The piece by Susan Napier sheds light on the anime phenomenon-- namely Akira and Ranma 1/2. She goes into detail about the theme of transformation, or "metamorphosis" as she refers to it. Both anime tell the story of adolescents going through great ordeals in their lives, and in both cases those ordeals being incorporated into physical transformations.
What struck me about the article was my ability to identify with the subject matter which the animes (I'm not sure what the plural for anime is). It may seem like an obvious connection to make, but I would have been able to realize that the situations which it treats are relatable. The subject that I am referring to is growing up, of being a young adult and all that comes with it.
Most importantly the theme of the role of gender and sex in society is talked about a great deal by Napier and it is one that seems to be a universal theme. Though the role of the male and female sex have been portrayed frequently throughout history the portrayal through anime is very different. The animated aspect of it is something which is new to viewers. I believe that it has to do with the inability to grasp it, which is due to our being used to viewing and processing information entirely on the aesthetics of it's presentation. Anime is a completely different medium of receiving information.
Though anime is very popular among a lot of people, most do not ever find themselves watching it. People rather watch Will & Grace or Friends. And the question of why? is on that does not seem can be answered easily. If you think about it anime and sitcoms are not THAT different. Both are dolled up information (because God forbid we take in any information which is not aesthetically pleasing.) And yes, they all concern different subject matter, it's all the same (let's be honest.) The only real difference is the way the they go about presenting the information.
To expound on the previously mentioned theme of transformation, or metamorphosis, the exceedingly grotesque displays of transformation in anime is what some followers seem to enjoy most about it. Some find it to be unbearable to watch or deal with, but then again, so is life (sometimes). So for the watchers of anime it could be said that though anime may be some sort of escape for them it is their way of dealing with actual life and not a sitcomed, diluted version of it. Even if one were to argue to say that anime is an extreme way of portraying life, that can also be said about sitcoms. But at least with anime (animation) it comes with the territory. The only difference between Dawson's Creek and Akira/Ranma 1/2 is that Akira and Ranma are a form of conter-culture and are yet more identifiable (I don't know about you, but I don't know any blonde haired, green-eyed guys, or a girl who lives across a small mass of water who uses a canoe to get around.)
Here's the link for the movie (I watched it, it's pretty good.)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2402751682668296100&q=akira&total
=14000&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2
If the link doesn't work just Google "Akira" on Videos
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema
Though the idea of looking at Narrative Cinema through psychoanalysis seems a bit peculiar, it is actually a very interesting and logical way to try to break down cinematic expressions-- whether that be a big budget movie such as Spider-Man (the first one is personally my favorite) or a low budget documentary like Sicko.
Looking at our media consumption patterns or the way in which we identify with media can be related to our psyches. Since our psyches have been in the works since we were born there are things in them, as well as events which make them up, which are unknown to us. For example seeing advertisements for McDonald's on television commercials during Barney-- the purple dinosaur-- may give reason to why we enjoy McDonald's today.
In the introduction of the article I was reminded of the term penis envy. Mulvey makes a strong case saying that men, in media, are portrayed as the dominant sex, and women are left behind to raise the children. In raising the children, Mulvey says that women do so in the significance of her desire. One can take this to mean that some women raise their children in spite or that some women raise their children to believe that they can do anything-- since they were, themselves, unable to do so--. Either way, there is some form of bias.
Then there is scopophilia (which does not seem to be a real word to dictionary dot com). Scopophilia is one, if not the, main points in the article. Though the initial definition is suffice the one mentioned in the Summary of the article is better: pleasure in looking at another person as an erotic object.
The points brought about by Mulvey of the enjoyment of looking and being looked at are two vital points when speaking of films-- that is because one of the reasons why people enjoy going to the movies so much, and why romantic comedies are one of the most popular genres of film, is because people want to watch something with which they can identify with, a movie in which they can relate to in one or more ways. And as Mulvey mentions, the way in which a movie theater is set up is so that people can see the movie perfectly, but not one another-- the darkness allows people to be alone together.
Also, to expand and question one of the initial statements of psychoanalysis, the act of psychoanalyzing can aid in Hall's four-stage theory of communication (production, circulation, use and reproduction). Our mind's work in certain ways, not to say in a four-stage process, but our minds do employ some sort procedure (the intake of information, the processing of the information, and the remembering of said information).
Looking at our media consumption patterns or the way in which we identify with media can be related to our psyches. Since our psyches have been in the works since we were born there are things in them, as well as events which make them up, which are unknown to us. For example seeing advertisements for McDonald's on television commercials during Barney-- the purple dinosaur-- may give reason to why we enjoy McDonald's today.
In the introduction of the article I was reminded of the term penis envy. Mulvey makes a strong case saying that men, in media, are portrayed as the dominant sex, and women are left behind to raise the children. In raising the children, Mulvey says that women do so in the significance of her desire. One can take this to mean that some women raise their children in spite or that some women raise their children to believe that they can do anything-- since they were, themselves, unable to do so--. Either way, there is some form of bias.
Then there is scopophilia (which does not seem to be a real word to dictionary dot com). Scopophilia is one, if not the, main points in the article. Though the initial definition is suffice the one mentioned in the Summary of the article is better: pleasure in looking at another person as an erotic object.
The points brought about by Mulvey of the enjoyment of looking and being looked at are two vital points when speaking of films-- that is because one of the reasons why people enjoy going to the movies so much, and why romantic comedies are one of the most popular genres of film, is because people want to watch something with which they can identify with, a movie in which they can relate to in one or more ways. And as Mulvey mentions, the way in which a movie theater is set up is so that people can see the movie perfectly, but not one another-- the darkness allows people to be alone together.
Also, to expand and question one of the initial statements of psychoanalysis, the act of psychoanalyzing can aid in Hall's four-stage theory of communication (production, circulation, use and reproduction). Our mind's work in certain ways, not to say in a four-stage process, but our minds do employ some sort procedure (the intake of information, the processing of the information, and the remembering of said information).
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Art as a Cultural Sytem
One of the lines that struck me the most in this article was " ... a poem must not mean, but be..." This line struck me for many reasons, but the most predominant one being that as a poet myself I understand how, or what, it is to have someone read your writing and try to find a meaning behind it.
Though there may be a meaning or some kind of reasoning behind a work of art, does not mean that it is meant to be found, and in that case, even looked for.
This also speaks volumes for human nature and our constant need to break everything down into simple terms.
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." How many times have you (or someone around you) spoken just because you (or they) wanted to fill the silence? I mean that in the sense where you kind of ask yourself what was the point of what he/she just said? The article does bring about the question of why people criticize or even try to understand art.
Most, if not all, of the time when people verbally respond to any form of art it is because it brings about an extreme emotion... usually anger or some sort of inner conflict, whether it pertains to one's morals, religious beliefs, innate tendencies, or ethics. And a lot of the time art which does not disturb the observer goes unnoticed. "... all those that bite or sting are carefully classified, but butterflies form one huge class regardless of size or color."
For example; if I were to write two different poems:
1. In every poet
there is a virgin
waiting to be molested
& touched
in ways on the devil could desire
2. With the touch of a second
we'll fly into this seedless land
& rid these girls in white dresses
of raging love
Which of the two is more likely to be talked about? The one with 'bite', no?
Is it just human nature to disassemble everything? To only respond or think critically when provoked? It does seem only natural to only think deeply about things you find interesting or which stimulate you, but there are so many more things in the world that one will discover only be looking deeper, and a lot of those things are not going to have big flashing lights around them.
What I got from the overall article was that we, as humans, have the tendency to break things down until we feel they are simple. We do not want to feel over powered by anything or anyone, much less a piece of art or an artist.
Though there may be a meaning or some kind of reasoning behind a work of art, does not mean that it is meant to be found, and in that case, even looked for.
This also speaks volumes for human nature and our constant need to break everything down into simple terms.
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." How many times have you (or someone around you) spoken just because you (or they) wanted to fill the silence? I mean that in the sense where you kind of ask yourself what was the point of what he/she just said? The article does bring about the question of why people criticize or even try to understand art.
Most, if not all, of the time when people verbally respond to any form of art it is because it brings about an extreme emotion... usually anger or some sort of inner conflict, whether it pertains to one's morals, religious beliefs, innate tendencies, or ethics. And a lot of the time art which does not disturb the observer goes unnoticed. "... all those that bite or sting are carefully classified, but butterflies form one huge class regardless of size or color."
For example; if I were to write two different poems:
1. In every poet
there is a virgin
waiting to be molested
& touched
in ways on the devil could desire
2. With the touch of a second
we'll fly into this seedless land
& rid these girls in white dresses
of raging love
Which of the two is more likely to be talked about? The one with 'bite', no?
Is it just human nature to disassemble everything? To only respond or think critically when provoked? It does seem only natural to only think deeply about things you find interesting or which stimulate you, but there are so many more things in the world that one will discover only be looking deeper, and a lot of those things are not going to have big flashing lights around them.
What I got from the overall article was that we, as humans, have the tendency to break things down until we feel they are simple. We do not want to feel over powered by anything or anyone, much less a piece of art or an artist.
Friday, September 7, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)