Dragon Ball Z and Naruto really, really suck

Eh, who am I to get all uppity about anime? For years I watched anything and everything, and that included a few episodes of Dragon Ball Z. Looking back, there was a lot of crap. And by a lot, I mean metric buttloads. And by metric buttloads, I mean somewhere in the neighborhood of hundreds. I'd pick up a title and watch the first few minutes, or maybe even the entire episode, and decide to toss it or give it a shot. Naruto was one of the ones that lasted about 2 minutes. In that time, it was quite clear that it was typical of a well-defined genre, replete with stereotypes and cliches. Dragon Ball Z is the same genre. Actually, Dragonball Z might've defined the genre. Another example would be Yuyu Hakusho.

In Japan, these shows and comics target a demographic of a boy somewhere around the age of 14. In my view, it's probably younger. While it may be argued that Japan's school system is heads and shoulders above the American public school system, there's no denying that these shows are for children.

As an aside, I think animation, anime, comics (sequential art), and manga have great examples that show what the mediums are capable of. There are plenty of adults, myself included, who watch/read regularly and, the field is populated with adults of great and varied talent that regularly tell great and varied stories. They are works of consequence and significance. From other things I've written, at least that much should be evident.

Back to Dragon Ball Z and Naruto, anyone can see the animation quality is very poor. Even if it weren't, the writing is poor. It's ultra-simplistic and has no bearing on reality, literally or metaphorically. With Dragon Ball Z, I know all the characters are flat and uninteresting. From what I read about Naruto, the characters are just a bunch of stereotypes.

A friend of mine argued that it promotes training and struggle. True. But does that require thousands of pages and hundreds of episodes? Not hardly. A single one-on-one battle might take 3-5 episodes, and that's just for a minor villain. Dragon Ball Z has no plot. Well, no complicated plot. It all revolves around some villain of the episode/week/arc. Some new flashy attack is learned, and then Earth is saved.

I haven't watched enough Naruto to know what their "training" entails, but I'm sure "flashy attack" training is replaced by "ninja attack" training. I recall reading about a ninja training school in Japan. A real ninja came out to demonstrate some of his skills for a school promotion. That seems like it'd be an important time not to mess up. He ended up embarassing himself and giving up. In short, I'm guessing whatever "ninja attacks" they're learning, there is no real world equivalent, and it may as well be a "flashy attack".

Another show I gave up on was Slam Dunk. It's a show about high school basketball. A single game might take about 4 episodes. One thing that separates Slam Dunk from Dragon Ball Z, though, is that I actually think I learned a good bit about basketball from watching it.

I find it absolutely appalling that a grown person could watch this dreck. It's even more amazing that they try to defend it as having any worth. Knowing it's fluff and admitting as much at least has some acceptance of reality. These shows just tend to spawn apologists. My friend is 23. Another friend is 27 (I think) who also loves the show.

A friend I had when interning loved Dragon Ball Z. He'd tape it every day and wouldn't miss an episode. I pointed out how crappy the animation was, how poorly the fights were choreographed, and how thoughtless the storylines were. The next day he came in and said he couldn't watch anymore. That seems like a rational response.

I guess what this is really about is that it's okay to like Dragon Ball Z and Naruto (and its ilk) when you're a child because you're expected to like childish things. I guess I won't go so far as to say that when you grow up you should cast it aside, but what really bugs me is people who defend it when it's quite obviously crap and they should know better. They are, with a straight face, saying that shows like Dragon Ball Z are great works of art that carry tremendous meaning. It blows my mind.

Elation

I can't remember if I said previously, but all the fundamentalists getting up in arms about evolution and "intelligent design" made me more than a little wary of all Christians... I had a rather lengthy discussion about it with a friend of mine (who happened to be very religious and pro-evolution). Clearly it wasn't all Christians... Up until shortly after that discussion, I'm not sure I really had a good grasp of Christian fundamentalism. Nevertheless, it warms my heart to see the non-fundamentalists distancing themselves from such unswerving zealotry.

Sky High

Well, I watched Sky High. It was fun, but I don't think it really added anything to the genre. Any of them, actually: teen comedy-drama, family movie, superhero. So in the end, I guess I'm still looking forward to the Invincible movie, if it ever comes out.

I just finished the fifth volume of the trade paperbacks (of Invincible). It feels like it's settled somewhat, into something a little more typical. Or maybe it's just that I've gotten over the initial euphoria of the concept and writing.

Alito

I was driving home and was able to catch some of the confirmation hearings for Alito. It was fortunate, too, because it had to do with religious freedom. One of the questions Alito was asked was, "Is freedom of religion also freedom to not believe?" and he responded with something like "Absolutely", which is very reassuring to me. He also said that he believes it's wrong to impose his own moral and religious views on others, although of course, he can't not, absolutely.

There was a case he gave a dissenting opinion for where a public school's students voted for a prayer prior to some event like graduation or a football game (i think it was graduation). His dissent was that the government may not give religious speech, but it also cannot impede religious speech. He treated the voting majority of the school (which of course voted for prayer) as individuals whose speech would be impeded if prohibited by the government. His reasoning was sound, although I disagree with it.

He also said, of the establishment clause, something along the lines of "It would be nice if decisions based on the clause did not turn on so fine a point."

All in all, I think he sounds like a good candidate and well-learned person, even if I don't agree with him.

The Mastermind of Mars

I started reading Edgar Rice Burroughs's John Carter of Mars series a while back, and now I've gotten to the sixth book in the series, "The Mastermind of Mars". Up until now, I can't say I've been terribly impressed with the substance of the books. Wonderfully creative, sure, but I regarded them as pure escapism.

This one in particular started out rather poorly, not only not starring John Carter (it'd be a Tarzan book without Tarzan, although not the first time Burroughs has done it thus far), but not even a person related to him or introduced in a previous story. But from there it goes on to what I'm writing about, which is science, religion, and extremism.

Our protagonist who comes to be named Vad Varo arrives on Mars and comes into the care of one Ras Thavas, master of the science of life and physiology. But Ras Thavas practices and studies his science in a very self-serving manner, purely for the intellect and the advancement of his science. Coldly, Ras Thavas says, "Sentiment is indeed a bar to all progress." Truly, in the pursuit of knowledge, he would sacrifice all save himself.

On the other hand, we have the Phundalians who blindly worship Tur, the scripture of the Turgan, and the high priestess Xaxa. From the book:

"He said that the Phundahlians maintained that Tur still created every living thing with his own hands. They denied vigorously that man possessed the power to reproduce his kind and taught their young that all such belief was vile; and always they hid every evidence of natural procreation, insisting to the death that even those things which they witnessed with their own eyes and experienced with their own bodies in the bringing forth of their young never transpired.

Turgan taught them that Barsoom is flat and they shut their minds to every proof to the contrary. They would not leave Phundahl far for fear of failing off the edge of the world; they would not permit the development of aeronautics because should one of their ships circumnavigate Barsoom it would be a wicked sacrilege in the eyes of Tur who made Barsoom flat.

They would not permit the use of telescopes, for Tur taught them that there was no other world than Barsoom and to look at another would be heresy; nor would they permit the teaching in their schools of any history of Barsoom that antedated the creation of Barsoom by Tur, though Barsoom has a well authenticated written history that reaches back more than one hundred thousand years; nor would they permit any geography of Barsoom except that which appears in Turgan, nor any scientific researches along biological lines. Turgan is their only text book--if it is not in Turgan it is a wicked lie.

Much of all this and a great deal more I gathered from one source or another during my brief stay in Phundahl, whose people are, I believe, the least advanced in civilization of any of the red nations upon Barsoom. Giving, as they do, all their best thought to religious matters, they have become ignorant, bigoted and narrow, going as far to one extreme as the Toonolians do to the other."

As you can see, it's quite blunt in its analogy to Christian Fundamentalism. It's probably no coincidence that "Phundalians", phonetically, bears resemblance to "fundamentalism".

As the book draws to a close, Ras Thavas is ordered under Vad Varo's suggestion to be restored to his laboratory "Only on condition that he devote his great skill to the amelioration of human suffering". Xaxa is deposed and dead, replaced by one of Vad Varo's friends, and the puppet statue of Tur is operated by Vad Varo's friends as well.

So what is Burroughs saying? Vad Varo and company appear to be people of sound judgement, so leaving the country and followers under their rule doesn't sound like a bad idea. A well-run monarchy is supposedly the best form of government. Clearly he says that science should be conducted with human interests at heart.

On religion, though, he appears to be saying that there is no harm as long as the right persons are in charge. Throughout the series, religion (of course not Christianity directly) is treated largely as superstition and flimflammery; a tool of those in power to keep people in control. It's not just in this book, but "The Chessmen of Mars", and the other books as well, to a lesser degree.

Diagonal parking

What's so hard to get? Every now and then I'll see some idiot bearing down on me, going the wrong way down a one way parking lot alley; one way because the parking lot wisely chose to use diagonal parking spaces. So why is it so hard to understand? Diagonal parking spaces are easier to pull into and out of. Front first. And then there are the people who park rear first into a diagonal parking space. Surely they've missed out on this great parking idea as well.

Maybe I should keep some flyers in my car to enlighten people of their folly.

It reminds of this woman who came up to me in a store where I was a computer salesman. "I can never use mice, they're so hard to use," she said. As it turns out, she was holding it upside down with the cord facing out the back.

Happy New Year!

Well, another year, another step closer to the grave. This particular picture I like a lot because it happens to make fun of the biggest douche in the universe. It was the work of a DrToast of the Fark forums.

Avatar: the Last Airbender

I finally discovered Avatar a coupla weeks ago. It's probably the show I was least likely to find but most likely to like. I associate Nickelodeon with very kiddy fare, and reading the description of the show (which I'll spare you as it sounds cliched and simplistic), I almost passed it over. I'll never know why I didn't.

I just watched the last episode of the first season, and I'm not only impressed with the resolution, but its sustained level of quality; both in animation, but more importantly, in storytelling. The characters are each very well realized. Not just the main three, but characters on the opposite side, and even minor characters get some loving attention.

The jokes are genuinely witty, and even the touching moments are actually touching. Character designs are fitting, animals are cute, backgrounds are well drawn, clothing design is varied and detailed, the sound really give it that extra dimension without intruding, the voice acting is probably some of the most amazing I've heard in recent memory (I have a hard time remembering anything better). The dialogue runs from "nothing I'd complain about" to "who are these guys writing this stuff and how did they get roped into writing a cartoon?".

As far as design goes, the only black mark I'd give it is the ships, as they looked kind of meh. But not all mechanical design. For instance, some doors in the series seem to operate in a very realistic and plausible fashion. Of course, a show about amazing powers in a fantasy world would tend to invoke quite a suspension of disbelief, but I'd say their physics seem fairly consistent as well.

Some of the themes seemed rather advanced for children, though. I haven't been a child for quite some time, so I don't know the state of things, but I don't know how much of the spirituality and cultural aspects of the show they understand. Also, there were at least two different episodes that addressed gender inequality and sexism.

Speaking of culture, I really like all the Asian culture in the show. Of course, I don't think there are any direct analogues, but there's no denying some similarities. If I knew more about Asian history, I might be able to make some comparisons with the Romance of the Three Kingdoms of Warring states period, which I have some inkling of a clue that this might have something to do with. That said, I'll keep my mouth shut about which nation I think matches with which.

One specific gripe, which I think might have ramifications on the series later on concerns the battle at the end between the Fire nation and the Northern Water nation. It seems to me that the Fire nation should have pressed its reach advantage. Water could've countered with some specific attacks on their distanced weapons, such as with the Avatar or at night, when their powers were at their greatest. The other part of it is that since the Water nation's powers were greatest at night, it made no sense for them not to attack at night. They just sat their awaiting the Fire nation's next daylight attack. I think the writers could've had any number of attacks and ripostes, but that might be one of their failings. Or maybe the battle as it unfolded did have some sound strategical planning that I'm just missing. The fights between and among benders and warriors all seem to be pretty well choreographed, so I'll give them the benefit of a doubt for now.

Free travel between states

A long time ago, I watched the Hunt for Red October. I remember Sean Connery talking with Alec Baldwin (or whoever they were), expressing his surprise at the ease of travel between states, "You don't have to show your papers?" And I think a lot of what it is to be American is based on that "your rights end at your fist, and mine begin at my nose" kind of attitude. I vaguely remember reading about John Gilmore before.

While I'm sure America's safer for it, and there are even other reasons for doing it (ticket theft, for one), I hope he wins. It all seems very Gestapo to me, and it irks me to no end to see my freedoms eroded.

Burning the flag

For some reason, Hillary Clinton has decided to back a bill. From the article:

In her public statements, she has compared the act of flag-burning to burning a cross, which can be considered a violation of federal civil rights law.

The Bennett-sponsored measure outlaws a protester intimidating any person by burning the flag, lighting someone else's flag, or desecrating the flag on federal property.

So I guess it isn't as straight up bad or simple as it sounded, but it's really not that far from base.

Talking with a friend of mine, he said that he would support such a thing, so I said, you're either for free speech or you're not. Just because you find something offensive doesn't mean you can all of a sudden revoke free speech.

Regarding flag burning in specific, though, it seems to me that political free speech is probably the kind of speech most in need of protecting. Flag burning does seem rather sensationalistic and non-specific, though. I wonder how much, or even if anything, can be accomplished with it.

The Death Penalty

With the nation's 1000th execution (since its reinstatement, or some such) past, I learned about Tookie, a man also sentenced to be executed. He's apparently a founder of the Crips, an original gangster. He's since convincingly become a changed man, so should he still be executed? It seems like he can do so much good if allowed to live.

I was born in Texas, but moved when I was 8, so maybe that doesn't have so much to do with anything. Either way, I'm also a big believer in an eye for an eye. I believe that if you commit a crime (assuming that it is also a wrong), you should be punished for it in a manner befitting.

So then, the matter comes to redemption. While Tookie may be contrite, on a personal level, if I were a victim, I would certainly want to see him executed. That is, he would be beyond redemption. On a societal level, allowing him to live may allow him to undo some of the harm he's done. I suppose he could go to gang infested areas and make speeches in middle schools.

I really don't like the idea of a generally bad person going on to live a successful life. I suppose I could be fine with letting him go if all the proceeds from his life (books, speaking tours, personal property, etc...) were to be property of the state, effectively living a non-profit life. His penitence for his past crimes would be bettering society. In many ways, he wouldn't be a free man, but for his past crimes, I don't think can ever be free, if only in his own mind, if he is truly contrite.

Rent = meh

I'm not a big fan of musicals. Sure there are some that I like, but by and large, they just don't do it for me. Rent, impressive in its production values, is pretty much what I expected, except longer. I kept getting taken in by its fake out endings. The first time they resang 525,600 minutes, I thought that was it, and said, "well, I guess at least it wasn't that long". But then it kept on going, and I said, "I guess everyone has to die first." Seeing Team America's spoof of it ("Everybody has AIDS. AIDS AIDS AIDS!"), I think I got the gist of the plot. I don't think I liked any of the songs, but they were sung very well.

Also, Rosario Dawson was quite hot.

Chungking

I've liked them for a few months now, but finally got one of their CDs today. I listened through it and I've got to say, it's pretty good. From an article:

“The feel of it is a kind of early 70s radio sound. It’s a kind of familiar nostalgia,” says vocalist Jessie Banks, describing the sound of her band, Brighton’s psychedelic soul three-piece Chungking. “It took a while to settle on our sound,” she explains. “It really came down to good songs. With a good song you’re prepared to sing it for a long time.”

Here's another interview. I guess they don't have much of a web presence... Anyway, give them a shot if you get the chance...

Meat-eating

F42 from fark.com said, "When we go to the petting zoo, my mom feeds and then pokes the cows like she's shopping for meat, and she tells the cow how tasty it looks... The cows seem to enjoy it."

"If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?" -Unknown

"I'm not a vegetarian because I like animals, but because I hate plants." -I forget

A well known hypothetical is, "If you could grow meat without ever killing an animal, would you eat it?"

A favorite story of mine has a girl with something akin to universal understanding; not only could she speak with humans (gasp), but also plants, animals, and the environment itself. She was a very compassionate girl and so, for a while wouldn't eat anything (after all, they were all her friends!). But, the plants were all like, "You've gotta eat! Please eat us!" (paraphrasing)

And of course, there are those who are vegetarian for health reasons or religious reasons. Can't really argue with that.

I eat meat because meat tastes good.

Starship Troopers, part the third

Fascism, from dictionary.com, "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."

In the DVD commentary, Verhoeven explains that yes, the point of the film was to point out that "War makes fascists of us all." Looking at the above definition, that's really not what happened in Starship Troopers. The book jacket said it was one of Heinlein's most controversial, presumably because of fascism, but I really don't see it. There's no dictator, there's no indication of economic controls (social sure), the opposition in question was not within the human race, and they were fighting a war against aliens, so it's hard to begrudge them belligerence.

I think Verhoeven's definition of fascism would be more along the lines of using an enemy to distract the people to assume control of the country, a la Goering. Verhoeven likened the government of the story to America. The screenwriter seemed to disagree on that point, but, if I remember correctly, also agreed about the fascism.

As far as the book versus the movie go, I like the movie better. It's flashier, it's got better pacing, it's got better dialogue, it's got characters I like better. But, you really can't get as much out of it as you can the book.

Anyway, the third and final batch of notes:

heinlein brings up evolution on a planet exposed to less radiation than earth. apparently, it was a fear of scientists that colonists of a less-irradiated planet would evolve more slowly than the apparently much more irradiated planet earth. but this doesn't take into account a few things. one: i don't think physical traits are bound to be the dominant survival factor. maybe this is different in a survivalist period such as war. and while people who are physically inept or mentally inept people are passing on their genes all the time, maybe it's my mistake in thinking that this is more widespread than it actually is. two: even if people of earth and sanctuary (the other planet) evolved at the same rate, they are bound to have different evolutionary impetuses. That is, they're bound to be different. three: given a sufficiently diverse gene pool, mutations brought on by radiation might not even be necessary. of course, i am no geneticist, so i have no idea just how diverse is diverse. the book had sanctuary at around a million residents.

heinlein writes about the "revolt of the scientists", in which those who pursue knowledge attempted a coup, which failed. when i wrote up my proposed curriculum, i left off math and science subjects. this was intentional. while math and science have done much for mankind, and mathematical and scientific thought certainly can't hurt decision processes, i think the bare and essential subjects for governing have more to do with man than nature.

said by major reid, "i have never been able to see how a thirty-year-old moron can vote more wisely than a fifteen-year-old genius..." referring of course to governments with age limitations dictating voting rights. which is an interesting point. richard was arguing for voting rights for all, but clearly, even america has no such system. as heinlein lists, we have limitations regarding "age, birth, poll tax, criminal record, or other". (actually, I recall that recently, there was a proposal to remove granting citizenship to births in the US, referring to illegal immigration.) maybe what was meant by richard is that the bar should be set very, very low. is it enough just to be born in america, of the right age, and to have committed no significant crime? is it alright to be a moron but eighteen or older, but not okay to be a genius but seventeen or younger? i know my answer. major reid says, "never mind, they paid for their folly."

here's where there is breakdown, tho. in this very dense, very direct passage (chapter 12), heinlein outlines the basis for this government. it is revealed that it is not because the citizens are smarter, or more disciplined, or a smaller body aware of the consequences of franchise, that the government is successful, but because of voluntary and difficult service that demonstrates that the citizen places the group ahead of the self. well, it can't get more plain than that. i'd like to think that a person aware of history, ethics, and law would be able to recognize what is best for the group, but of course, there is no guarantee that that person would make that decision, even recognizing it. of course, in heinlein's system, i think it'd also be possible to get through without placing the group above the self, particularly in times of peace, but i'd have to admit, it'd be far less likely. and it's this lesson that seems to place service above even delineation from lethargy and apathy.

Starship Troopers, part the second

Hey, I read slow, but here's the next batch of notes:

heinlein uses dubois as his mouthpiece when refuting the founding father's declaration of "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness". he says that neither life nor liberty are rights; they must be bought and paid for like anything else of value. on pursuit of happiness, tho, he says that any man will pursue happiness regardless. i agree

but reading this, and his dialogue, it seems to me that a lot of this is heavy handed. nothing is subtle. then on some points, such as the one where he insists on flogging juvenile criminals, i can't help but think that it is too simplistic. after all, i have a hard time believing that, for example, a mother didn't spank her child prior to that child joining a gang some years later (heinlein seems to think that a lack of spanking was due to parents believing in "pseudo-scientific" beliefs of the time). a lot has to do with environment (village to raise a child). or perhaps he's suggesting that being flogged by government authority carries some educational weight that a parent's spanking does not.

another part of his extended analogy that didn't make complete sense was spanking a puppy versus spanking a juvenile. depending on the age of the juvenile (which he said was up to 18), a person has a capacity to reason that a puppy does not.

a lot of this led up to heinlein's putting a duty-based society over a rights-based one. i seem to recall an article from a canadian calling for just such a thing. i also believe that if everyone had to do what was right, rather than did what they were allowed, then society would be a much more civl place. but i don't think i'd be one to give up such freedom, even if i never exercised it.

but a duty based society is one in which its citizens championed the group above the individual. that would certainly seem like a hallmark of fascism.

one thing that I was curious about going into the book was heinlein's take on fascism versus the movie's. at this point, with putting forth a duty-based society versus a rights-based one, I think heinlein is firmly in favor of the good of the whole above the freedom of the individual.

Starship Troopers

After rewatching Starship Troopers, I borrowed the book from a friend, and I've started reading it, taking some notes along the way. Here's the first batch:

interesting that heinlein too required a history class (history and moral philosophy), not too different from my proposed history, law, and ethics class. his class was mandatory and had no grades, not even pass fail. of course, that seems right given that citizenship isn't a right. (i too thought that the class should be taught, mandatory, but thought that there would be no passing requirement regardless of voting rights to encourage learning; but i didn't think that'd work either).

another interesting thing is a character, mr dubois i think, said "you can lead a child to knowledge, but you can't make him think", or words to that effect. which, of course, is my own take on mandatory schooling above.

having only a service for citizenship exchange didn't really make sense. as noted by myself and others, it doesn't guarantee intelligence, and that was the whole point of my gripe about the voter pool. although not spelled out, by having the h&mp class above, heinlein espressly advocated governmental education. it is the combination of a properly educated (in h&mp) person with a service-secured citizenship that made heinlein's government.

"What we obtain to cheap we esteem too lightly... it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated." Thomas Paine.

Disillusionment...

Of course, no one thinks there's really a Superman, but that there is a concept of Superman (not necessarily in the Nietzscheian sense), is a very heartening idea. So reading about the stark contrast Jerry Siegel was to his character is quite disillusioning. From the article:

Jones said Michael grew up with few memories of his father, only Bella’s anger at how Jerry left them.

Jones said, according to Michael, Jerry “never tried to see me. He never asked about me even when he had to talk to my mother. And after the first few months, he didn't pay a cent of alimony or child support."

In many ways, I think that a comic book company's ownership and continual renewal of a character is very stifling and unimaginitive. However, with a character like Superman, and a creator like Jerry Siegel, it really does seem like the right thing happened in this case.

Gerard Jones (interviewed in the article for his book) makes a comparison between Jerry Siegel's creation and his son:

“Partly to make up for my earlier mischaracterization of Mike, and also because it creates an intriguing contrast between father and son Siegels,” said Jones. “Michael Siegel grew up to be an athlete and a community volunteer, winning Tae Kwon Do competitions and coaching a youth Tae Kwon Do team for the Cleveland Heights-University Heights Board of Education.

One interesting thing is, Michael grew up to be a plumber. In Alan Moore's "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" (a story about the end of Superman), Superman also ends up as a plumber. Probably a coincidence, but interesting anyway.

At any rate, Jones's book Men Of Tomorrow sounds like it'd be an interesting read.

Service Guarantees Citizenship!

I was just watching Starship Troopers again today. I like that movie for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is its idea that citizenship isn't conferred by birth.

Talking about the Virginia's governor's race and voting, I said, "I feel it's better to make no decision than an uninformed decision". I really don't think that all people should have the right to vote. Some people are just stupid. Some are just ignorant. I thought that maybe some kind of test to evaluate a person's knowledge prior to allowing the person to vote might be good (on an at least yearly basis), but I think the test writers would then have a lot of political sway.

The idea in Starship Troopers that you have to earn citizenship is an interesting one though. I suppose the idea is that if you care enough about your country to do something for it, then it shows that you should have a say in that country's government. I haven't read the book, though, so I don't really know anymore than that.

The bottomline is, I think people, in general, are stupid. In America, it seems like we have more than our fair share of stupid people. And sometimes even a minority of stupid people can move the country towards more stupidity.

Whether it's through testing or some kind of public service requirement (or whatever), there really does seem to be a need to weed out those that would do harm to the country.

Grave of the Firelies, a little debate (SPOILERS)

So I got into a discussion about Grave of the Fireflies with some people on the Nausicaa.net mailing list. E-mails have been removed, and everything here's been republished without permission.

Spoilers in great number, so if you haven't seen the movie, you probably ought not to read this.


Noel Vera Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 3:53 PM

A little debate I got over Takahata's film in one online forum:

http://journals.aol.com/noelbotevera/MyJournal/entries/909
--------------------------------------------------------------------
gabe Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 6:17 PM
First, I just wanted to say, I don't like GotF. I despise the brother character. I don't like the way he shirked his responsibilities, but mostly I don't like how he let his sister starve to death. And I too got the "Look at me, I'm art" vibe that Dock Miles did ("Dock Miles: I'm on a different vibe with Fireflies. I agree that it's trying to be an animated version of Forbidden Games. And I think that's just a bad, pretentious, tedious idea. Some films slap you in the face every few moments: "I'm ART, goddammit, I'm ART!" For me, Fireflies just kinda whispered it over and over. Had a hard time finishing it."). Mind you I watched it only once, and that was in my high school years, almost a decade ago, so I don't recall a lot of specific details.

Regarding "to animate or not to animate", as someone has previously said, it may not be the best thing to do to starve child actors to make a movie. Given that, and looking at the state of live action film making, I don't think any real starvation would have to be done in order to achieve the same effect. In fact, it may have been even more visceral if done in live action. Then again, I'm no expert on special effects, so take that for whatever it's worth.

Regarding the "Maus" effect of the animation style, I wouldn't think that would be a consideration of Takahata. As you said, animation is Takahata's chosen profession. He wanted to tell this story, and animation was probably just a matter of fact decision. If the effect is there, I doubt it's intentional. That being said, I think there is no such effect in GotF. Looking at GotF, I think the designs, relatively speaking, are quite realistic, and the movement of the
characters is also quite realistic. For me at any rate, I never felt that kind of shift in perspective.

With animation in general, the way I see it, if you draw a human figure, I attribute to it the label of 'human', real or not. It's not so much a matter of realism or style, although extremes probably do factor in (e.g., a stick figure versus a Rembrandt). So a drawn mouse dying illicits a different reaction (from me) than a drawn human dying, even though, clearly, no mouse or human has died (in liveaction, obviously, this may not be so clear).

I think you're right regarding the best way to view it (Noel:I'd say forget that it's animation and try looking at it (if ever you get around to doing so again) as a story. Is the story told well? I think so, but maybe if you set the question of "to animate or not to animate" aside, some other reason why it seems so unlikeable or pretentious might come up.). And with regard to that, please see my first paragraph.

gabe
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael E. Kerpan Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 7:41 PM
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:17:29 -0400, gabe wrote:

>First, I just wanted to say, I don't like GotF. I despise the brother
>character. I don't like the way he shirked his responsibilities, but
>mostly I don't like how he let his sister starve to death.

Do you really think Takahata _approved_ of the choices the brother made? Do you have any idea where the story comes from (and how the author of the
underlying story viewed the events)?

> And I too got the "Look at me, I'm art" vibe that Dock Miles did

I never had the slightest sense of this. quite the contrary. I seriously doubt that imitating "Forbidden Games" remotely entered into Takahata's mind.

> Mind you I watched it only once, and that was in my high school years,
> almost a decade ago, so I don't recall a lot of specific details.

Perhaps, with a more adult perspective (and more refined artistic judgment), you would not be so dismissive of this film -- oif you saw it today.

>I think you're right regarding the best way to view it (Noel:I'd say
>forget that it's animation and try looking at it (if ever you get
>around to doing so again) as a story. Is the story told well? I think
>so, but maybe if you set the question of "to animate or not to
>animate" aside, some other reason why it seems so unlikeable or
>pretentious might come up.). And with regard to that, please see my
>first paragraph.

I really hate it when people fling around the word "pretentious" -- that is one of the few things I find to be genuinely pretentious.

I find the film sad and depressing at times -- but never unlikeable. And the story is told exceptionally well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

gabe Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 8:13 PM
On 10/25/05, Michael E. Kerpan wrote:
> Do you really think Takahata _approved_ of the choices the brother made? Do
> you have any idea where the story comes from (and how the author of the
> underlying story viewed the events)?

Yes, I know precisely why the brother did those things [1], and as I said ("I think you're right regarding the best way to view it (Noel:'I'd say forget that it's animation and try looking at it (if ever you get around to doing so again) as a story.'"), I'm judging the story.

> > And I too got the "Look at me, I'm art" vibe that Dock Miles did
>
> I never had the slightest sense of this. quite the contrary. I seriously
> doubt that imitating "Forbidden Games" remotely entered into Takahata's mind.

Actually, I've never heard of or seen "Forbidden Games". I was merely quoting that one guy. Either way, I found GotF to be trying to hard. Granted, war is hard on children and in no way a good thing, but even so, I found GotF reaching the realms of bathos, punctuated by scenes of childhood innocence.

> Perhaps, with a more adult perspective (and more refined artistic judgment),
> you would not be so dismissive of this film -- oif you saw it today.

Maybe, maybe not. I respect that you and others like it, but I feel no need to suffer through it again. I only mentioned that it's been a while since I've seen it so that I wouldn't get dragged into arguing details.

> >I think you're right regarding the best way to view it (Noel:I'd say
> >forget that it's animation and try looking at it (if ever you get
> >around to doing so again) as a story. Is the story told well? I think
> >so, but maybe if you set the question of "to animate or not to
> >animate" aside, some other reason why it seems so unlikeable or
> >pretentious might come up.). And with regard to that, please see my
> >first paragraph.
>
> I really hate it when people fling around the word "pretentious" -- that is
> one of the few things I find to be genuinely pretentious.

Sorry, I didn't quote Noel very well, but everything within that paragraph, between the first and last parentheses was said by Noel. While I did say I got the "look at me i'm art vibe", I'm not quite sure if I'd equate that with calling it pretentious. I'm not saying that it is not artful or artistic; I am not saying that it has no worth. What I am saying is that it is very active in promoting its own worth; that it seems to be pointing it out at every turn. It's like a somewhat attractive person saying he's/she's gorgeous, repeatedly. In my opinion :)

> I find the film sad and depressing at times -- but never unlikeable. And
> the story is told exceptionally well.

As a story, I found it trite and disgusting. As a semi-autobiography, I found it sad and deplorable.

gabe

[1] http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/grave/interview.html



--------------------------------------------------------------------

Patrick Drazen Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 12:24 AM
--- gabe wrote:
> As a story, I found it trite and disgusting. As a
> semi-autobiography,
> I found it sad and deplorable.
>
Trite that so many Japanese civilians ended up starving to support the troops? Sad that Akiyuki Nosaka's adopted sister did indeed starve to death on the eve of the Occupation?

The movie is a novelist's attempts to lash back at the hand that fate dealt him, and there aren't that many white Americans whose privileged experiential set even comes close to what the two kids went through. You have to be able to take the movie, any movie, on its terms rather than on your own.

By the way, from the opening blog, I was struck by the quote characterizing animation as "an ostensibly less expressive medium to approximate the performance of the human face (than live action)." I maintain, as do most of us here I'm sure, that Ghibli's great strength has been the expressiveness of the faces. In this Yoshifumi Kondo was a master, and "Mimi-wo Sumaseba" was his masterwork. Some of the broad gestures by Shizuku are brilliant (especially the arguments with her sister), but so are the subtle ones (Seiji and his grandfather both using their left eye to wink at Shizuku during the "Country Roads" concert). Speaking of expressions, in GotF the face of the boy eating the umeboshi is priceless!

I've called GotF the saddest movie ever made, one which reflects the collateral costs of war, but I could watch "Mimi" everyday for the rest of my life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

gabe Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 12:06 PM
On 10/26/05, Patrick Drazen wrote:
> --- gabe wrote:
> > As a story, I found it trite and disgusting. As a
> > semi-autobiography,
> > I found it sad and deplorable.
> >
> Trite that so many Japanese civilians ended up
> starving to support the troops? Sad that Akiyuki
> Nosaka's adopted sister did indeed starve to death on
> the eve of the Occupation?

I specifically went through the effort of pointing out that I viewed it as a story and a semi-autobiography, individually, and in so doing, gave my appraisal of each. So please don't try to imply that I find death by starvation to be trite. I don't much appreciate it, and I don't take kindly to it.

But to answer your questions, no, I didn't find it trite because people starved to death for war. I found it trite because it was another war story that showed the suffering of children, but, in my opinion, offered nothing but the obvious and melodramatic. I don't need a story like this to tell me that war is bad for children and for people in general. In war, bad things happen.

Yes, I found it sad that the sister starved to death, but mostly because the brother let it happen, all the while allowing himself to live.

> The movie is a novelist's attempts to lash back at the
> hand that fate dealt him, and there aren't that many
> white Americans whose privileged experiential set even
> comes close to what the two kids went through. You
> have to be able to take the movie, any movie, on its
> terms rather than on your own.

While that may be true, in the author's words [1], "I was trying to compensate for everything I couldn't do myself. I always thought I wanted to perform these generous acts in my head, but I couldn't do so. I always thought I wouldn't eat and would give the food to my little sister, but when I actually had the piece of food in my hand, I was hungry after all, so I'd eat it." This is not something that he wrote in his story, but is quite obvious if you think about it, supported by the author.

And I don't "have to be able to" do anything. I take the movie as I want, and I interpret it as I see fit. Every artist expresses him/herself as they want, and not every viewier will see things the same way. If you have a sister or a sibling you may view the movie differently than if you did not have one. If you've been to or through war, you certainly would see it differently than one who hasn't. In the end, I watch a movie and think about what it's given me, what I can take away. Looking at GotF, all it's given me is sadness and I didn't take away anything that I didn't already have.

gabe

[1] http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/grave/interview.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Vera Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 4:54 PM
> From: gabe
> Yes, I know precisely why the brother did those
> things [1], and as I
> said ("I think you're right regarding the best way
> to view it
> (Noel:'I'd say forget that it's animation and try
> looking at it (if
> ever you get around to doing so again) as a
> story.'"), I'm judging the
> story.

Trite and disgusting? That needs more elaborating, if it's going to be convincing.

> Actually, I've never heard of or seen "Forbidden
> Games".

Highly recommended, along with "Shoeshine." It's roughly the same area where "Grave" comes from (quiet realist drama about children in a war).

> Either way, I found GotF to be
> trying to hard.
> Granted, war is hard on children and in no way a
> good thing, but even
> so, I found GotF reaching the realms of bathos,
> punctuated by scenes
> of childhood innocence.

"Reaching" and "trying" are often found in films where the drama is pointed up by music and overacting. I don't see that in "Grave."

> Maybe, maybe not. I respect that you and others like
> it, but I feel no
> need to suffer through it again. I only mentioned
> that it's been a
> while since I've seen it so that I wouldn't get
> dragged into arguing
> details.

It helps to see it again, if you're going to dismiss it out of hand. Helps your arguments.

> It's like a
> somewhat attractive person saying he's/she's
> gorgeous, repeatedly.

I'm pretty sensitive to that sort of thing as well (Schindler's List, for one, I felt had it). But in a film with very little music and very little hysteria
on the part of the characters, it's hard to see where you can find this.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

Sing Yung JONG Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 11:28 PM
I think the problem some people have with GotF is that it is an "animated art film". Let me explain (read: long post).

I remember an old Takahata comment (can't remember which article, older list members know) which sums up GotF-- he said he wanted to show or let the audience experience a "natural death". I believe this is the "proper" way to see GotF, but it also means seeing GotF as an "animated art film", i.e. the audience must get over it being an "animated film" AND an "art film". Of course, Nothing wrong with not wanting to like/enjoy it in the first place.

Firstly, there is the convention that "animated films" should be fantastic (fun?), appeal to the (inner?) child, etc., so some people have seeing "straight" drama/character study in an animated film would immediately give it low grades for being "pointless" or "unrealistic" (read: not using live-action).

Then there is the "art film" aspect, by which I mean a film that is NOT plot-driven. I mean, some "stories" are really mood-driven, character- driven, theme-driven, etc., rather than story-driven. So some people not seeing any direct/clear Aristotleian "action" (A fights B to get C) in a film would give it low grades for being "pointless" or "unrealistic" (read: lack of cause-&-effect).

My reading of Dock Miles in his discussion with Noel Vera, is that he couldn't get over GotF being an animation trying to do a "live-action" (realistic?) story and my understanding of Gabe is that he didn't think GotF had a good (new?) "story" to begin with. Nothing wrong with prefering realism or a good story-- but it would be a mistake to think that those were the things GotF was trying to get through.

GotF basically takes the audience through a journey of being abandoned to die, so all it wanted to show was the premise and not a good "story". That's why the narrative/background was so minimalistic. For the same reason, the animation in GotF was done to create a certain mood/atmosphere (of death & abandonment) and not to "recreate" live-action. I think a live- action film would only "look" like GotF if it used lots of colour filters.

That's why I think it's a great idea for the Japanese TV series based on the book to use the aunt as a viewpoint character. I mean, live-action TV always seem to have difficulty portraying young children directly (which is why Totoro is so brilliant). Really looking forward to Nanako's performance (as the aunt) cause she has been quite good at playing characters I would love to hate. 8^)

Sing Yung
--------------------------------------------------------------------

gabe Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 10:08 AM
On 10/26/05, Noel Vera wrote:
> Trite and disgusting? That needs more elaborating, if
> it's going to be convincing.

Well, beyond what I've already written (repeatedly) regarding that children and war is something that's obvious and that I found the brother's actions/inactions disgusting, I'm not sure what else I can/should tell you. I'm not trying to convince you that it's a bad film. I'm trying (if anything) to convince you that /I/ think it's a bad film. As I've also said previously, I respect that you and others like the film. Is it really that hard to just accept that some people aren't going to like it?

I hate it when people don't like what I like, but then can't tell me why. I've at least answered your questions to the point where I'd be satisfied if our situations were reversed.

> "Reaching" and "trying" are often found in films where
> the drama is pointed up by music and overacting. I
> don't see that in "Grave."

I really don't remember the music (a hallmark of a good soundtrack some might say), and I would never count myself a good judge of Japanese acting (voice or otherwise), so I doubt that played into my decision. When I said that I felt it was trying too hard, I was referring to it's plot and situations (from a story point of view, not from a biographical point of view). See my statement regarding bathos.

> It helps to see it again, if you're going to dismiss
> it out of hand. Helps your arguments.

Not that I want anyone to, but I don't think anyone has actually refuted my main point of the brother's actions being disgusting. That is why I don't want to see the movie again (along with other points already brought up). I don't want to see him letting his sister starve to death again. That, to me, is not a good story. Why would I want to see THAT again?

And I think it's a little harsh to say that I've dismissed it out of hand. Clearly I've seen the whole movie. I understand that war is hard on children and on those children in particular. I've made comments not only regarding the story, characters, and author, but the points you brought up originally in your argument with Dock. Further, it is not clear on what point any of my arguments would be helped by viewing the movie again. While discussing any subject it certainly helps to be well-versed on the subject matter, I don't see how any of my discussion to this point has been inadequate.

gabe



--------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe Monson Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 10:51 AM
On 10/27/05, gabe wrote:
>
> Well, beyond what I've already written (repeatedly) regarding that
> children and war is something that's obvious and that I found the
> brother's actions/inactions disgusting,

Going by what the brother says at the end of the film (IIRC, since it's been a while since I watched it), I think that's the way you are supposed to feel. He wasn't happy that he'd been selfish and let his sister die, either.

I think that the film accomplished at least one of its purposes with you, regardless of whether you liked it or not.


Joe

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Geir Friestad Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 11:10 AM
Quoting gabe :
|
| I found the brother's actions/inactions disgusting, [...]

But that's exactly the point. The author of the original story did feel guilty about his actions/inactions, which led to his sister's death. GRAVE OF THE FIREFLIES is essentially a confession, and that's how it should be viewed. It's not really trying to make a greater point than that, although one can certainly be extrapolated from it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Vera Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 1:41 PM
> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:24:12 -0700
> From: Patrick Drazen
> By the way, from the opening blog, I was struck by
> the
> quote characterizing animation as "an ostensibly
> less
> expressive medium to approximate the performance of
> the human face (than live action)."

The complete statement I wrote goes on to say that in the hands of a real artist (Takahata, Miyazaki, Jan Svankmajer), 'inexpressive' material can be made to
express genuine human emotions, much as actors do. In effect, they transcend the limitation of their material through art.

I do agree with everything else you said.

>Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 12:06:23 -0400
>From: gabe
> Yes, I found it sad that the sister starved to
> death, but mostly
> because the brother let it happen, all the while
> allowing himself to
> live.

That's where the story achieves the status of tragedy, or as much tragedy as can be achieved nowadays. If they simply starved without any alternative, it would merely be a very sad case history. With the element of choice, it's tragedy.



--------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Schoppet Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 2:04 PM
We in the West, are so far removed from the pain of daily hunger.

I can understand the actions of the brother in GOTF. It's so easy for an adult to miss the signs of starvation in a child, that they see everyday. The changes are slow as malnutrition takes a life. Remember, we are dealing with a sixteen old year boy, who dies in the same way as his sister.

However, I do believe he should have taken his Aunt's lead and found work.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

gabe Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 8:10 PM

For both you and Joe...

On 10/27/05, Geir Friestad wrote:
> Quoting gabe :
> |
> | I found the brother's actions/inactions disgusting, [...]
>
> But that's exactly the point. The author of the original story did
> feel guilty about his actions/inactions, which led to his sister's
> death. GRAVE OF THE FIREFLIES is essentially a confession, and that's
> how it should be viewed. It's not really trying to make a greater
> point than that, although one can certainly be extrapolated from it.

I'm not sure you can say definitively that that was the point. From that link I keep trotting out, clearly, what happened and what was portrayed is not the same thing. To say it is a confession is somewhat incorrect. The author said that in the story, the brother became a better person at the end (or words to that effect). Whereas, clearly, by the end of the actuality, we are left with a brother that ate his sister's food, leaving her to die. Guilty sure, but well aware. So there becomes a question of guilt, and degree of guilt (degree of responsibility, culpability), and it becomes necessary to separate the
brother character from the brother person.

That either brother felt guilty about the death of his sister is without question. But without admitting the brother character logically had to have eaten his sister's food, viewing the movie might seem that the brother character placed a relatively larger part of the blame on the situation rather than his own decision.

Logic break: I am no biologist/nutritionist/medical doctor, but it seems to me that a person that is larger, as the brother was, would require more nutrients than a person who is smaller, as the sister was. This is purely from a survivalist standpoint, not a developmental standpoint.

I have two uncles, one much older than the younger, the older also being much shorter. Of course, there is a chance that it was simply just the way the genetics played out, but there is another factor. The older uncle grew up in postwar China, and was therefore, sometimes deprived of the optimal amount of food for proper development. When the younger uncle was born, the older was really more of a third parent. The older told the parents, "make sure he gets plenty of food", or words to the effect. And there he is, much taller than even I am, an admittedly, privileged American.

But all my previous generation relatives had experiences with poverty, as they're all Chinese, and they all grew up right after the war.

/break over

Reading the author's words, there was a very clear admittance of guilt and wrongdoing on his part. Watching his story, I don't think he went so far as to fully disclose the depths of his depravity.

Either way, I hope you now feel that I have fully appreciated his point, and I still don't like the movie :)

gabe



--------------------------------------------------------------------

gabe Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 8:13 PM
On 10/27/05, Charles Schoppet wrote:
> I can understand the actions of the brother in GOTF. It's so easy
> for an adult to miss the signs of starvation in a child, that they see
> everyday. The changes are slow as malnutrition takes a life. Remember,
> we are dealing with a sixteen old year boy, who dies in the same way
> as his sister.

Perhaps he missed it, but the doctor, as I recall, made a fairly clear diagnosis. To which the brother fairly energetically declared his outrage and demanded he be shown where he could find food.

> However, I do believe he should have taken his Aunt's lead and found work.

Agreed.

gabe
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Jee Hoon Lee Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 10:55 PM
On Oct 27, 2005, at 5:10 PM, gabe wrote:

>
> Reading the author's words, there was a very clear admittance of guilt
> and wrongdoing on his part. Watching his story, I don't think he went
> so far as to fully disclose the depths of his depravity.
>
> Either way, I hope you now feel that I have fully appreciated his
> point, and I still don't like the movie :)
>
> gabe


A lot of discussion but it seems to boil down to primarily: your dislike of the brother character colors your impression of the whole thing. I can understand that, there are many movies I hated mostly because none of the people in it were likable or approachable in any way. It's a legitimate beef.

My take of Grave is that as a tragedy. That's the whole point, people behave like fools leading to misery. I mean, where have we seen that before? Shakespeare perhaps? Lot of his classics have pretty rough protagonists. I mean look at Richard III or Othello, etc. Lot of flawed people there.

But those stories are classics. I think Grave of the Fireflies is a classic as well (not that it's in any way derived from Shakespeare-- I'm just saying, tragedies with oafish main leads don't necessarily mean one can't get some value out of the story).

Jee Hoon Lee
--------------------------------------------------------------------

gabe Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 11:14 PM
On 10/27/05, Jee Hoon Lee wrote:
> My take of Grave is that as a tragedy. That's the whole point, people
> behave like fools leading to misery. I mean, where have we seen that
> before? Shakespeare perhaps? Lot of his classics have pretty rough
> protagonists. I mean look at Richard III or Othello, etc. Lot of
> flawed people there.

When Noel said it, I thought to myself, "Gee, really? Children dying of starvation is tragic?" And proceeded not to write anything because it wasn't very nice, and besides, it wasn't very intelligent. But rereading it in what you wrote, it does cast GotF in a different light.

I mostly avoid dramas, but when it comes to tragedies, I'll move to a different state. Had I looked at it in that way (or had it been sold to me in that manner), I probably would've never even watched it.

Anyway, I guess that's all I have to say about that...

gabe