I think the official story is that Ikuhara wanted more explicit yuri, but Chiho Saito vetoed it. So in the show it's ambiguous, but in the movie it's explicit, because Ikuhara had more control over the movie.

I like how borderline it is all the way; you really can view it both ways, and it works both ways to me.

Decrescent Daytripper wrote:

Why?

I don't ask that facetiously. Why would their relationship being platonic, a close friendship or even less than that, emphasize Utena's pursuit of her princely ideals or devotion?

I personally feel that love as Utena's motive is low-hanging fruit. I feel that having her motive to protect Anthy as a friend, for her own ego and because it is the "noble" thing to do is more intense and interesting than just simply "love".
In the context of the story, Utena reserving her heart only for her prince creates a bigger punch throughout as she searches for him - particularly in the third arc when Akio gets involved. Her prince is the person she's "engaged" to and waiting for him is an extension of the nobility he told her to never lose.

That's not that I don't support the U/A ship. In my mind, their romance is post-Ohtori when they reunite.

I totally agree with that sentiment, but I think Ikuhara wanted more yuri because he has a yuri fetish, not because he thought it was important to the story. "That is sexy. Shabadadoo. Yuri Approved."

I dunno - I know how the movie is sort of not really related to the show - but that makes the whole relationship way more explicit. Ikuhara has said before the show is about Utena and Anthy's love & I must say that I really did see it as just that. While your points all are interesting I just don't feel that Utena having a platonic relationship makes her more noble. Sexism & misogyny is a very complicted layered topic and there are lots of times where the sword goes both ways. While you could say it is stereotypically "feminine" for Utena to put romance first (although imo it's not really portrayed as such - Utena feels decidedly un-feminine in some areas but also very feminine in others) there is of course the other sexist ideal of the "pure" girl - one who abstains from relationships or sex and that somehow makes her more "whole." Really - this ties into how many female characters are given a lack of sexual or romantic initiative in modern fiction - many many times the girl is the receiver of these feelings or desires. Even if she "puts romance first" she is never the one who is actively pursuing her love or sexual wants. Really I think it's fine and still refreshing to have an Utena who eventually realizes she's not straight (but considering Akio and Touga & the like she's hardly lesbian) and also realizes she's in love with Anthy - that seems to be Ikuhara's intention to me.

purplepolecat wrote:

I totally agree with that sentiment, but I think Ikuhara wanted more yuri because he has a yuri fetish, not because he thought it was important to the story. "That is sexy. Shabadadoo. Yuri Approved."

Is he yuri-happy? Probably.

Was he BSing about not wanting to do another boyfriend-will-always-save anime after several seasons of Tuxedo Mask under his belt and who knows how many similar scenarios being done by colleagues? I doubt it.

We know that having a lesbian romance between two teenagers would've been impossible on American tv at the time, and it'd be hard, really, in most of the world right now, but it wasn't necessarily tv du jour in Japan when Utena aired, either. You had direct to video yuri, yes, and a late night adult program like Excel Saga could do things in a midnight time slot, but Utena was aimed at a young demographic, with tie-in products, some of which skewed even younger. The yuri boom, such as it was, a few years later hadn't happened yet. And dashing heroically slim men who will always save the slightly younger heroine were very much in fashion.

Touga is that type, right down to how condescending he can be to the heroine and her friends even though he "might have feelings for her."

We, right now, may be able to look at two women, one very very old, one very young, and say, "oh, as a romantic couple, they are of course, still relying on a romantic partner and that's the same whether the partner is male or female," but Japan? Mid-90s? TV show for younger teens? Men and women are equal and equally capable?

Like Touga, in the movie, being still pretty darn princely despite being a repeat rape victim and prostituted as a kid, that's actually a pretty radical sentiment. Most 90s and prior anime is Siaonji's head. If Saionji had glasses and drew more WW2 airplanes in his exchange diary, he would be anime with legs.

It's not just Japan, of course, a nation that still doesn't have gay marriage. The States only now are promising we'll get a gay/bisexual Xena in a reboot, because they were brave enough to have them act funny-close, or be suddenly-sexy, but actual relationship, oh no, what will people think! Next they'll try to marry minotaurs.

I'm just saying, contextually, I think it did carry a lot of intent and probably wasn't an easy selling point to almost anyone by the time the movie outed them. "He has a yuri fetish, not because he thought it was important to the story," is way too dismissive and not really grounded, that I can see, in anything but supposition and wanting to write him and the work off. Even Saito's opposition wasn't based in her finding it puerile or without use and she was right there.


(At some later point, possibly elsewhere, I should write up something serious about the easy out that is "women can be strong and be weak," as a particularly voyeuristic storytelling trope, because I do think SKU falls in there at least just a little bit, but also subverts the hell out of it with Anthy, in particular, and maybe movie-Shiori.)

Aelanie wrote:

It is canonically a lesbian relationship, which was only watered-down because interested parties were resistant to the idea

That's your opinion based on what is publicly available for us know. Others have different opinions--or, at least, use less connotatively suggestive language to a point that their opinions sound different--based on the same.

It is possible for two reasonable people to look at the same information and draw different and equally valid conclusions in good faith. If you can't agree with me on that, there's no hope for mutual understanding.

Aelanie wrote:

For over fifteen years now I've been listening to people denying this because, they claim, a platonic relationship is somehow more pure/aesthetic/noble/what-have-you. That is nothing but cloaked homophobia.

I was wondering when someone would say that. I've never seen one interpretation dominating the fandom, I think both have always been very well represented. SKU is often categorized as yuri, and every conversation I've ever participated in and every article I've ever read acknowledges SKU was clearly intended to make statements on the topic, whether or not it was intended to have one true reading. I mean, look at this thread, or the one from a few years ago. Both times as many or more people say, "they're probably/definitely gay" than not. The score here is:

probably/definitely platonic in tv - | (that could be categorized as unclear)
probably/definitely gay always - |||||
okay to read either way, especially tv - ||
unclear - |

Maybe I'm just not going to all the same places.

But. Definitely. It's worth taking a real deep look inside yourself if you are personally resistant to Utena and Anthy as a couple. Because, on a macro level, homophobia is a very likely reason for viewers to be opposed to yaoi/yuri relationships in anime that crosses into mainstream fandom. Still, it's excessive to call homophobia on anyone who isn't in agreement with the idea that Utena and Anthy must be interpreted only and always as lovers by every viewer every time.

By one step extrapolation you are accusing me of homophobia in your post.  As a straight, cis woman in her 30's who grew up Baptist in the Southeastern United States, it's likely that there have been times I've participated in systematic marginalization of LGBTQIA+ people or been the perpetrator of microaggressions. My subjectivity makes me incapable of objective perception and subsequent thoughts, feelings, or actions are necessarily biased toward my experience. Result: I can be blind, stupid, and inconsiderate. (Strangely enough, this is true of everyone. I'm personally pretty suspect of people who pat themselves on the back as completely free from bias.)

I've taken that deep look. I've self-inquisited on it many, many times. I've had many conversations about it. I did it again before, during, and after writing my posts. I plan to continue doing it as long as I live. I could get into deeply personal shit, but it's irrelevant, so I'll simply say that (while I hope this isn't "I have lesbian friends" the media edition,) since I do enjoy romance of both the straight and the primarily and solely LGBT, I'm pretty sure my reasons are as I expressed them to whatever degree anyone can be certain of such a thing. I'd super appreciate it if you'd avoid suggesting that you know my inner workings better than I do; I would tolerate it as an understandable and generally justifiable assumption under different circumstances, but not under these.

Aelanie wrote:

I also find suspect the suggestion that it is somehow reductive, in this incredibly subtle and intelligent story which is focused heavily on exhibiting a vast spectrum of female thoughts and female actions, for them to be in such a relationship.

Suspect, huh.

I can only speak for myself in terms of the underlying rationale. But I did explain as clearly as I could from my perspective why a person might favor it as personal canon. The constant lifelong assumptions I encountered of my preoccupation with romantic relationships is something I have found incredibly claustrophobic.

I also suggested reasons why accepting multiple interpretations was valuable. If Utena is good because it exhibits a vast spectrum of female thoughts and actions, surely it's a good thing if it is able to speak to a vast number of people so that they can appreciate this incredibly subtle and intelligent story. "Allowing" multiple readings enables kaleidoscopic shifts in how we perceive the narrative; which makes the spectrum of both what is presented and who is spoken to and how more vast.

Finally, I summarized from previous conversations why this reading in particular is not out of bounds (the way, for example, saying the characters in Nananan Kiriko's blue aren't a couple would be).  Not out of bounds doesn't mean, for god's sake, that it's the only valid or best interpretation. Simply that it's adequately supported by canonical evidence, about as internally consistent when applied as others, and has value in its potential meaning for individual viewers.

Descrescent Daytripper wrote:

We, right now, may be able to look at two women ... and say, "oh, as a romantic couple, they are of course, still relying on a romantic partner and that's the same whether the partner is male or female," but Japan? Mid-90s? TV show for younger teens?

Academically is one thing.

But personally is another. I don't viscerally enjoy or value things in terms of how a Japanese preteen in the mid-90's was likely to perceive them. That can only ever be intellectual for me.

Although as a side note, I do remember how I perceived things as a US viewer in the mid-90's, because I wrote journal entries and e-mails and posts about it--and from the start I found it meaningful for Utena to value a non-romantic relationship over a romantic relationship. Because it spoke to something in my personal experience that I thought sucked and I didn't get to see represented often.

I agree the LGBT messages are there, and that they're there on purpose, and that they're important. I think your points are excellent and all of this context matters. It's not an incompatible position to say, "Yes, I agree and for reasons ranging from personal feelings to meta musing on the nature of art and perception, let's not suggest that there's only one valid interpretation as long as the lens fits tolerably well."

Aelanie wrote:

Utena and Anthy's romantic relationship is inseparably bound up with the myriad of ennobling and transformative themes that the show champions, and this works because as characters they are never reduced to being merely the engines of depicting that romance.

I do not agree that SKU is somehow so incredibly next level about portraying romance, or people (especially women) with romantic dimensions, that it wipes away all the issues I have with depictions of and messages about romance such that saying it is a romance is a completely neutral position that has no impact on the narrative and no external ramifications. While I do think that the romance interpretation is present, intended, and important, I am not happy with insisting it is the only acceptable perspective.

You, it seems, do not agree that SKU is so incredibly next level about portraying sexuality, or people (especially women) with sexual dimensions, that it wipes away all the concerns you have with depictions of and messages about homosexuality such that saying that it is not a romance is a completely neutral position that has no impact on the narrative and no external ramifications. But you go on to say, no, you're only allowed to see them as gay. No matter what. Or you're homophobic.

It's the last part that includes thought policing that strikes me as troublesome, not the part where there are consequences to and issues with a platonic reading. I totally agree with that. Neither position is neutral.

Last edited by rhyaniwyn (03-19-2016 01:26:41 AM)

Decrescent Daytripper wrote:

Honestly, even if it's nonsexual, I prefer it as a romantic relationship, rather than just "they're very close, special friends," just because that sort of thing is so often a way to duck out of saying, "they're a couple," but there's nothing wrong with seeing them as very close, special friends.

When, to a large degree, you've had no choice but to "code" if you wanted to portray a lesbian relationship--either that, or you don't get the chance to tell the story (or some censor decides how to change things for you), it's not truly as simple as saying, "it's ambiguous, so it's okay to read it any way you want", because all things are not equal.

I hope, in the way art can do, that they made virtue of necessity--or intended it to be multilayered--because I don't want any part of perpetuating this issue. Clearly on some levels a self serving justification to give myself permission to continue to enjoy SKU in one of the ways I enjoy SKU.

Decrescent Daytripper wrote:

I almost want a version of SKU where Utena and Anthy aren't close at all, they just know each other and unlike the majority of the cast, they at least become mature and aware enough to have empathy for each other and move forward or be supportive.

That'd be pretty awesome.

Actually...I consume a lot of media and I...really can't think of great examples of this. Characters will go to lengths to help close friends, family, significant others, romantic interests, or children. I guess stories that have characters that are detectives or police (or something in-world similar) will do something pretty close. But most of the time it doesn't hit the spot I think this sort of retelling of SKU might.

First, these characters typically have a chosen, lifelong-dedicated moral imperative of "it's my job to protect people."* Second, they're often portrayed as identifying the stranger-victim with either themselves** or someone they care/cared about. Third, the stranger-victim is often painted as...a sort of victim archetype that we're expected to already care about on principle, if not instinctively***.

(PS: I sometimes like to pretend that the parts of Rinbu Revolution that describe the two people in the song ending up living separate lives accurately depicts what happens with Utena and Anthy. This idea that...nothing is permanent, but it's still meaningful. You can love someone and stop loving them or be permanently separated from them [from someone who deeply touched you], and that doesn't make it less. Seems to fit SKU's "thank god nothing is eternal, or else suffering can be eternal" theme.)

On the other hand, I think the way it is right now is kind of nice, because it...sort of reflects how... Basically, the ways we relate to people are defined for us by our culture. Those definitions aren't necessarily accurate representations of reality. The way we perceive, understand, and define love, friendship, platonic interactions, and sexual interactions are based on a framework we inherit. Maybe in real life love, equality, intimacy, passion, and commitment are far more complicated than the framework and our language allows.

* Uhoh, Utena. Breaking my daydream.
** Not necessarily mutually exclusive: Utena and Anthy had a host of subtle similarities. But Utena doesn't ever come out and say, I know about all the feelings this coffin symbolizes, because I've been there, therefore I want to save Anthy.
*** You could argue Anthy is this, though I think the Witch thing adds nuance.

Last edited by rhyaniwyn (03-19-2016 01:18:15 AM)