A personal opinion

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 – 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?

Perhaps it is the urbanscape, or rather, a deep-set form of human paranoia embedded in the narrative that I identify with. These clips feature potential (though not imminent) dangers - of technology, of our fellow man, of nature (or rather, man'€™s attempts to tame/alter nature) - posed in urban life. The setting of each clip - more often than not - is within a cultural context that I comprehend and live in everyday; whether it is the park, or the diner, gym, etc. these are all part and parcel of the urban jungle we live in and take for granted. Yet, these places become sites for the most tragic accidents. In 'Ipso Fatso', the technology that we take for granted to be reliable and accident-free runs amok due to human error when Disco Bear squirts water onto the treadmill. In 'Flippin' Burgers', a casual day out at the fastfood restaurant goes horribly wrong when Flippy, the psychologically scarred veteran goes deranged at the sight of Giggles covered with what he mistakes as blood and triggers him into a bloodthirsty rampage for more bloodshed. This is echoed further in 'This is your knife" where Flippy gets flashbacks to war scenes and ends up killing everyone else. It seems to suggest soldiers who have gone out to war have developed a taste for blood that may not be tamed and danger lurks not from outside but within us. Lumpy, in 'Out on a Limb' ends up having his leg pinned down (which he eventually maims) by the very tree he had tried to chop down; an overt action by humans to control his environment (nature).

(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.)

The next question then pops into my head - €“why do people still watch such episodes? Why would anyone want to put themselves in the uncomfortable position that I am in right now? By ignoring the disclaimers and warnings and going ahead to watch the episodes anything -“ am I asking for it? Could there by a functional purpose to these clips? Exactly what messages are being perpetuated that could be of cultural use? Here are some possible messages one could gather from watching one of these clips:

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.