manmiles wrote:It's the curse of people who studied film or English Lit at school (and I hold my hand up as one of them), you're trained to watch the film and work out some sort of discernable context which actually makes the film seem less like a fun way to burn a few hours and more a revolutionary discourse on the human spirit.
Oh, I'm familiar with the idea, being one of those English-y types (though not in college just yet). It's just that I don't understand why on earth you would home in on such a specific example, when a general statement about how easy it is for a person's life to become drab and repetitive seems so much -more- a grand statement about the human condition, and universally applicable besides.
This is the sort of thing that makes me want to question the wisdom of taking such a major though. I believe that theme and whatnot are important, definitely, and that constructing them well is key to writing well, I just don't see why a lot of the "literary" folks get so bent out of shape on these things that they seem to completely forget what
makes people want to read in the first place. I tend to like stories to be entertaining first, and then make me think about things, not the other way around. I mean, as a writer of sorts I believe that the best thing is to do both, of course, I just get lost where some people start looking at books as if their main function should be to impart wisdom or generate discussion about humanity. That's what philosophical essays are for, not novels.
And I wouldn't say that Japanese storytelling lacks that kind of meaning, but if you were simply saying that it's less "hidden," I would have to agree with you. There's a lot less reading into obscure symbolism etc. to find what any given work is trying to say, but a lot of series do have particular themes and construct them reasonably well. Eureka Seven gives us "We must love one another or die," [/W. H. Auden], Flag is an interesting look at the complexity of war and everyone involved,
20th Century Boys is a deconstruction of/love letter to childhood and everything that goes with it, and dreams perhaps more than anything.
I would say that Eva at least -seems- justifiably given the psychological/religious once-over... I haven't seen it (I should fix that, having just filled in my lack of Macross knowledge, so that I'll basically be set in the average mecha fanboy conversation...), but it does seem steeped in Judeo-Christian symbolism (though I've heard it suggested that this is without purpose) and certainly Freudian psychology.
Anyway, I dunno as reading things that aren't there is always a bad thing (though forcing yourself to can be bad). There's a certain romance to the "Death of the author" theory, that all interpretations are valid because a story can mean very different things to different people, and the beauty and individuality of mankind etc. I mean, take something like Yokohama Kaidashi Kikou. If you -don't- to read anything into that series, it's a really long stretch of pretty pictures of scenery and nothing happening. But when you look for meaning, because there's so little that's concretely spelled out, you can read a lot of different things into each moment, which is what makes it so remarkable. The same scene can be bittersweet or genuinely happy depending on what sort of thinking -you- put into looking at it... at least, that's the impression I get, I suppose I'd have to reread the series in a different mood to really test it. At any rate, if you don't assign any value to the subtle expressions on a character's face or the way lighting is used, there's not much meaning to be had, but if you do, then the series becomes much fuller and more engaging.
My point was more that that particular interpretation, as making an anime to say that "modern anime suck and are repetitive," is a little bit out there without some really strong evidence. Nothing wrong with addressing a message directly to your audience, as long as you don't go Gundam 00's route and verbally accuse your viewers of not trying hard enough to save the whales, but essentially criticizing the state of your own format... That strikes me as something that a twenty-something year old film student does during a rage against the machine sort of moment, not something that a professional director would spend time on.
Edit: I'm sorry if my initial comment has derailed the topic somewhat from just being about this particular movie (since so few of us seem to have seen it...?), but this is an interesting conversation, and I don't think it should be done away with. Perhaps renamed, but... *shrugs*
So if red makes a mobile suit three times faster, what color do you have to paint it for it to be just a love machine?
