Skip to main content

Is what you are watching actually a cartoon?

Disclaimer: What you are about to read may seem weird, but what the hell, I am hypothesising it to be true, so who knows...

Cartoons are basically meant for kids. The main reason elders prefer letting the kids watch them without their supervision is that they need not fret over the incidence of X-rated content in it – namely content that concerns that famous three-letter word or violence. I suggest that we re-examine this mindset of ours (as someone who has grown up watching the very cartoons that I am about to damn, I have mixed feelings as I type this.

Consider the following list: Tom and Jerry, Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd/Yosemite Sam, Tweety and Sylvester and Coyote and Road Runner. These are cartoons which we would definitely not squirm about before letting a toddler/child watch it. These cartoons are hilarious, have palatable themes; have caricatures that look cute (I am yet to come across a girl who hates Tweety). Tom and Jerry, for instance, was once even voted the most popular cartoon in history; its TV reruns stand testimony to its long lasting popularity. However, beneath all that humour, the sarcasm, the cuteness, the mind-boggling illustrations and their haunting soundtracks (viewers are likely to forget the characters but not the twirl of a guitar prior to the commencement of a Looney Tunes cartoon) is the underlying theme of violence, and if I may add, sadism.

Yes, you read it right. Cartoons, in my opinion, neatly package violence in a graded manner, almost undetectable, just as the nurse at the hospital injects a syringe in your vein to draw out a blood sample. The reason being killing a character is intrinsically woven into the plots (at least in the cartoons listed above), though it never happens. Tom seeks to either eliminate or make a meal out of Jerry; Elmer Fudd/Yosemite Sam brandish a gun all the time, wanting to shoot Bugs Bunny; ditto with Sylvester and Tweety and Coyote and Road Runner. Aren’t we indirectly implying that it is okay to kill a mouse or shoot a rabbit? Since humour is an effective masking agent, we do not worry about the content the kid may be watching. When an air gun misfires on Elmer Fudd, blackening his face, and Bugs Bunny standing beside him asks in a nonchalant manner, “Gee, what’s up, Doc?” we instinctively clap, laugh or at least smile; quoting a line from The Matrix, I’d say that we are hard-wired to do so. It is as if killing Jerry is Tom’s birthright, and in turn, harassing Tom being Butch’s pastime. Even the mythology-inspired cartoons running on Cartoon Network, Chota Bheem and Little Krishna, pay attention to the confrontations the characters have with demons. The superhero range of cartoons – The Mask, Superman, Batman, Spiderman, to name a few - bring with them, almost justifiably, violence. Haven’t we not come across reports of children dying while trying to imitate the antics of Shaktiman?

Those worrying about their children watching explicit content would hardly pay attention to what is packaged in a cartoon. I am no psychologist to suggest that children get excited violently and turn into a Conan the Barbarian after watching such cartoons; neither do I have any scientific studies to assert my claims. You can call me a pessimist, or someone who does not know how to enjoy watching cartoons, but of late I have been unable to put this stream of thought out of my mind.

Please feel free to comment on what is right or wrong with our cartoons, or whether I am getting paranoid.

Comments

  1. Good pick Raja. I think you have a point. But if you are talking about those kids who may go wrong watching the cartoons, you have to agree that they have nothing else to do. A majority of kids addicted to cartoon shows are from urban environment. They have nothing else to do except watching TV or playing video games.
    Only a handful of kids are successful in emerging out of the 'virtual reality' that the technology delivers to them ready made.
    No, I dont agree that such shows foment violence. Rather, they turn violence into an acceptable, even funny acts. But no kid dares to go overboard and try out Tom's killing methods..
    I strongly believe that the virtual world may increase the violence (psychologically) but they are not translated into physical acts..

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dude, come on... the focus is on the humor and the violence is wildly exaggerated for anyone to take it seriously... Its like how one fakes getting hurt to make a child laugh, I guess.... Raja, thank god you are not on the censor board ;) lol...

    I really liked your movie reviews... Keep up the good work :)

    P.S.: You may want to add sources to the images you use..

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why the editorial is the unsung hero of any newspaper

A tad autobiographical, this account encapsulates my experiences at a news organisation. Why wait until 50 or 60 to compose one? Hell, who knows, this could even be its blueprint! So, here goes my first stab at chronicling myself... I was prepared for all kinds of weird questions for my first job interview as a journalist four years ago, for the post of a sub-editor, but I never anticipated this one that caught me off guard. Noting that I preferred to work in the editorial than the reporting section, a HR representative at the organization asked in almost an air of dismissal, implying that the editorial is something redundant, “After all, we have Microsoft Word, in built with grammar and spell check capabilities, so why must I hire you?” I stared at him blankly for a moment as a smile grew on his face, perhaps out of exult at having stumped me. I trotted a familiar refrain, which I am sure he would have encountered countless times, “Because I am passionate about writing a...

Chennai’s Fourth Estate at War

Touching upon competitive spirit, the legendary writer George Orwell, in an essay dated 1945, had described sport as war minus the shooting. He could very well be referring to the ongoing veiled battle between two of India's English dailies. When “India’s national newspaper since 1878” and the “Largest read English daily in the world” decide to slug it out over Chennai’s newspaper readership, rest assured that the battle would spill over to the TV media, as was witnessed recently. Cheeky indeed were the ads that thumbed the nose at one another; though, few were in doubt over who the target was. To the uninitiated, the two newspapers – The Hindu and The Times of India (TOI) , respectively – have modus operandi that are as identical as chalk is to cheese, or uppu (salt) is to upma , a South Indian snack. The "war" in question is the race to get hold of the average Chennaiite, and eventually the Indian, newspaper reader’s attention. And no, this piece of opinion isn...