Kasz216 said:
Not that all anime can't be deep. However this one is bullshit. The guy even says it himself... He created a bunch of fairly vagure and varied characters so that people who tried to look into it would come up with wildely different theories as to what is going on... a lot of the other themes were also created... just so people will think that varied themes are the "true theme" when there really isn't one. There was little thought or representation meant for any of it outside of the very obvious journy of Shinji finding a reason to live. The vast majority of all the symbolism and use of words is nothing but Red Herrings outside of the general passing of similarities between the character. For example if you were going to name someone who was going to die outnumbered Custer.
It's the musical equivlent of American Pie (the song). You know why Don McClean hasn't come out with an interpretation after all these years and everyone asking? Cause their wasn't one. It was just like Evangelion and Nostradamus. A bunch of vague writing that people give their own meanings too.
|
But... it's okay to make really good art that's intentionally vague and open to multiple interpretations. It's even okay to intentionally put in contradictory clues in opposite directions or to leave out major plot points to avoid having a single concrete explanation that everybody can agree on. It doesn't always work, but I think NGE did it right. I think I've watched the whole series 3 times through, including one 13 hour binge of every episode and movie. And then I've watched The End of Evangelion 6 or 7 times.
I was joking when I brought up Eraserhead and 2001. Those are 2 of my favorite movies. Lynch has never explained Eraserhead, and never will. He has stated that he didn't understand it when he made it, and didn't understand it for years. Then one day, he was reading the Bible, found one random vague passage, and it hit him. Now Lynch claims that there is a single passage in the Bible that explains the entire film of Eraserhead, but he will never ever let us know which passage it is. Kubrick on the other hand, has never explained 2001, and never will, and disagrees with the author of the book on the meaning of the ending. The author went on to explain everything about the aliens and the Starchild and even wrote a sequel explaining it more, and Kubrick just says the book has nothing to do with the movie. It is what it is. And Kubrick also says his favorite movie is Eraserhead, hahaha. Anyway, they're both nuts. But I loooooooooooove those films, and I loooooooooove NGE, for pretty much the same reasons. I think if NGE was a live action film, people would consider it an avant-garde post-apocalyptic sci-fi masterpiece about kids losing their minds in the face of absolute terror and the responsibilty of saving a world you hate, but because it's a cartoon, people expect giant kung fu robots and not a bunch of philosophical mumbo jumbo about consciousness and identity and whatnot.
It's definitely too kiddy for adults and too mature for kids. But that's part of why I love it.
It can be done right, and it can be done wrong. Like Rocketpig said... MGS.
If people could tell whether the Mona Lisa was smiling or not, and knew why, the painting wouldn't be important at all. It would just be some face. It's all about the mystery.
