Now, I’ve
mentioned how I despise in animation when characters are utilized in a ridiculous ‘comedy of embarrassment’ style of writing. Rather naively, I figured that this came about by accident; there’s no way the writers would pull this crap on purpose.
Then I caught this from the production blog for
Foster’s Home for Imaginary Friends. There were a series of posts detailing various facets of the creation of an episode. One post featured the treatment of the episode “Go Goo Go”. Pay special attention to the last sentence, which I’ve helpfully underlined:
So…this
is a conscious decision. I would severely hate to find that similar statements appeared in treatments for “Foster’s Goes to Europe” and “I Only Have Surprise for You”, both of which end with much more heinous examples of Mac humiliated and made to feel terrible. And the less said about “Impostor’s Home for Um…Make-em-Up Pals”, the better. I will never forgive the crew for what happened to Frankie in that episode. Ever. Not even if the survival of the species depended on it. In no way does it feel organic and, judging from quite a few of Ben Stiller’s movies, it has no place in animation.
My question is simply...why? Why put characters in these ludicrous scenarios? On sort of the same token, one thing seldom seen in cartoons of today is character-based humor. Such humor grows honestly out of situations in which the characters find themselves. Much more typical of cartoons today are stories whose authors write
around the characters. Instead of writing the characters and providing gags based on their reactions and/or interactions, the gags are written first and
then the characters are shoehorned in with little regard to believability of the character, continuity or whether or not the audience will even like it.
I don’t know for sure if story treatments on other shows so nakedly state that they wish to drive their characters over the edge (read: treat them like garbage; apparently "Goo" writer Lauren Faust, among many others, is unfamiliar with a little thing called ‘empathy’.), but in seeing how the following characters are treated in given episodes, it’s hard not to imagine it:
Meg Griffin, “Family Guy” - Too obvious an example, I know, but worth mentioning. It could certainly be argued that the characters on the show are archetypes not to be felt for. However, with incidents like being pelted with meat (“And the Wiener is...”) and being deflowered on live television (“Don’t Make Me Over”), one has to wonder if the writers even find this stuff funny. The viewers (well, the ones that don’t huff airplane glue) certainly don’t.
Ron Stoppable, “Kim Possible” - It pains me to have to put him on the list, as he reminds me more of myself than I do. Generally, the show is well-written, but the moments stuck in to humiliate/debase him chip away at the considerable goodwill: the ‘count to twelve’ bit in “Naked Genius”, all of “Ron Millionaire”, every frame of “Return to Wannaweep” (esp. the third act) and most of his scenes in “Crush”. Also, his moments in “All the News” and “Royal Pain” are as ‘write-
around-the-character’ as it gets for this show.
Tucker Foley/Jazz Fenton, “Danny Phantom” - I feel obligated to mention these two together, as they are major characters on the show…but you’d never know it the way these two are handled. When they
are spotlighted, it’s not pretty. Between the attempted meet cute in “13” and the shared ending of “Beauty Marked” and “King Tuck”, I kind of wonder if the writers respect Tucker. Same goes with Jazz, who wouldn’t even be mentioned here were it not for one episode. In having this knowledgeable and insightful character as Danny’s assistant, “Secret Weapons” (mainly in its first half) dares to turn her into Dee Dee from “Dexter’s Laboratory”; an overly-spirited incompetent wrecking her brother’s life. Is this the same Jazz I came to respect in “My Brother’s Keeper”? Not bloody likely!
There are a number of other characters I’ve noticed this with: Cat (“CatDog”), Butters (“South Park”), Numbah One (“Codename: Kids Next Door”, though this is more in the recent episodes) and Edd (“Ed, Edd and Eddy”; likewise).
The few of you who remember these next examples might be going, ‘What about Oliver on “Green Acres” or that lemonade vendor in
Duck Soup? Weren’t they humiliated?’ First, let me commend you on your knowledge of classic comedy. Second, let me bust your balloon by saying that these earlier efforts were blessed with talented writers who knew how to pack plenty of clever gags and wordplay into their respective scripts, helping us forget that a poor schlub was made to feel so miserable. Remember what I said about opposites, earlier? The cartoons of today focus on the miserable schlub and
then try to surround them and their misery with attempts at jokes rather than actual jokes. Put it like this: which is funnier:
“I’ll teach you to kick me!” “You don’t have to teach me. I know how.”
or
“Megan, you must try the brisket. Allow me to serve it in the manner to which you're accustomed!”
I can only hope for a change in the wind that leads to cartoons that are absent of this irritating need to humiliate its (hopefully) well-conceived characters - the way it should be. Interesting but true: according to the
episode page at TV.com, the writer of “Impostor’s Home...” hasn’t written a “Foster’s” episode since, so maybe karma
does work.
Labels: cartoons, rant
