Nichola Dobson
General audiences have only been exposed to one type of animation, that of popular, funny and usually American, cartoons, as if there were only “pop” music and no other kind (Halas in Langer 1997: 149)
As the part of this book in which this chapter appears indicates, animation can refer to a variety of forms, practices and formats. This multifariousness of animation extends also to content and subject matter. The quote from animator John Halas above implies, however, that the US cartoon format has come to dominate the perception of animation. This is problematic not only for those who want to produce and market animation that falls outside of this category, but also presents challenges for theorizing animation genre. By exploring the extent to which the cartoon continues to dominate the Western TV landscape, this chapter suggests that there is, in fact, a much wider variety of animation television genres than Halas’s quote, and, arguably, popular perception, would first suggest.
Animated TV
Steve Neale (2001: 3) argues that genre has a ‘multi-dimensional’ function, in that it can categorize and group similar work for creation and marketing and also for analysis. This categorization can come from the institutions which created the work, the theorists who analyse the work, and from the systems of understanding which audiences use to differentiate the work from other genres and from texts within the same genre. Each genre has a set of recognizable characteristics that enable categorization; these are repeated and reinforced through what Altman (1999) refers to as ‘cycles’ and can be seen in patterns in TV history. Cycles are not static or temporally discrete and new elements can change the genre to create new ones, or old ones can come back into favour (Altman uses the example of adding music to comedy to create the musical comedy).
As Halas suggests in the above quote, the Hollywood cartoon dominated the creation, and thus the industrial development, of the animation TV series and thus came to shape the audience’s ‘system of expectations’ that they bring to each animated ‘text’ (Neale 1990: 46). The history of animation, and in particular animation on American television, reinforces rather than challenges any expectations and the mainstream continues to present animation which is broadly categorized and thus understood as ‘cartoon’. The aesthetic of the cartoon, derived from the comic strip, remains commonplace and adds to assumptions of generic uniformity. Though the range of genres available within the animated form is as vast as that in live-action (TV and cinema), television is dominated by animated comedy, though within comedy this can take the structural form of the short gag sketch and serialized, sitcom formats. While each of these forms has different characteristics within them, they all fall under the generic dominant of comedy; they are funny and are intended to make audiences laugh (Neale 1990). This dominance is why it is easy to think of all of animated TV as comedy without perhaps considering that there might be variation within the genre, even while animation is used, for example, to satirize or comment on other aspects of genre. Paul Wells argues that ‘the animated form inherently embraced the self-figurative, self-reflexive, self-enunciating characteristics’ (2002: 110) seen in so-called postmodern texts. This self-reflexivity is evident in many animated TV series particularly from the early 2000s, such as Family Guy (1999–).1
Comedy’s dominance of TV animation can be traced through the birth of TV in the United States which saw a need to fill the schedule with material for younger viewers, as well as a family audience, gathered around one focal point.2 This was initially the re-packaged work from the major studios of animation’s Golden Age such as MGM and Warner Bros., as well as Walt Disney. Many of these short films had their origins in the comic strip, and the comedic visual gags became a mainstay for the fledgling medium, and with it, the generic dominance of animated comedy on television.
As the technology of television broadcasting improved and the market expanded, more content was required and networks turned to production companies which were already well versed in comedy, such as the newly formed Hanna-Barbera. The studio grew out of William Hanna and Joseph Barbera’s work together at MGM, notably the Tom and Jerry (1940–58) series. They began creating more narrative comedy in a serialized form, which was structured around the requirements of advertising sponsors on television. This along with the new form of the sitcom in live-action saw the creation of the animated sitcom, or anicom (Dobson 2003, 2009), in 1960. This genre of animation would dictate the course of TV animation for decades to come.
The anicom adopts the narrative strategies of the live-action television sitcom (originally based on radio comedies) conforming to narrative space, structure and character groupings, but capitalizes on the particularities of the language of animation to produce something distinct. If the animated form highlights what Wells (1998, 2002) refers to as its ‘animatedness’ by defying physical laws and using narrative strategies such as metamorphosis,3 we note their difference from live-action, even in something as simple as series featuring characters who never age, such as Bart, Lisa and Maggie in The Simpsons.
The first anicom, Hanna-Barbera’s The Flintstones (1960–6) was consciously modelled on live-action counterparts, such as The Honeymooners (1955–6), in order to appeal to the same audience. The series was a comedic portrayal of 1950s married life, but in a Stone Age setting complete with jokes on gender roles and relationships. The show thus fulfilled what Neale (1990) and Todorov (1981) describe as genre’s ‘verisimilitude’; that is, the way it conforms to audience expectations of a particular genre, which in this case is a sitcom about working class family life. This successful series set a precedent for the development of the anicom genre which flourished in the 1960s, declined in the 1970s and 1980s, but by the 1990s cycled back to immense success with The Simpsons, which is currently airing its 29th season.
The Hanna-Barbera anicoms were made with an adult audience in mind, in terms of themes, and this was signalled to the audience by its prime time (early evening) scheduling. Their later shows such as The Jetsons (1962–3), would also follow this pattern, but as the television landscape altered and children were being increasingly catered to as a separate audience group, their subsequent shows moved away from adult comedy – comedy that dealt with socio-cultural or political themes – and were no longer scheduled in prime time. The only exception to this was in their last anicom, Wait ’til Your Father Gets Home (1972–74), which featured storylines about communism and increasing paranoia in the United States as well as one on pregnancy in later life (which hinted at abortion), whereas their series aimed for children such as The Magilla Gorilla Show (1964–6) and The Atom Ant/Secret Squirrel Show (1965–6) included more slapstick humour, anthropomorphism and less socio-political commentary.
Animation on television was increasingly seen throughout the 1960s and 1970s as something for children and scheduled accordingly with the ratings for the primetime anicom reducing and the market for children’s television increasing. In fact there were no primetime anicoms on US TV between 1974 and 1989. While the animation that was broadcast was industrially categorized for children and broadly fell within the catch-all TV cartoon genre, there was much diversity. In Hanna-Barbera’s output alone, there was still an echo of the live-action sitcom genre, albeit in a comedic, and curiously satirical fashion with the development of the detective action series seen in Josie and The Pussycats (1970), Scooby Doo Where Are You? (1969–70), Captain Caveman (1977–80) (often with musical interludes), the boys’ adventure series in Jonny Quest (1964–5) and sci-fi adventures with Birdman and the Galaxy Trio (1967–9) and Space Ghost (1966–8). This diversity was replicated by other studios, notably Filmation, with sci-fi and adventure shows such as Rod Rocket (1963), The New Adventures of Superman (1966–70), Journey to the Centre of the Earth (1967–9) and musical comedy in The Archies (1968–9). These shows reflected the popular genres in live-action of comedy, sci-fi and musical comedy, such as The Partridge Family (1970–74), in TV and cinema as well as broader popular culture such as comic books and pop music. The variation within TV animation has not readily been acknowledged by animation scholarship, arguably because it was aimed at children and therefore deemed less worthy of attention.
Television animation remained primarily considered ‘just for kids’ until the late 1980s when both television and cinematic feature animation began to target more adult audiences with Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1987) in the cinema and The Simpsons (1989–) on television. This also coincided with the launch of MTV in 1981 (and Channel 4 in the UK, see Kitson 2008) which provided a platform for short experimental animation in different forms beyond the traditional 2D cel animated work commonly seen on TV. Many of these animators, like Bill Plympton and Mike Judge, had been brought up with Saturday morning TV animation and were now starting to work in a newly revitalized industry with new opportunities for interesting and subversive work on cable and the new FOX network, all open to new content. This also led to a new genre cycle of anicom oriented at both the primetime family and adult audience and scheduled in early and late evening time slots, including King of the Hill (1997–2010), Family Guy (1999–), South Park (1997–) and Futurama (1999–2013).
Despite this development in the animation offering on television, the industrial categorization of animation for children persisted and occasionally became problematic. A notable, and well-documented example from 1992 is the Nickelodeon series Ren and Stimpy created by John Kricfalusi, an animator highly influenced by Bob Clampet and others of the 1940s and 1950s (Langer 1997). Kricfalusi’s approach to comedy presented a retro style with an element of satire and subversion, which Langer refers to as ‘animatophilia’ (1997: 143) and was very popular critically. However, the network presented this as a children’s show – it was rated as TV-Y7, suitable for children age seven or older, and promoted via a Mattell toy company merchandising deal – and thus the industrial genre signalled it as comedy suitable for children in what Nickelodeon considered the classic Warner Bros. Looney Tunes model. As Langer points out, the initial pitch of a multi layer/multi audience show (a strategy seen in earlier family animated TV series such as The Flintstones) suited Nickelodeon’s corporate strategy (though puzzlingly they also aired a late-night screening on MTV which demonstrated its success with an adult audience). However, it was when Kricfalusi began to deliver shows which needed editing by the network in order to be suitable for the show’s designated family audience or, as they claimed, failed to deliver on budgets and deadlines, that they fired him. Kricfalusi refused to compromise his ideas and alter the tone of the show to be more family-friendly and Nickelodeon went on to produce a more sanitized version of the series. Kricfalusi later presented a new version, Ren & Stimpy ‘Adult Party Cartoon’ on the TNT network in 2003. It was full of the scatological humour which had been an early hallmark of the show but fans were not as receptive this time round and the series was cancelled before a second season aired.
This example could be described as a case of creative differences (and is written as such, see Langer 1997), but I would argue that the more fundamental issue is that the industrial genre was wrongly assigned due to a lack of understanding of what the series actually was, beyond the appeal of its visual style. ‘Nickelodeon sought to find styles and characters that would create a distinctive product identity … Ren & Stimpy was to become a mass-marketable form of cultural capital for Nickelodeon’ (Langer 1997: 150). They liked the style of the 1940s animation which Kricfalusi produced, but his interest went beyond this to subvert the content and ‘deliberately violated the norms of good taste’ (p. 151). Langer outlines the use of the MTV network by Nickelodeon’s parent company Viacom to increase the popularity and reach of the show to an adolescent audience, but ‘this was done in order to get the MTV audience and bring it to Nickelodeon for Sunday morning Ren & Stimpy cablecasts’ (p. 155). By airing the series in a child-friendly time slot, the system of expectation set up for the audience by the network was for a show suitable for young children. However, this expectation was erroneous and the ‘cartoon’ aesthetic was arguably the only element taken into account when promoting, scheduling and commissioning the series. The bottom line for the company was connected to their deal with Mattel ‘to licence Ren & Stimpy products to children … Positioning Ren & Stimpy outside of a juvenile taste group might have jeopardised the popularity of the series among potential Mattel toy purchasers’ (p. 157). Kricfalusi had little intention of changing his own personal animatophile tastes to cater to the younger Nickelodeon audience and as a result they saw increasing interference from the network in script editing, and eventually parted ways.
The Ren and Stimpy example shows how merchandising can lead to confusion regarding the generic classification of popular mainstream animated shows. Due to the ‘cartoon’ style of many of these shows, the merchandise often has a ‘cute’ or child-friendly style, despite the show itself often being inappropriate for a children’s audience. Another example of this is in the soft toy products sold to promote the animated sitcom South Park during the 1990s. The series is scheduled in a late-night slot, and the opening title card explains that the show is offensive, deliberately so, however the merchandise has an appeal to children who may not be aware of the true content of the show. This becomes a problem when adults, unfamiliar with the content, make assumptions based solely on the animated form and ignore the aspects of the industrial genre, the scheduling, in favour of the other industrial codes, the marketing. In the UK in 1999, a parent launched an awareness campaign about South Park, at her local school to tell parents how ‘the merchandise seems to be specifically aimed at youngsters’ and ‘A lot of parents don’t realise what their kids are watching’ (‘South Park Is not Suitable for Youngsters Says Mum’ 1999).4 Many of these misconceptions can be traced back to the assumptions made by the mainstream audience as outlined at the start of the chapter, ones that are also largely reinforced by the industrial categorization of TV animation as one entity.
While the generic dominance of comedy has persisted throughout the history of TV animation, in mainstream US television the most prevalent generic alternative to comedy has been in sci-fi and fantasy, largely developed from imported Japanese anime. More recently these have tended to be scheduled in late-night slots and therefore not aimed at a mainstream audience.5 However, in the mid 1960s and 1970s, US television schedules were filled with sci-fi adventure series, including Birdman and the Galaxy Trio and Space Ghost. The first Japanese television series Astro Boy (1963–6) was highly successful and established the market for television animation in Japan and abroad and led to the creation of Battle for the Planets (1978–80), a Westernized version of the Japanese series Science Ninja Team Gatchaman (1972–4). In the UK, television producer Gerry Anderson released the highly successful Stingray (1964), Thunderbirds (1965) and Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons (1967) using his unique puppet animation. As previously noted, in the United States, Hanna-Barbera ventured into sci-fi by combining it with the domestic sitcom in The Jetsons. Matt Groening later emulated this approach with the production of his second anicom, Futurama (1999–2013), which combines the narrative of the workplace sitcom with the tropes of the sci-fi genre, creating a hybrid.
The transnational exchange of series between East and West, which started with Astro Boy, has seen an increased audience for alternatives to the anicom, such as sci-fi and fantasy with different forms and styles of animation and for different age groups. The growth in animated television generally, and the increase in platforms for viewing on cable and streaming TV as well as internet channels, has seen a rise in innovative TV animation, for both children and adults. Shows which challenge ideas of genre (mixing sci-fi with fantasy and absurdist comedy) as well as shows which challenge dominant norms of gender and sexuality, such as Adventure Time (2007–10) and Steven Universe (2013–), or that deal with issues of mental health such as Rick and Morty (2013–), are very far removed from the slapstick of the Looney Tunes or the aforementioned musical detective shows of the 1960s. It is interesting that these shows are all shown on the cable channel Cartoon Network, which since the early 1990s has pioneered and celebrated diverse animation in terms of content and style. We might argue that by classifying and containing all of these shows in one place as ‘cartoon’ they limit the perception of animation genre, but instead they have in fact provided audiences with a site for the development of new genres and sub genres, as well as for exposure to content outside of the mainstream.
Other recent examples of this type of subversion that challenge dominant generic expectations can be seen in late-night television sketch shows in the UK, such as Modern Toss, 2DTV (2001–04) and Monkey Dust (2003–05) (see Norris 2014). In the United States the late-night offering ranges from South Park (1997–), the output from the Adult Swim project (2001–) including Venture Bros., Robot Chicken and Rick and Morty, to the even more adult and absurd Bojack Horseman (2014–) on the streaming service Netflix. Though these again all fall under the generic dominant of comedy, they use their animatedness to extend sub genres of comedy and, in the case of Bojack, the nature of television itself. A notable example of this in Bojack can be seen in season 4, episode 6 entitled ‘Stupid Piece of Shit’ which uses different styles of animation to reveal Bojack’s thought processes and his confused mental state. Bojack’s role as a ‘washed-up’ TV sitcom star in itself refers to the formulaic nature of TV genre and in numerous episodes critiques the problem of child stars, Hollywood and celebrity. Dramatic genres which deal with serious aspects of real life rarely occur in TV animation, and I would suggest are harder to produce (to fund or commission) due to the success and dominance of comedy in contemporary TV animation. That said, Bojack Horseman could arguably be categorized as a bleak black comedy, which deals with very dramatic, and very adult themes such as drug and alcohol addiction, casual sex and depression. However, it is not broadcast on a mainstream network, but instead on a streaming service which has greater liberty to offer edgier content.
The post-network era, described in detail by Amanda Lotz (2014), demonstrates that a diverse audience exists which is not always catered for by standard industrial genres and that therefore do not need to be directed towards certain genres in the same way. For these audiences, scheduling is less important and marketing is often done by word of mouth on social media. The discourse surrounding series such as Bojack enables prospective audiences to discover television animation which suits a variety of tastes at a time convenient to them. The audience is no longer content to be confined to network schedules and traditional ‘flow’ of the TV medium (see Williams 1975). That many of these shows have found an increased ‘grown up’ audience speaks of several factors. Like the generation before them, the audience has been raised on multiple forms of animation thanks to the success and visibility of shows like The Simpsons and the pervasiveness of animation more generally; the diversity of platforms allows for and presents a variety of content, and as such traditional systems of generic expectations are arguably less important to a show’s continued success.
Although the generic categories of TV animation are not always as clearly defined by industrial practices in marketing and scheduling as their live-action counterparts, this chapter has shown that there is generic diversity within the catch-all term ‘TV animation’. That this is relatively recent, and most likely enabled by the diversification of viewing platforms, perhaps suggests that the dominance of comedy persists. However as new transnational, increasingly experimental TV animation emerges and finds an audience, this generic catch-all categorization of ‘TV animation’ will most likely change further. Williams argues, ‘As genres change over time, […] their audiences become more and more self-conscious’ (Williams in Neale 1990: 59). This self-conscious audience may become more open to difference and development within the genre and new genres of TV animation may well emerge.
Notes
1 Each of these series, over their run, have included episodes which are about television, with Family Guy including several, with one episode centred around ‘that episode of Who’s the Boss… ’ the 1980s US live-action sitcom (‘Love Thy Trophy’, season 2 episode 5, 2000).
2 See Sandler (2002), Burke and Burke (1998), Mittell (2004) and Ratelle (in this volume) for further discussion of the history of animation for children on TV.
3 See Paul Wells on the narrative devices and strategies used which are particular to animation, including metamorphosis, in Understanding Animation (1998) chapter 3.
4 The parent admitted that the show was scheduled post watershed but claimed that young children would still be watching then. See ‘South Park Is not Suitable for Youngsters Says Mum’ (1999)
5 Cartoon Network’s ‘Adult Swim’ late-night animation block which was set up in the late 1990s to broadcast adult only animation began a dedicated anime slot ‘Toonami’ in 1999. This was generally scheduled at midnight though later often included popular anime within the Cartoon Network’s daytime schedule.
References
Altman, R. (1999), Film/Genre, London: BFI Publishing.
Burke, K. and T. Burke (1998), Saturday Morning Fever: Growing up with Cartoon Culture, New York: St Martin’s Press.
Dobson, N. (2003), ‘Nitpicking the Simpsons: Critique and Continuity in Constructed Realities’, Animation Journal (2003): 84–93.
Dobson, N. (2009), Historical Dictionary of Animation and Cartoons, Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Kitson, C. (2008), British Animation: The Channel 4 Factor, London: Parliament Hill Publishing.
Lotz, A. (2014), The Television Will Be Revolutionized, New York: New York University Press.
Langer, M. (1997) ‘Animatophilia, Cultural Production and Corporate Interests’, in J. Pilling (ed.), 143–162, A Reader in Animation Studies, Sydney: John Libbey.
Mittell, J. (2004), Genre and Television: From Cop Shows to Cartoons in American Culture, New York: Routledge.
Neale, S. (1990), ‘Questions of Genre’, Screen, 31(1): 2–17.
Neale, S. (2001), ‘Studying Genre’, in G. Creeber (ed.), The Television Genre Book, London: BFI publishing.
Norris, V. (2014), British Television Animation (1997–2010): Drawing Comic Tradition, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sandler, K. (2002), ‘Movie Ratings as Genre: The Incontestable R’, in S. Neale (ed.) Genre and Contemporary Hollywood, 201–217, London: BFI.
‘South Park Is not Suitable for Youngsters Says Mum’ (1999), Warrington Guardian, June. Available online: http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/5303140.South_Park_is_not_suitable_for_youngsters_says_Mum/ (accessed 22 January 2018).
Todorov, T. (1981), Introduction to Poetics, Brighton: Harvester.
Wells, P. (1998), Understanding Animation, London: Routledge.
Wells, P. (2002), Animation: Genre and Authorship, London: Wallflower Press.
Williams, R. (1975), Television: Technology and Cultural Form, London: Fontana.