"Ich fand den Anime übelst geil, nur das ende von The End of Evangelion raff ich imma noch nich, hab das ganze mit eng sub gesehen, wer hat den am ende des films gewonnen?"
Roughly translation: "I really like that anime, but i don't get the ending of End of Evangelion [..] Who won at the end ?"
"So an sich ein wirklich toller Anime,
die EVA's sehen echt cool aus, besonders
der von Shinji!^-^
1. Für mich zu wenig Action,hätte ruhig ein Schuss
mehr sein können,mehr zu sehen von den EVA's!*-*
2. Das Ende!Bitte was ist denn das für ein sch** Ende??oO
3. Die 3 letzten Folgen müsst ihr euch nicht antun!-.-; "
Roughly translation: "[...] The EVA's looked really cool, especially Shinji's ; 1. Not enough action [...] I wanted to see more of the EVAs ; 2. The ending! What the fuck is up with this shitty ending ? ; 3. You don't have to watch the last three episode because they're terrible" (He's also implying that they don't really matter)
I posted the original comments, because I can't really translate the really awful slang and grammar, also German members should get a really good idea of these comment’s creator’s mindset.
I know it looks like I want to pick at these guys, but I really don't. Let me explain:
The first thing popping into my (and probaly your) mind was: "God, these guy really don’t get EVA "
Then I thought a little further. When you talk about interpretations of Evangelion a very common topic is the "Overinterpretation" mainly caused by Anno himself, making different statements about the hardcore fanbase and their view on EVA. Would it be correct to say, that both, the kids that posted the mentioned comments and the hardcore interpretating fans are wrong about their view on EVA?
To find a decent answer we should clarify what "understanding a piece of art" defines. The most likely definition is "to understand what the creator, the writer and the Inventor wanted to express through the product." That's a rather good explanation, but it's a (sad / pleasing) fact, that a overwhelming majority of author don't comment to the sub-text of their works. So how do you get a piece of art without a interpretation clarified as correct?
Yeah, Watching Evangelion as a "Mecha-Boom-Boom-Action-Show" is with a probability bordering on certainty the wrong interpretation, but in fact, we don't know what Anno really wanted to say, aside from the critique of otakus. We have a merely idea, about the "secret of Evangelion", but we don't know precisely what is the correct interpretation.
The thought-provoking impulse I want to cause with this thread is: "Every interpretation of Evangelion is true, yet every interpretation of Evangelion is wrong."
One of the analogous messages of EoTV was "There are many truths". Does it really matter what Anno wanted to express through Evangelion? It is known, that he was really depressed during the creation of Evangelion’s plot and there are many indicators, that his depression had a huge impact on Evangelion (1), so, assuming that this conclusion is a fact, is it correct if I see Evangelion as a possible search for the meaning of live or at least if/why it pays of to life ? (Rejecting / Accepting instrumentality) Is it incorrect If I don’t understand EVA as a search for the meaning of live?
In my opinion the meaning and spirit behind a certain piece of art is completely in the eye of the beholder. The messages and subtext I see in EVA is probably far away from the messages and subtext Anno originally thought of. The same is for about 90% of the people who put more than a common thought into EVA. Where I see aesthetic elements others see deep symbolism(3). Where I see tragic character development others see way too short action sequences. Where others see a 2 minutes long budget caused motionless picture, I see a unbelievably staged scene, regardless the cause of its usage. So what is true? Am I wrong? Are the others wrong?
In my understanding of art, a certain art piece has to work an it's own, without external explanations or interpretations considered as true, even if they come from the creators or the circumstances of the production (I personally don't accept the CI as canon because it's a really anti-climatic way of explaining questions. I prefer a not completely explained world with some unanswered questions and "mysteries"). Furthermore to me art is completely subjective. So as I see it, Evangelion is what you want it to be. It can be a psychological drama and it can be an action show with a weird anti climatic ending and a gloomy mystery attached to it. To me it doesn't matter if certain scenes are cause by the lack of budget (2) or what Anno considers as the correct explanation for several scenes. To me my subjective perception and interpretation of the show is the only thing that counts, because, as mentioned before art is completely based on personal perceptions.
What's your opinion? Is there a correct way of watching and understanding Evangelion and art as a general rule ? If so, what is the right way ? (For example: the authors intentions)
___________________________
Footnotes:
(2) Kaworu's death: In my view, the staging of that scene was incedible although it was just there because of the lack of budget :/
(3) The religious symbols don't really make sense to me and I consider them as plain aesthetic elements
--I hope there isn't any similar thread, but I couldn’t find any even after excessive usage of the search function.--