The Fallacy of the ‘Babysitter Substitute’

To anyone actually interested in reading my incessant ramblings below, I sorta kinda feel as though I should say a few things in advance. First, I sincerely apologise for the length (not all of my posts will be this long, I promise). Secondly, this post has been heavily edited, tampered with, altered and manipulated, and yet it has, admittedly, turned out rather convoluted and muddled, so much so that the overall message is a little hazy. Even so, I decided to upload it as it nonetheless presents an interesting debate concerning viewing audiences of animated film. Whatever you make of it, here it is. Enjoy guys.

“Cartoons are for kids!” is an all-too-familiar sentiment shared by millions; one which, frankly, I tire of hearing. Ask yourself, how many people you know who have admitted, not without a tinge of shame, that they still enjoy watching the occasional Disney film, often indicating parenthetically that they are “still a kid at heart” or something equally as clichéd in order to convey their secret shame as something vaguely acceptable to the rest of society. While I have no issue with anybody who chooses to maintain a profound connection with their childhood self, I would like to proffer a view of my own; a frequently condemned belief I stand by, regardless of what anybody else might think; the view that this sentiment is in fact almost entirely untrue. This notion that has persisted relentlessly for decades is a fallacy. Cartoons are not for kids.

Okay, so this statement might appear glib at first, particularly since the oh-so-cynical and ‘mature’ of you out there are likely readily equipped with evidence that you’re certain will prove otherwise. All I can say to that is ‘hold your fire!’ I’m not saying that cartoons are not for children at all. That would be moronic. Of course they are! Animations, as with any film, are produced with an audience in mind, and obviously they are, as a result, usually geared toward families (though there are notable exceptions – we’ll get to that later). This, however, is the result of marketing. And over time, this tendency to focus on keeping the kids entertained as well as the adults has inculcated the unfortunate concept that animated films are primarily for kids, which, with regards to the vast majority of animated films out there, implies something of a misinterpretation of marketing strategies. In layman’s terms, just because the advertisement promoting the film is intended to appeal to kids does not imply that said film is solely for the stunted simpleminded. Kids have naturally become an easy target, so much so that the average animated film no longer interests the adult community (or rather, that is the general consensus the majority abide by, whether the genre appeals or not). To put it even more simply, this misconception is in fact a myth inadvertently conceived as a result of advertising.

Still don’t believe me? For a start, Disney themselves have attempted to subvert this common misconception on several occasions and, unsurprisingly, their attempts have seen little success. Their sixteenth animated feature Sleeping Beauty (1959), for example, had a much darker premise and plot than any Disney animated feature that preceded it. Based on the Grimm fairy-tale, the feature focused on three fairies’ attempts to protect Princess Aurora from a deadly curse. Despite following typical ‘Disney’ conventions, the film maintained an unprecedented dark tone and, as a result, failed to appeal to audiences, resulting in major cutbacks for the studio. The films that followed were noticeably less detailed, at least artistically, and were not quite so daring in story or design. It was not until the mid-1980s when the company decided it was time for a change in direction. Like Sleeping Beauty, 1985’s The Black Cauldron was produced with a more mature audience in mind than its predecessors. Infamous rumours persist concerning cut scenes removed from the film prior to its release in order to prevent a PG-13 rating. However, also like the aforementioned film, its dark tone, unappealing characters and frankly lifeless protagonist meant it failed dramatically, and was a substantial loss for the company. Later attempts to appeal to an older audience, such as the musical adaptation of Victor Hugo’s novel The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) and the anime-inspired adventure flick Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001), were met with moderate success, though they have since been indefinitely swept under the proverbial rug.

Now, cynics might argue that these are merely exceptions, anomalies in the Disney canon that failed due to their lack of appeal to young people. The ignorant, meanwhile, will perceive no difference in style or tone from any other animated film (anyone who falls into this category has most likely stopped reading by this point). Let’s not forget, however, that Disney is not the only animation company to attempt to refute this perception. Far from it, in fact. There have been more substantial, distinctive attempts to redefine animation’s target audience. Take Japanese animation, for example; the infamous Studio Ghibli and the awe-inspiring works of the likes of director Hayao Miyazaki are widely perceived to be masterpieces and works of art, and are seldom dismissed as mere toddler fodder. Some might even suggest they are innovative in their style and address, appealing more so (and oftentimes predominantly) to an adult audience than any other variant of the medium. Furthermore, with the advent of prime-time animated programmes on television in the 1960s, network executives began to reconsider the notion that cartoons are solely for kids. Hanna-Barbera cartoons probably played a more significant role in conveying this alternative view than we give them credit for, their most notable attempt arguably being The Flintstones which first aired as early as 1960. By focusing on the lives of what was essentially a typical American family and their work and neighbours in a prehistoric setting, the show garnered audiences of various generations; older audiences were captivated by its relatable characters and situations, while younger audiences were typically entranced by the fact that it was a cartoon and therefore accessible.

Naturally, shows of this type paved the way for more prime-time animated sitcoms, which saw unprecedented success in the 1990s. The most obvious example would be The Simpsons, which focuses on the five yellow family members Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa and Maggie Simpson, representative of the typical American family. Conceived by Matt Groening, the Simpsons initially appeared in the form of shorts on the Tracy Ullman Show in 1987, before being made into half hour shows beginning in 1989. The series has achieved phenomenal success, and has remained on the air for more than two decades. Earlier seasons were somewhat tamer, however, and the series has gradually integrated more adult themes into its plots. During the mid-90s, for example, the focus was primarily on Bart, presumably because it was thought best that they appeal to a younger audience. With the advent of the new Millennium, however, Homer Simpson took centre stage, and darker themes began to emerge, including death and grief (‘Alone Again Natura-Diddly’), alcoholism (‘Days Of Wine and D’oh-ses’), and drug use (‘Weekend At Burnsies’). While these themes had been present before to some degree, they were now being presented confidently as primary subject matter, along with an increase in violence, sex references and risqué humour. Furthermore, the end of the 1990s saw an increase in the production of animated programmes geared towards adults and adults only. Programmes such as The Simpsons’ overlooked little sister, Groening’s ‘other show’ Futurama, and Seth MacFarlane’s subversive Family Guy were created solely for the adult viewer.

Evidently, of course, these animations adopt a cruder, more irreverent style than those of the likes of Disney. In fact, one might argue that they are almost completely incomparable, a sentiment with which I am willing to at least empathise. But if you think about it, the only substantial difference is that these shows are less subtle in their conveyance of themes than what is deemed to be ‘classic’ animated film. Disney’s Tangled (2010), for example, delineates a familiar and, in fact, rather mature coming-of-age story, while The Lion King (1994), based on Hamlet and arguably the best feature in their canon, deals with themes of death, grief, envy, morality, vengeance and responsibility. Even some of the less memorable efforts convey themes through the use of exquisite storytelling and visual symbolism, one of the most significant examples being the seldom-spoken-of Brother Bear (2003) which utilises a story based on ancient Inuit myth to convey what is essentially an extended metaphor. Okay, so there are no features in their canon regarded as being strictly for adults, no bad language or lucid representations of reality. And yes, there are talking bears in there too. But does that mean we, as adults, can’t appreciate them?

Moreover, to state that there are no animated films geared towards more mature audiences is completely untrue. Australian clay-animated black comedy Mary and Max (2009), for example, deals with fairly adult themes including autism, anxiety and depression. However, I personally would render films such as these exempt from this debate, being as they persist in a disparate genre of their own. Although it is, admittedly, refreshing to see the medium of animation being utilised for purposes other than as a mindless divertissement, strictly adult-oriented animations will likely never be seen in the same light intellectually or even perhaps artistically by the general public as, say, your average Warner Bros. cartoon. The truth is, however, that, initially at least, the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies cartoons were never produced with children in mind, as is evident in the clever use of wordplay and sharp, edgy humour characteristic of Chuck Jones’ cartoons in his prime. But the sad truth is that they are not universally perceived to be of significance to adults, generally speaking. No. They appear occasionally on children’s TV as filler material in the early hours, when in reality they should be seen as a part of our culture. Evidently, there is a distinct division between the animated shows produced primarily for adults and those that should appeal to a wider range, the latter most often being utilised as a ‘babysitter substitute’ form of avoidance.

Now, at this point I’d normally conclude, perhaps with a summary, weighing the various aspects of my argument, and polishing it off with a decidedly succinct point, usually taking the form of some kind of positive commentary on the evolution of animated shows into something other than ‘toddler fodder’. But alas, I see no positivity here. Animation as a medium is going no further any time soon, being as animation companies themselves need to recognise and hold onto an audience – it just happens that children are the easiest to obtain. I fully respect that. Disney’s recent success can easily be attributed to their return to a traditional but familiar formula. However, while I may be the only person to be of this mindset, I believe that, in some respects, Disney’s more recent reversion to the fairy-tale princess stories actually represents something of a retrograde step. Sure, their recent output has been arguably outstanding, but a part of me can’t help but think that it nonetheless panders to the notion that kids are the only ones interested in watching. In my opinion, the only way animation can capture and maintain the attention of other generations is if a world-renowned company produces something that transcends the current perceptions of the genre of animation. Of course, it’s a daring move that could prove costly. But if executed well, it could be done. I want to see something dark and edgy, but not crude or in bad taste. I don’t want songs and bright colours. I want something gritty and daring. So go on, Disney. Surprise me.