Author: fairk

So! Animation. I’ve been thinking a lot about it recently, partly because it’s an interest of mine and partly because several classes of mine are talking about it at once, and that’s a dream come true. Granted, it’s in very different contexts—Bojack Horseman versus experimental stop-motion animation with enough strobe to leave an impression on your retina—but hey, I’ll take it where I can get it.

It’s interesting though because this experimental animator, Jodie Mack, came to visit another class of mine and give a lecture or two on what she’s made, how she makes it, theory-type thoughts on animation as a whole. And one of the things she made a point of doing was telling us, “Animation isn’t a genre.” Which, in retrospect, makes a whole lot of sense! You hear that and go, “Of course not. It’s a medium,” like it’s the most obvious thing in the world, and I’m only a little ashamed to admit I did so. But, reflecting back on it, it’s not obvious! Not at all.

I remember discussing Bojack Horseman in class, analyzing it through the lens of intertextuality, and just googling the show to see what genre people categorize it as. A cursory read gives us: animated comedy, animated television show, and my personal favorite, adult animated psychological tragicomedy-drama television series. That last one’s taken from Wikipedia, and it takes me a full five seconds to read it every time. Regardless, every single one of them classifies it as animated, because the medium itself has turned into its own genre.

How would you describe shows like Gravity Falls, or Bluey? Animated kids show. Despite sharing genres, they’re wildly different shows: one’s got horror elements, twenty minute episodes, and three seasons of overarching plot; the other’s an Australian educational program for toddlers, with self-contained seven minute episodes and a notable lack of horror. The difference in what’s classified as adult animation only grows. Watch the raunchy, abrasive comedy South Park right after the mellow, strangely comforting Bee and PuppyCat or the serious, artistic revenge story of Blue Eye Samurai, and you’ll wonder how on earth an algorithm could think you’d be interested in watching them all back to back. The answer is simple—they’re all adult animation—but it’s not an answer that makes sense to me.

I think adult animation as a category, as a genre, only partially makes sense. I can understand using it to talk about influences and intertextual interactions. As my group discovered in class, Bojack Horseman lists about ten different animated shows as stylistic influences in a Rolling Stone article, so the category’s not useless. I do think Jodie Mack’s got a point, though; animation is more of a medium than a genre. Complicating the two might make us miss important points for analysis, and force us to make connections where there aren’t as many, simply because they share a “genre.”

Anyways. Talk to me about animation. School’s on a roll with it right now, and I plan to take full advantage of the momentum.

I don’t think I like Survivor very much, and I don’t think that’s the show’s fault. Have I only seen one episode? Okay, yeah. Am I coming into this with a pre-existing distaste for reality TV and secret plots that pit people against each other? Kinda, yeah. Depends on the show. I’m not claiming to be the grand judge, jury, and executioner of Survivor, and I don’t believe my personal taste to be important or impactful in any way here, but the context is important here. Cause what unsettled me the most is that I couldn’t distinguish between my dislike towards the show’s premise and their designated hateable characters.

Take Venus, right? She’s one of the names I ended up writing down the most in my notes, along with Mo. They’re both portrayed as people who’re power hungry and “play the game,” which sets up somewhat of an odd, gendered take. Venus brings it up herself and says she doesn’t want to vote out another woman, saying Mo’s not a threat, which makes her somewhat of a shit-stirrer to the already-decided members of her team. 

And then a lot of contestant interviews describe Mo and Venus as dangerous, because they’re manipulative people who’d like power. Mo’s favorite Survivor contestant was someone who burnt bridges left and right, which is something the show makes sure we learn, because it’s juicy gossip and something to read into. And on the one hand, I get it; I’m not a fan of manipulative people, because I’m shit at telling when I’m being manipulated and I like to know where I stand with people. But, on the other hand, I couldn’t stop trying to figure out how much of their interviews were Mo and Venus being manipulative people, and how much of their interviews were the show and the writers editing footage to highlight that facet, to better fit the decisions voted on by the tribes.

It’s not just the editing, either: a lot of the structure of the show is designed to pit people against each other, whether that’s through contests of physical ability or strategy. And, as much as I dislike using this phrase as a dismissal of consequences, Mo and Venus were “playing the game”: using what they considered their strengths to their advantage. I dunno. I ended up in this weird position where I recognized that they’re competing with their own skillsets, in a game that’s engineered to pit people against each other, and yet I still having trouble sympathizing with them, because the number of clips and interviews shown make them really unlikeable. This is not a new idea in television studies: the idea of affect, and what’s real versus manipulating the audience a la The Network.

But it’s worth asking, whose values are being shown here? Those of Venus and Mo, who prioritize their own survival through social manipulation? Or is it the editors and producers of the show, who want to set up an “honest” alternative to Mo and Venus like Ben and Tim—two players who didn’t want to reveal any information about their teams and allies until pressed. The show unsettles me because even though I disliked it and didn’t take it at face value, I still ended up influenced by the show; I still was hoping either Mo or Venus got voted out, and I still thought it strange that Venus had some kind of gender loyalty towards Mo when it goes against the rest of her allies. So, unsettling show, though I only blame Survivor for part of my reaction. It’s one thing to read about how shows are constructed to affect audiences; it’s another to know this and still be affected.

I probably will not be watching the next episode; I still don’t have a lot of interest in reality TV. I may, however, read a recap article or two once the next one comes out because regrettably, Survivor is good at what they do.