luv3r

oh my little soldier boy

What the FUCK is storyboarding

I've never felt this cringe in my entire life Forgive me, NINAH fandom

(spoilers under the cut for those who want to experience the learning curve themselves)

Massive shoutout to our lil research team: @traitorousfruit, @mustymausoleum, @trial-n-harerror, @elgarwhore, @cyberneticslasher ✨

"Alfred Alfer" is clearly the product of someone with deep-seated issues, or someone trying way too hard to be "edgy". I love dark humor and horror, but particularly the first two episodes of her work are transparent attempts to invoke disgust: Gross for the sake of being gross, and awash in painfully annoying repetition meant to convey mental illness. To her credit, it is unsettling, which is likely the point.

Around the third episode is when a wild narrative appears. There's honest development. As a VA, when actually taking on important dialogue, Emily does an admittedly decent job. There's a twisted but interesting dynamic between traumatized dog "Alfred", and his alter ego created out of hatred, passion for revenge, and a thirst for power.

Emily does exhibit a genuine knack for incorporating music into her work in a purposeful way. Her choice of a G.G. Allin track in one short continues to speak of her white nationalist leanings (which do seep into her work later on, but again--it's so over the top that it comes off more like parody, which again leaves me to question the validity of her affiliations).

On the one hand, the extreme taboos and deviancy in her work might be seen as "cringe" to many nowadays. It's easy to take it at face value, and dismiss it as such. On the other hand, there are the seeds of something legitimately different and compelling there. Her work is a descent into madness that somewhat justifies its actions. When the titular pooch begins delving into necrophilia (which is...not held back in the slightest. Again, this is some truly warped animation) the implication is that he--not unlike Jeffrey Dahmer--just wants someone to love him, and never leave.

Emily has showed marked improvement in animation, style, and technique over time, including branching out into other mediums (I'm as-yet unsure if this is only her doing, as there are others listed in the credits). She had apparently been working on a full "Alfred Alfer" film, and released it in chunks on Newgrounds (in no discernible order). From what I've seen, there is real talent at work here, but between the subject matter and the creator's personal views, it's hard to know how to feel about it.

"Alfred Alfer" makes Salad Fingers look like a Disney cartoon. Does it go too far? Oh, yeah. Like... I could definitely do without the scenes with "The Littles" and Alfred's other imaginary friends sexually violating him (scenes which are simultaneously sad, considering the "playhouse" is supposed to be his escape/comfort/safe space, yet even there, he isn't safe from abuse). If the aim is to disturb, it is certainly accomplished in spades. In the end, one gets the impression that Emily herself may be carrying a few personal demons.

I cannot fault the highly graphic and disturbing nature of the material, as it has a purpose. Her unsavory beliefs notwithstanding, I support the right of art to take dark turns into even darker territory, even into unimaginable places--hence why I defend the work of such auteurs as Fred Vogel, Marian Dora, Gaspar Noe, and other directors known to dabble in extreme cinema.

What instantly sets Youcis apart from these others is the dedication to not just filming, but animating atrocity, giving it an entirely different impact. Animation has no boundaries--nothing to stop it from becoming as depraved and inhumane as possible. It's also the medium least expected to do so (that's not to say no predecessors exist--Mike Grimshaw is one animator that springs to mind, as does the infamous Mike Diana, who contributed an animated short to 1999's Hospital Brut). I could go on longer about Mike Diana, but his most controversial work was on the comic book page, and goes far beyond Youcis in terms of graphically disturbing content (which he was famously prosecuted for in 1994).

Reviewing material like that of any of these creators is walking a fine line: "Why would you watch that? Why would you want to see that?". That's harder to answer. Morbid curiosity, perhaps? "Do you support the acts portrayed? Do you support the artist's ideology?" Christ, no. I myself am more fascinated by the fact that someone allowed it to escape from the confines of their brain, and leak out into "polite society". Better yet--what made them even think of such things? What does that say about them? About US? And how do you approach content whose creator's values not only clash dramatically with your own, but are ultimately harmful to society at large?

I suppose that's a conversation for another day.