Our adoration of Evangelion - More emotional than academic?

[chee]

I'm going to bed now.

[Blue Monday]

I'm not really sure what point the quote was trying to make. What in the hell is wrong with having an emotional connection to something? That's what keeps people coming back to Eva and even ends up getting people on sites like this. We became emotionally connected to the characters so we like to talk about them... Over and over and over and over and...

I'm sure there are multitudes of stories that wish they could evoke the same level of emotion from their audience as Eva does.

Besides, like people have already mentioned, it's not like the show is completely devoid of 'intellectual' or 'academic' content. Whatever that means. Though it's kind of just the setting for the story, which is ultimately about the characters, living (Human Condition, Hedgehogs Dilemma, etcetera) and Instrumentality.

[Azathoth]

I'm not really sure what point the quote was trying to make. What in the hell is wrong with having an emotional connection to something?

God forbid we have feelings; that's what the mundanes do. I, much like Mr. Spock, use only empirical data to determine which cartoons I may bless with the descriptor "good".

E: fuck, this thread really does suck, i'm already reposting a joke someone else made not even a page ago

[MugwumpHasNoLiver]

"Emotion" refers to so many things that are intrinsic to our state of being that severing it from "intellect" is a horribly flawed conceit. Is this poster one of those people who claims to be all about intellect, logic, and reason but is really just a loose cannon of cognitive biases, logical fallacies, and (!!) emotional turbulence?

Since we're all more or less mutually alienated by subjective experiences, we can't truly fathom, let alone adequately explain our subjective responses to art, so we form crude rationalizations when someone else puts us on the spot. In most situations, unless you're actively looking for flaws and constantly monitoring your every reaction, you're not going to find some kind of logical reason for your distaste of something. It's a visceral, emotional reaction that strikes chords with past experiences and developed moral or aesthetic principals, but it takes a certain amount of so-called logical thinking to reduce one's entire soul to a series of biological and cognitive reactions. Nobody actually thinks of themselves as malfunctioning organic machines unable to properly compute their sensory intake without the clutter of their gummed-up psychic neuroses. Most people think of themselves as human beings with unique interests and tastes and feelings who make decisions and think for themselves.

I don't think the question is whether or not the man fancies himself an intellectual as much it is that he fancies himself a fully-formed human being and doesn't have this deconstructionist mindset that reduces him to a biological accident. Saying that he finds Eva more emotionally stimulating that intellectually, while a good spark for a debate, doesn't really cut the heart of his problem with it if we're going to kick things off with that kind of mindset.

"Emotion" refers to so many things that are intrinsic to our state of being that severing it from "intellect" is a horribly flawed conceit.

Except one man's coldness is another man's understatement.

Both these statements are absolutely correct. There's no objective means to weigh the merit of a piece of art, so we form false dichotomies to try and make some sense of our incomprehensible feelings.

I myself have come to recognize four different ways of engaging with a piece of art: emotionally, intellectually, aesthetically and viscerally. (Does it make me feel? Does it make me think? Does it awe me with its beauty? Does it excite me?) There could be more than these four I've outlined or they could be crude breaks in a much larger, singular way to process reaction. I don't know. This is simply the personal rationalization I've arrived at. Some people lack the capacity to see art in several of these four ways or else dismiss one or more as somehow being inferior. (Our good friend, the dearly departed Twin Drive seemed to be incapable of engaging with art on a non-visceral level, while, in contrast, Chee is capable of engaging with all four, but values intellect the highest.)

Now that I've laboriously explained all this goddamn fluff, I would say that--under the rigid illusions that I don't know how to think outside of--Eva is a primarily emotional work, though a lot of secondary aspects make it an intellectual treat as well. The show goes to great lengths to get you to empathize with the characters, while the biblical/occult references and jigsaw nature of the plot are left in the background. Its primary means of engaging the audience is through angst and character drama and it does a lovely job of that, though if you want to look deeper, there's plenty to find. On the flip side, there's nothing wrong with admitting that some people might prefer something with less overt pathos. A lot of people straight up don't like people, and would rather have certain aspects of the human experience down-played in their art. I can't think of a way to completely expunge emotion from art, but it's very easy to downplay.

I don't know if you guys are privvy to this, but preferring a more cerebral experience doesn't instantly make somebody an anal-retentive, ostentatious snob.

Why not? Misato kept promising them until episode 15, when they finally realised that they weren't delivering enough fanservices after all.

The subject of whether or not Misato's teases enter Anno in a binding contract with the audience, obliging him to provide fanservice is enough of a legal grey area allowing for healthy deba--I'm sorry, I can't finish this sentence.

[Chuckman]

Seriously? Anno "owed" us fanservice? I don't think I would consider seeing cartoon breasts a right.

Is a man not entitled to the boobs of his clone?

Evangelion is a totally emotional work. The backstory and the fanwanking it inspires are a very cleverly hidden path to a desire emotional response, partly by design and partly by accident. A combination of rough writing -Eva resembles a first draft, with confusing backstory added late in the game, plotlines that weave in and out of the story without conclusion or regard to pacing, a major character not appearing or developing until a quarter of the story is over- but more importantly it is a visceral expression of depression. Not a simulation, or a meditation, or a story about depression, it is depression. It is the unending, inescapable feeling of pointlessness and defeat that depression entails.

The reason the backstory has inspired fifteen years of speculation is because it's purposely incoherent. It mirror's Shinji's experience as a character- like him, you can't win, the whole thing is set out against you. None of the background or subtle motivations of the characters leads to a single cohesive interpretation of the series because it's like a Rubik's cube that has the stickers deliberately rearranged so it's not solvable anymore.

The point isn't how any of it works, it's how you feel after the beach scene fades out. Are you angry it ended this way? Convinced the kids are doomed? Imagining how they might survive? Wondering how they'll treat each other? Trying to figure out if it's a profoundly sad ending, a hopeful one, or something in between? Do you feel relieved? Satisfied? Insulted?

It's not a work that ever lends itself to any sort of analysis of the creators' intent. It's a bold if ultimately flawed attempt to force the viewer to construct their own meaning.

[riffraff11235]

Is a man not entitled to the boobs of his clone?

No, says the man in Nerv headquarters. They belong to me so that I can grope them in an attempt to reunite with my dead wife.

It's not a work that ever lends itself to any sort of analysis of the creators' intent. It's a bold if ultimately flawed attempt to force the viewer to construct their own meaning.

Maybe that's another facet to the meaning behind the title "Rebuild". Fans have spent so much time "building" their own interpretation of the series. But NME will see them tearing down these ideas and "rebuilding" them.

[Reichu]

Maybe that's another facet to the meaning behind the title "Rebuild". (snip)

Not sure how meaningful it can be, since "Rebuild of Evangelion" was a working title abandoned for "Wevangeliwon New Movie Edition".

[Hyper Shinchan]

Not sure how meaningful it can be, since "Rebuild of Evangelion" was a working title abandoned for "Wevangeliwon New Movie Edition".

I love the correct rendition of the new title, we should really stop calling it Rebuild and just move to Wevangeliwon like the Japanese did.

I'm sorry, I can't finish this sentence.

Here we go again, my expectations were raised just to be deluded... just kidding, I was being half-facetious myself of course.

It's not a work that ever lends itself to any sort of analysis of the creators' intent. It's a bold if ultimately flawed attempt to force the viewer to construct their own meaning.

Seriously flawed since in the end people tried to dissect Anno's intent anyway, even though Evangelion itself explicitly says to search for your own answers in the midst of the countless possible truths.

[riffraff11235]

Not sure how meaningful it can be, since "Rebuild of Evangelion" was a working title abandoned for "Wevangeliwon New Movie Edition".

I wasn't aware that "Rebuild" was a working title. I thought "Rebuild" and "NME" were used interchangeably. Glad I'm finally on the right page!

[Hyper Shinchan]

I wasn't aware that "Rebuild" was a working title. I thought "Rebuild" and "NME" were used interchangeably. Glad I'm finally on the right page!

Yeah, it was a working title and it's the title of the "make of" videos, apparently there was even a brief attempt to change the subforum's title:
http://forum.evageeks.org/thread/9118/Subforum-Title-Change/0/?
http://forum.evageeks.org/thread/9132/Subforum-Title-Change-again/?

[DevRei17]

Err, I had something I had to say but this thread sort of derailed my point.

[Reichu]

Err, I had something I had to say but this thread sort of derailed my point.

All the more reason to say it.

[Alaska Slim]

Except one man's coldness is another man's understatement. Where some people see Anno's style as emotionally powerful, I honestly found that, to me at least, a few moments bordered on being outright maudlin in contrast to the rest of the show

I wouldn't say you're wrong to complain about it, but the show was made as something of a bait & switch. The tone shifted, and along with it; the musical accompaniment. You didn't hear any of the happy-go-lucky tunes after episode 16 or so.

Oh, I never heard anything about this OVA, thanks for the suggestion Alaska Slim, it sounds really interesting.

Eh, ok. The Cockpit is three stories in one, the one I mentioned is the middle tale; Sonic Boom Squadron.

While I really like the central character arc, it's not perfect;

SPOILER: Show

two complaints; one is that the director decided the side-characters would all be designed as surreal caricatures, while the lead and the otherwise "serious" characters were played straight. It's kind of jarring, almost Disney-esce in its execution, and considering this is a War story....

Second; the ending came off to me as unintentionally hilarious, I honestly thought the American Admiral was going to shout; "OMG, I'm tripping balls!"

It's not a work that ever lends itself to any sort of analysis of the creators' intent.

I was with you right until this point. While somewhat tightfisted about letting things out, we actually can to a degree find what the intent was. Whether through poignant moments in the dialogue, careful study of Shinji's arc, or just comments by the staff and creators that have slipped out over the years, analysis does bring knowledge of intent.

[gatotsu911]

Except that's almost Mari-grade dialogue.

And therein lies the problem with comparing Rebuild to the original series in terms of nuance and message. Rebuild is what Eva pretends to be.

Anyway, my general approach to Eva is that it is quite brilliant, but at its heart we're still talking about a cartoon (and perhaps more importantly, a deliberate throwback to other cartoons) where kids pilot giant robots to fight monsters. I do not expect the formal elegance and understatedness of an Oshii film, which is clearly aimed at adults. For what it is, and wants to be, Eva's directorial work is more or less perfect. How does it compare with Anno's "serious" live-action films?

Also, for all their formal virtues, I doubt anything Oshii or Ikuhara has made can hold a candle to Evangelion's later episodes and movie as a raw, uncompromising and unprecedentedly explicit window into the mind of a disturbed artist. Maybe not everyone identifies with it to the same degree, but poo-pooing Evangelion's appeal for being "emotional" in nature is especially ridiculous, because the rawness of its emotional appeal is the single strongest thing about it and the reason it has such freakishly devoted fans in the first place. What the hell else do you want from a piece of fundamentally expressionistic art (dressed up as a silly show for teenagers)?

Btw, in case I haven't communicated my point coherently: the original Eva is a work of expressionistic art dressed up as a silly show for teenagers; Rebuild is just a silly show for teenagers. Eva has some moments where it fully embraces its assumed identity as a silly show for teenagers, and Rebuild has some moments that harken back to its days as a work of expressionistic art, but the boundary between them is (to my mind) clear.

Though, honestly, for real: shame on you for making me pick between Anno and Oshii is just cruel. I rabu them both so much.

Also, re: all this postmodern subjectivist stuff, every time I consider the possibility that there is simply no measurable grade of quality in art, I think of Family Guy. Fucking Family Guy. I cannot live in a world where Family Guy is not demonstrably inferior to a million other comedies that actually have some semblance of wit and creativity. I refuse to. More importantly, I just cannot buy that there is not any sort of even vaguely measurable quality that separates Family Guy from, say, the golden seasons of The Simpsons or South Park. Intellectually, I just can't believe it. Really, it's as simple as that.

[Alaska Slim]

I cannot live in a world where Family Guy is not demonstrably inferior to a million other comedies that actually have some semblance of wit and creativity.

I feel the same way about Gundam S--D Destiny, how is a work that clearly just rehashed the plot of its immediate predecessor not by definition mediocre?

Family Guy, tuned that out when the fantasies began to get way too long not to notice they were padding for time.

[Bagheera]

chee: You have to imagine Asuka saying it with Noriko's (Gunbuster) hyper-melodramatic inflection. (Way to ruin the joke. XP )

What goes around . . .

OT: I find the distinction baffling. If my attachment to NGE was purely cerebral I'd feel about it the way I do about GitS:SAC -- I'd appreciate it but wouldn't feel compelled to talk about it much because I don't feel anything for any of the characters. If it were purely emotional . . . hmmm. I don't think I've ever had strong feelings for something that didn't engage me mentally, so I can't really comment there. But NGE works because it does both -- it's ridiculously easy to empathize with the characters and it's also fun to puzzle out what's going on and analyze the fuck out of said empathetic characters. Without the one-two punch there'd be nothing to it.

This thread has reminded me that I have to watch the Patlabor DVDs I got at Otakon, though.

[Kendrix]

What really makes EVa different/good is that it appeals to lots of different things, it has boobies, love stories, funny scenes, a social commentary and philosophy...

Actual humans aren't 100% serious all the time, either, they have many aspects to their lives and so they'll like something that appeals to the audience. There's emotional stuff and there's higher art stuff and both have its merits and work best when effectively combined.

If anything, Evangelion has more intellectual sort of appreciation than your average anime because there's more material for it... you can only get so much philosophy and artistic value out of, let's say "Bleach". The German fandom, to my experience, is very hung-up on the philosophy, to the point that one particularly large fansite has tons of essays on it.... and even on this very forum, there's a lot of debate on the artistic techniques in philosophy.

Yeah, it occurs often that ppl get very attached to a character in a way that blinds them in terms of interpretation, but I see it just as often that ppl were too caught up in "hidden meanings"/"the puzzle" and the philosophic themes that they overlook what's is really actually happening on the "surface" of that scene in terms of some teenagers interacting any many ppl here have a cvery "conceptual" interpretation of the show where the characters are seen as ugly things meant to represent one single concept.

Frankly, I don't see such tendencies at all. ppl get attached to the characters because they're simply very realistic and detailed, but that doesn't mean that there's no intellectual appreciation going on.

For the most part, you come as a teenager to bawl over ppl with the same problems as you, and once you've fixed your life and become an adult, you stay in the fandom for the art factor/philosophy, and it's the combination of these effects that resulted in this forum here still being very lively decades after the show came out.


It's not like both appeals are contradictory - we may be tempted to feel a distinction because of the way our brains are composed of three distinct-ish computers, (reptilian/instinctive brain, mammalian/emotional brain, anf these pesky human-specific higher functions) but ultimately, many of our feelings have a reason and a calculation of a situation that doesn't take the emotional states of the ppl involved into account is a bad calculation.

Also, you can use one for the other - you can, for example, construct a love scene in an artistically beautiful, intricately planned way to give it more emotional streght, or you can use raw emotion to get an intellectual plot across/embody a concept, like Eva does.

maybe that's just me being weird, but personally, I have always been the type to be deeply moved on by complex, brain-heavy things, because these come with those many little implications and possebilities, there's there are things like "mathematical beauty", "joyful fascination" and "deep sadness" that are somewhere in-between and simultaneiusly some of the highest, best things a human can experience.... or at least what I personally liked the best amongst all the reactions my brain is able to produce.
I bawled my eyes out at the end of things like "Serial Experiments Lainand "Angel's Egg", and had many strong reactions to the Ghost in the Shell frachise, even if I wouldn't and on the other hand, I'm not so pedantic that I would dismiss normal pop music or your basic shonen manga as "stupid and flat", (actually, I like Bleach, so don't kill me for the above comment, dear Bleach fans!) but the subjective enjoyment I get from things like that also stimulates the other parts of my old raisin up there, like EVA, is on a whole other level....

[MugwumpHasNoLiver]

Also, re: all this postmodern subjectivist stuff, every time I consider the possibility that there is simply no measurable grade of quality in art, I think of Family Guy. Fucking Family Guy. I cannot live in a world where Family Guy is not demonstrably inferior to a million other comedies that actually have some semblance of wit and creativity.

I'd argue that a debate on the quality between Family Guy and classic episodes of The Simpsons and South Park is a far cruder and more simplistic one than between something like Evangelion and the works of Oshii, both of which have a lot more going on under the surface. The primary purpose of a comedy is to provoke laughter, and while humor is in some ways a science, it's difficult to really analyze why a joke works and why another doesn't. You can ask this same question in more difficult terms by asking why one person will laugh at something and another wont.

But does that really matter?

Yeah, there's less grey area with simpler works, and it is true you can look at technical aspects of The Simpsons and South Park and find them infinitely superior to Family Guy, such as the characters, stories, and the noticeably more refined purpose and all the other crap, but you need to look at the cumulative whole to find out why something like Family Guy appeals to some people.

While I alternate between loathing that piece of shit and having a morbid fascination with just how terrible it is, I am regretfully aware of the sheer volume of people who adore it despite its atrocious writing, non-characters and incredibly lazy attempts at humor. None of those things that make other shows infinitely better matter in this new context. In some ways, it's similar to a piece of dadaist anti-art: a deliberate attack on the senses, taste and anything baring an even vague resemblance to human emotion or common sense. It's the same reason why YouTube Poop got so popular. The show is so loaded with absurdity, vitriol and condemnation, all strewn everywhere without focus. It's appealing in some way, to not be required to think or judge, and just let the filth wash over you and suck you into this seedy unreality where nothing makes sense. I myself get that same feeling from stuff that doesn't suck, but for some people it just works and there's not a damn thing I can say that will make it stop.

The issue is that different pieces of art have different purposes, so what may work in one might not work in another and what may be awful in one can be marvellous in another. Does that really matter, though? What may sicken, disgust or bore one person may be delightful or cathartic for another person. What may be clever, profound or hysterical for one person might be dull, long-winded or stupefying for another. You can explain very logically why Family Guy is a terrible piece of trash completely beyond redemption. Hell, I've done it myself. People can agree with you on some level, but it's not going to change their subjective emotional reaction.

In short, I don't see how it's possible to create any kind of objective parameter for judging a work, as whatever you come up with will be drawn from subjective experience that will collapse when applied to a work that either doesn't conform to your pre-concieved notions or is otherwise abhorrent to your personal taste. The best we can hope for is to try and share our subjective experiences with each other to try and arrive at something approach a consensus, which if we're honest with ourselves is really all we've ever done.

[Xard]

there's no men in plastic masks associated with them

loooooooooooool

I don't mean to hate on Anno, but I'll be frank - all three directors have their pet themes and imagery, but I find that someone like Ikuhara, or Oshii has a greater variety of interesting things to say about them. Also, I often get a sense of cognitive dissonance in Anno- "Here, lets make a statement on otaku attitudes towards gender and fantasy, NOW HAVE A SWEET, TOTALLY UNIRONIC LOOK AT THIS LUSCIOUS STRIPED Asuka ASS."

This has more to do with loaded interpretations and assumptions on part of (esp. western) audience about Eva, perhaps best summarized in this upon further thought silly text, rather than inherent schitzophreny on Anno's part. Which does exist to a degree and is reason why Eva is more interesting than Oshii's GitS 2 in this respect* but nowhere near the levels generally assumed around these parts.

Anno's "anti-otakuism" and such are highly exaggarated in discourses that give rise to such issues. Anno throws in ass shots because he likes them and sees nothing wrong with them - and quite probably never has seen anything infathomably wrong in them in the way we tend to assume based on common but filmsy interpretations of eg. EoE.


Well, not like I haven't been guilty of these misconceptions in the past too.


*it's probably the most commonly missed element of Innocence but the whole sex robot droid violence orgy in the end with Kusanagi jumping in this "shell" to act through it contains all sorts metafictional levels and commentary about anime, voice acting and - ohmygod - criticism of otaku. Not that anyone ever gives a shit about this and I can't fault anything for it because the way Oshii communicated the theme was limpid at best and Innocence is pretty shitty in all but visual department anyway.

*************


anyway, if you guys want to go quote mining ANN for eva burbing just go and copy paste GATSU's whole post history here and have fun.

[gatotsu911]

*it's probably the most commonly missed element of Innocence but the whole sex robot droid violence orgy in the end with Kusanagi jumping in this "shell" to act through it contains all sorts metafictional levels and commentary about anime, voice acting and - ohmygod - criticism of otaku. Not thatanyone ever gives a shit about this and I can't fault anything for it because the way Oshii communicated the theme was limpid at best and Innocence is pretty shitty in all but visual department anyway.

I have never heard anything even remotely to this effect and it's certainly not something I picked up on in any of my previous viewings of the film. Do elaborate.