If you are not a parent, you are unlikely to have watched
even more than a couple of minutes of “In the Night Garden”
– if you are even aware of its existence.
If you are, you may – as I have – sat through hours of
seemingly identical episodes of this bizarre and yet (for toddlers) utterly
compelling programme.
Over the years, advertisers and even programme-makers have
every so often proclaimed that they have produced some sort of televisual
material “for dogs”, “for cats” etc.
Supposedly, these offerings have been based on research into
how the minds of pets work, so that they will appeal to them.
Quite why anyone would want to create television that
appeals to creatures that (i) do not have any money to spend on goods and
service advertised and (ii) have better things to do than watch TV, such as
sniffing the ground or licking their testicles, is unclear.
And yet it was nevertheless done, no doubt bringing to bear
the kind of “science” that makes shampoo capable of increasing hair shine by
80% and inventing Bifidus
Digestivum.
Over the years, I have watched some of these programmes “for
animals” and my overriding memory of them was “what the hell was that all
about?” – much as I expect the reaction of most dogs and cats to have been.
The argument as to why it made no sense to me, I suppose, would
have been that these things were designed to stimulate the brains of animals,
which in cognitive and (presumably) phenomenological terms are very different
from mine.
That then, I suppose, explains the complete
incomprehensibility of “In the Night Garden” to anyone older than three and its
narcotic, addictive effect on toddlers. It has been carefully designed to
interface with the brains of the undeveloped in a way that leaves the adult
confused, bored and liable to drift off themselves into flights of WTF? fancy.
Which is what you are about to get right now, after I
watched an entire episode of this with Tancred at the weekend.
Perhaps the Night Garden is in US |
It occurred to me at the outset that ITNG features a lot of
Freudian motifs.
First of all – the whole thing is a dream. Each episode
starts with IgglePiggle going to sleep. The Night Garden is not a place; it’s a
dream state.
Take the little sail down
Light the little light
This is the way to the garden in the night
The “way” is the method of the dreamer, a psychical roadmap
not a geographical one. It is only by taking his sail down – by ceasing to
resist and to strive – that IgglePiggle can approach the Night Garden.
IgglePiggle then is a figure of tragic proportions. In
reality, he is:
Out on the ocean
Far away from land
He has – like Borges in “The Circular
Ruins” – dreamed himself a whole new existence. No wonder he doesn't want to go to sleep at the end - to sleep in the dream world is to return to the utter isolation of the sea.
The three central characters – or archetypes – correspond to
Freud’s tripartite division of the mind:
- IgglePiggle is manifestly the Ego at the centre of consciousness.
- Upsy Daisy is the Id – her phallic, erectile hair; her skirt which pops up wantonly at the pull of a string; her wandering bed which “only Upsy Daisy is allowed to sleep in”; and her overwhelming desire to kiss everyone are surely proof enough that she represents a raging whirlwind of sexuality and unconscious desire.
- MakkaPakka, by contrast, with his stooped, gnomelike body and obsession with “cleaning the faces” of the other characters is clearly the Superego – the force of repression, conscience and self-control.
The Ninky Nonk, moreover, is clearly Thanatos or the death
instinct. Every journey on the Ninky Nonk ends up as a terrifying hellride which
all are lucky to survive and yet the characters KEEP GOING BACK ON IT.
"An unconscious sense of guilt" |
At this point, my analysis begins to break down. The
opposite force to the Ninky Nonk is – as everyone knows – the Pinky Ponk, which
ought then to represent the life instinct or Eros. The only way I can give any
justification to that theory by pointing out that it looks like a big, green, flying
tit.
Eventually, one’s knowledge of a subject matter and
willingness to stretch an already ridiculously overtaxed metaphor becomes
exhausted and the maddeningly disorienting power of the programme drives one’s
thoughts along a new track.
Tombliboos are clearly the immature form of Teletubbies. The
Tombliboo larvae and hatch out after a couple of weeks as adult Teletubbies –
at which point, they are carefully relocated from the night garden to
Teletubbie land.
Terrifying, bloody slaughter |
The principal predators in the Tombliboo ecosystem are
Fimbles. A hungry Fimble that breaks into a Tombliboo bush: a bloodthirsty tornado
of fang and claw ensues, which – trousers or no trousers – the Tombliboos are
helpless to resist. It is one of nature’s most shocking scenes, which has yet
to have been captured on film.
As you can see, it is bewildering for an adult human to
watch an entire episode of “In the Night Garden”. I haven’t even touched on the
Pontypines and the myriad potential meanings of “wave to the Wottingers”. Is Mr
Pontypine’s detachable moustache an emblem of castration-anxiety? And what are
the Tittifers really?
Beware the Night Garden – once you have been there, you may
come back a different person altogether.