Understanding, overinterpretation and subjective perceptions

[Gorbatschow]

I recently stumbled upon some recessions on Evangelion on a German anime website with a mostly childish fan base:

SPOILER: Show

"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:

SPOILER: Show

(1) For example: In the original show suicide is a way huger topic, than in the rebuilds
(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.--

[Reichu]

Didn't we just have this thread?

(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")

The explanations provided by NGE2 (the game in general, not just the CI) only partially address the sci-fi elements, and, since this information generates plenty of new questions on its own, I don't see how the charge of eliminating all unanswered questions and mysteries can be seriously leveled. Not to mention, NGE2 provides no answers where it really matters: Eva's metaphysical meaning.

[Mr. Tines]

We've probably covered similar ground before, but not from the same direction.

The phrase I've used for a long time in connection with interpretation is that what the viewer sees in the mirror of Eva is themselves -- which immediately leads to "Every interpretation of Evangelion is true (for the interpreter), yet every interpretation of Evangelion is wrong (for everyone else)."

[Chuckman]

This issue comes up a lot. The most recent thread dedicated to it (I think) is this: http://forum.evageeks.org/thread/15073/Death-of-the-Author-and-Anno/0/?

That thread followed this one: http://forum.evageeks.org/thread/14236/You-Like-Evangelion-Anno-hates-youDeath-of-the-Author/

The majority opinion here appears to be concern with "canonicity", etc. with a few notable members taking a dedicated, extreme position that treats the television series and the ancillary materials (video games, the manga, other official 'in universe' material) and paratext (interviews with Anno and Sadamoto, etc) as though they were historical and scientific documents. Conversely there are a few dedicated postmodernists who refuse to acknowledge Anno's interpretation of the series as final or acknowledge the existence of material outside the show when examining its meaning.

This leads to a great deal of friction on certain topics about the facts of the plot and technobabble as much of it is only "explained" in the ancillary material. The Death of the Author faction tends to be dismissive of treating the plot and happenstance of the series with scientific rigor while the other side general dismisses any interpretation of the symbolism and metaphor in the show that is not directly supported or is contradicted by the paratext.

There have also been many discussions on the primacy of the artist's intent in general with most arguing that Evangelion belongs to Anno and is about his depression, anxiety, interests, etc. as it is a deeply personal work; the viewer's differing understanding is (depending on who you ask) merely a curiosity, irrelevant, or "wrong".

Personally I think your reaction to Evangelion says more about you than Anno and trying to justify an interpretation by arguing Anno agrees with it is pointless and trying to psychoanalyze him by proxy via a cartoon is borderline insulting.

There is a less common belief among some here that the true meaning of Evangelion can be summarized as

[code:1]

"Fuck you."

-Love,
Hideaki Anno[/code:1]

But always remember: It's just a show. You really should relax.

[Rei IV]

We've probably covered similar ground before, but not from the same direction.

The phrase I've used for a long time in connection with interpretation is that what the viewer sees in the mirror of Eva is themselves -- which immediately leads to "Every interpretation of Evangelion is true (for the interpreter), yet every interpretation of Evangelion is wrong (for everyone else)."

Wasn't there a comic strip you posted a while back of a talking flower that pretty much succinctly summarized what Eva was about?

[Reichu]

Rei IV: [url]http://www.angryflower.com/evange.html[/url]

[Rei IV]

Thanks. Now I can save it to my PC.

[Gorbatschow]

Rei IV: [url]http://www.angryflower.com/evange.html[/url]

I don't know why, but this is hilarious

It's just a show. You really should relax.

Why is it "just" a show ? Where's the difference between classical literature, for example Goethe's Faust and a rather new production like Evangelion ?

Didn't we just have this thread?

The question I wanted to ask is how far can personnel perception go when it comes to consuming a piece of art. I guess I messed it up with the last question. Am I allowed to change it to "Is there a correct way of watching and understanding Evangelion" ?

I basically wanted to ask if there is something like "understanding" Evangelion (and if there's something like that how "understanding" is defined (for example the authors intentions as the truth, the circumstances of the production as an disenchanting explanation for scene some people would consider as artistic or for design decisions and the development of the plot or even utterances of every guy involved in the production)), or if there are just complete different ways of seeing it. The recessions I posted should show, that there's a complete different way of seeing Evangelion ("Who won ?" shows pretty clearly, that this guy watched Evangelion as an typical mecha anime) But yeah, "Death of the Author" constitutes a rather big part of the answer.

[Reichu]

Why is it "just" a show ?

(Just FYI, you were quoting Chuckman here, not me. It's good to specify the correct people to avoid confusion.)

It's a reference to the opening theme of Mystery Science Theater 3000.

If you're wondering how he eats and breathes
And other science facts
Just repeat to yourself, it's just a show
I should really just relax

...which means that the "MST3K mantra" is properly applied just to setting details that the creators either didn't think through fully or didn't care about. In other words, Chuckman was using it wrong.

Am I allowed to change it to "Is there a correct way of watching and understanding Evangelion" ?

As the thread creator, you can edit the title, but it does have to be short enough to fit the field.

[Falcon_of_the_Sun]

Gorbatschov, I'm not the most experienced philosopher, philologist or whatever about Evangelion, but to me keeping in mind what I believe (again, nothing certain here) are the three main layers of the narrative is usefull

1 - The evolutionary/sci-fi layer: humans vs aliens battling it out under the "survival of the fittest" rule

2 - The mystical layer: the path to godhood (pretty much a a mandatory aspect in productions coming from the country where Shintoism is practiced and kaizen was invented)

3 - The psychological layer: charactes comign of age or gaining a better understanding of human relationships and such (the most important layer, in the end)

The religious elements are just window dressing in my opinion, but I believe they work very well in giving you the "wow these Angels really are connected to the Big Guy upstairs, aren't they?" feeling. (note: I was raised a Catholic so obviously you have to factor that in in what I am saying). I say this in the sense that I really think Anno was not trying to tell us something about religion.

In the same way, he's not trying to tell us something about made up Angels, Seeds of Life, Impacts and AT Field (no sh!t, it's all made up, but so is religion one might argue!) so in a way the sci-fi stuff is also some kind of fancy frame, a backdrop. But heck, you need it, otherwise NGE would have just been the anime version of The Sorrows of Young Werther I guess. Plus, again, the world needs action figures of mechas. At least, I do.

[Chuckman]

In other words, Chuckman was using it wrong.

It is just a show, and everyone should just relax. Aren't we here to have fun?

There actually is a lot of stuff in Eva that was just made up as they went along and doesn't have any depth, and there's other stuff that was very obviously added late in the game and it fit closely enough with what had already been presented that after seventeen years of debate and fanwanking. You have put a lot more thought into the function of the Evas than Anno ever did.

Gorbatschow, I wasn't quoting the mantra to say something about Eva's quality. I was referring to the tendency of some people in the fandom to get really mad if someone contradicts [s]the hadith[/s] an Anno interview or the interpretation of the show's events that's been fanwanked together by the community.

[Gorbatschow]

(Just FYI, you were quoting Chuckman here, not me. It's good to specify the correct people to avoid confusion.)

Sorry, fixed.

There actually is a lot of stuff in Eva that was just made up as they went along and doesn't have any depth, and there's other stuff that was very obviously added late in the game and it fit closely enough with what had already been presented that after seventeen years of debate and fanwanking. You have put a lot more thought into the function of the Evas than Anno ever did.

First of all: I'm having fun at thinking deeply about sub-texts, interpretations or other aspects of art ;)


I'm not quite sure what you want to say (because of my horrible (D-)Englis(c)h skills )

Let’s put it that way: If I'd had to decide for one side, I would consider myself as "Pro-Death of the author" (Every Interpretation and view on Evangelion is correct, there's no "not getting it"), even though Fanwanking is the last thing I would do. (To use a rather bad example: "kimochi warui", everyone searches in depth psychological answers, but no one considers, that Asuka was disgusted because Shinji cried and snorted in her face (I know "kimochi warui" is a lot more than that and a nearly perfect climax for Asoka’s character development, but the first thing people think of is "what is the deep message anno wanted to tell us?"))

My question even basically includes "Are fanwankers correct" and "Does it even matter if a deeper meaning in certain topics was implied by the author, if I see one?"

Gorbatschow, I wasn't quoting the mantra to say something about Eva's quality. I was referring to the tendency of some people in the fandom to get really mad if someone contradicts the hadith an Anno interview or the interpretation of the show's events that's been fanwanked together by the community.

Oops, I guess I got a wrong idea of what you wanted to say. I'm just very often annoyed by people saying "It's just a movie", "It's just a videogame" or "It's just a poem" when I try to discuss about sub-text. The ironic thing is, that the same people would never say anything against an in depth interpretation of "Faust", "The young Werthners sorrow" or "Andorra". To me art is art, but that’s a different topic

@Falcon_of_the_Sun

That's a way of watching Eva I would consider as "decent" or "correct". (I actually don't like these terms, but it's pretty much the way I see it) My question is: Who is correct ? You, the guy who watches EVA as an action show or the fanwanker and why?

Some example I just thought of to clarify my issue:

SPOILER: Show

*The death scene of Kaworu was caused by the lack of budget. Am I wrong when I see it as an artistic way of showing the sorrow Shinji goes through? If Yes - Why? If No - Why ?

*Am I incorrect if I watched EVA as a plain mecha-action show and consider EoTV / EoE as anti-climactic? If Yes - Why? If No - Why?

*Am I incorrect If I see EVA as the question and (possible) answer of what it worth’s living for, even If anno would deny that thesis? If Yes - Why ? If No - Why ?

I hope I'm not repeating my self too much or annoy anyone, with kind regards ^^

[Falcon_of_the_Sun]

*The death scene of Kaworu was caused by the lack of budget. Am I wrong when I see it as an artistic way of showing the sorrow Shinji goes through? If Yes - Why? If No - Why ?
You mean the whole minute and maybe more that passes before Shinji pushes the lever? Because what you are saying sounds almost like "if they had had more money, Kaworu would have lived on" which I believe is incorrect. All in all, it's undeniable that Gainax made virtue out of necessity towards the end of the series, but I like the results anyway. I think seeing the TV 25 & 26 helps you focus more on the third layer during EoE, which otherwise might be a bit too distracting with all that nakedness of Rei.

*Am I incorrect if I watched EVA as a plain mecha-action show and consider EoTV / EoE as anti-climactic? If Yes - Why? If No - Why?
Surely if you consider the last two original episodes, no need to tell you why I hope.
Probably if you consider EoE: you get a bit more action (Asuka vs MPEs), but the actual climax, the crux of everything is still pretty metaphysical and about the 3rd layer. If you are strictly into mecha action, I reckon everything after Ep 19 is probably a let down.
But yes, I would dare to say those are incorrect, or rather "miopic" approaches to Eva, because of course you would miss out on much.

*Am I incorrect If I see EVA as the question and (possible) answer of what it worth’s living for, even If anno would deny that thesis? If Yes - Why ? If No - Why ?
Yes because it gets spelled out pretty clearly in EoE. Don't listen to a word Anno says. :)

[Chuckman]

"kimochi warui"

Asuka is physically ill after her experiences. That's what she means. (Others will tell you she's expressing disgust at Shiji himself) The last line is "kimochi warui" because the film is saying "What, you thought they were going to kiss or something? Baka."

What is folly is to judge kimochi warui but why she didn't say. What the line was originally, or what was intended. It is what it is.

[Gorbatschow]

You mean the whole minute and maybe more that passes before Shinji pushes the lever?

Yeah, I was talking about the motionless picture; in retrospect I phrased it very mistakable.
_____
So, the question that consequentially follows after your answers is: What's the basis of your judgment? Your personal view? Anno's statements?

Asuka is physically ill after her experiences. That's what she means. (Others will tell you she's expressing disgust at Shiji himself) The last line is "kimochi warui" because the film is saying "What, you thought they were going to kiss or something? Baka."

What is folly is to judge kimochi warui but why she didn't say. What the line was originally, or what was intended. It is what it is.

Perfect example: The scene stands and falls with interpretations (and translation). There are millions of interpretations of this line and everyone has his own one. Some try to explain it "in-universe", some try to explain it with the fourth wall breaking critiques.

Who's true ? The guy who accidentally has the same explanation as anno ?

SPOILER: Show

I'd say, that a work of art (If there's a less polemic word PLEASE TELL ME ^^) must work on it's own without any amendments, furthermore: Evangelion is what I see it as (I hope you understand what I'm trying to say because, god this sentence sound grammatically wrong as hell) If I see it as a action show, It's an action show, If I can see a philosophical message about life in it, it's a philosophical show. (In a completely subjective way of course) If I consider a scene as a artistic masterstroke, that was actually caused by very simple circumstances, It's a masterstroke. If I read a message out of scenes that shouldn't have a message, there's a message, for me at least.

To summarize my opinion: interpretation (not only in a conscious way (we interpret everything subconsciously; even watching an animation is interpretation) is not about spotting the original thought or cause behind something, it's more about getting a subjective view of something that's completely and utterly based on subjective impressions (emotions for example)

[gatotsu911]

As the thread creator, you can edit the title, but it does have to be short enough to fit the field.

I was expecting this sentence to be a situationally appropriate metaphor and it took me a minute to realize that it wasn't. Shame on you.


On-topic...ish: Evangelion is so fucking postmodern that I don't really get how you could see it any other way. Anno has all but deliberately invoked death of the author, in and out of the show. (It's pretty hard to make any kind of appeal to authorial intent on certain elliptical aspects of the series when Anno changes positions on what these things "mean" practically every time he's asked, which is rarely. This is not because they are meaningless, but simply because Anno doesn't want to be taken as the final authority on the subject.)

But that's okay, because Evangelion is the good type of postmodernism (using the po-mo bag of tricks to attain a level of earnest self-expression impossible through the conventional art object) as opposed to the bad type (a celebration of artificiality).

[Falcon_of_the_Sun]

Gorbatschow, we are comparing apples and oranges.

One thing is having different views of something that, although extremely important and meaningful, is just a scene (i.e. the "one more final I need you"): I'll admit it's debatable.

One thing is claiming NGE is not mostly about relationships/growth/love/self-acceptance.

So the basis of what I say is 90% pure, simple objective observation, post-judice:

1 - There is a strong focus on "relationships"/3rd layer already from episode one with the whole Shinji/Gendo dynamics. That alone would be enough for your average TV series, but on top of that you have Misato/Shinji, Misato/Ritsuko, Asuka/Shinji etc.

2 - As the series progresses, whole chunks of episodes are about characters communicating with their own psyche/personality/ego/es whatever you want to call that (ep 14 and 23 for Rei, ep 16 and 20 for Shinji, ep 22 for Asuka etc)

3 - The first final clearly ditches the Angels vs Evas in favour of introspection

4 - The "corrected" final still features loads of introspection and a final resolution for Shinji's personal stuff

I think it's beyond debate. Compare Eva with a series such as Spriggan that is somehow similar in its backdrop of sci-fi mixed with ancient mysteries and archaelogy with a mystical slant and a main character who's a schoolboy but has a second life as "hero". There's no doubt Spriggan is so much more about the action & fights than Eva is (if you don't know it, get hold of the movie, it is a good one).
Anyone I know who is a bona-fide fan of action, mechas, battles etc AND has no interest whatsoever in introspection and personal drama is not a big fan of Eva or even hates it and puts everything after episode 12 under the label "mindfuck". Just ask yourself why.
:)

[pwhodges]

*The [form of the] death scene of Kaworu was caused by the lack of budget. Am I wrong when I see it as an artistic way of showing the sorrow Shinji goes through?

I don't know if that scene was done in the way it was primarily or even partly because of the lack of budget; but I cannot think of a way in which it could have been improved by doing anything that more money might have enabled.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

I always felt that the "correct" to watch something was in a way where your conclusion doesn't contradict, not even in part, the material presented in the work. I usually find that those to beg the question or idea of DoTA are doing so because they are ignoring or forgetting some of the continuity within the work itself.

[Chuckman]

Death of the author isn't about just making shit up. It generally doesn't apply to continuity or treatment of the work as mere simulation, either.