[Hazbin Hotel, s2e3] The Vees should have just uploaded the raw footage; and the series’ pattern of dismissing real conflicts as ‘character quirks’

I’ll warn that, true to its name, this is a bit of a rant. I’ve tried to collect and sequence my thoughts, albeit poorly.

So, let’s set the scene: media misinformation has more or less been the central conflict of this season. Charlie is trying to promote her hotel, but at every point the Vees have some obviously slanderous jabs against her efforts; two particular insults against Charlie’s efforts and character, which I’m listing here for reasons that will definitely not be relevant later, are a sketch of her as a slave driver cracking the whip at her unwilling patrons, and the idea that she’s trying to override her patrons to fit her particular vision.

The crux of this episode is that Charlie invites the Vees to clear the air, but they obviously frame and manipulate everything to continue slandering her. The conclusion is that they release the most cartoonishly obvious and overt fabrication of events possible, complete with clearly spliced footage and a made-up story of being struck by Charlie (clearly recorded by Velvette with a voice filter). If you’ve seen it, then you know there’s no better way to describe it than being kinda stupid. Really stupid even.

Well I argue that this setup was a missed opportunity, and a continuation of the series’ pattern of refusing to meaningfully engage with its characters’ established flaws, mindsets or whatever else you might think of. Particular to this observation is the idea that the villains refuse to actually confront Charlie all that much, and I first observed this back in season 1 with Adam: Charlie’s idea is that sinners can be redeemed, but, outside of an odd song lyric here or there, Adam doesn’t actually seem to care much about refuting the idea; he just wants to kill people, representing a physical obstruction more than a philosophical one, hence meaning Charlie never really actually has to establish or argue for what her vision of redemption is or means. Thus, the season ended in a big battle where Adam is killed, because the conflict between good and evil wasn’t really for the soul of man or the concept of redemption, but just that a big, (not so) scary man wanted to kill them, with the redemption occurring as an afterthought at the end.

Anyhow, that was the beginning of the pattern, and we see a similar idea occurring with this falsified slander, with the Vees sidestepping any real conversation to or about Charlie, her character and her flaws to just make up the most obvious bullshit. And this is relevant because there were some very serious flaws that Charlie unironically exhibited throughout this endeavour, which, while not unaddressed, are only confronted in low-tension or low-stakes situations, which kinda diminishes the emotive and dramatic impact as a viewer.

This is the point where I struggle to collect my thoughts, because this is intersectional with a second issue I perceive in the series that reduces its drama, and it sounds a bit weird, but there’s almost too many comforting, wise characters? And they act as a range of levers and pulleys to lower the tension, which is kinda boring actually. Let me explain:

• Charlie is overwhelmed by interviews and responsibility? Her dad, who is a permanent resident but infrequently relevant for some reason, whisks her away and they have a comforting one-on-one that calms her down;
• The situation in Heaven with Pentious, Sera and everything going on there is getting really heated? The Speaker of God comes down from on high, benevolently listens to Pentious and convinces pretty much everyone (except Lute) that he’s redeemed, and now it’s business as usual;
• Back in season one, Charlie is feeling betrayed by Vaggie concealing her past from her? Rosie maternally (she’s definitely Lilith in disguise, right?) reminds her of her and the hotel’s core values, and to forgive Vaggie, eliminating any of the internal conflict she was experiencing;
• In the next episode, Husk, as one such wise, comforting character, is going to reflect on his own emotional outburst offscreen (I also think these two got too close too soon, but that’s another thing entirely), and was going to explain himself plainly and without any dramatic tension to Angel Dust before being yanked away by Niffty;
• And finally, in this episode, when Charlie is misunderstanding redemption, Vaggie can come down and, in a very safe and low drama way, tell her that redemption is personal, and should be tailored to the specific person.

My issue with these is not that they happen, or that they’re wrong, but just that it happens too often, and there are more interesting or dramatic ways to reach these same revelations without needing a person with all the answers to come down and guide our characters through it. I’ll also say that it’s not like the series entirely avoids any drama, but they always have characters voice, like, a single strongly worded sentence while storming off, which again de-escalates the situation, like Angel snipping at Charlie about “prying into his personal life with Vox around”. It gives the impression of drama, which it is, but it’s not quite reaching the emotional catharsis of a proper confrontation.

So, let’s return to Charlie and discuss the flaws I believe were in need of perhaps greater confrontation, and how we could have done it. It is an important disclaimer here that it’s perfectly acceptable, desired even, that she has these flaws, but the particular writing around them could be refined. First, the flaws:

• Charlie is way too demanding. Angel Dust is constantly saying he’s uncomfortable, even outright reminding her “remember when we talked about boundaries” (harkening back to when she got him physically abused by his boss/rapist), but she CONTINUES to pester him into relenting, and it’s just very frustrating to watch her continuously slave-drive this poor man out of his comfort zone. She’s not intentionally being cruel or apathetic to him when she does this, but intentions don’t overrule the results;
• Charlie is trying to force Angel Dust to conform to a set ideal that might not represent who he is and his journey. Self-explanatory, but the entire time she’s trying to get AD to be more like Pentious, and not like himself, and it comes off as very callous and ignorant of AD himself, his needs and the redemption process as a whole;
• And she’s also just quite stupid. A recurring theme of this episode and the next is her BLIND to the point of stupidity trust in people blatantly trying to smear her, and also just a general sense of stupidity. This intersects with a noticeable sense of pride when, despite continued failure, she will continue to ignore Vaggie (who has literally no function in the plot except to be Charlie’s sensible handler and clearly has all the right answers) to continue fucking up her own way.

Now, do these flaws remind you of anything, ideally reminiscent in the way I’ve worded them? Remember what the Vees said about Charlie in their first deceptive attacks against her and the hotel: That she’s a slave-driver, forces you into a puritanical mould, and is a nepo baby who has no idea what she’s doing? Well didn’t she kind of prove them right? Sure, the nuances aren’t one-to-one, and there’s still a little reframing required to make them match, but I wouldn’t argue that Charlie’s flaws haven’t grown from the same roots as what the Vees alleged. Thus, my suggestion is for the Vees take down of Charlie to simply have been unedited footage of what they actually recorded.

Imagine it, Charlie and the rest gearing up to watch the promo, all the other characters - and really the show itself - building our expectations for how they’re gonna lie their asses off this time, only to subvert this by having the Vees just show Charlie what she actually was like. I think it would be a really big gut-punch for her, and would actually resemble the villains confronting Charlie on her behaviour, and giving all of Hell a vaguely justifiable reason to dislike her that can’t just be dismissed as “oh well they lied”. I think it would be a level of drama, conflict and revelation for Charlie that she hasn’t really been challenged with yet. Maybe it can be mixed with commentary from the Vees here and there, mildly posing a lens to view a scene which Charlie could refute like “well obviously I didn’t mean it that way/well I didn’t mean to”, only to see the footage and maybe even agree that, well, it does look like that would be the outcome. Again, I just think it would have been a far stronger, more dramatic, more cathartic and more meaningful ending, as it would actually participate in a conversation and spark a bit of internal conflict in Charlie where the series actually takes her flaws seriously for a second instead of dismissing them as “quirks” or “oh she’s just naive”, rather than just sidestepping around it by “oh the Vees were just lying” or whatever.

Because, again, this is a constant pattern of the series, and I know I’ve given a lot of lists already so I’ll try and keep this one brief:

• Charlie’s grief over Pentious (not a flaw but related to the overall concept I’m discussing) is played as a joke. Not only because we know he’s actually alive, but her behaviour is way too exaggerated, especially considering it was a whole month ago, and contrasts to the more realistic reactions of the other characters. The result is that the show isn’t really saying “Charlie is really struggling in the grieving process”, but more so “ha ha, isn’t Charlie so emotional and ridiculous? What a funny quirk”(
• Right after, Charlie doesn’t view Baxter as his own person, but as an extension of Pentious. This is a flaw, and a dick move, but it’s so exaggerated and cartoony that it’s dismissed as just a quirky joke;
• This one isn’t Charlie, but I’m cutting ahead to the main instance of this that I find actually genuinely kinda problematic: AD’s ‘drug addiction’. Angel Dust’s addiction to drugs is textually explicit, i.e. he is said to do crack and other hard substances, but this very real, ugly, horrifying thing is reduced to just a quirk, or an aesthetic. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and I never see anyone bring it up that a drug addiction to Medrano is clearly just “party vibes”, and that he just drops it instantly. Like, no struggle, he goes clean offscreen. That one really rubbed me the wrong way.

Now, I am aware that, in my conceived idea, I maybe hasten Charlie to character development too soon by having her realise her flaws by the end of episode 3, whereas it seems like canon Charlie is still mostly unaware of them, but I’m going to defend this position by saying it’s not that my idea goes too fast, but actually that I feel like Charlie regressed in season two, and that this is a retread of things she already learned in the first season?

• Charlie learned not to ignore AD for Pentious in episode two, where it really upset Angel and stalled his progress;
• Charlie learned not to push boundaries in episode four, where she promised never to do it again (that cartoony apology also is another instance where her real flaw is ‘quirkified’ and not dealt with seriously, perhaps why it clearly didn’t stick);
• Charlie learned not to blindly trust people in episode one (Adam), two (Pentious) and six (the Heaven court and even Vaggie).

And while I know that flaws like these obviously take time to work on, and while I do actually like to see characters relapse (if it’s executed competently and textually addressed), I’m just saying that it’s not out of the realm of possibility that, halfway through season two Charlie is made aware of her own shortcomings. They don’t have to be fixed instantly, but all my revision proposes is that she is confronted by them and becomes aware of them.