The Journal of Cartoon Over-analyzations

Back in March of 2000, The Humanist magazine published an article by Lucia K. B. Hall entitled “Toy Stories for Humanists?” This interesting article presents thematic elements in both Toy Story and Toy Story 2 from a humanistic perspective. The author is convinced that each movie contains “a carefully thought-out and detailed humanist message.” Here’s an excerpt:

Seen as such an allegory, Toy Story becomes a carefully wrought description of two opposing world views: naturalism and supernaturalism. Woody and the other toys in the playroom represent the naturalistic world view. They are mechanisms–material objects that have a material source, a real-world history and origin (Mattel or Playskool or such), and no function other than to be just what they are. Woody embodies basic American Pragmatism. He’s a toy, a mechanism, a material being; he knows it and is content with it.

The article itself is hosted at The Free Library, and is linked below.

>Catena Ex Situ

The editors here at J. Cart. Overanal. can’t help but notice the influx of new readers recently. To you, we say Hello! and Welcome, enjoy your stay!

This site thrives on reader submissions. The editors are well-respected in the over-analyzation community, but are notoriously lax in publishing their own work. And there is only a finite number of archived articles. So, we’re beseeching you, the student who put off writing their 10-page paper entitled Fight Club vs. The Turn of the Screw: An Oral History by watching episodes of Ben 10. And we’re beseeching you, the engineer who sneaks away to watch TiVo’ed episodes of Spongebob Squarepants while the wife puts the baby to bed. And we’re beseeching you, the audience: send us your half-baked theories and misguided essays! (They don’t even have to be long, that’s what Mini-Analyzations are for.)

overanalyzation AT gmail DOT com

Contributed by Lady Bast.

He-Man revolves mostly around bestial relationships rather than sexuality (although it’s there), hence all the human/animal crossovers (e.g. Beastor, King Hiss, Cobra Khan, even the Sorceress). Some are even cybernetic, brandishing nasty little built-in devices (e.g. Trap-jaw and Hordak if you want to cross into She-Ra). Most of these are the bad guys because we want to underline their bestial natures, but some, like the Sorceress, are good guys. The difference is that good guys get to “bond” with animals that are admired and not feared.

Again, this is a Medieval-type society even though technology also seems to be at a high. Most people seem to have mechanical equipment of sorts and many use blasters though He-Man uses a sword to underline his sexuality. Skeletor also uses a sword (it is supposedly the “other half” of He-Man’s) to mirror the hero, but this happens rarely. Usually, Skeletor uses a magical staff with a ram’s skull on it. This is probably meant to represent evil (i.e. horns of the devil - bestiality).

In keeping with this theme, He-Man (as He-Man) is a big, hulking, Mr. Universe kind of guy with a California tan and blond hair (really big with the girls at this time). Adam, though pale, is also a big, hulking, Mr. Universe kinda guy. The difference is that He-man wears reds and browns and golds (and no shirt) because he’s a manly man whereas Adam wears pink and lavender. In the 80s, He-Man equalled a “real” man. Adam was a pasty-faced, pastel-wearing pansy.

He-man rides this big cat, right? Looks like a tiger. Green. Why doesn’t he ride a lion? Only male lions are really associated with masculinity, most other cats are associated with the female persuasion, as is the colour green which is usually a symbol of fertility. This one’s tough to prove, because the colour might just have looked good on the background. And tigers are rather ambiguous sexually: they are not directly associated with the male, but they are muscularly powerful and this one does have a male voice, and they’re not directly associated with the female, though most cats are by default. The nitty gritty details are just something else to think about. Male or female, a cat was used because the cat symbolism was big in the 80s. Especially the big cats because they had the power of the beast and the sleekness of the sexual.

And She-Ra rides a horse. The unicorn horn had nothing to do with She-Ra’s sexuality (or lack thereof), it was there because unicorns would sell. The key here is that She-Ra rode a male horse and we all know what a woman riding a mustang represents, yes?

A word on stereotypes: women are always wimps and/or ditzes in He-Man. Teela is supposed to be this great fighter, right?, but she’s always the one who gets to sound like a total idiot with that whiny “Adam, where’s He-Man?” (or vice versa) thing that she does. And if the Sorceress is so powerful, how come she spends so much time moaning and groaning about this and that and needing He-man to rescue or “help” her (as in he does all the work)?

The only exception to this, as far as I can tell, is Evilyn. She’s one of Skeletor’s lackeys and I can’t remember a single sucky thing she might have done. Mind you, I may be wrong. I don’t remember too much about her because they didn’t use her nearly enough, probably because the presence of a female in the bad guys’ camp removes their illusion of “sexlessness” (i.e. they’re all beast).

This applies to She-Ra as well. The “evil Adora” was much more effective than the “good Adora”. When she was working for evil, Adora was respected as a general in Hordak’s army. As a good guy, she’s a wimp and needs to transform into She-ra to do anything effectively. Notice that She-Ra’s voice is deeper than Adora’s, probably to make her sound more masculine. Female heroes (I don’t use the word “heroine”, a hero is a hero no matter what the sex) are often portrayed as “men with breasts,” a sad affliction that still surfaces occasionally. In fact, the only way to make her seem feminine is to give her these empathic/telepathic animal communication and healing powers. Like a woman absolutely has to be nurturing and healing. I think that all these extra powers succeeded in doing was to make her look weaker than her brother (she needs more power to do the same job). Although I’ve often thought that He-man got the short end of the stick because his sword doesn’t change into other things (Sword to Shield!). That’s like the ultimate Swiss Army Knife.

Other aspects of this stereotype manipulation are all the supposedly strong females in She-Ra who swoon over the male ones (as Glimmer did with He-man in “Secret of the Sword”) and let them take over, or who surrender/run away when confronted with a male opponent (e.g. Catra of the Horde who wimps out every time she loses her mask). Again, only Shadoweaver is of any interest although why she doesn’t just kill off Hordak (who’s too stupid to have been Skeletor’s mentor, I don’t care what the movie says) and take over is a mystery to me. The only really great female characters Filmation comes up with are almost never used… such a pity.

As you can see, He-Man and She-Ra don’t walk the sexual/bestial barrier that Thundercats does. It does use a greater amount of stereotypes, though I’m sure they thought they were quite advanced in using female fighters and lead characters.

Again, I don’t want to imply that the animation companies were trying to project these messages or used such symbols on purpose because they didn’t. And it certainly isn’t what us children picked up on either. The creators of these shows just used the images that were popular at the time, symbols that were created and used by advertisers/designers to represent the facts that already existed and those facts were that people in the 80s really, really wanted sex and bestial imagery and that, in this case, we haven’t yet obliterated all the stereotypes.

• “I don’t know if Disney has a house rule about which animals can speak and which cannot, but guidelines seem to be emerging. The rule is, if you are a predatory carnivore, you don’t talk, but if you are a pacifist, a vegetarian or cute, you do. In Tarzan, the apes spoke, but the leopards didn’t. In Dinosaur, all of the creatures speak, except for the vicious carnotaurs. A Faustian bargain seems to be at work: If you are an animal in a Disney picture, you can speak, but only if you are willing to sacrifice your essential nature.”
  -Quoted from Roger Ebert’s review of Dinosaur >Catena Ex Situ
• A black & white Betty Boop in Who Framed Roger Rabbit was employed a cigarette girl at the Ink & Paint Club circa 1947. She bemoaned how “work’s been kind of slow since cartoons went to color”. Perhaps Miss Boop forgot about her starring role in the 1934 Fleischer Color Classic “Poor Cinderella.”
  -Contributed by Brendan S.
• In Ratatouille, whether Remy walks on all-fours or on two feet depends on his mood:
  “If he feels exuberant, he tends to be more upright, and his hands pulled back. Later on, when he feels shame in front of his father, and [his dreams] have all turned into disaster, he folds back in again. It’s not just a mannerism. It’s a thing that helps tell the story.”
  -Quoted from an L.A. Times interview with Brad Bird >Catena Ex Situ

Contributed by The Editor.

One of the best parts of the delightful animated movie Monster House is that it is essentially undatable. The film relies on character and situational humor rather than modern pop-culture references. A movie like Shrek, which relies heavily on pop-culture references, is pinpointed at a certain date. Twenty years from now, will people get references to Tom Cruise’s Mission: Impossible? However, just because a movie doesn’t rely on overt pop-culture doesn’t mean that we can’t determine when it takes place. Even without the caption at the beginning of the movie, we can tell that The Iron Giant takes place in the 1950s.

So, when does Monster House take place? I contend that the movie takes place c. 1987. I also believe that the exact date was made deliberately fuzzy, so it wouldn’t quite feel like it’s taking place at any precisely definable year.

• Technology:
  • Z uses a cassette tape, not a CD.
  • Skull uses a pager, not a cell phone.
• Cars: The cars in the movie are decidedly not modern. Furthermore, they look much like late 1980s car models.
• Video games:
  • Thou Art Dead is graphically similar to other platform arcade games of the late 1980s (c.f. Ghosts ‘N Goblins (1985), Altered Beast (1988)).
  • There is a short clip of Chowder playing a home game system, the graphics of which resemble the quasi-abstract style of some Atari 2600 or Intellivision games.
• Tone: The tone of the movie seems highly influenced/inspired by 1980s “kids in danger” movies. (c.f. Explorers (1985), The Goonies (1985), Monster Squad (1987)) Hallmarks of these types of films are:
  • The kids go on an adventure without their parents. Often adults actually hinder or interrupt the adventure.
  • Supernatural or sci-fi elements are common. The filmmakers were not afraid to make these elements somewhat scary, even at the risk of frightening younger members of the audience.
  • The kids are in real danger of getting killed.

The staff here at The Journal of Cartoon Over-analyzations encourages intelligent readers to add examples or counterexamples of the principal thesis in the comments section.

Contributed by YHN1212.

Now, this is unlikely but not impossible: during the credits of Inspector Gadget, one can hear the words of Dr. Claw near the end: “I’ll get you Gadget, next time…” Typical villanous taunt. Yet at the same time as you hear the words of Dr. Claw, you can see the lips of Chief Quimby move as he speaks to Gadget. What does this mean? Though some might say that the conversation between the two was silenced as the words of Dr. Claw were heard, I believe that it was Chief Quimby speaking. In other words, I believe that Chief Quimby is possibly the greatest master of disguise ever: he is Dr. Claw. It would also explain a lot about things. I mean, how often has Gadget thrown a self-destructing message at Quimby just as it was about to explode? More times than anyone, even loyal fans of the show, can remember. The amount of times it happened may mean that Gadget is doing it on purpose, indicating that he knows that Quimby is Dr. Claw and is secretly trying to kill him. Which would make Gadget an even better master of disguise than Quimby: How else to avoid suspicion from others than by acting incompetent? So to summarize my theory, the two may be carrying out their unending battle secretly, without the eye of the public watching them. Why all this secrecy? Perhaps they have a respect for each other that one has for one’s enemy, leading them to believe their battle with each other is too sacred to share with others.

Most of the staff here at J. Cart. Overanal. spent their childhoods basking in the Rubik’s cube-colored glow of the 1980s. When we weren’t playing Burgertime on our Intellivisions, we were plopped in front of the TV, enjoying the most toyetic entertainment DiC had to offer.

Let me remind you that we are talking about the 1980s: Thriller. Ronald Reagan. Trapper Keepers. ALF ran for four seasons.

So this Ex Situ is what we consider a warning. When all of the young white boys who were watching cartoons of the 1980s become old white men in charge of our nation’s government and economic infrastructure, humanity is surely doomed.

Without further ado: The 10 Most Insane, Child-Warping Moments of 80s Cartoons.

>Catena Ex Situ

Contributed by TOONWRITER. 

Everybody knows Mickey Mouse to be the icon of purity and wholesomeness. However, Mickey was (one of) the most evil characters of his time, circa 1927-1932 (As compared to Harman/Ising’s Bosko, Iwerk’s Flip the Frog, and Lantz’s (formally Disney’s) Oswald the Lucky Rabbit). Disney’s most well-known representative was abusive to animals, abusive to women, vulgar, and racist. Sighting his first cartoon, (Plane Crazy), as well as Floyd Goddferdson’s newspaper comic strip (Disney’s Mickey Mouse) Mickey, in an attempt to recreate Col. Lindbergh’s transcontinental flight, makes his own plane. For the motor to spin the propeller, he twists up a wiener dog. Attempting to take off, he taxis around, chasing animals. He chases three animals towards a tree: a goat, a chicken, and a pig. His plane causes the goat to run into the chicken, who in turn, runs into the pig, literally. All three animals run through each other, becoming a new hybrid of farm stock.

Fine, that is not too bad, you say. In Mickey’s next film, Gallopin’ Gaucho, Mickey lives in Mexico, and spends most of his time frequenting a bar where Minnie works. In this cartoon, he vulgarly spits, drinks alcohol (ale, in fact), slaps Minnie’s rear end.

In his third film (first film with sound), Steamboat Willie, we find Mickey trying his hand at working on a steamboat. In the original version (that Disney has been trying to repress from the public), once the music begins (a goat eats sheet music) Mickey starts playing animals as musical instruments. This goes beyond animal cruelty. Mickey swings a cat by its tail and throws it off the boat. He then finds a several baby pigs suckling on their mama. He picks up the mama pig and forcefully shakes off all but one of her babies. He then kicks the last baby off the mama pig and begins to squeeze her teats as if she were an accordion!

In The Little Orphanage (1931), Mickey and his pals put on a play for the children: “Uncle Tom’s Cabana.” If this is not racist enough, the characters try to repair a generator which explodes and puts them in blackface.

In Floyd Goddferdson’s newspaper comic strip (Walt Disney’s Mickey Mouse), Goddferdson takes us on a several-month run of a newspaper-version of Plane Crazy. I already cited the dog/engine and farm animal incident, but Goddferdson shows us how Mickey copes in the jungle. After crash landing, we find Mickey cursing (represented by symbols), dealing with racistly-depicted natives with enormous lips, shrunken heads, and a dialogue consisting of “Oogle Moogle Noogle,” etc.

Finally, I cite the first Mickey Mouse Club. Not the show with Cubby and Annette, but the Saturday cartoons the theatres ran. Walt, himself, recorded the theme song, “Minnie’s Yoo-hoo.” In this song, the voice tells of a girl he has in the barn and uses animal sounds as sexual innuendoes. This song can be found on one of Disney’s CDs.

Contributed by Gaelin B.

Most people never realize just how psychological the MTV classic Beavis & Butt-Head is. To see this, first we have to examine their relationship. Butt-Head, as anyone who’s seen any episodes can tell you, is the “smart” one. (This is of course, relative to Beavis, as no one in their right mind could call either one “smart”. But relativity is just one of the unnoticed themes running through this show.) Butt-Head is invariably the one who comes up with the various schemes. Beavis, on the other hand, is incapable of thinking things out for himself. He is usually the one to implement the schemes Butt-Head comes up with, often fouling them up in the process. Seen in this light, with Butt-Head the Thinker and Beavis the Doer, the show takes on a Freudian direction. Butt-Head represents the Ego (civilization, and what is taught) and Beavis the Id (the inner, base instinct, reverting to our animal natures). This can even be seen to relate to the Nature vs. Nurture concept.

But the evidence is there. Example: The episode where they find a tire. It is Butt-Head who concludes that they can ride in it. He has Beavis push him, in the tire, up a hill, promising that he’ll push Beavis on the way down. Butt-Head lets him go on the way down, all right… at about 60 miles an hour, crushing all that’s in his path. This is an example of the Ego using the Id to its own advantage, causing damage. Another example is the Christmas episode, where, in a great It’s A Wonderful Life parody, Butt-Head is shown what life would be like without him. To his horror, he finds that Beavis is best friends with irritating neighbor Stuart. (Stuart represents an alternate Ego to Butt-Heads. Since the Id is common to all humans, it is the Ego that directs it in one direction or another). Stuart is the metaphor (in the regular episodes) of an Ego without any Id: a wuss, completely incapable of doing anything. Example: The one where Stuart disappears. His parents and Beavis and Butt-Head search the entire neighborhood for him, but it turns out he was just in Butt-Head’s closet, waiting for seven hours for the boys to find him in a fraudulent hide-and-seek game. (Homosexual image? Possibly). “Go home”, Butt-Head tells him. “You’re in trouble”, Beavis adds.

My personal favorite example for this, however, is the episode about the vending machine. Beavis and Butt-Head desire food (one of mankind’s drives), in this case Sour Cream and Salsa Pork Rinds. However, their meal is snagged on the machine, trapped inside (fear of entrapment?). Butt-Head leaves Beavis at the machine to guard it, while he tries to get more change to get the bag (and another) out, “two for the price of one”. He manages to get a dollar from an elderly lady, but the machine won’t take it. Meanwhile, Beavis has been adequately fending off any customers from the machine (following Butt-Head’s instructions rather than rationalizing his own. It doesn’t occur to him that if anyone gets another bag of Pork Rinds, theirs will come out too. Beavis’ mind doesn’t work that way). Butt-Head finally goes into the local convenience store to try and get change for the dollar. There he sees day-old nachos, about to be thrown out. There are even roaches crawling over them. Butt-Head buys all of them with the dollar, and goes home and watches TV, forgetting all about Beavis and returning to his null, inactive state. Beavis, simply cries out “Buuuuttttt-Heeeeeaaaaddd!!!” and finally resorts to eating an old M&M he finds at the bottom of the machine (his one act of independent thought in the entire episode). He then returns to his null state of inactivity, calling out for Butt-Head as the sun goes down…

Contributed by Talia.

I know that the generally accepted theory is that The Smurfs are Communists, but another possibility recently occurred to me. Could the Smurfs possibly be philosophers stones? That would explain a few things, for example, why Gargamel variously wants to eat them or to transform them into gold. When eaten, the philosophers stone is an elixir of life, but it can also be mixed with other elements to turn them into gold or silver. It is interesting that there are actually two colors of philosophers stone: white and red. The white stones were used to make silver, but only the red could make gold. Apparently, though, both could be eaten and produce similar effects. That explains the colors of the Smurfs’ clothes.

Papa Smurf is the only truly perfect one (gold being the perfect balance of all elements) and spends his time trying to perfect the other elements. The most obvious time he did this was when Smurfette was created by Gargamel to lure the others to him, and (if memory serves) once she decided to stay with the Smurfs, Papa Smurf replaced her heart, which was made of stone, with one of gold. Unless he actually cut her open and took out the old one, it was probably his ability to change one element to another that changed the substance. In changing that element, he also accidentally changed her hair to gold as well. Also of interest is the fact that Alchemy was not just the science of changing elements to perfection, but also of the Alchemist changing himself. Smurfette was already changing of her own will before Papa Smurf allowed her the gold heart. Gargamel, meanwhile, still has a long way to go, and this is why he has not been able to successfully obtain the stone(s) for his own use. He must balance all elements within himself before he can obtain them.

Back to Smurfette. She is still not perfect, shown by the fact that she still must wear white. It is because she is still unable to perfect the elements around her-in fact, at times, she actually corrupts them (like the episode where, suddenly, one day, all the other Smurfs are asking her to marry them. While I think it was partly due to outside forces, she made her suitors fight each other.) Additionally, she lacks the required balance of male and female elements-she’s far too feminine, as shown by her lifestyle.