. Representations/images of non-violence mask the violent nature of society -- the US is a (if not the most belligerent) warring nation even though its ideological messages propagate peace and freedom.
A determinant of socio-cultural change?
Labels: anti-culture, emily, resistance
Honestly, I have a very strong aversion to watching something as gruesome as these web clips. Watching a medley of these episodes make me cringe and leave me awash with an unsettling feeling. I seem to feel a little of the excruciating pain with every whimper, groan and outburst in pain. The sound effects do not help either. A burning question that runs through my mind â why must the characters resort to such silly, extreme measures to get themselves out of a sticky situation, i.e. decapitation, maiming oneself? Oddly, as twisted and exaggerated as the turn of events are, it seems perfectly acceptable up to this point that I could be in the position of these animated fuzzy animals with sadistic displays of torture. This point absolutely confounds me. How is it possible that I can identify with the positions of these characters?
(On a sidenote, my ability to identify with an American export such as "Happy Tree Friends" also reflects how globalised we are as a world. It also shows what Iwabuchi terms as cultural closeness between Singapore and the US, but that is something I will have to take up separately.)
Msg#1 Power relations - the capitalist is always privileged above the poor little man.
In 'Meat me for lunch', the crooks pay dearly for stealing food in an effort to feed themselves, for they end up on the menu as minced meat. The efforts on part of the creators for using the pun in the title is definitely not lost here.
Furthermore, power relations play a part in this episode.
The clip reinforces a capitalist work ethic by suggesting one must support oneself via legitimate means and not resort to stealing. Therefore, one who subverts this through the criminal act of stealing must be punished and naturally so - the crooks end up in the sad predicament as a result of their actions. Hence, violence is justified somewhat because the crooks get their just deserts.
Yet, the butcher (Lumpy) isn't punished for committing something as unethical as selling this freshly minced meat in the pursuit of legitimately earning one's keep, as illustrated by Petunia chomping down a hotdog she has obviously procured from the shop. It would seem that the law is on the side of the (unscrupulous) bourgeoisie/capitalist, who sets out to capture the greatest profit by selling whatever commodity he has to offer without any regard for ethics and morals. And the consumer is none the wiser about this horrible, unethical act - or at least till it is too late, when you find an eye in your mouth.
Msg#1a Economics over moral/ethical concerns
The fact that Lumpy goes unpunished and is allowed to carry out this unscrupulous manner of conducting business also suggests a privileging of economic concerns over and above moral/ethical concerns of cannibalism. It seems anything and everything goes so long this priority of accumlating capital is upheld.
Msg#2 Power relations - gender inequality
The portrayal of Petunia as the dupe consumer (dominated position) as opposed to the dominant position of Lumpy the unscrupulous capitalist seems to reflect a patriarchal discourse that is dominant in our society today whereby females are slighted based on the socially constructed stereotypes relating to their gender.
The cultural repertoire circulating in society today regarding gender stereotypes present both males and females at polarities - males are superior to females because they are more rational and by that basis, intellectual compared to the irrational, sensitive and emotive female. Certainly, that is the view perpetuated here, as the conniving male butcher gets away with his capitalist scheme and tricks the unsuspecting consumer based on a trust (that morals and ethics are upheld) that is taken for granted.
Further, the association of the male with an occupation such as the butcher suggests a type of masculinity - violence, macho-ness and ruggardness - an occupation of which the female cannot occupy because she lacks these traits.
Having identified these messages, it would seem that these web clips though graphic and violent, do reinforce the current accepted norms and values of society, albeit indirectly, by testing the boundaries of morals, norms and values through exaggeration. Then, one would have to consider the following: Are these messages really important? Do they really affect the audience? One knows all too well of parents refusing to let their children watch HTF or even protesting to the media to regulate these episodes. However, over time one only remembers Happy Tree Friends episodes to be gruesome and forget the details. Hardly anyone remembers specific episodes, at most, they remember HTF episodes depict events that are socially disdained and frowned upon. As Joke Hermes's study reminds us, while we can identify certain encoded messages within the cultural text, we should not be too quick to forget the fallacy of meaningfulness and assume that these texts do have an effect on the audience. Do we really become violent after watching too many of these episodes? Does watching so much violence over time make one become immune to it? Or are these certain assumptions part of an ideology that seek to discipline our behaviour? That perhaps, should be the focus of another audience ethnographic study.
Labels: cultural anxieties, emily, Flippin' Burgers, Ipso Fatso, Meat me for Lunch, Out on a Limb, personal opinion, power relations, This is your Knife
1 Comments:
I would agree that the violence and gore left me feeling really disgusted initially, almost unwilling to return to the site. However, the disturbance eventually turned into entertainment as I explored the episodes. I would attribute this to our growing immunity to the overwhelming violence in the show, as I ended up laughing at the various sadistic incidents, and attracted to watch more and more. But I believe this immunity to 'virtual violence' does not equate to immunity to violence in real life, as there exists a vast difference between them. People may laugh at happenings in the show like body parts being morbidly chopped off, but would most probably be traumatised if the same thing happens in real life.
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
