Celeste +++ Mikage, Manet, and Titian               This is posted with the permission of Celeste, and is an excerpt from a much longer essay on Mikage and the Black Rose Saga, which is so thorough I feel it almost pointless to analyze Mikage myself. You can read this excellent piece of work, For the Garden Where All Love Ends, here. Click here to view a side by side comparison of the scene and paintings in question.           Images of the paintings are from Mark Harden's Artchive.           One scene in the episode `Qualifications of a Duellist' is perhaps very unusual in the manner it alludes to two famous paintings. It is most closely associated with Manet's Olympia, which is in turn a nineteenth century pre-Impressionist work based on Titian's sixteenth century work Venus of Urbino. That in itself is perhaps an indication of why it is there; there are two versions of the painting, and there are two versions of the man principally in the "painting" as shown in the anime. There is Professor Nemuro, and then there is Souji Mikage.           The figure prominent in Olympia is very different to the prominent figure in Venus. While the latter is a goddess, the former is a courtesan. In fact, Olympia was widely condemned by critics of the time for precisely that reason — it was not customary to paint such woman in such a manner. The way the painting was executed is also in a manner the critics called "childish" with obvious strokes and a very realistic "warts and all" impression. In fact, it has been said of the painting: "Instead of the carefully constructed perspective that leads the eye deep into the space of the painting, Manet offers a picture frame flattened into two planes. The foreground is the glowing white body of Olympia on the bed; the background is darkness. This is reminiscent of Mikage; a two-dimensional "shadow" surrounded by darkness.           Of course, the most interesting thing is the composition of the painting. Why is Mikage/Nemuro represented as a courtesan? Why does Mamiya offer him roses? Why is the cat in Manet's picture missing? All are very symbolic answers. In Manet's painting, there is a black cat; this cat is missing from the scene depicted in the anime. Think back to the earlier symbols of the cats; they represent a family. In this scene, Nemuro has realised that he can not create a "family" situation — like the cats in the window — with Tokiko and Mamiya because Tokiko is involved with Akio. And so, the black cat — an implication of Tokiko's presence — is noticeably missing.           Mamiya is shown in the scene to be presenting Nemuro with a bunch of roses, just as the servant girl does for the courtesan in the painting Olympia. They are said to be in the original painting a gift from a client of the courtesan — and this is a heavy inference that Akio had in fact interfered with Mamiya himself. After all, Mamiya once told Nemuro he didn't want to go on forever, liked the dried flowers his sister took such pleasure in making. It wasn't until Akio asked Nemuro to burn the building down that Mamiya apparently changed his mind on the subject. This sudden change of heart — mixed with the implications of the roses Mamiya offers Nemuro — seems to indicate that Akio talked Mamiya into telling Nemuro he wanted to live forever.           And Nemuro/Mikage as the courtesan? The courtesan in the painting is perhaps identifiable with Mikage, while the Venus of Titian's painting is identifiable with Nemuro. Why is this? Mikage is the "earthy" side of Nemuro, more sensual and more capable of manipulating people to his own ends. And it was "doubly disturbing" of Manet's painting that the subject had a real identity, just as Mikage himself had a "real" identity — Professor Nemuro. And of course, what is a courtesan? "A woman whose body is a commodity." Indeed, Mikage, the imaginary living body, is a commodity, a possession Akio does away with when he decides he has no further need of him. +++ back to Empty Movement