BeoX2 wrote:Actually, I agree with her. For the first two thirds of the series, it really is a monster of the week.
Yeah, and I like her point that it's DAMN GOOD MOTW purely on that level. Now, I get Shinseiki's point that there's all kinds of other stuff happening, but I don't think that defeats this point. NGE basically uses the MOTW as part of its setup, but it wouldn't be very effective setup if it wasn't so convincing and if it didn't work so well on that level to begin with.
BeoX2 wrote:Evangelion is very controversial, and saying her review is invalid just because she couldn't connect with it or be impacted by it is very unfair.
True. The only reason we all care about all of NGE's deep elements to begin with is because it connected to us on some emotional level first. If you take away NGE's ability to make a connection/impact on a viewer who goes into ignorant of it, then all of its depths and complexities probably wouldn't matter since nobody would deem it worthy of the kind of analysis required to uncover that stuff in the first place.
BeoX2 wrote:I would suggest looking at her review from the point of view of a normal person, an outsider looking in if you will. Then you will see how Eva is on the surface, and realize that this surface is like the Earth's crust. The outside is hospitable and full of life, but it is also plagued with problems and diseases. The deeper you go, however, the more pressure builds up, and only certain things can survive down there. It takes a certain person to truly grasp all of Eva's meaning, and it's unfair to judge JO on her not being that type of person. In fact, it's a more unbiased review than we could ever even hope to accomplish.
Wow... that's a SUPERB metaphor/analogy. Well done sir! I think you make an excellent point about how Jo is basically expressing the POV of an outsider, and it's not an irrelevant or trivial POV. We have to realize that art criticism--and, indeed, life in general--is made up of a variety of perspectives and that we need most are people with an ability to express each perspective as eloquently and intelligently as possible. We need this perhaps just as much (if not more so) than we need to come to some kind of conclusion as to what perspective is "right", which usually only comes with time and increased knowledge. The fact is that NGE simply DOESN'T connect with some people, but what has always been missing is a voice from that community that could eloquently express why it doesn't connect, and that's what Jo has provided.
BeoX2 wrote:Reviews cannot be objective like we all want them to be. Rei IS emotionless, Shinji DOES whine a lot. It may be justified in both cases, but it makes them very hard to like. This is a negative aspect, and is a very valid one.
Well, it is theoretically possible to be objective, but the problem is that the more objective you become, the more you just start writing about banal facts than anything related to how the work effected you. FWIW, I think Rei is only "superficially" emotionless; as Zuggy once proved, she actually shows a pretty wide range of emotions through her facial expressions, but they're easy to go unnoticed. And I'm not sure if either of those count as an objectively negative aspect. The fact that Shinji whines and Rei is emotionless is more or less descriptive rather than qualitative. You can't downright make the claim that every character that whines is bad and every character that isn't overly emotional is bad too...
shinseiki wrote:Evangelion IS a monster of the week anime ON THE SURFACE, but if you look past the black and white, you'll find that Eva used typical anime tropes as a vehicle to tap into something much greater than anime's familiar conventions, something greater than anime itself.
Not that I disagree with this, but I think its important to consider that all of these levels--NGE as MOTW, NGE as piece of subversive metafiction, NGE as existentialism, NGE as high drama/suspense, etc.--essentially work together toward a common goal. So while it's fair to say some of these elements are superficial, even the superficial element exists for an important reason.
shinseiki wrote:What I take issue with in the negative Eva reviews I've seen is that they make up unfair OBJECTIVE negative criticisms because of their SUBJECTIVE experience with it (like me hypothetically saying that the well-prepared sushi is no good); it's rather dishonest.
Is it any more honest that we transform our positive subjective experiment into positive subjective criticism? The fact is that I don't think you can completely separate the subjective experience of art from the objective analysis of that art. The reason why artistic standards (or any standards, really) exist at all is because people experience art, react positively to some, and try to create some kind of standard based on that positivity. So it's like saying "Birth of a Nation works wonders dramatically/technically, it does so because of its editing, so let's create a standard by which to measure dramatic editing in film." That's how the process happens. People don't create standards from BAD art, unless they're standards of what NOT to do.
Even if we assume that such objective standards exist that are free from the subjective experience, that doesn't mean that they are definite and absolute. One of the fascinating things about art is that opposing methods can be equally valid, and which is better will merely depend on what the artist is going for. And even if they go for the typically technically "right" choice, that doesn't necessarily mean it will be good. I mean, there's the typical "three act structure" in screenwriting, but that doesn't mean that every script which utilizes it is good and everyone that diverts from it is bad.
