Me-ouch: Sexuality in Animation

Let’s be honest; most of North America still considers animation to be a medium designed only for kids. Now, truth be told, many shows have begun to change that notion, but that’s mainly due to wacky adult themed comedies, such as The Simpsons or Family Guy. If you want to find a mature-rated, animated drama or action flick from North America, then you’d have to dig into the more obscure end of the spectrum with the likes of Spawn or The Maxx or something equally packed with the overly extreem darkness of 90s counterculture.

So why is that? Can’t there be a mainstream action animated series that’s both geared to adults and that’s slightly less dark than a goth going to a funeral? Well of course there can, but there’s a lot of preconceived notions and problems about the animation industry that one has to overcome to make that a possibility. One of which was brought to the forefront of my attention after viewing DC Showcase: Catwoman. And that issue is how sexuality is portrayed in animation. It’s a big issue, and I can’t cover everything there is to cover about it in one blog post, but let’s just briefly dip our heels into the topic with our good ol’ friend, Miss Kitty here. 

This particular 15 minute short was packaged with the animated film, Batman: Year One (which I reviewed yesterday.) This isn’t a full on review of the short, but basically what happens is Catwoman tracks down the bad guys to a strip club, performs on a stripper poll with her cat suit zippered down to a level where her boobs defied physics by staying where they were, all essentially to distract the leering baddies into a boner induced daze just to surprise attack them with her whip. A chase ensues with Catwoman doing some pretty wicked action, as she (and her skin tight, tantalizingly ripped cat suit) take a beating, but eventually she is victorious, and there’s even a pretty touching moment as we all realize what Catwoman’s been fighting for this whole time. I should say by the end of the short, I did enjoy myself. But something bugged me. I mean, I’m not saying I have anything against Catwomen showin’ off her milk jugs (I am your typical male comic fan in their 20s. This thing was practically made for me!) But for crying out loud, give it some context! Make it important to the narrative! 

I get that Catwoman has always been a sexually charged character. And I have nothing against that, when it’s done in a compelling way. Which it isn’t here. The bad guys were already distracted with the strip show. They wouldn’t have even noticed Catwoman if she snuck up behind them. But the film was determined to have that Catwoman pole dancing scene. Why? Two simple words: fan service. It’s a safe bet, pandering to the fans who already like Catwoman. So it’s pretty clear who the target demographic is here, but what about those who just now decided to give the character of Catwoman a shot? Would this be intriguing at all? No. It’s just shallow sex appeal.

The problem with these kind of portrails (at the expense of plot and character development) is that, while tantalizing, it’s pretty immature. It’s like a pre-teen boy just discovering what sex is, and he feels the need draw boobs all over his homework. And when animation is struggling already to be regarded as something more than just “kid’s stuff,” being immature is the last thing it should be. 

There is a right way to show sexuality in animation. Sticking with DC, take for example their Wonder Woman animated dvd (directed by Lauren Montgomery, who shockingly also directed this Catwoman short…go figure…) Wonder Woman is shown in skimpy costumes, but it helps define her, coming from a culture where she says they take pride in their bodies and she actually doesn’t understand why she should cover herself up. It shows she’s confident in who she is, and that she’s very detached from the social norms of the modern world. It’s interesting. It’s sexy. And it’s a big character moment for her. European animation and anime also seem to have a better grasp on how to portray sexuality competently in animation, but that’s more of a cultural diference there (something else I’d like to examine in the future.)

All in all, if western animation hopes to make more shows and films that are geared towards adults, it needs to show sex as the complex issue that it is. It needs to treat adult matter like adults and not pander to the lowest of thrills. Otherwise you’re just watching drawn tits and ass jiggle around, and if you want that you should just go all out and watch some hentai. At least then you knowyou’re watching something shallow that’s supposed to lack any real complex narrative and emotional depth. But for others, I can only hope that we can make some progress in the future.

…some sexy, sexy progress…

- Moo

Batman: Year One (A review)

Warner Brothers Animation has such a rich and prospering relationship with DC Comics. Throughout the years they’ve picked every nook and cranny of the DC universe, exploring every obscure character and cherished storyline. Since fans of comics nowadays get their does of superheroism from graphic novel trades, WB has responded to these easy to digest “one and done” stories with a series of direct to DVD films. Most of these are based on best selling graphic novels. That being said, Batman: Year One is a pretty safe bet. It’s a animated adaptation of one of the most critically acclaimed comics staring undoubtedly DC’s most marketable character. While Batman’s origins have already been done on film twice (animated in Batman: Mask of Phantasm and live action in Batman Begins) this is what many Bat-fans regard as Batman’s true origin, and indeed both those movies borrowed heavily from what was presented in Year One. 

So? How is it?

Well, if you’ve read the book before, let me save you a little time here: it’s word for word the same. The original book was written by Frank Miller, love him or hate him. (I still can’t forgive him for The Spirit.) Yes, I rolled my eyes once I knew we were in for the noir-esque narrations and hyper-masculine treatment Miller forces on all his works, but as I watched it, I remembered that this was back when Frank Miller was an actual competent writer. (IE, not every female character had to be a whore….I mean…there are whores in this, but not every girl is a…you know what, you get the point…) The story’s mostly about Jim Gordon, with Batman having much less screen time. It’s actually a great way to observe the whole Batman concept from an outsider’s view, while still being very connected to Bruce Wayne’s exploits as Batman. The gritty story of a corrupt police department and Gordon’s fight against crime, crooked cops and having this vigilante swooping in dressed as a bat is a joy with each triumphant set piece. 

And as usual for these WB/DC projects, the voice casting is pretty much spot on. Bryan Cranston (of Breaking Bad and Malcolm in the Middle fame) is a perfect fit for Jim Gordon, bringing the weight and pressure this character truly needs. Other notable voices include Alex Rocco as the mobster Carmine Falcone, and Jon Polito as the corrupt Commissioner Loeb. Really, the only voice I didn’t really dig was Batman/Bruce Wayne (Ben McKenzie,) but maybe it’s cause WB’s done so many Bat-projects with so many Bat-voices over the years, and it’s hard to ever get a Bat-voice better than the original animated series’ Kevin Conroy. I know this is supposed to be a younger Bruce Wayne, but his voice still didn’t strike that fear that it should. 

The animation is also great and really smooth. David Mazzucchelli did the art on the original graphic novel, whose rough and expressive art style would be near imposible to translate to animation. Nevertheless, they still did a stellar job with the art style to bring some of the original flare from the book to life. Little design choices like character’s beady eyes and Gordon’s shimmering glasses really go a long way. The storyboards are also great, but much like the film adaptation of Miller’s Sin City, Batman: Year One borrows pretty much shot for shot from the graphic novel. This really helps the film have some great dynamic moments, playing off a lot of light, shadow and negative space. It’s all cool, and I like it…so why can’t I shake the feeling I’ve seen this all before?  

Probably because I have. 

Listen, it’s so easy for an animation to take the script and panels of a comic and use that as a storyboard. That’s pretty much what a storyboard is already, right? So I’m not faulting the animation team on doing just that, especially when you have such great source material to work with. I’m not calling the animation team lazy, but I am calling it safe. It’s a safe bet, and that, in itself, is exactly what this movie is. It’s safe. Which isn’t bad, but it also isn’t very fresh. Hell, even if you haven’t read the book, Batman’s origin isn’t exactly unexplored territory at this point. Spoiler alert: his parents are dead.

I liked this movie. It was fun, dark, and had all the right emotional beats at the right time. It looked great, and sounded great. So despite my ramblings of deja view, I recommend both those who have and haven’t read the book to give this movie a go. Maybe I’m just an old, bitter nerd suffering from a little bat-fatigue, but when you get down to it, this was a solid flick. I just hope DC and WB’s next dvd endever could perhaps be something a little less known. Cause the people working on these movies are insanely talented! I’d love to see them tackle something a little more challenging and give the ol’ Batty a rest for a bit.

Maybe try… Animal Man?



Who am I kiddin’! That’d be to awesome to ever happen.

- Moo