I didn't laugh. I understand the comedic attributes that are in place that are supposed to make it funny, I get it. I'm the kind of person who can't help but snicker when someone falls or trips.
I just don't like it because the reality is kids are beaten to death every day.
Though I agree that child beating is not, in any way, comedic - and I also felt a weird sort of "should I laugh?" sensation while watching - I feel that making that kind of comparison to reality is drastic at best, terribly excessive at worst. I'm confident in guessing that the creator had no intention of making a joke of child abuse. Could we draw the same conclusion with Homer Simpson being a drunk? I'm sure many children suffer under alcoholic parents every day of their lives – with life-long consequences. How about the outrageous comedy of a show like Family Guy? In fact, much of the cartoonality of Tiny Toons, Animaniacs, The Bugs Bunny and Tweety Show, etc etc could be scrutinized similarly. In the case of Billy's Balloon I feel the onus is on the viewer to rationally determine what the intention of the creator was. To not find this cartoon funny or amusing is, of course, within everyone's rights. But to draw direct comparison between the content of the cartoon and something as horrendous as the reality of child abuse is, in my opinion, a dangerous game to play. One where words like "censorship" begin to rear their ugly heads.
I think it is a metaphor. The children are our underqualified leaders shaking their rattles of self importance and holding us back from our lofty potential. The so called beatings are a revolution where the otherwise harmless peon-balloons rise up against their oppresive captors.
i don't think cara, or myself, did or would suggest in any way that this should be censored, either here or anywhere else. if people wanna make 'em and watch 'em i guess that's their business.
but i also find it hard to laugh about kids being whacked in the head repeatedly.
as much of a danger as there may be in drawing comparisons b/t this and real life, i think there's an equal (or perhaps greater) danger in images that make light of or humor-ize violence.
that's one reason i generally don't like family guy.
Yes. I find it interesting however, that the two people that have responded to my post singled out Family Guy. It's easy to not like Family Guy because the humour is so totally outrageous and over the top – not to mention sexist and racist. What about my other examples: The Simpsons, Tiny Toons, Animaniacs, and The Bugs Bunny and Tweety show? I mean, some of these cartoons - the Looney Toons ones in particular - animate EXTREME violence. Tex Avery cartoons like Skrewball Squirrel were famous for poking fun at Disney style animation through extreme violence. Is it okay because the violence is against animals that just look and speak like people? Elmer Fudd, for example, looks a lot like a kid if you ask me – and a mentally handicapped kid to boot! Is Avery advocating violence against handicapped kids or just making a funny slapstick cartoon? That is a perfect example of the kind of path this kind of correlation can lead down. Further, I'd say the animations in those cartoons resemble "real life" persons far more than the stick animations of Billy's Balloon. How about the Simpsons? The wealth of similar examples I could draw from there are endless. I’m in no way trying to dictate what people should like or dislike. I’m simply pointing out the fact that many cartoons, before Billy’s Balloon, have set a precedent for ultra-violent slapstick and have been widely accepted and at times cherished as “classic”. I also don’t think that Cara is advocating censorship. But, in my opinion the attempted correlation between cartoon violence (that is quite obviously slapstick and fantastical in nature) and real life child abuse has little option but to bring us there.
Down with evil child beating balloons I say! I never liked ballons and thier violent ways.
=P
I didn't say I don't like Family guy cause its violent and sexist, I don't like it cause it's NOT FUNNY. I have watched sseveral episodes and only occaisionally chuckled with Brian the dog. The rest of the brain dead predictable fart and swear just doesn't amuse me at all. It's not shocking either, it's just what I expect to be spoon fed to the masses of people sitting on the couch wide eyed shoveling McDonalds down there gullet drinking black bubbly syrup and never wondering what else they could be doing. "FAAART" (see, it's not funny is it?)
Also, DonMaximo, if that is your real name... Saying that someone can't say they dislike it cause it will lead to censorship IS censorship. Careful.
I understand Cara and don't blame you for not liking this, I could see if you are sensitive to the awful things in the world and don't draw any comfort by mocking them. That is the case with many people I'm sure. If my mom saw this, I guarantee she would say it was awful and probably lose a nights sleep. I for one thought the animation was really bizaaro-funny, and appreciated it. I also like the other stuff on his main page (which is occaissionally even more offensive). I think it pushes into that dark potential in a way that lightens it and makes it absurd. I obviously love kids and don't want to hurt them, but ballons of all things. I also like Pinky and the Brain from Animaniacs for whatever that serves =P.
Upon re-reading that, my comments about family guy viewers is unnessecarilly harsh. Sorry, not everyone is like that clearly, I just don't dig the show, and I was feeling wordy.
family guy is pretty predictable "shock value" humour. not much clever or original about it. brian and stewie are kinda funny (i like how brian is always reading utne or the new york times or war and peace or something), but otherwise it's just kind of a lame rip-off of everything that worked for the simpsons, imo.
From donmaximo post #1 "To not find this cartoon funny or amusing is, of course, within everyone's rights."
From donmaximo post #2 "I’m in no way trying to dictate what people should like or dislike."
From macro(previously ugly head) post #1 "Saying that someone can't say they dislike it cause it will lead to censorship IS censorship. Careful."
I fail to see how you came to this conclusion when I CLEARLY state, in EACH of my posts that I'm in NO way trying to dictate what someone should or should not like?
So, to clarify:
I feel Cara’s original comment that “I just don't like it because the reality is kids are beaten to death every day” draws an unjustified tie between the content of the cartoon and the reality of child abuse. Perhaps the comment was not intended as such, but in my opinion a statement like this implies that the cartoon was a parody of child abuse – which I don’t think it is. As such, I reiterate my point that “In the case of Billy's Balloon I feel the onus is on the viewer to rationally determine what the intention of the creator was” and I personally feel that Cara’s interpretation of the creator’s intention as reflected in the above comment wasn’t rationally justified.
it seems only natural to me that, in that regard, she would be more sensitive than you to issues about the welfare of kids, though i don't want to speak for her.
using caps, btw, is generally considered the internet equivalent of shouting.
Hmmm... I think the connection Cara made is a valid one (and, for the record, I'm a parent too). I don't think she meant to imply that it was a parody of child abuse, but rather that it makes light of violence against children, and the obvious distress of 'Billy' and his inability to retaliate or get out of the situation seems to me to be an integral part of the cartoon (mind you, I only got about 80% through it, slow download speed...) Personally, I found those aspects of it really turned me off, and I wasn't laughing.
Sorry to get ya going Don (Daniel Robinson really, right?).
I know you say its someones right to not find this funny, but you also say
" But, in my opinion the attempted correlation between cartoon violence ... and real life child abuse has little option but to bring us there (there being censorship which you oppose). "
Also while you say it's within our rights you say it's "ujustified". While you can't seem to make the connection between cartoon babies getting hurt and real babies getting hurt, for some that's not a big of a leap. If my debating you on this is getting you SHOUTING as Lorne put it, try to see it as me helping one side of the argument be "justified" not an attack on you. It's starting to feel weird with Cara'a name continually reoccurring, yet no comment by her.
Okay, regarding the FYI about the use of caps, thanks. However, on a forum where I couldn’t find a way to bold or italicize my comments I used caps as an alternative – which isn’t an uncommon Internet practice for expressing emphasis. I hope that comment was just general info and not directed specifically at me, as it comes off, because upon rereading the conversation I noticed Dave used caps in much the same fashion as myself. If it was directed at me specifically, thanks for the patronizing tip guys – sorry to burst your bubble but it wasn’t shouting.
Lorne, your comment that “cara's a parent, and you're not. it seems only natural to me that, in that regard, she would be more sensitive than you to issues about the welfare of kids” is, I feel, a pretty big generalization. Are you implying that someone who has not experienced parenthood is incapable of experiencing sensitivity towards kids on the same level as someone who has? I mean, I know that sounds ridiculous but it’s essentially what that statement says. Beyond that though it’s not, in my opinion, what the conversation I’m trying to have is at all about. I’m not denying Cara’s sensitivity, or her right to feel however she wants about Billy’s Balloon. My entire point is that Billy’s Balloon is a cartoon that features helium filled balloons attacking young kids – it’s ridiculous, it’s not real and I feel confident that Don Hertzfeldt did not have any intention of making it a mockery or commentary on child abuse. Some of you admitted to finding Stewie funny in Family Guy: are his sadistic plans to murder his own mother funny? This is the kind of logic that I feel is being applied here and I think it’s out of context. In fact, the only thing that really identifies the stick figures in the film with children is their props. Would this film have been funny if the stick figure was waving a briefcase as opposed to a rattle? If you ask yourself honestly and answer yes, than you can see my point. This isn’t about child abuse – it’s a slapstick cartoon about balloons turning on the stick figure kids that control them. I simply felt that Cara’s statement attached an unwarranted context to the cartoon and tried to turn it into something that it’s not.
***
Though I’m not using the following information as any sort of argument, I felt it was interesting and applied to the discussion in a way: Billy's Balloon (1998) is a 16mm animated short by Don Hertzfeldt. It was his 4th and final student film at UC Santa Barbara. Similar to his other cartoons, he utilizes a minimalist stick-figure technique. This film was part of the Official Competition of the 1999 Cannes Film Festival - where Don Hertzfeldt was the youngest director in competition - and it won the Grand Jury Award at the 1999 Slamdance Film Festival. It eventually won 33 film festival awards and has become a popular cult film. On top of its film festival runs (and popularity among internet bootleggers), the short has also appeared on Adult Swim and MTV in the US and on a number of international TV broadcasts around the world. Hertzfeldt has noted that the short's international popularity is likely because it has no dialogue and plays like a silent film.
I hate having a day job, I miss all the good dialogue on the blog. I wasn't purposefully staying out of the conversation, sorry if it seemed that way.
I need to think more about my response, but for starters Don Maximo, I think you vilified me a bit and that was unwarranted.
I did not laugh,period, I'm not apologizing for that. This piece made me uncomfortable for many reasons. Most that have already been mentioned so I won't be redundant and do a mini thesis here.
As for being a censor, I said it wasn't funny, I didn't say it had no value. I also did not at anytime say it should be removed only that the "reason" I didn't laugh is that violent imagery involving children is difficult for me to watch. How do you know what the cartoonist was meaning or not meaning to parody? I wonder if maybe the cartoonist wasn't going for making the watcher uncomfortable, symbolic, metaphoric or whatever. I can accept the cartoon has all of those intentions or maybe none, maybe it just appeals to a darker humour that I don't particulary care for. For the record I will say that if it is a piece made for a laugh only and nothing else it offends me. An image of a baby being bludgeoned and repeatedly dropped by whatever form of figurative or symbolic entities better be for some pretty good reasons, messages, symbols or whatever you do in the name of art.
Art or anything you make public is up for interpretation, isn't that the whole point. Anyone else telling me how I should react with a certain callousnous, and then calling me a censor is laughable.
What I do appreciate is that Don Maximo reacted to me and sort of opened up the conversation, which isn't really about me. (some of your tactics however were shut down techniques, being harsh with someone usually makes dialouge difficult, FYI) but I'm not so "sensitive". don't patronize me boys. :)
I think most importantly this community thrives on these conversations and I'll take being called a censor any day if it means this level of vital communication.
I get that the cartoon is drawing on the ridiculous, I said in my first post that I understand that it is drawing on slapstick humour. I understand that it is likely not a piece saying, ha, ha ha, it's funny to beat on kids. I understand, but the themes of helplessness, violence and the level of exageration were likely not just meant to prolong your laughter. Maybe it was to push buttons, maybe it was to make us think past the literal which is great.
I understand that red ballons eveywhere are cheering because finally one of their brethern has been able to do to a kid what kids do to ballons everyday, it is an epidemic, have you ever seen the carnage at birthday parties.
However, the subject matter is sensitive. You're right, a grown man being bludgeoned by a red ballon or his suitcase for that matter would probably make me snicker for maybe a couple of seconds, but at what point in time am I allowed to say that violence doesn't make me feel good.
Because I draw a certain parallel between a work and something literal does not mean I am trying to censor it, it is just a different direction than you are obivously prepared to go in, I can't believe that the cartoonist wouldn't have perhaps at least thought for a second of two, hmmm, maybe it might make people uncomfortable, and that is great, but don't tell me it's neutral and just some plain old slapstick humour.
Also, thank you to those of you who at least tried to understand my point of view, I by no means meant the "dont' patronize me boys" relating to the above discussions where my right to have an opinion being seperate from me being a censor is appreciated and makes me feel okay about still commenting on the blog.
Also, I don't care how many awards he's won or where his films have been viewed. We are talking about my right to say that I was uncomfortable and maybe even a little offended by this cartoon being a seperate thing than me saying I want to censor it.
I’m sorry but this is getting ridiculous. Cara, I don’t know you, but I did not vilify you in any way. If you feel that I did, I’m sorry as it was 100% unintentional and I cannot see where you’re drawing this from (at the bottom are a series of excerpts from my posts where you are mentioned, none of which call you a censor, bash you or vilify you in any way). Nor did I ask that you apologize for your comments, feelings or anything else – and finally, for the last time, I did not call you a censor or say that you advocate censorship, that you partake in censorship or that you casually practice censorship on the weekends.
Further to that, I never said that I knew what Don Hertzfeldt was thinking, feeling, hearing or seeing when he produced this cartoon. I simply made guesses. Guesses that I was confident in making about his intentions for it. I might very well be wrong but I never said, anywhere, that that wasn’t a possibility.
Also, I don’t understand how you interpret anything I wrote as “shut down” tactics. Where was I blocking you out of responding? If anything, I wrote well thought-out and detailed explanations of my point of view and put them up to be scrutinized. Again, how is this a “shut down” tactic? If you disagree with my argument, by all means respond. But to come into the discussion this late in the game (understandably due to other engagements) and then flame me by saying that “some of your tactics however were shut down techniques, being harsh with someone usually makes dialouge difficult, FYI” isn’t very fair.
All of this talk about me calling you a censor is completely ridiculous. My point was very simple and clearly stated at the end of my last post: “I simply felt that Cara’s statement attached an unwarranted context to the cartoon and tried to turn it into something that it’s not.” This is my opinion. If you disagree, fine – let’s talk about it and see why it is that we disagree.
**Sorry for the repetitiveness of these portions of my other posts, but I really feel some of these accusations are being pulled out of thin air.**
“I'm confident in guessing that the creator had no intention of making a joke of child abuse.”
“But to draw direct comparison between the content of the cartoon and something as horrendous as the reality of child abuse is, in my opinion, a dangerous game to play. One where words like "censorship" begin to rear their ugly heads.”
“I also don’t think that Cara is advocating censorship. But, in my opinion the attempted correlation between cartoon violence (that is quite obviously slapstick and fantastical in nature) and real life child abuse has little option but to bring us there.”
“I feel Cara’s original comment that “I just don't like it because the reality is kids are beaten to death every day” draws an unjustified tie between the content of the cartoon and the reality of child abuse. Perhaps the comment was not intended as such, but in my opinion a statement like this implies that the cartoon was a parody of child abuse – which I don’t think it is.”
“I personally feel that Cara’s interpretation of the creator’s intention as reflected in the above comment wasn’t rationally justified.”
“I’m not denying Cara’s sensitivity, or her right to feel however she wants about Billy’s Balloon.”
Okay, I’ve had it. I refuse to partake in this conversation any longer. Regardless of what I write there seems to be an ongoing trend of fabricating things that I’ve supposedly said, or just taking statements like the one below:
“Though I’m not using the following information as any sort of argument, I felt it was interesting and applied to the discussion in a way: Billy's Balloon (1998) is a 16mm animated short by Don Hertzfeldt. It was his 4th and final student film at UC Santa Barbara. Similar to his other cartoons, he utilizes a minimalist stick-figure technique. This film was part of the Official Competition of the 1999 Cannes Film Festival - where Don Hertzfeldt was the youngest director in competition - and it won the Grand Jury Award at the 1999 Slamdance Film Festival. It eventually won 33 film festival awards and has become a popular cult film. On top of its film festival runs (and popularity among internet bootleggers), the short has also appeared on Adult Swim and MTV in the US and on a number of international TV broadcasts around the world. Hertzfeldt has noted that the short's international popularity is likely because it has no dialogue and plays like a silent film.”
And responding with things like:
“Also, I don't care how many awards he's won or where his films have been viewed. We are talking about my right to say that I was uncomfortable and maybe even a little offended by this cartoon being a seperate thing than me saying I want to censor it.”
I mean, how much clearer can I be when I say “Though I’m not using the following information as any sort of argument…”?
I have, until this point, thoroughly enjoyed my experience on this blog – unfortunately this experience has soured that.
I would like to take this chance to say sorry for making Donmaximo or ANYONE feel frustrated in a conversation/debate on the blog. I think there are obvious limitations to language, and most certainly blogging. On that account I would also like to welcome Donmaximo to the ever growing "quit list". I think it should be part of our initiation to be driven so mad that one quits, then upon realizing the value of these excercises, both in language and human relations, rejoin. Welcome.
Previous members on the "I can't take it I quit list" are:
-Myself-Macro, D.Macri (the current admin and perhaps first to quit) -James the Knack Culleton (The former admin from who I inherited the admin duties accidentally) -Feral Child L. Roberts (A record holder for # of times quit) -C.Quitmoanez, who never actually quit, but has the word in his name so is allowed on the list as an honorary member.
Who will quit next? Who will join or rejoin?
=)
Just fun ok? Misunderstanding and tenacity are part of that.
I'll put $10 on billy who seems to have taken on a new persona since the balloon incident.
Perhaps I was a little dramatic in my final comment last night. It was late and I am in the midst of finals right now. But I really feel that this conversation has taken on this weird sort of bent, based on comments that I never made and it’s really taken the past joy I’ve had in having these kinds of debates and stomped it into oblivion. I don’t think you’re a censor Cara. In fact, I don’t really know you at all, so that would be a little presumptuous of me to declare. I never meant to imply it in what I was saying and I’m positive I never actually said that. Unfortunately that seems to have become the focus of this conversation, which is why I got so frustrated last night. We obviously have a difference of opinion on the matter of this cartoon, which is fine. Actually, it’s great, because if I’m not mistaken that is the point of this type of forum. If you interpreted my comments as callous or vilifying I’m sorry, I’m just writing with a certain level of emotional detachment because to me, this was a debate, not a conversation about personal attacks and I wasn’t intending to make any towards you.
On a more personal note, I do feel that there were some comments made in the course of the discussion that were unnecessarily condescending or sarcastic and that has turned me off participating in another of this kind of debate for a while.
I have thoroughly enjoyed my participation in this blog for the last 3 ½ years. Cara, again, I apologize if any of my comments were taken personally by you or seemed to be intended as hurtful as I can guarantee you that was not the case.
Good on ya' Maximo. I'm glad you are at least leaving potential for future debates. I understand if you wana take a breather, but it will be good/fun to have you back when you're ready for the next round. Cheers!
Don Maximo I can't follow the arguement anymore. I was also probably being a bit dramatic. I didn't mean to be scorching or sarcastic. It's fine that we disagree.
I'm happy for the forum to speak about issues. I think I just got sensitive because at some points you were insisting that my comments brought us to censorship.
For example: "I also don’t think that Cara is advocating censorship. But, in my opinion the attempted correlation between cartoon violence (that is quite obviously slapstick and fantastical in nature) and real life child abuse has little option but to bring us there." I guess I wasn't clear about what you meant here.
I also should apologize if I made you feel condescended, there is nothing worse than that. As I look over my comments, I realize some could have been taken that way.
Did anybody else catch that the balloon stopped when an adult came by? Perhaps it’s all just a metaphor to say that things we think of as harmless may be the detriment to our children; parents need to be more present in their child’s life. Maybe? I don’t know… I was never really good with allegories
A Love for Art was a collaborative blog for visual artists, musicians, writers, and social scientists. This blog has evolved into a new blog called BETA, go check it out!
35 comments:
Yikes, that's some intense shite.
Intense, but yet light hearted too. Thought it was funny that it was made by "bitter films"
yeah, i found the "bitter films" bit funny as well.
i kept waiting for the kids to strike back somehow, but it never happened.
man... i was never quite sure if i felt ok about laughing or not.
he also did "Rejected Cartoons" youtube it. it`s funny.
word verification:wudufc
I didn't laugh. I understand the comedic attributes that are in place that are supposed to make it funny, I get it. I'm the kind of person who can't help but snicker when someone falls or trips.
I just don't like it because the reality is kids are beaten to death every day.
Though I agree that child beating is not, in any way, comedic - and I also felt a weird sort of "should I laugh?" sensation while watching - I feel that making that kind of comparison to reality is drastic at best, terribly excessive at worst. I'm confident in guessing that the creator had no intention of making a joke of child abuse. Could we draw the same conclusion with Homer Simpson being a drunk? I'm sure many children suffer under alcoholic parents every day of their lives – with life-long consequences. How about the outrageous comedy of a show like Family Guy? In fact, much of the cartoonality of Tiny Toons, Animaniacs, The Bugs Bunny and Tweety Show, etc etc could be scrutinized similarly.
In the case of Billy's Balloon I feel the onus is on the viewer to rationally determine what the intention of the creator was. To not find this cartoon funny or amusing is, of course, within everyone's rights. But to draw direct comparison between the content of the cartoon and something as horrendous as the reality of child abuse is, in my opinion, a dangerous game to play. One where words like "censorship" begin to rear their ugly heads.
I think it is a metaphor. The children are our underqualified leaders shaking their rattles of self importance and holding us back from our lofty potential. The so called beatings are a revolution where the otherwise harmless peon-balloons rise up against their oppresive captors.
Well that's one interpretation anyway =P
(I hate Family guy more than this for sure)
i don't think cara, or myself, did or would suggest in any way that this should be censored, either here or anywhere else. if people wanna make 'em and watch 'em i guess that's their business.
but i also find it hard to laugh about kids being whacked in the head repeatedly.
as much of a danger as there may be in drawing comparisons b/t this and real life, i think there's an equal (or perhaps greater) danger in images that make light of or humor-ize violence.
that's one reason i generally don't like family guy.
Yes. I find it interesting however, that the two people that have responded to my post singled out Family Guy. It's easy to not like Family Guy because the humour is so totally outrageous and over the top – not to mention sexist and racist. What about my other examples: The Simpsons, Tiny Toons, Animaniacs, and The Bugs Bunny and Tweety show? I mean, some of these cartoons - the Looney Toons ones in particular - animate EXTREME violence. Tex Avery cartoons like Skrewball Squirrel were famous for poking fun at Disney style animation through extreme violence. Is it okay because the violence is against animals that just look and speak like people? Elmer Fudd, for example, looks a lot like a kid if you ask me – and a mentally handicapped kid to boot! Is Avery advocating violence against handicapped kids or just making a funny slapstick cartoon? That is a perfect example of the kind of path this kind of correlation can lead down. Further, I'd say the animations in those cartoons resemble "real life" persons far more than the stick animations of Billy's Balloon.
How about the Simpsons? The wealth of similar examples I could draw from there are endless.
I’m in no way trying to dictate what people should like or dislike. I’m simply pointing out the fact that many cartoons, before Billy’s Balloon, have set a precedent for ultra-violent slapstick and have been widely accepted and at times cherished as “classic”. I also don’t think that Cara is advocating censorship. But, in my opinion the attempted correlation between cartoon violence (that is quite obviously slapstick and fantastical in nature) and real life child abuse has little option but to bring us there.
sure, sure. valid pts/questions.
Down with evil child beating balloons I say! I never liked ballons and thier violent ways.
=P
I didn't say I don't like Family guy cause its violent and sexist, I don't like it cause it's NOT FUNNY. I have watched sseveral episodes and only occaisionally chuckled with Brian the dog. The rest of the brain dead predictable fart and swear just doesn't amuse me at all. It's not shocking either, it's just what I expect to be spoon fed to the masses of people sitting on the couch wide eyed shoveling McDonalds down there gullet drinking black bubbly syrup and never wondering what else they could be doing. "FAAART"
(see, it's not funny is it?)
Also, DonMaximo, if that is your real name... Saying that someone can't say they dislike it cause it will lead to censorship IS censorship. Careful.
I understand Cara and don't blame you for not liking this, I could see if you are sensitive to the awful things in the world and don't draw any comfort by mocking them. That is the case with many people I'm sure. If my mom saw this, I guarantee she would say it was awful and probably lose a nights sleep. I for one thought the animation was really bizaaro-funny, and appreciated it. I also like the other stuff on his main page (which is occaissionally even more offensive). I think it pushes into that dark potential in a way that lightens it and makes it absurd. I obviously love kids and don't want to hurt them, but ballons of all things. I also like Pinky and the Brain from Animaniacs for whatever that serves =P.
Upon re-reading that, my comments about family guy viewers is unnessecarilly harsh. Sorry, not everyone is like that clearly, I just don't dig the show, and I was feeling wordy.
heh.
family guy is pretty predictable "shock value" humour. not much clever or original about it. brian and stewie are kinda funny (i like how brian is always reading utne or the new york times or war and peace or something), but otherwise it's just kind of a lame rip-off of everything that worked for the simpsons, imo.
From donmaximo post #1
"To not find this cartoon funny or amusing is, of course, within everyone's rights."
From donmaximo post #2
"I’m in no way trying to dictate what people should like or dislike."
From macro(previously ugly head) post #1
"Saying that someone can't say they dislike it cause it will lead to censorship IS censorship. Careful."
I fail to see how you came to this conclusion when I CLEARLY state, in EACH of my posts that I'm in NO way trying to dictate what someone should or should not like?
So, to clarify:
I feel Cara’s original comment that “I just don't like it because the reality is kids are beaten to death every day” draws an unjustified tie between the content of the cartoon and the reality of child abuse. Perhaps the comment was not intended as such, but in my opinion a statement like this implies that the cartoon was a parody of child abuse – which I don’t think it is. As such, I reiterate my point that “In the case of Billy's Balloon I feel the onus is on the viewer to rationally determine what the intention of the creator was” and I personally feel that Cara’s interpretation of the creator’s intention as reflected in the above comment wasn’t rationally justified.
cara's a parent, and you're not.
it seems only natural to me that, in that regard, she would be more sensitive than you to issues about the welfare of kids, though i don't want to speak for her.
using caps, btw, is generally considered the internet equivalent of shouting.
Hmmm... I think the connection Cara made is a valid one (and, for the record, I'm a parent too). I don't think she meant to imply that it was a parody of child abuse, but rather that it makes light of violence against children, and the obvious distress of 'Billy' and his inability to retaliate or get out of the situation seems to me to be an integral part of the cartoon (mind you, I only got about 80% through it, slow download speed...) Personally, I found those aspects of it really turned me off, and I wasn't laughing.
Sorry to get ya going Don (Daniel Robinson really, right?).
I know you say its someones right to not find this funny, but you also say
" But, in my opinion the attempted correlation between cartoon violence ... and real life child abuse has little option but to bring us there (there being censorship which you oppose). "
Also while you say it's within our rights you say it's "ujustified". While you can't seem to make the connection between cartoon babies getting hurt and real babies getting hurt, for some that's not a big of a leap. If my debating you on this is getting you SHOUTING as Lorne put it, try to see it as me helping one side of the argument be "justified" not an attack on you. It's starting to feel weird with Cara'a name continually reoccurring, yet no comment by her.
Yeah, I agree that cartoon sucked shit.
Okay, regarding the FYI about the use of caps, thanks. However, on a forum where I couldn’t find a way to bold or italicize my comments I used caps as an alternative – which isn’t an uncommon Internet practice for expressing emphasis. I hope that comment was just general info and not directed specifically at me, as it comes off, because upon rereading the conversation I noticed Dave used caps in much the same fashion as myself. If it was directed at me specifically, thanks for the patronizing tip guys – sorry to burst your bubble but it wasn’t shouting.
Lorne, your comment that “cara's a parent, and you're not. it seems only natural to me that, in that regard, she would be more sensitive than you to issues about the welfare of kids” is, I feel, a pretty big generalization. Are you implying that someone who has not experienced parenthood is incapable of experiencing sensitivity towards kids on the same level as someone who has? I mean, I know that sounds ridiculous but it’s essentially what that statement says.
Beyond that though it’s not, in my opinion, what the conversation I’m trying to have is at all about.
I’m not denying Cara’s sensitivity, or her right to feel however she wants about Billy’s Balloon. My entire point is that Billy’s Balloon is a cartoon that features helium filled balloons attacking young kids – it’s ridiculous, it’s not real and I feel confident that Don Hertzfeldt did not have any intention of making it a mockery or commentary on child abuse. Some of you admitted to finding Stewie funny in Family Guy: are his sadistic plans to murder his own mother funny? This is the kind of logic that I feel is being applied here and I think it’s out of context. In fact, the only thing that really identifies the stick figures in the film with children is their props. Would this film have been funny if the stick figure was waving a briefcase as opposed to a rattle? If you ask yourself honestly and answer yes, than you can see my point. This isn’t about child abuse – it’s a slapstick cartoon about balloons turning on the stick figure kids that control them. I simply felt that Cara’s statement attached an unwarranted context to the cartoon and tried to turn it into something that it’s not.
***
Though I’m not using the following information as any sort of argument, I felt it was interesting and applied to the discussion in a way:
Billy's Balloon (1998) is a 16mm animated short by Don Hertzfeldt. It was his 4th and final student film at UC Santa Barbara. Similar to his other cartoons, he utilizes a minimalist stick-figure technique. This film was part of the Official Competition of the 1999 Cannes Film Festival - where Don Hertzfeldt was the youngest director in competition - and it won the Grand Jury Award at the 1999 Slamdance Film Festival. It eventually won 33 film festival awards and has become a popular cult film.
On top of its film festival runs (and popularity among internet bootleggers), the short has also appeared on Adult Swim and MTV in the US and on a number of international TV broadcasts around the world. Hertzfeldt has noted that the short's international popularity is likely because it has no dialogue and plays like a silent film.
I hate having a day job, I miss all the good dialogue on the blog.
I wasn't purposefully staying out of the conversation, sorry if it seemed that way.
I need to think more about my response, but for starters Don Maximo, I think you vilified me a bit and that was unwarranted.
I did not laugh,period, I'm not apologizing for that. This piece made me uncomfortable for many reasons. Most that have already been mentioned so I won't be redundant and do a mini thesis here.
As for being a censor, I said it wasn't funny, I didn't say it had no value. I also did not at anytime say it should be removed only that the "reason" I didn't laugh is that violent imagery involving children is difficult for me to watch.
How do you know what the cartoonist was meaning or not meaning to parody? I wonder if maybe the cartoonist wasn't going for making the watcher uncomfortable, symbolic, metaphoric or whatever. I can accept the cartoon has all of those intentions or maybe none, maybe it just appeals to a darker humour that I don't particulary care for. For the record I will say that if it is a piece made for a laugh only and nothing else it offends me. An image of a baby being bludgeoned and repeatedly dropped by whatever form of figurative or symbolic entities better be for some pretty good reasons, messages, symbols or whatever you do in the name of art.
Art or anything you make public is up for interpretation, isn't that the whole point. Anyone else telling me how I should react with a certain callousnous, and then calling me a censor is laughable.
What I do appreciate is that Don Maximo reacted to me and sort of opened up the conversation, which isn't really about me. (some of your tactics however were shut down techniques, being harsh with someone usually makes dialouge difficult, FYI) but I'm not so "sensitive".
don't patronize me boys.
:)
I think most importantly this community thrives on these conversations and I'll take being called a censor any day if it means this level of vital communication.
Sheesh,
I get that the cartoon is drawing on the ridiculous, I said in my first post that I understand that it is drawing on slapstick humour. I understand that it is likely not a piece saying, ha, ha ha, it's funny to beat on kids. I understand, but the themes of helplessness, violence and the level of exageration were likely not just meant to prolong your laughter. Maybe it was to push buttons, maybe it was to make us think past the literal which is great.
I understand that red ballons eveywhere are cheering because finally one of their brethern has been able to do to a kid what kids do to ballons everyday, it is an epidemic, have you ever seen the carnage at birthday parties.
However, the subject matter is sensitive. You're right, a grown man being bludgeoned by a red ballon or his suitcase for that matter would probably make me snicker for maybe a couple of seconds, but at what point in time am I allowed to say that violence doesn't make me feel good.
Because I draw a certain parallel between a work and something literal does not mean I am trying to censor it, it is just a different direction than you are obivously prepared to go in, I can't believe that the cartoonist wouldn't have perhaps at least thought for a second of two, hmmm, maybe it might make people uncomfortable, and that is great, but don't tell me it's neutral and just some plain old slapstick humour.
Also, thank you to those of you who at least tried to understand my point of view, I by no means meant the "dont' patronize me boys" relating to the above discussions where my right to have an opinion being seperate from me being a censor is appreciated and makes me feel okay about still commenting on the blog.
Also, I don't care how many awards he's won or where his films have been viewed. We are talking about my right to say that I was uncomfortable and maybe even a little offended by this cartoon being a seperate thing than me saying I want to censor it.
I’m sorry but this is getting ridiculous. Cara, I don’t know you, but I did not vilify you in any way. If you feel that I did, I’m sorry as it was 100% unintentional and I cannot see where you’re drawing this from (at the bottom are a series of excerpts from my posts where you are mentioned, none of which call you a censor, bash you or vilify you in any way). Nor did I ask that you apologize for your comments, feelings or anything else – and finally, for the last time, I did not call you a censor or say that you advocate censorship, that you partake in censorship or that you casually practice censorship on the weekends.
Further to that, I never said that I knew what Don Hertzfeldt was thinking, feeling, hearing or seeing when he produced this cartoon. I simply made guesses. Guesses that I was confident in making about his intentions for it. I might very well be wrong but I never said, anywhere, that that wasn’t a possibility.
Also, I don’t understand how you interpret anything I wrote as “shut down” tactics. Where was I blocking you out of responding? If anything, I wrote well thought-out and detailed explanations of my point of view and put them up to be scrutinized. Again, how is this a “shut down” tactic? If you disagree with my argument, by all means respond. But to come into the discussion this late in the game (understandably due to other engagements) and then flame me by saying that “some of your tactics however were shut down techniques, being harsh with someone usually makes dialouge difficult, FYI” isn’t very fair.
All of this talk about me calling you a censor is completely ridiculous. My point was very simple and clearly stated at the end of my last post:
“I simply felt that Cara’s statement attached an unwarranted context to the cartoon and tried to turn it into something that it’s not.”
This is my opinion. If you disagree, fine – let’s talk about it and see why it is that we disagree.
**Sorry for the repetitiveness of these portions of my other posts, but I really feel some of these accusations are being pulled out of thin air.**
“I'm confident in guessing that the creator had no intention of making a joke of child abuse.”
“But to draw direct comparison between the content of the cartoon and something as horrendous as the reality of child abuse is, in my opinion, a dangerous game to play. One where words like "censorship" begin to rear their ugly heads.”
“I also don’t think that Cara is advocating censorship. But, in my opinion the attempted correlation between cartoon violence (that is quite obviously slapstick and fantastical in nature) and real life child abuse has little option but to bring us there.”
“I feel Cara’s original comment that “I just don't like it because the reality is kids are beaten to death every day” draws an unjustified tie between the content of the cartoon and the reality of child abuse. Perhaps the comment was not intended as such, but in my opinion a statement like this implies that the cartoon was a parody of child abuse – which I don’t think it is.”
“I personally feel that Cara’s interpretation of the creator’s intention as reflected in the above comment wasn’t rationally justified.”
“I’m not denying Cara’s sensitivity, or her right to feel however she wants about Billy’s Balloon.”
**Please note that my last post is out of order and written while Cara was writing her second**
Okay, I’ve had it. I refuse to partake in this conversation any longer. Regardless of what I write there seems to be an ongoing trend of fabricating things that I’ve supposedly said, or just taking statements like the one below:
“Though I’m not using the following information as any sort of argument, I felt it was interesting and applied to the discussion in a way:
Billy's Balloon (1998) is a 16mm animated short by Don Hertzfeldt. It was his 4th and final student film at UC Santa Barbara. Similar to his other cartoons, he utilizes a minimalist stick-figure technique. This film was part of the Official Competition of the 1999 Cannes Film Festival - where Don Hertzfeldt was the youngest director in competition - and it won the Grand Jury Award at the 1999 Slamdance Film Festival. It eventually won 33 film festival awards and has become a popular cult film.
On top of its film festival runs (and popularity among internet bootleggers), the short has also appeared on Adult Swim and MTV in the US and on a number of international TV broadcasts around the world. Hertzfeldt has noted that the short's international popularity is likely because it has no dialogue and plays like a silent film.”
And responding with things like:
“Also, I don't care how many awards he's won or where his films have been viewed. We are talking about my right to say that I was uncomfortable and maybe even a little offended by this cartoon being a seperate thing than me saying I want to censor it.”
I mean, how much clearer can I be when I say “Though I’m not using the following information as any sort of argument…”?
I have, until this point, thoroughly enjoyed my experience on this blog – unfortunately this experience has soured that.
I wish you all the best.
Sincerely
-donmaximo
All of you guys are bunch of f'n babies. Discussion sometimes gets heated, and that's ok. Sheesh!
red balloon: That's it, I've had it with you. The park, 4:00. You better be there
- Billy
I would like to take this chance to say sorry for making Donmaximo or ANYONE feel frustrated in a conversation/debate on the blog. I think there are obvious limitations to language, and most certainly blogging. On that account I would also like to welcome Donmaximo to the ever growing "quit list". I think it should be part of our initiation to be driven so mad that one quits, then upon realizing the value of these excercises, both in language and human relations, rejoin. Welcome.
Previous members on the "I can't take it I quit list" are:
-Myself-Macro, D.Macri (the current admin and perhaps first to quit)
-James the Knack Culleton (The former admin from who I inherited the admin duties accidentally)
-Feral Child L. Roberts (A record holder for # of times quit)
-C.Quitmoanez, who never actually quit, but has the word in his name so is allowed on the list as an honorary member.
Who will quit next? Who will join or rejoin?
=)
Just fun ok? Misunderstanding and tenacity are part of that.
I'll put $10 on billy who seems to have taken on a new persona since the balloon incident.
Perhaps I was a little dramatic in my final comment last night. It was late and I am in the midst of finals right now. But I really feel that this conversation has taken on this weird sort of bent, based on comments that I never made and it’s really taken the past joy I’ve had in having these kinds of debates and stomped it into oblivion.
I don’t think you’re a censor Cara. In fact, I don’t really know you at all, so that would be a little presumptuous of me to declare. I never meant to imply it in what I was saying and I’m positive I never actually said that. Unfortunately that seems to have become the focus of this conversation, which is why I got so frustrated last night.
We obviously have a difference of opinion on the matter of this cartoon, which is fine. Actually, it’s great, because if I’m not mistaken that is the point of this type of forum. If you interpreted my comments as callous or vilifying I’m sorry, I’m just writing with a certain level of emotional detachment because to me, this was a debate, not a conversation about personal attacks and I wasn’t intending to make any towards you.
On a more personal note, I do feel that there were some comments made in the course of the discussion that were unnecessarily condescending or sarcastic and that has turned me off participating in another of this kind of debate for a while.
I have thoroughly enjoyed my participation in this blog for the last 3 ½ years. Cara, again, I apologize if any of my comments were taken personally by you or seemed to be intended as hurtful as I can guarantee you that was not the case.
Thanks.
Good on ya' Maximo. I'm glad you are at least leaving potential for future debates. I understand if you wana take a breather, but it will be good/fun to have you back when you're ready for the next round. Cheers!
Don Maximo
I can't follow the arguement anymore. I was also probably being a bit dramatic. I didn't mean to be scorching or sarcastic.
It's fine that we disagree.
I'm happy for the forum to speak about issues. I think I just got sensitive because at some points you were insisting that my comments brought us to censorship.
For example:
"I also don’t think that Cara is advocating censorship. But, in my opinion the attempted correlation between cartoon violence (that is quite obviously slapstick and fantastical in nature) and real life child abuse has little option but to bring us there."
I guess I wasn't clear about what you meant here.
Anyway, I think this debate is dead, thank god.
I'm glad to see you still posting.
I also should apologize if I made you feel condescended, there is nothing worse than that. As I look over my comments, I realize some could have been taken that way.
xyhhgyst.
ql plspbt thwwmk, sp tggr lblrrr gree.
ptrrmb vgrq.
phdbs! :)
sadf dfgdfg ere dfhdghy tg aert fg aert r aery h ftu er6uy dfgzft aeyt try sfyh wrty fh sdy wrty srty srty rty sdty !
aw, I missed this one....
Did anybody else catch that the balloon stopped when an adult came by? Perhaps it’s all just a metaphor to say that things we think of as harmless may be the detriment to our children; parents need to be more present in their child’s life. Maybe? I don’t know… I was never really good with allegories
Post a Comment