Joking aside, I kind of see him as an over-sized Id, making all sorts of excuses for his hedonistic behaviour, but in the end Ohtori is just a playground for him to live out his fantasies in.

Allegory? Structural symbolism? Archetype? Semiotic devices? Mise en scène?

Forgive me, but I really think you are trying much too hard. When it comes to Utena, there are two extremes that many people make the mistake of falling into:

Camp 1: "It's just random trippy nonsense. There's no way to make sense of any of this." <cops out>

Camp 2: "OMG every single thing that happens is part of an incredibly deep, complex message!" <brain melts trying to come up with a Grand Unified Theory of Utena>

I doubt Camp 1 is much seen on these boards, but Camp 2 seems to be ever-popular among serious devotees of the show. The truth, as usual, lies in the middle.

The single most important thing to remember is that Utena is not, nor does it ever pretend to be, internally consistent. The fatal flaw in your reasoning, as I see it, is that you expect the show to play by consistent rules of depiction and symbolism. That is very, very far from being the case.

Ikuhara isn't trying to be consistent, and he admits it. Listen to the commentary regarding the shadow plays:

Ikuhara: "For example, the story that's told in the series...The drama that's told in one episode gets condensed into this shadow puppet girls scene."

Saito: "Huh? But that doesn't always happen..."

Ikuhara: "And there are times when that doesn't happen! That's a feint! Sporadically we don't do it."

Saito: "Like there're episodes where they're saying something deep."

Ikuhara: "Yes, something deep...and there're episodes where they say absolutely nothing deep!"

In other words, there times when the show uses elements or themes in a symbolic way, but later those same elements might be used simply as a facetious trick or reference.

For instance, the Wakaba Car in the Utena movie. Prior to its appearance, the imagery of becoming a car, as applied to Kozue, Utena and Shiori, has important symbolic elements. But does that mean Wakaba becoming a car is supposed to share in that? Personally, I don't believe it is anything but an amusing visual joke they decided to throw in.

At bottom, both the series and movie continuities are mostly literal stories with mostly rational sequences of plot and pacing, but at the same time they are being "embellished" in a way that creates the possibility for a great deal of personal interpretation by introducing metaphorical and symbolic elements. Just think of the stories as being told by a flamboyantly unreliable storyteller, one prone to opaque non sequiturs and tangental burlesque just as much as they are prone to brilliant and insightful figurative imagery.

The story makes enough literal sense to be enjoyed on that level, while the storytelling injects material for more figurative lines of thought. Again though, the single most important thing to remember is that this unreliable storyteller can't be counted upon to play by their own rules, or to present the "embellishments" they're introducing throughout the tale as having anything resembling a consistent internal logic.

Of course it's fun, and perfectly reasonable, to speculate on what individual elements might symbolically mean within the overall framework. The problem comes when you begin to believe everything has to tie together in a cohesive way in order to have value, and gets worse as you begin to believe the creators meant it to be so.

Down that road lies Camp 2 and madness.

On an unrelated note:

The series deals quite a bit with gender misidentification, which is an interesting literary theme. I’m not really saying much here aside from the fact that I think Tenjou misidentifies herself as a prince, rather than a princess.

That's no misidentification. It has to do with transcending the gender expectation of those roles. Utena chooses the role of the prince not because it's a male role, but because it's an active, independent role. She rejects princesshood not because she doesn't identify as female (she does), but because the stereotypical role of the princess is one of passivity and dependence. To me, one of the bedrock concepts of Utena is that Utena shatters everyone's expectation that she could never be a prince because she was female. Even Anthy thought so in the end, but Utena shows the world that "female prince" is not a contradiction in terms. The role of the "prince" embodies a greatness of soul that is just as much within the reach of women.

But that's a whole other topic...

Last edited by Aelanie (04-01-2009 12:44:51 AM)

Ummm....so what you're saying is...in a story with symbolic meaning...no buildings exist within the fictional world.  You can't base your analysis of the characters off of the assumption that, to the characters, a building physically exists.  You have to try to interpret the characters' actions and words as if the building does not physically exist.  I mean, it can't physically exist within the story because it is a symbolic building in an allegorical story.  It is naive to assume that the building can be symbolic to the viewer (and creator) and that this is expressed by way the characters interact with the building and the things the characters say about the building, but take at face value that to the characters in context the building is real.  In fact, you have to assume the building does not exist, even to the characters inside it as the story takes place, to ever hope to understand what the building means.  Because allegories do not treat symbolic objects as if they are real or personify concepts as characters in order to communicate with viewers.

That's absolutely fascinating and makes so much sense.  No wonder I'm not confused and you are.

It's really kind of you to explain all this to me.  I feel so embarrassed and it's ever so kind of you to say that I'm smart.  That's just you being nice.  This thread is just proof of how silly I really am!  I just can't keep up. :-(  I think it's time to retire my copy of SKU and my keyboard.  Triplerock will reveal to all of us how naive our interpretations are and explain to us the literary and theatrical devices we are overlooking in our ignorance.  Stand back, everyone!  Just back up and give Triplerock room to work.  You might occasionally throw some ideas out so you can watch them be torn to shreds!  Even an artist such as Triplerock needs material to work with, after all.

I know I'm stupid because personally I've always thought that if an anime shows a character being stabbed in the face with a sword.  And then another character says, "Oh shit, you just got stabbed in the face with a sword!!"  Then I can safely assume that in the context of the story someone got stabbed in the face with a sword.  Now, if at the same time, I as a viewer am aware of various other facts that make the act symbolic I can interpret the sword and stabbing based on those facts.  That does not change the fact that someone got stabbed in their face in the narrative.  Nor does the fact that someone got ACTUALLY stabbed in their face in the narrative change the fact that the sword and the act of stabbing can be interpreted as symbolic.  Like say the stabber symbolizes Winter and the stabbee symbolizes Summer.  OMG it's an allegory of the seasons.  Someone still got stabbed in their fucking face.

Last edited by rhyaniwyn (04-01-2009 10:58:02 AM)

rhyaniwyn wrote:

Ummm....so what you're saying is...in a story with symbolic meaning...no buildings exist within the fictional world.  You can't base your analysis of the characters off of the assumption that, to the characters, a building physically exists.  You have to try to interpret the characters' actions and words as if the building does not physically exist.  I mean, it can't physically exist within the story because it is a symbolic building in an allegorical story.  It is naive to assume that the building can be symbolic to the viewer (and creator) and that this is expressed by way the characters interact with the building and the things the characters say about the building, but take at face value that to the characters in context the building is real.  In fact, you have to assume the building does not exist, even to the characters inside it as the story takes place, to ever hope to understand what the building means.  Because allegories do not treat symbolic objects as if they are real or personify concepts as characters in order to communicate with viewers.

Hmm, I don’t think it was my intention to suggest any of that . . . but after reading it I guess you might be right. Maybe I am going too far with it. Here’s the original quote I was working with (kind of plagiarizing actually), it’s from a book by Yale Sterling Professor Peter Brooks: “The sign imprints the body, making it part of the signifying process. [This] signifies its passage into writing, its becoming a literary body, and generally also a narrative body . . . On the plane of reading, desire for knowledge of that body and its secrets becomes the desire to master the text’s symbolic system, its key to knowledge, pleasure, and the very creation of significance . . . Narrative seeks to make such a body semiotic, to mark or imprint it as a linguistic and narrative sign.”

So yeah, going with that, I am kind of wont to read literature as a semiotic process of signification rather than a literal narration of actual events. Maybe that’s dumb, I’m really not sure now. I don’t know if it’s that we have different interpretations of how literature works, or if I’m just wrong about the whole thing.

See what you make of that quote, maybe you can explain it to me in a way that’s different than how I understand it. And by calling you smart, frankly, yeah I was trying to be a little condescending because I felt like you were mocking my interpretation in your last post, but truth be told I really am impressed with a lot of what you write. I just can’t understand why you are so angry at me for disagreeing with your interpretation.

I don’t have time to write any more right now. Though I do want to get to Aelanie’s analysis, because I think it’s interesting how she’s working from a different school of feminism than I am.

I’ve had a little time to think about it, and, I don’t know why I didn’t come up with this earlier, but I’ve realized some very simple examples I can use to illustrate the point I’ve been trying to make. A few very simple examples from anime in particular.

For instance, it’s pretty often that in anime we will see a large bead of sweat appear on the side of a character’s head. Now, you know what this symbolizes, but my question is this: Are we supposed to take this as a literal event? Is there literally a large bead of sweat forming on the side of this person’s head, or is it merely a semiotic device that signifies a particular emotional state in a way that is purely symbolic? Another: We often see a teenage boy’s nose start to bleed profusely in certain given situations, only to all the sudden disappear the next second without a trace. Again, was this meant to be viewed as a literal nose bleed, or simply a signifier for an emotional state? We see this in western television/movies as well. If a character’s eyes pop out of their head for a few seconds, and then retreat back in, is that meant to be viewed literally? If cupid shoots an arrow through a man’s heart, do we expect that man to die? Does he literally have an arrow stuck in his chest?

I’m going to assume that you’ll say no, these things aren’t meant to be taken as real events. And so, the point is obviously that semiotic devices are clearly able to indicate emotional states in ways that are purely symbolic. They are events that appear to us in physical form, but have no literal meaning. So, now, if we take a girl who has a million swords stuck in her that act as a semiotic device to signify her suffering – this may not be an established trope, but it is capable of being regarded as a semiotic device, and semiotic devices are capable of being purely symbolic.

Furthermore, if a man is shot in the heart by cupid’s arrow, even though this physical event is purely symbolic, it doesn’t immediately render absolutely everything else present in the scene as having no literal essence. Everything else still operates as normal. Likewise, just because the swords are semiotic devices doesn’t mean that Akio and his car and the road and the streetlights and everything else in the scene are semiotic devices as well. You seem to be taking the logic of my approach and bending it to an extreme position that makes it seem ridiculous, though there’s really nothing that unusual about it.

I mean, If Anthy has a million swords stuck in her, why is she not dead? You could argue that it’s because she’s magical or immortal or something, but you could also just argue that it’s for the same reason that the guy with cupid’s arrow in his heart is not dead. Also, if Anthy has all these swords stuck in her all the time, why is it that we can only see them on the occasions when they are specifically referenced by Akio? Even then we see them one second, but the next second they aren’t there anymore. You could argue that it’s because there’s some kind of magic spell hiding them or keeping them within her, and Akio has the power to unleash them or something, or you could just say it’s for the same reason that we see blood coming out of a teenage boy’s nose one second, and no evidence of it the next. It just simply represents an emotional state with no literal meaning necessarily having to be attached to it as well. This type of symbolism is very much possible, and I think the quote I posted above from Peter Brooks indicates that virtually all semiotic devices can be interpreted this way.

Given how long this argument has been drawn out, I wouldn’t imagine that you should like to interpret the events this way, but I don’t see any reason why they can’t be.

Aelanie wrote:

Though I do want to get to Aelanie’s analysis

Please, don't bestir yourself on my account... >_>

I don’t get this. Besides with rhyaniwyn, who I have admitted I’ve been rude to, and I feel stupid about it, I have treated everyone on here with respect. I haven’t mocked anyone else’s opinions, gotten rude with anyone, and I haven’t blown up on anyone or torn anyone’s interpretation to shred’s. Now, I have disagreed with some and offered my own analysis, but I’ve also agreed with some, and several of the ones I didn’t agree with I still said I liked a lot and appreciated. I’ve made it clear that I’ve gotten a lot of help and that I appreciate what’s been said on here. I’ve apologized, almost profusely, for the way I initially came across, and tried to be as amiable as possible about it. Plus I’ve made it clear that I respect and appreciate everyone’s ideas, even if I don’t agree. Not only all that, but I’ve admitted on several occasions that I understand that my interpretation is only a product of my own bias, and that I might very well be wrong. Rhyaniwyn keeps insinuating that I view my own ideas as infallible, but I’ve never said that, and in fact, everything I have said suggests that I feel otherwise.

In fact, if you read through my posts, I think you’ll see that rhyaniwyn’s interpretation is actually the *only* one that I have said that I don’t like and/or agree with. Every single other interpretation that’s been offered to me in this thread I have actually agreed with, or said that I liked and appreciated even if I didn’t agree.

I haven’t had time to respond to everything, so yes, some have been passed over, but it’s due to lack of time and space rather than concern. For instance, Haku’s suggestion that Akio is using fantasy to escape reality is an interesting theme to me that I agree with completely, I just haven’t had time to address it. I also like the ‘Death of the Author’ approach that Miss Bluesky brought up, because it’s a very appropriate viewpoint for analysis. And, like I said, I also really like your interpretation of what Tenjou represents in terms of feminism, even though it’s from an opposing school, I think it opens up room for an interesting debate. I actually had a lot of positive things to say about it, believe it or not.

So, going back through the thread, I’m counting seven interpretations that I like and/or agree with, and only one that I don’t. So it just seems strange to me that I have only actually rejected one idea here and I’ve been respectful to everyone, and yet I’m being facetiously accused of totally disrespecting everyone’s ideas, even though if you read my posts you will clearly see that is not the case.

Fair enough, but do you mean to say that anime is too primitive or too stupid an art form to be dignified with an academic level analysis? If that’s what you’re saying, then yeah, okay, I’m trying too hard to understand a simple cartoon show for teenagers. I can live with that. Frankly, you’re probably right. But, on the other hand, if you aren’t suggesting that anime is that primitive or stupid, then I’m not trying too hard, I’m just doing something you aren’t interested in. And that’s fine to. I can’t very well hold it against you for not being into literary theory.

Also, to be fair, I do realize that this forum is geared towards casual discussion, not literary analysis. And so, in that respect what I’m doing is sort of inappropriate and out of place. So you are very much in the right here. It’s just that I have found people willing to go into this level of discussion on sites like this before, and I figured I’d give it a shot here as well.

Last edited by Triplerock (04-02-2009 05:50:34 AM)

Lady Chani wrote:

as though you must prove your point to all of us as being acceptable.

I guess you’re kind of right, in a sense. Though, it isn’t that I feel the need to prove ‘myself’ to you guys, or to prove that I’m ‘right’, but I do feel the need to utilize evidence to prove that my interpretation is *tenable*. An interpretation being tenable doesn’t mean that it is the one and only ‘right’ interpretation, it just means that it is an interpretation that holds up. And I do kind of feel the need to prove that my interpretation holds up. I think where the confusion is coming from is that my proof of ‘tenability’ is coming across as a proof for ‘rightness’.

Rhyaniwyn has actually already told me that you guys don’t need this proof; that you’re perfectly happy just hearing my interpretation without me having to back it up. I guess I should have listened, then maybe I wouldn’t be giving you guys such bad vibes.

My writing is just a reflection of my reading. I read a lot of literary criticism, and literary critiques invariably necessitate evidence to substantiate the reading. That’s just what I’m used to, and so that’s how I write. I apologize if that comes across the wrong way to you guys; it’s just a bad habit I guess. Well, it’s actually a good habit if I’m writing a paper I’m turning in for a grade, but on here I guess it’s unnecessary and inappropriate. Lesson definitely learned.

Last edited by Triplerock (04-02-2009 03:49:25 PM)

Aelanie wrote:

Now of course, this is where "Death of the Author" is supposed to come in and chide me for making the creator's influences and intentions a factor, let alone an overriding factor. I could address this, in fact I meant to do so, but this is off-topic and I have other things I should be focusing on, so I will simply say that I don't agree.

May I let it be known at this point that, being a bit dim generally, I probably couldn't marshall a half-decent counter-argument if I tried Also, although I think the 'Death of the Author' theory is interesting and was relevant to some stage of the discussion, I wouldn't personally apply it to any of the media I enjoy because it seems that when there is an author, it seems a bit churlish to just disregard their opinions as if they had no imput in the work whatsoever and it just popped up from the hammerspace for us to pick to bits.
(Also, my anime viewing habits are usually more along the lines of 'HOSHIT skewlgirl lezbians lololololol' or 'holy shit, did she just get stabbed in the back? BAAAAAWWWWW'. As stated before, I'm about as deep as a puddle ).

TL;DR I ain't gonna argue with you, and I really like schoolgirl lesbians and this smiley ()

Well, Utena is worthy of being subjected to high-octane literary analysis although I personally don't have the background to participate in it.

I need to visit the analysis threads more often. So many posts to digest, but at least I managed to read through it.

First and foremost, I want to stay on topic somewhat and answer the question you [sort of] directed toward me, Trip. Whether or not you should take those scenes at face value, in my opinion, that is entirely up to you. While the author himself may have a whole different purpose in presenting certain things, I think if it works for you, then it does. My English teacher once told me that literature is art, and art invokes different emotions/ideas/inspirations within people. It's what art does, it draws out the things that's inside of us that makes us individuals in the first place.

The way you worded the question as to your indecision between taking the scenes at face value or something deeper, it sounds like you have an answer already. I'm inclined to think that you're leaning toward Akio's ambition rooting in fantasy, but I'm not certain.

I remembered that Ikuni said in the interview that he'd be happy to see if his fans can delve into Utena series more stuff than he himself could have done, so I doubt the author himself would say if what you said is "wrong" or "right".

As for "Academic value" in entertainment. Again, art draws out different things from people. My English prof told us that one of his former students did a brilliant comparison between Shakespearean sonnet and Mariah Carey's song. I like to believe that things do exist with a certain value, and whatever you make of it, it will still be there; like all living creatures, regardless of what others say of its significance, it will still be standing. (<-I can't help but felt that one of the Seazer songs talked about this)

In another note, watching Utena series twice is more than enough, in my opinion, to form good arguments and thoughts about the series. I've really only watched it once. Later on, when I went on to this site, I saw essays people wrote, and it's others' inputs that add dimensions to the series for me, moreso than what I could've done alone.

Bottom line, if "right/wrong" is an issue, don't let it be. And, don't be too uptight with what you've learned before. Much of what I understood was a combination of the analysis essays and my own life experience. (Yes, I'm encouraging you to "live out" your own Utena moments because it's fun that way)

Triplerock, as far as the original topic of the thread goes, you might be interested to hear an interpretation of Akio's attacks on the Rose Gate that has been going around the forum more or less since we started up.  That interpretation is that Akio does not actually want to surpass the gate.  His highest ambition is to remain in the fantasy world of Ohtori, king of that bubble as he is now; he wants nothing more.  The entire series -- the dueling game in particular -- is orchestrated so that he can appear to Anthy as though he's trying to regain his princeliness.  As long as Anthy believes that, or even pretends to believe that, Akio is master of all he surveys.  He's not worried about eventually succeeding in opening the gate; after all, supposedly only the sword of a prince can open the gate, and Akio doesn't believe in princes.  So he keeps up the charade for Anthy's benefit, and Anthy pretends to be taken in, and Akio knows she's only pretending but pretends he doesn't know, and Anthy knows that Akio knows...

I'm not sure what Akio thinks is literally behind the gate, apart from the notion of princeliness.  In those last couple episodes of the series, reality and symbolism are hopelessly conflated, and if you want to think of that as sloppiness on Ikuni's part that's your right.  Certainly Ikuni deploys a lot of new symbols in that episode without clearly explaining what they mean or why they work that way, which is one reason we're all here talking about them.  My point here is that it's not really important to Akio what exactly is behind the gate, and he may never even have given it serious thought.  He's just playing out his part, which is why there's such a staged quality to how he attacks the gate with Utena's soul sword, and how he casts it aside when it breaks to dramatically soliloquize "When will I ever attain the power of Dios?"

Of course, it turns out you don't open a door by hitting it with a sword; you open it by clawing at it, on your hands and knees if necessary, using your sincerity, determination, and love as fuel, until at last you pull aside the seal and look at what's behind it.  If Akio understood that he'd already have the power of Dios.  Indeed, he might never have lost it.

(Removed)

Last edited by Miss Bluesky (04-03-2009 07:57:18 PM)

I don't know how or if this fits in to this discussion, but when Akio strikes the gate Utena cries out in pain as if he is striking her. Since Anthy is inside this may mean that Utena is finally living up to her name - Utena, the calyx that protects the blossom.