I always interpreted that as being because her soul sword was being abused, but that's an interesting take on it too.

About the view that Akio never really wanted to reclaim his identity as Dios – it makes sense in a lot of important ways, and it’s something I’ll definitely give a considerable amount of thought to next time I watch the series. Though, the conversation here has kind of convinced me that I’m better off just focusing on appreciating the themes for what they are, and forgetting about trying to analyze the plot, because I guess down that path really is madness.

Aelianie wrote:

Once again, you are presuming that internal symbolic consistency is a virtue, and lack of it is a flaw.

That’s my prerogative; I never said you had to agree. You can tell me that being inconsistent, contradictory, and basically incoherent is a narrative virtue all you want, and maybe that’s okay in some types of storytelling (Beckett, perhaps), but it’s just not what I like. Maybe that’s just me. Again, I think the way Anno structures his symbolism is more effective than the way Ikuni does. I prefer Anno’s style. You can disagree with that, and that’s fine, but I don’t have to change my mind to match your opinion. Am I not entitled to my own? Is it not right to prefer one director’s style to another’s?

And, again, the artist’s intentions don’t matter. If Ikuni said to himself ‘you know what, I think I’m going to write a story that doesn’t make sense’ that’s fine, he can do that. But, basically, I pretty much completely disagree with his philosophy towards storytelling; that quote you posted is almost completely antithetical to my own views. And I’m completely within my bounds for having my own views and disagreeing with Ikuni’s literary approach, though I still appreciate the themes he works with.

Poe loved and admired Hawthorne as a truly great writer, but he was really adamantly opposed to his stories’ reliance on allegory, which was a narrative style he detested. Is Poe wrong for having his own opinions on what narrative should be? The only author I think it is a carnal sin to disagree with on anything is Flaubert, because, well, I’m gay for Flaubert.

About calling it laziness, well, I was basically deriving that from the interview you referenced in your first post where Ikuni was more or less saying, in my mind, that ‘I put the effort into making the symbolism work sometimes, and other times . . . not so much’ – I just read that as a kind of nonchalant admittance of laziness. Maybe I read it wrong, so I take it back.

So, something you probably could point out then is that I’m probably not being quite as objective as I claim to be. But when I speak about objectivity, I’m just implying that I’m filtering my analysis through a set of established criteria. And yeah, it’s my choice to adopt that particular critical style, but I’ve never asked you to agree with me; I’m just explaining how I see it. If you think the narrative is perfectly fine the way it is, that’s your call. It just seems to me, and I could be totally wrong about this so I apologize beforehand if I’m reading you the wrong way, but it just seems like you are reluctant to admit that SKU could potentially be flawed.

About the gender thing, it was actually something I thought about after I had written the post, but I didn’t think anyone would really be bothered by something like that, so I didn’t bother to change it.

Lastly, I already admitted in my previous post that I was going easy on or basically ignoring a lot of the obvious problems with the critique, and so you’re right, it is a ‘real life’ example, but you’re pointing that out after I already did. I understand perfectly well that what you wrote is more or less Sokal-esque fancy gibberish that ultimately has no real world application. So it’s not like I was trying to completely justify that particular analysis, because that would obviously be absurd – I figured that went without saying. I was just using it as a sounding board to justify that style of analysis, and how it’s based on looking at the social context rather than treating the painting as if it were produced in a vacuum. It is a legitimate style that goes hand in hand with Death of the Author, and again, I’m not asking you to agree with it, I’m just explaining why I personally find it interesting.

This may seem like it's dragging on off-topic, but I think it's a debate that's grown out of the thread, and was even kind of implied in my original post where I was asking if the series is consistent or not. I think contemplating whether Ikuni is really a good writer and whether or not SKU is a genuine literary accomplishment is an interesting discussion, so if anyone else wants to harp in on that angle of the topic, that'd be cool. You know where I stand, and I'm not going to shoot down anyone's opinions; if you think Ikuni is the best anime director ever and SKU is a complete literary masterpiece - cool. Let's hear why, or why not.

Cool, I mean, I’m not intending this to necessarily be too complex. I’ve been iterating my views throughout most of my posts, but I’m not asking you to do one of my types of analyses, but rather just whatever you’re comfortable with.

To put it simply (and these are just examples), do you think SKU can be put in the same class as Shakespeare? J.K. Rowling? Somewhere in between?

Do you think Freud (or a less snobby psychoanalyst) would watch this and laugh, or find it interesting?

Do you think Ikuni is as accomplished a writer/director as Hayao Miyazaki, or Satoshi Kon? As Stanley Kubrick or Akira Kurasawa? And I don’t mean in terms of awards or recognition, but just creativity/talent, etc.

Any kind of comparison or analysis you want to make is cool, be it simple or complex.

If one of the mods shows up here and thinks I should just start a new thread, I’ll be happy to do that, but I think this fits into this discussion pretty well.

Edit:

I want to add another example I just thought of that kind of plays into what I was saying in my last post.

On some level, I can definitely see SKU as being sort of surrealist, and so in that regard I guess you could perhaps say that Ikuni is maybe taking a similar approach to David Lynch’s work. And that’s a valid approach (not my favorite obviously, but one I can appreciate). The thing is, the plot in SKU, aside from the fact that it isn’t cohesive, is essentially pretty linear and straightforward. So it doesn’t really strike me as being inspired by the Theatre of the Absurd, or Dadaism, or any other movement like that. It basically just strikes me, in terms of the plot, as a high school love and betrayal type story with duels and magical girl elements thrown in as genre conventions. I just add that because I figure maybe that’s why I expect so much that the plot should make sense.

I think you could certainly say that Ikuni is taking the genre and intentionally applying a different methodology to it, but then the question is whether or not he was successful in doing so. I think there’s a chance he was, but it’s something I just thought of, and I’ll have to put some more thought into it. Maybe you guys already have some ideas about that.

Last edited by Triplerock (04-04-2009 02:01:34 PM)

Satyreyes . . . I like you man! Great post; really insightful. I would like to think that I am capable of pulling the stick at least a little of the way out of my ass, and I guess my problem is that I am, in fact, trying to put SKU on too high a pedestal for its own good. That’s kind of what I guess I’ve been confused about all along; it’s important to appreciate a work of art on the level it’s meant to be appreciated, and I was just confused about where SKU stands. I guess in my own way, I’m kind of the guiltiest of not being able to accept that it might be flawed. I think you, again, hit it pretty much right on the mark. It really is too bad you didn’t show up in this thread earlier, lol.

Keep em coming though, I’d like to know what the rest of you think.

I guess my problem is that I am, in fact, trying to put SKU on too high a pedestal for its own good. That’s kind of what I guess I’ve been confused about all along; it’s important to appreciate a work of art on the level it’s meant to be appreciated, and I was just confused about where SKU stands. I guess in my own way, I’m kind of the guiltiest of not being able to accept that it might be flawed. I think you, again, hit it pretty much right on the mark. It really is too bad you didn’t show up in this thread earlier, lol.

That's odd, since this is what I've been saying all along...maybe it couldn't get through without being couched in terms of classical literature? 

Well, at least we got there in the end.

Last edited by Aelanie (04-04-2009 10:37:18 PM)

Triplerock wrote:

All I can say is that he’s a more effective communicator than either you or me.

Don't be so sure!  Aelanie's post about Camps 1 and 2 helped clarify for me some of the feelings I've had about just how far it's possible to go in analyzing Ikuni and at what point you just have to say "he did it because it's awesome."  For me, that's still the best post in this thread.  Which is not to say I don't appreciate the flattery! 

For what it's worth, I came to Utena from Camp 2.  That's not to say I was giving the analysis of Utena the rigor you were, Triplerock -- I'm not equipped to do that, as someone who reads some of the classics but doesn't read much about the classics -- but I wanted absolutely everything to hang together.  It took me a while to talk myself down and accept, even appreciate, that there are some things in this show that are not necessary, that are not part of Ikuni's grand scheme to encapsulate the tragedy and promise of human relationships in thirty-nine half hours of video, or that contribute to that scheme without making any sense.  It says something about this show that people all across the spectrum from Camp 1 to Camp 2 love Utena.  I for one wouldn't keep coming back to Utena if not for that strange and beautiful mix of the right amount of depth with the right amount of playfulness and absurdity.

Last edited by satyreyes (04-05-2009 12:18:22 AM)

Don't be so sure!  Aelanie's post about Camps 1 and 2 helped clarify for me some of the feelings I've had about just how far it's possible to go in analyzing Ikuni and at what point you just have to say "he did it because it's awesome."  For me, that's still the best post in this thread.

I believe my feelings are best expressed thus:   

I’m just not too keen about being looked at as a grown man who watches cartoons.

Ah, that male pride...

I have a few gifts for you.

Perhaps you know of Jules Michelet's La Sorcière? I'm sure you must. During the 70s, an animated film, Kanashimi no Belladonna was created based on it. It tells the story of a woman raped on her wedding night and her resultant descent into witchcraft, which culminates in her being burned at the stake. This film is renowned for its beautiful, erotic, and violent psychedelic imagery, and Ikuhara names it as one of his influences.

Portions of the movie can be seen here. WARNING: NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART.

Perhaps you know of Franz Kafka's A Country Doctor? I'm sure you must. In 2007, a short animated adaptation was created...an extremely unique one, as I'm sure you'll agree. It can be seen in its entirety:

Part 1 of 3
Part 2 of 3
Part 3 of 3

After that, perhaps you could also watch Feeling from Mountain and Water, which is basically a traditional Chinese painting come to life.

Animation is just another artistic medium. The conceit that it is, and must be, a medium for younger audiences only is a Western fabrication.

Last edited by Aelanie (04-05-2009 04:13:18 AM)

.... does anyone have more thoughts on Akio and his goals?  I started reading this thread because that question fascinates me and no one's discussed that for some time. I like the literary analysis, but I really wanted to hear more about what other people think about Akio's intentions.

For instance there's been some discussion that he won't leave because enjoys being the "Prince" of his own realm in Ohtori too much. Is it that he won't leave that fantasy behind or is it that he can't? How much of his own illusion has he bought into at this point? Any ideas?

I suppose the answer lies in your personal perception of the meaning conveyed in the symbolism. Sure, Akio revealed that the castle in the sky was nothing more than illusion, but afterwards, he did try and open the gate, which later turned into Anthy's coffin when Utena picked herself up and tried to open it. More symbolism, in my mind. My personal perception of the entire situation was that Akio was trying to literally pry open the metaphorical gate that was keeping him from the part of himself that he'd lost. When Utena approached the gate, she was trying to pry open the lid to the coffin that held Anthy. Both were seeking their hearts' true desires. Maybe the entire situation is meant to be one big heaping pile of symbolism. What that said to me was "Akio's trying to get to the one thing that he wants above all, but since he can't open the gate, that must mean that it's lost forever and that part of his soul (Dios) is forever lost to him and the rest of the world. But Utena started trying to open the gate and it turned into Anthy's coffin, so that must mean that Anthy, while almost lost to Utena (shown by the difficulties in opening the coffin) must still be attainable." There's one thing that I learned throughout watching the show, and that's to ignore the plot until you grasp a general idea of what you think the symbolism is trying to tell you.

To sum it up, here's my conclusion:

The gate is a symbol used to represent Akio's inability to reacquire the part of himself that he lost (Dios).

And now I have a question of my own...

What was up with the fruity beverage that Akio ahd during that scene? Just sayin.....

Very well put.....Very well put indeed.

I suppose I shouldn't have stepped out of this thread for so long. Now I get to try to catch up...

Triplerock wrote:

Alan wrote:

That is, just because Dios actually was a prince as he remembers it doesn't mean that what he's trying to become is any more real - if you buy my claim that he was doomed as a prince, he's trying to return to a state that was real but can't be real ever again (at least not sustainably), much like adults who wish to return to the innocence of childhood.

The thing is, I honestly wish I could agree with that, because it would make things a lot simpler, but it’s hard. See, most of the coming of age stories I’m familiar with generally depict a self-centered child that clings to a false identity based on some sort of romantic fantasy, whether mythologically or socially informed. Then, as this character develops, he/she graduates into an adult who is more self-aware, socially aware, and responsible. Tenjou Utena is a perfect example of this. The thing that confuses me, though, is that Akio supposedly develops in reverse; from self-aware, self-sacrificing, responsible *child* (is there such a thing?), into a man who is selfish, manipulative, and unrealistically power hungry. That just doesn’t really make much sense from a literary or real life perspective. How does one progress from maturity to immaturity? That’s just very counterintuitive to me. How exactly does Anthy ‘saving’ him turn him into such a bastard? How does Dios – God – become Lucifer? It just doesn’t normally work that way. This is actually a huge part of the reason why I'm so reluctant to interpret Akio's past as literally true; because I just can't make sense of this. Maybe there’s a simple explanation to this that I’m just to thick-witted to pick up on, I don’t know.

The reason it doesn't make sense from a literary standpoint is Akio is not the protagonist (though as far as he's concerned he is, of course), so his own story doesn't follow that of a typical protagonist. Maybe he even remembers a time in his life before he was a prince and how he improved himself to the point of becoming one, but that doesn't really matter; as far as the series is concerned, he was a prince and now he's not, because trying to be a prince is ultimately an impossible dream - you can't really save others. Really, Akio exists to illustrate the impossibility of that dream. In a knight-slays-the-dragon story, he's the dragon even if, like Fafner, he wasn't always a dragon.

Triplerock wrote:

Alan wrote:

but am I supposed to accept that she wasn't motivated to get back at Saionji?

She does get back at Saionji. After the first duel between Saionji and Tenjou, watch Anthy and Saionji’s faces as they speak to each other. Anthy’s demeanor in this scene is very disdainful and dismissive, as she calls him ‘sempai’ rather than ‘sama’. You can see the evil satisfaction seething in her shit eating grin, and you can see the absolute despair that overcomes Saionji – she’s just brought his whole existence into question. The power to revolutionize the world was supposed to be his. She does the same thing to Tenjou at one point, as well as to Akio in some places. There’s one episode preview where she tells Tenjou that she has really despised her the whole time. Anthy is really quite hateful, up until Tenjou finally shows her true friendship.

I'd taken the whole notion of Anthy getting back at duelists in the context of her having power, and frankly her revenge against Saionji doesn't demonstrate any sort of real power to me; she's only able to strike back at him once she's been taken by another master. So she thumbs her nose at her previous master - so what? I agree that she's passive-aggressive and deeply unhappy with the world and her apparent place in it, but she doesn't have the power to get back at anybody except insofar as they've already fallen - IIRC she's only able to hurt Utena when Utena's already suffering from some sort of doubt, and frankly Akio is a mess from the word go.

Triplerock wrote:

Alan wrote:

Also, I'm afraid I don't know what you mean about her misinterpretation of the prince role causing her to confuse her gender identity.

The series deals quite a bit with gender misidentification, which is an interesting literary theme. I’m not really saying much here aside from the fact that I think Tenjou misidentifies herself as a prince, rather than a princess.

Utena identifies herself as a prince because the princess role isn't about being female (which is sex-based, not gender-based), but about being feminine, and thus passive, submissive, in need of rescue, etc. Utena refuses to embody those traits, so she clearly doesn't fit the princess role. She makes the mistake of inverting the role and ending up with the stereotypically masculine: active (but not pro-active, or she'd see the Fisher King bit she's supposed to do with Anthy), assertive, and suited to rescuing others. That role is an illusion, but no more so than the princess role, so I don't see Utena as suffering gender misidentification - I think any gender identity issues she has are pretty subtle, and come down to the fact that even in trying to be a prince she's still looking for "her" prince, and even then I think you might be seeing more of a role-model/idol adoration type of desire (i.e. Utena:Dios::Simon:Kamina).

Urgh, I hope I'm not just repeating stuff that's been posted since I last looked at this thread.

When God created man, he demanded the angels bow before him, God's most loved child. Lucifer, who had been God's favored 'son', thought this was cockshit, and said fuck off.

In most versions of the creation story, Lucifer's rebellion is based on pride, not a desire for power, but just to preserve the power in things he'd had prior to the creation of man. If you know your Tolkien, you could put it as wondering why the immortal beautiful perfect elves are expected to give up Middle-Earth after a couple ages to those brutish weird humans that die as soon as they're born. What the fuck, Illuvatar?

To bring it back to Akio isn't too hard. Lucifer's sin was pride, pride that he, with all his powers, all his importance in the existance of things, should have to serve man. But the fact of the matter is Lucifer's power, like Akio's, is useless without man. And that's true of both their states, before they fall and after. They're both prideful of their powers, and bitter to admit that power has no value without this grossly inferior creature that doesn't even really understand the power they have.

So, wait, I'm confused. Does Akio himself see the value of the room? Based on what Gios said about the "grossly inferior creature", for a minute there, I thought that was referring to Akio himself, which would indicate some kind of self-loathing going on.