Archive for the ‘villains’ Category

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.

Ex Situ: Journal of a New COBRA Recruit

May 13, 2008

Keith Pille, via the always aeolipilic McSweeney’s Internet Tendency, gives us two looks into the personal journey of a rank-and-file COBRA recruit. Here’s an excerpt:

June 21, 1986
Awful exciting day today. First we got to do our airborne training. They loaded us up into a plane, and we flew up and then jumped out. Our chutes had the big, scary COBRA symbol on them. It was awesome. But it was hard, because we were supposed to keep yelling “COBRA!” all the way down. It was tough to get enough breath to yell right at first. Sarge says it just takes practice.

Journal of a New COBRA Recruit >Catena Ex Situ

Journal of a Seasoned COBRA Veteran >Catena Ex Situ

Ratatouille as a Metaphorical History of Disney and Pixar

May 11, 2008

Contributed by Lucas R.

A gorgeous, well-crafted and charming piece of cinema. The design was rich and warm and it made me feel nice and happy just getting to watch that world. All of that is really fantastic and worth more than the price of admission, but on top of that I realized while I was watching, and delighted in the realization, that the movie was a metaphor for Pixar!

Alright, let me explain (or try to explain, because I tried telling a lot of this to the friends I saw the movie with, got a bit carried away and jumped all over the place, and mostly got smiles and nods).

First, we’ve got Gusteau, the almost mythic chef who became a well-known phenomenon because of his work, and because his work was so loved he grew and thrived and made an empire. The empire lost some steam and with the help of some critical voices pointing out the plateau, the momentum was lost and with that momentum gone, the head of the empire died, but his empire kept on. So Gusteau was Walt Disney.

That empire reached far, and despite the energy behind the chef’s message had died, his work had spread and the message itself still inspired, even inspiring someone far away with a love for the same art to learn and grow their skills. That energy, conviction and the excitement of challenges and creation sounds a lot like Remy is Lasseter, discovering his raw tools at the beginnings of Pixar, amongst people who are supportive but have no idea what he’s doing, and folks who realize he’s got something but want to steer it to fit their interest. Remy’s testing for poison while exploring some ideas of food combination, Lasseter’s testing software and testing some character interaction and storytelling with new and developing technology. So yeah, Remy is Lasseter.

So, since the death of Gusteau/Disney, the empire still exists, but isn’t in the hands of the person who began it. It is being run now in a largely totalitarian way by a man without the creative and inspirational vision of the creator, but with a mind for keeping things afloat and profiting on cheapening and exploiting the name and image of the company’s past in mostly cheap and easy ways. In the movie, that’s Skinner; at Disney, that’s Michael Eisner. So yeah, Eisner/Skinner is chugging along, riding high at the helm of another’s empire and keeping many things running without any change and discouraging talk of change, while at the same time making deals behind the scenes to merchandise everything he can plaster the name of the now long-dead Gusteau/Disney onto.

Next, we get a seemingly harmless and ineffectual remnant of the old days who Skinner/Eisner lets on, but dismisses out of hand and sets up in a place where he figures the guy can’t do much/any harm. This new guy turns out to have ties to Gusteau/Disney though, and starts to make some waves after he begins a relationship with a little-known outside party that makes a splash out of nowhere with their first big creative endeavor. Linguini is Roy Disney. Roy staked himself to secure a relationship with Pixar and when Pixar hit big with Toy Story, the eyes were on him, largely like how Linguini could’ve stayed ineffectual and bullied into impotence but found the potential greatness in a small outsider. To the majority of the outside world, this new, great creation belonged to the empire of Gusteau’s/Disney, while within Disney it was Linguini/Roy Disney making a stir and the real power behind it all was Remy/Pixar.

The challenge to replicate the first success and the scoffing that “meh, you can do it with soup/toys, but let’s see if you can do it with something even Gusteau/Walt couldn’t ever seem to pull off: a bug movie!” But by sticking to what he knew to be best instead of trying to simply recreate what was done before, Remy/Pixar pulled it off again and now people wanted more.

During this time, Linguini/Roy Disney falls for Colette, who has worked very hard to get in and stay at the kitchen/Disney studios and who thinks that the only way to work is to tenaciously stick to the classic formulas and rules and immediately jumps in with warnings that deviation can lead to disaster. She does clue Remy/Pixar into some technical aspects of their work that do improve his skill, but he blows past Colette because of his experimentation and sense of artistry, and Linguini/Roy Disney is left in the middle trying to be supportive of Colette while still providing an outlet for Remy/Pixar and being pulled all around in the process. Colette is Disney Animation (the department and the animators). She viewed Pixar/Remy as a threat and an anomaly at the beginning, and eventually had to bite the bullet and join in to be able to really make anything worth making by the end of things. But I digress, back to where we were in the story.

Roy/Linguini was now riding high, but didn’t really understand his relationship with Remy/Pixar and was even trying to steer them along himself, even though it was done pretty innocently. Eisner/Skinner saw things slipping away and was grasping at straws to find a way to keep control. He even tried to trap Remy/Pixar (Skinner with a literal trap, Eisner with contracts) so he could take advantage of what they were succeeding with and force it into his cheap merchandising plans, but Remy/Pixar fought around that and finally got Linguini/Roy to realize that for his relationship with Remy/Pixar to really work, he’d have to take the support role instead of the leader/sponsor role and give them the chance to be the force they are. Still, when Remy/Pixar finally enters into Gusteau’s/Disney, the people who were there running the machine left and Remy/Pixar found that they had to rally their own forces with the reluctant Colette/Disney Animation. In the end, Remy/Pixar finds out that they can’t just continue in the shell of a former empire, they have to take the good from that and make something new if they’re going to be able to succeed.

Finally, Anton Ego represents the critics of animation in general. People who figure it’s all been done to death already, but if you think you can impress them, then go ahead and hit them with your best shot, because they don’t know what they want out of animation, just that they don’t think they can be impressed by it any more. With that challenge, the people in the studios figure they should bank on something flashy and new and shiny, but Remy/Pixar goes for something simple and nostalgic with enough of their own twist to make it theirs without taking away from what makes the subject matter belong to the audience, and instead of trying to make their audience like something completely new, finds new ways to remind their audience about something they already loved. It’s not so much a formula as a recipe that Pixar has used well and continues to, and it’s the kind of meal that stays with you and really satisfies.

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.

Evil Mickey Mouse

March 30, 2008

mickey_bar.jpg

Contributed by TOONWRITER. 

mickey.jpgEverybody 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.

From the archives: The Cobra Paradox

February 11, 2008

gijoe_bar.jpg

Contributed by “Summusdeus”

gijoe12.jpgAh, the late 80s. I have fond memories of getting up in the morning before school and running downstairs quickly to the room with the television to watch my favorite show at the time: G.I. Joe. I loved that show and still have fond recollections of it. I always considered myself more of a fan of Cobra than the Joes, but I’ve always had a predisposition the side of evil and to villains. Having said that, one thing keeps bugging me about the show. In all the episodes (unless you count that alternate universe one), Cobra always loses despite having the best technology and an advantage in terms of sheer number when compared to the Joes.

(more…)

From the archives: A Discretization of Cartoon TV Audiences

February 10, 2008

batmanbeyond_bar.jpg

Like most from the archives, this article is at least six years old, so some of the references are rather dated. It’s another reminder that comments and additional examples are always highly encouraged.

Contributed by K.M. L.

daria2.jpgThere are, I have noticed, 3 distinct target age groups (excluding adult cartoons, which are their own genre) that almost all cartoons fit into. There’s the preschool group (e.g. Caillou, from Cinar); school-age, the definite majority (which is just about everything on Nickelodeon); and teen/ young adult cartoons (Daria and The New Ripley’s Believe It Or Not). The preschool-age cartoons’ animation is colorful, bright, and simple enough for kids to understand. Plots aren’t complex at all; rather, they are entertaining and they are good for holding the short extension span of this age group. Characters are friendly, and rarely do we find a villain. After all, no kid under 4 will watch something that gives them nightmares.

(more…)

De-humanization and Anti-anthropomorphism of Undesirables in Tarzan, Antz, and others

February 2, 2008

tarzan_bar.jpg

This submission is an old one, but was never added to the site.

Contributed by Miguel L.

a70-531.jpgAs recently as Tarzan we see Disney’s new target of ridicule. The baboon tribe was seen instantly as vicious, heartless monsters who attack the helpless in overwhelming swarms. Strangely enough the baboons weren’t even the villains of the movie and showed a steep contrast to the anthropomorphic peace-loving gorillas (which was the founding reason for this whole movie- gotta have some animal, vegtable, or mineral that talks). One would suggest they represent the individuals who’ve left society and banded together to punish those that are civilized. In the end they help the good guys because that’s often the cause for the intellectual- to rile the ignorant masses to do their job- it sums up quite a bit of human history.

(more…)