Archive for the ‘from the archives’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

From the archives: Love in the Time of Exosquad

May 17, 2008

The following was contributed by Jennifer.

Regarding Exosquad, one thing that I am surprised hasn’t been touched on is the relationships between the Terrans and the Neos on a personal level, mainly Nara Burns and Marsala. Marsala, being a Neo Sapien, is completely sexless (although he appears male and is referred to as a male), and was created at least 30 years before Nara was born. This creates obvious problems.

Although he is nearly emotionless at the beginning of the series, he acquires human traits as he is assimilated into the Terran way of life. He evolves. He begins to care about Nara, even though he feels no need to show it because he doesn’t understand how. From the first time Marsala shows any kindness to her (giving her his oxygen mask in a very early episode), Nara is extremely attached. Unlike his confusion, she knows exactly how she feels about him. In the final episode, she tries to tell him that she loves him, but he gently reminds her that he cannot be a part of her life. She’s devastated.

What this symbolizes: It shows a message of love, in simple terms. Love can happen to anyone, even if it’s not for the best. But, the events and people surrounding them illustrate pure racial prejudice–on both sides, art imitating life. Nara is sharply criticized, even scolded, for her friendship with Marsala (by her own brother!). Marsala is nearly killed by an enraged Phaeton when he sees Marsala trying to protect Nara instead of fighting for himself. This shows how deep the hatred between Terrans and Neo Sapiens runs, in contrast to the love that they could feel, should they like to try.

The following was contributed by VanFossen.

The treatment of Neo/Terran relationships is in Exosquad quite complex all around, but the relationship between Nara and Marsala demonstrates man’s natural fear and dislike for those different from himself (something that is at the root of much racism) and the hatred of those deemed the enemy.

While the Neos were unable to engage in sexual relations and reproduce, I believe this was actually based on brain chemistry and not physiology. Neos came in both sexes and were generally very well endowed. Most certainly, the female Neos could engage in sex, though they were rendered unable to reproduce and quite possibly had little to no sex drive due to brain alterations. And those who created the Neos would certainly not want these big, powerful males to be sexually active, so they were also chemically altered to remove sex drive and the ability to become aroused. This certainly did not mean they were unable to love.

I don’t believe that Neos were an unemotional lot. In fact they were often quite emotional, especially when angered. Lydia quite obviously loved Phaeton and remained loyal until she realized how insane he had become. And in his way, Phaeton loved her–she was the only member of his elite followers that he did not clone, because he trusted her so and could not think of destroying her (until madness won out). Marsala had seen much in his forty years and probably preferred to keep his relations with Terrans formal, but Nara’s beauty and kindness captured his heart. He truly cared for Nara, but realized that he could not give her what he knew to be the most important thing to her live: family. Because he felt he could not be a complete man in her life (physically as well as emotionally), and give her children, he bowed out as gracefully (and quickly) as he could, denying himself her love. What I find surprising is that he couldn’t see that Nara was now something other than human, herself. Genetically altered by injection, she was changing and would probably never be a candidate for a normal lifestyle with husband and children. Perhaps his own pain and feelings of inadaquacy blinded him to her real need of him when he left her on Venus. I like to think that this relationship would have been resolved in the unaired final season. Nara’s developing ability to restore and regenerate might even have been able to alter Marsala’s brain chemistry and make him potent.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Exosquad, from the archives, racism, villains | No Comments »

From the archives: Little Bear, Franklin, and Arthur - Anthropomorphic Hierarchies

May 12, 2008

Contributed by E.L.

I take care of my nephews a few times a week and they love watching Nick Jr. and PBS. I was very fascinated with some of the things that were happening in some of these cartoons, Little Bear, Franklin, and Arthur in particular.

First, I noticed that these animals all take on human characteristics. At least the main character, but others included, all have opposable thumbs. They have the ability to write and pick up utensils–they can do tedious, intricate work even though they are equipped with a paw or wing. When a character does have wings instead of “arms” those characters have the ability to utilize their feathers like fingers, being able to bend and hold things with them, they also generally have one feather that is the place of a thumb and can thus write and hold things like the other creatures. In the case of Little Bear, the character Cat does not have a opposable thumb and walks on all fours, instead of on two legs–this does not limit its ability to stand on it’s hindquarters and to grasp items with its front paws. How it does this escapes me. It has no opposable thumb, per se, yet it can hold and play a tambourine–a naturally sticky secretion perhaps? magnetism?

Along these same lines, the characters (again, at least the main character) lives in an upper-middle class suburbia. Although Franklin and Arthur both have towns or cities which they live in, they live on the outskirts of these. They are equipped with large houses that have indoor plumbing of some sort, furniture of some sort, refrigerators, ovens with stovetops, and plates, forks, knives and spoons and other utensils. In Arthur, some animals live in the city in apartments, but never the main character. In Franklin and Arthur, the characters go to school where they have the capability to learn reading, writing and math. I also find it interesting that in Little Bear and Franklin, few characters are given actual names: “Cat” is a cat, “Duck” is a duck, “Hen” is a hen, “Snail” is a snail. Yet Franklin’s a turtle and in Little Bear the human girl is named Emily, they aren’t called “Turtle” and “Girl.”

I’m proving these points because there was something, in Arthur and Franklin mostly, the disturbs me slightly. In these worlds, where animals are the ones in charge, not all animals are equal. As a world wide community, we may have racial discrepancies and prejudices–which are unfortunate–but a human is a human. Period. These shows obviously take place in an America like setting, where democracy is the ruling practice and the citizens have to abide by laws. In America, we no longer practice servitude and slavery. No one will argue that point–things aren’t equal by any means, but we don’t force others into a slaveship. In these cartoons, they show the characters with pets, generally a dog or cat or a fish. I find this wrong. I realize that they are merely illustrating humans through the animals, but by giving the animals pets, they are saying that not all creatures are allowed equal rights.

Arthur has a pet dog named Pal. What makes Arthur and his friends and family above the species of dogs? Why was the puppy not enrolled in preschool with the rest and given the chance at an education? Why was enslaved into being a stupid mere animal without the higher thinking capacities and motor functions? In Franklin, a similar thing happened: Franklin passed a store window that had a puppy in it. What did he do? He talked to his parents about getting a pet. Again, why was the dog forced into the position of pet and not given the chance to make something of himself? We don’t look at a certain denomination of humans and decided that they will be our pets–our slaves. That doesn’t happen in today’s society. Why would these shows want to present the idea of equality among the species–except for those who will be pets. I doubt kids will see this and think, “oh, that Aardvark has a puppy as a pet, how cruel!” They see it as a reflection of human society in reference to owning a pet.

Also, there are no problems with the animals being carnivorous. In one episode of Little Bear, “Duck Soup,” they jokingly made a duck soup. They had Duck sit in a large pot while they put in other ingredients. Cat and Little Bear and the others added in this and that while duck swam around in the water. Why is the idea of eating another fellow animal all right? They play and get along with their friends, yet they have no qualms in eating another animals’ flesh. In our human society, yes, we eat animals, but we don’t eat other humans. Being a cannibal is highly looked down upon, except in cartoons, where a second thought isn’t given.

Maybe I’m overreacting, but I feel that in a society where animals prevail, either there should be a definite hierarchy of animals where the strong eat the weak and it reflects upon nature or all animals should be given the same rights and privileges, and should be vegetarian. In cartoons like Franklin, Little Bear, and Arthur, they gain nothing by having the characters be carnivores or by having them own other animals as pets. It breaks down the idea that we are equal and all have certain rights, even though we may look different and have unique strengths and weaknesses.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Arthur, Franklin, Little Bear, anthropomorphica, from the archives | 4 Comments »

From the archives: Bestial Sexuality in He-Man and She-Ra

May 8, 2008

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.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in He-Man, She-Ra, Thundercats, from the archives, gender, homosexuality, stereotypes, the female gender, the male gender, villains | 5 Comments »

From the archives: The Secret Identity of Dr. Claw

April 18, 2008

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.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Inspector Gadget, from the archives | 5 Comments »

From the archives: A Freudian Analysis of Beavis and Butt-Head

March 19, 2008

beavis_bar.jpg

Contributed by Gaelin B.

beavisbutthead.jpg 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…

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Beavis and Butt-Head, from the archives | 4 Comments »

From the archives: African-American Crows

March 11, 2008

fritzthecat_bar2.jpg

Contributed by Trotman.

dumbo.jpgI’d like to point out something I’ve noticed about older cartoons: Crows are almost unanimously represented as African-American, and vice versa.

The best example I can think of is Walt Disney’s Dumbo. In the film, Dumbo and his little mouse friend wake up after a night of drunken revelry in a tree, and can’t figure out how they got there. After climbing out, (if I remember correctly) the mouse hypothesizes that Dumbo used his huge ears and flew into the branches. This concept is suddenly and loudly cat-called by a gang of crows on a fence. These crows speak in an urbanized dialect, are dressed everywhere from snazzily to shabbily, and loud. In an especially poor showing of sensitivity, I believe the leader was named “Jim.” As in Jim Crow. (For those of you that were educated by the public school system, “Jim Crow” is the nickname given to segregationist laws ratified in the Southern states after the Civil War and during the Reconstruction.)

The crows are the typical late-vaudevillian stereotype of blacks: raucous, like-minded, and quick to gang up on isolated non-blacks. The crows have a good laugh at Dumbo, reiterating over and over how stupid the very idea of a flying elephants is and making jokes at Dumbo’s expense (”An elephant, fly? I dunno ’bout that… but I seen a dragon fly!” “I seen a horse fly!” “Well, I seen a house fly.”) And naturally, because they’re “black,” they sing a song and do a little dancing. But then, I must say, Disney surprises me.

The crows suddenly seem to warm to the little elephant, and are actually instrumental in his mastery of flight. This would make them seem to be protagonists in a film heavily populated with antagonists. Very odd. Because of that, I have surmised that the “Black Crows” of Dumbo are in no way malicious portrayals, but are simply presented for their comedic value, and augment the film with plot development and a few cheap laughs. Besides, the time period in which this film was created is not renowned for it’s accuracy in racial representation.

Far less tactful is the use of “Black Crows” in the Ralph Bakshi film Fritz the Cat, based on the cartoons of Robert Crumb. Here, the crows are are regarded with a mix of contempt, fascination and mystique. They are shown as stiff competition for pretty young women, frustrating a horny Fritz, and alternately shown as quick lay for the cat, no less in a scrap yard. Not exactly complementary. Then again, Fritz later initiates an orgy in a bathtub with a number of women, none of which are crows. (There is something lacking in general in the treatment of women in Bakshi films, but that’s a whole different rant.)

I believe the crows in this movie are not shown the way they are for racist reasons, though. One has to remember that Robert Crumb wrote the original “Fritz.” Everyone is portrayed rather badly in his cartoons, and that would naturally translate into the movie.


Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Dumbo, Fritz the Cat, ethnicity, from the archives | 2 Comments »

From the archives: Chromatic Sexism and Animated Felines

March 8, 2008

aristocats_bar.jpg

Contributed by Fawzi.

catsdontdance_1997.jpgDid you ever notice that patterns emerge in the fur colors of major protagonist characters of the domestic feline species portrayed in popular, secular, post modern children’s media? Female feline protagonist tend to have white fur, a reoccurring characteristic for the heroines in a significant number of films involving cats, examples include female characters from The Aristocats, Cats Don’t Dance, The Rescuers (she’s a mouse, but the concept still stands). On the other hand, the male feline protagonists have orange fur, examples include male characters from Garfield, Heathcliff, The Aristocats, An American Tail, Cats Don’t Dance, etc. Furthermore, leading males that have dark or cold colors as oppose to the traditional orange fur are sadistically tormented on a regular basis as in the case of the black furred Sylvester (he speaks with a lisp, indicating homosexuality, further “justifying” violence and bodily harm on him) or the blue furred Tom.

The question is: why? As in the case of females the trend of white fur can be explained in terms of color symbolism. White represents purity and virginity, which in itself raises questions as to why would somebody care if the leading female cat is a virgin? A healthy human mind shouldn’t be concerned with the sexual characteristics of an animal. This can be linked to the themes of zoophilia that are apparent in children’s media. The orange color typical in heroic male domestic feline characters has significance, personally I don’t know what it is, (I can’t provide anything more than weak allusions to the Orange Party of the 19th century, which may have something to do with the early American working class on which the nation was built.)

An anomaly in the white female trend would have to be Garfield’s Arlene, she’s pink(which again could be explained in terms of identifying gender with color) the obvious implication of her not having white fur: she’s not a virgin.

Other implications of the white furred female felines in The Aristrocats, the leading female has white fur, indicating virginity, yet she has children with her, what is she? She’s a Virgin Mother! She’s being escorted to some safe paradise by a humble (orange) male, fleeing from an oppressive empire, the references to Roman society (aristocrats, hence the title.) Three children can represent almost anything, the number three is of significance to Christianity: the Trinity, the three Mages, the three Archangels, etc. All this has significance.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in An American Tail, Cats Don't Dance, Garfield and Friends, Heathcliff, Sylvester and Tweety, The Aristocats, The Rescuers, Tom and Jerry, from the archives, gender, homosexuality | 3 Comments »

From the archives: Temporally Increasing Morbidity in Animaniacs

March 6, 2008

animaniacs_bar.jpg

Contributed by Panu V.

animallthree.jpgMy point is about the slight increase in morbid death-based humor during the later production seasons of Animaniacs. I can give a detailed view of the phenomenon. You see, when examining those episodes more closely, it turns out most of those deaths were the ones of several famous historical persons. The show had, of course, dealt with history and its figures since the very beginning, but in a slightly different way from the start of 3rd season.

First example is “The Presidents Song”, which, as many of you probably know, sings briefly about the Presidents of the United States. I couldn’t help but notice that it was a bit different in some parts from any previous Animaniacs song numbers. The mentioning of presidents being killed during their term was recurring in lyrics/background scenes at least three times (there was also going to be a fourth one about J.F. Kennedy, but it was removed from the final version - wonder why?). Also included was this lyric about Zachary Taylor: “His breath killed friends whenever he smoked”. All this felt slightly odd to me.

But there were still more similar scenes. Another song number “The Ballad of Magellan” tells about Magellan’s journey across the sea in search of the East Indies. Of course, also included is the scene of him being killed by natives’ spears - however a couple of feet offscreen. He appears as a ghost at the end of the song. And in the 5th season, there was yet another song number (anyone notice a disturbing pattern here?), dedicated to Attila the Hun. In this one, the writers actually “rewrote” Attila’s death, because he is described (and shown on-screen) as choking on too much food during his wedding. His burial is seen immediately after.

None of these instances are really that detailed or play a major part in the script, of course, but were still quite a big change from the show’s first seasons, where almost nothing was shown to represent death, either comical or otherwise, even if it meant altering history (one 1st season episode dealt with Czar Nicholas II and Grigori Rasputin, and no references were made to either Czar’s son’s hemophilia or Rasputin’s murder - he’s simply fired). And the change didn’t stop in historical parodies, either: in a 3rd season Slappy Squirrel cartoon, her enemies hold a fake funeral to lure her into a trap. Many morbid jokes were obviously slipped in. I also don’t think I’ve seen another “family show” which has featured zombies - and by that I mean “real” zombies, as in living corpses, and not any kind of hypnotized people or something. Animaniacs did this in the 4th season episode “Night of the Living Buttons”.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Animaniacs, death, from the archives | 1 Comment »

From the archives: Sexual Ambiguity in The Brave Little Toaster

February 27, 2008

blt_bar.jpg

Contributed by Alejandro L.

blt-10.jpgI saw that cute cartoon The Brave Little Toaster for the seventieth time but the protagonist, for which the title is named after, still comes across as lacking a definite gender, unlike the others. Here are some supporting analyses: every other appliance is undeniably masculine, there are (as far as I’ve counted) 4.5 exceptions of effeminate appliances (an old recorder, a sewing machine, a toaster oven, and one of the cars that was executed by the compactor) who rely on extreme stereotyping to get that point across. It has become customary to make a concept cartoon (such as talking appliances, talking animals, goofy-looking video game characters, etc.) male first as some sort of template for later additions to its world. Of course, this all leads back to Toaster’s gender. The animators and screenwriters took great lengths to avoid having to reveal that issue. The four other appliances in the Faithful Five have been fully defined (in regards to Blankie, Curby points out “he’s just stuck in a tree”). In fact, the only time Toaster was referred to by a pronoun was during the waterfall/rescue sequence, over the blaring rapids and music, Lampey screams “(he/she) sank”. That’s it. It could have been a gigantic Japanese to American transition fluke but I remained unconvinced.

The most likely reason why we never learn Toaster’s sex is to let everyone feel a sense of equality, so to speak. This plucky appliance is always in charge, tries to keep the rest of the gang in line (just wondering, were ya ever been reminded of a real person who has said “Knock it off you guys” like that?), suffers fear of inadequacy, and eventually makes the biggest sacrifice to save the Master. Why should someone of those characteristics have to been specified? Perhaps for one brief moment, cartoonists realized how much of an influence they were to children and decisively broke tradition. With a strange mixture of a placid yet heart-warming appearance, voice, and behavior, Toaster proves to be a role model for all. (I’m aware there is a sequel out there on videocassette, but I haven’t seen it.)

Posted in The Brave Little Toaster, from the archives, gender, the female gender, the male gender | 4 Comments »

From the archives: Historical Context of Bugs Bunny’s Transvestism

February 27, 2008

 bugs_bar.jpg

Contributed by Tracy D.

sexybugsy.jpgI’m agreeing with the general flow of the conversation about Bugs and his penchant for frilly little things from Victoria’s Secret. But I think a lot of posters try to equate him to modern standards of sexuality. Remember, Bugs was one of the biggest box-office draws of the late 30’s, 40’s, & 50’s who was grounded in the great vaudevillian tradition. An obviously male star donning female garb and then confounding the boobs and society was a guaranteed laugh-getter. Bugs’ genius (and star vanity) is that he must take on the  complete persona of what ever he’s trying to be. (the first Method actor?) So, he can’t just slap on a skirt to distract Elmer for a second or two, he’s gotta be Carmen Miranda with a bowl of fruit on his head, or one of the Andrews sisters, or Brynhildr of the flowing braids. I think his closest contemporary was the actor Danny Kaye (who also spawned many rumours about his sexuality). To both of them there is a bit of New-Yorker-sons-of-immigrants brassiness combined with a whole-hearted willingness to take a character to its most absurd extreme.

Posted in Bugs Bunny, cross-dressing, from the archives | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »