jillholstad

While I think this article makes some very compelling points about what kinds of emotions we should be subjecting children to at young ages, and the possible results of that, I think it glosses over the idea that many children simply do not pick up on things that might be potentially frightening, traumatizing, or scarring.

For animation, my example would be The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Spirited Away, or The Sword In The Stone. These are films I watched in my youth, and some I absolutely loved (NOT the Hunchback of Notre Dame). However, it was not until I came back to them as an adult that I realized how truly dark and scary they are. I could not believe that I had not been traumatized by them, and the type of horror they possessed. I concluded that, as a child, I had simply not fully grasped what was happening in the films, and did not understand the gravity of certain situations presented, perhaps because, as a child, I had always assumed everything was going to be okay and have a happy ending.

And perhaps that is also a benefit of these darker kids’ movies, and animated ones in particular (I specify animated movies because I think Pan’s Labyrinth is the best possible example of this, but is not animated)- reflecting upon our childhood selves in awe or even fully understanding and re-compartmentalizing treasures childhood memories as deeper lessons.

This was also rampant in the first Deadpool film; most notably, the scene where Wade Wilson is tortured in the effort to activate his linger mutant DNA, is set to a bubbly, upbeat “Mr. Sandman.” For me, this is the only thing that makes this scene watchable. Such horrible visuals offset by unexpectedly chipper audio cues not only adds humor to the film, but is also what makes the genre accessible to more people. For the opposite- the fateful helicopter drop in the second movie set to the blood-pumping Thunderstruck- it changes the expectations of the audience, and that also adds to the humor of it all.

I was honestly surprised by her disclusion from this article. While Voldemort was the one to kill Harry’s parents, he had a self-motivated reason for that. He believed he had to kill Harry in order to be immortal, and James & Lily stood in the way of that. I’m certainly not justifying their killing, but I’m just pointing out that he had a personal stake in the matter, and he wouldn’t necessarily have killed them otherwise, (especially with James being pureblood). However, Bellatrix Lestrange, the executioner of Harry’s other pseudo-parent/godfather figure, Sirius Black, committed murder for her cruel enjoyment alone. It was during a battle that Sirius died, but it was also right when he was fighting alongside Harry. Bellatrix gained nothing personally from killing him, making her far more cruel than Voldemort. I would be open to the argument that it is more a issue of situation; that in Bellatrix’s place, Voldemort would also have simply slain his enemy in a battle (and in fact, I’m sure he did), but Bellatrix’s killing of Sirius is also more impactful on Harry- who knew him as an adult, and yet never really knew his parents before they died.

Yes, I agree that is probably the most memorable scene for me. It was impactful to see both how the boys reacted to the story, and to the old man specifically, and the applicability of the old man’s story to the boy’s lives as well, which is of course his intention, as he overheard them in the bathroom while they were arguing.