Forum - View topicREVIEW: Sarazanmai
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2 Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chiibi
 Posts: 4829 |
|
|||||||||
|
.........so my anime club including myself was done with THIS perverted little acid trip after about fifteen minutes.
We didn't appreciate all the jokes about butts, the images of butts, and especially inserting/ejecting things into and OUT of butts.  I am sure it'd be hilarious if I was ten years old...but I am not.
Ikuhara....Penguindrum is your final chance to impress me. *Snape voice* "Don't. Disappoint. Me." |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
TheKillerAngel
Posts: 87 |
|
|||||||||
For what it's worth, I usually dislike Ikuhara works because they are too dense for me, but I enjoyed this one. I thought it was actually less obtuse and more streamlined than some of his other stuff. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Arale Kurashiki
Posts: 781 |
|
|||||||||
Maybe if you watched his shows for more than fifteen minutes you might like them? All Ikuhara works are fundamentally misleading you in the initial episodes. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Cardcaptor Takato
 Posts: 5252 |
|
|||||||||
|
Having seen every episode of Sarazanmai, they don't really let off on the butt content. I feel like it would be hard for them to tell a story about kappas without the butt content since it's a part of the mythology around them but Ikuhara shows aren't always going to be appealing to everyone and there's nothing wrong with not liking one.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Alexis.Anagram
 Posts: 278 Location: Mishopshno |
|
|||||||||
|
I shared most of what I felt about Sarazanmai in the episode review thread, and I haven't budged much: I still feel like it represents a great deal of wasted potential and little else. It's not particularly pointed or coherent social commentary, and as a character drama it never really comes together to make the most of either its characters or its drama; as a piece of art it's a mixed bag, with some excellent episodes imbued with strong direction and some episodes that look and feel like chalk drawings on a sidewalk. Overall, I was disappointed, but I would still recommend the first 4 episodes to anyone looking to add a little kick to their routine media consumption and a short reprieve from the usual fare.
The point that probably sticks in my craw the most, though, and which I come back to when I reflect on the show, is the presentation of Chikai's character arc. He dies with such heavy-handed pageantry after so little earnest exploration of his circumstances and his perspective; given his relationship to the social order and how that intersected with his only point of connection to the person he wished he could be almost in spite of himself, I thought there was an obligation embedded within there to interrogate his vulnerabilities and his desires in a way that made sense of his humanity. Instead those vulnerabilities are shifted onto Toi so that Chikai can seem that much less salvageable and that much more full throated in his antagonism, determined to take the world for whatever it's worth without any attempt to reconcile the compulsion behind that inclination with an honest conversation about his circumstances and the sense of utter impossibility that defines them. Chikai isn't a gambler by choice; he's like anyone who doesn't already have it made in the game of chance that is capitalism, where every choice to invest (in relationships, in society) is nothing but risk for people who don't have a stable pool of resources to draw from: the fact that he at least makes some effort to work outside of the rules of that system to turn what he can in his favor, knowing the whole thing is rigged against him, at the very least stands as a more compelling answer to the unsolvable dilemma thrust upon the audience through these characters than the sad status quo platitudes about going on and struggling for the sake of struggling that occupy the final episode. It's not that hard to imagine and symbolize alternatives to capitalism; on the contrary, literature is replete with them. I'm honestly just not sure Ikuhara, despite being very clever, is quite as bold as he's often made out to be. Yuri Kuma still seems to me to be his most challenging and effective work, while both Utena (what I've seen) and Sarazanmai strike me as comparatively lukewarm. He seems to prioritize a kind of intellectual sarcasm ("I am an abstract concept") over genuine confrontations of collective thought patterns, and it can get pretty dull tbh. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
jesusalcala11
 Posts: 132 |
|
|||||||||
|
Thanks for the review Gabriella Ekans. I wasn't watching the series but I did follow the weekly reviews until Jacob Chapman stopped writing. I was interested in the messages of this series. I also listened to the ANNCast in which they reviewed Sarazanmai, and Zack also said that this was the leanest version of the same story told before.
Some contentions I had with the review:
I believe the definition you gave describes consumerism. Capitalism is a system in which wealth is private. Consumerism is the belief that people should buy as many consumer goods as possible. Consumerism is a product of capitalism but they are different ideas.
I agree that Kappazon is the antagonist, but I believe Kappazon represents consumerism. I do not believe Ikuhara is anti-capitalist, as his work is sold. Also, the belief that connections are more important than pursuit of money, as represented by Toi and Chikai, is capable of existing in a capitalist society. There are people that would sell their kids if they could and there are also people that work to earn a wage so that they can buy a kite to fly with their kids. An obsession with consumerism, however, would mean people would rather spend money to own things rather than focusing on their connections.
I once survived three years without spending money, and am currently surviving one month without spending money. I am a college student living at my parents house, eating food that they purchased or grown, and using their utilities. I have not contributed to their expenses since June and the only reason I spent money last month was to pay for my college classes. The three years was because of my unwillingness to seek employment or education, so I relied entirely on my parent's expenses.
I agree with the idea that society dislikes unproductive citizens, but I disagree with the idea that it is exclusive to capitalism. Whether it be feudalism, socialism, or capitalism, I believe most people think unfavorably of that those that are unproductive. Assuming you have a child or partner, do you push them towards employment or education? Do you push them to take up a sport or an art form? Would you be okay with paying their expenses for the rest of their life if they decided they were never going to work or produce anything? I don't think it is wrong to think unfavorably of those that are unproductive. In a society, a greater number of unproductive members results in a greater burden on those that are productive. Technology may change this, as less farmers are needed to produce the same food now than 1000 years ago. Or, we may change what it means to be productive.
I would like a source for this claim. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Shay Guy
 Posts: 2352 |
|
|||||||||
|
I keep thinking about this bit:
It's not something I've actually seen voiced about Ikuhara before, but I can't think of any counterargument. And almost everyone who talks about "toxic masculinity", at least on the English-speaking Internet, includes the caveat at some point that of course masculinity isn't necessarily toxic, etc. etc. Very few people actually make a case for "Masculinity Considered Harmful", or even assert it, though I imagine there's no shortage of people convinced that other people are, and passionately defending what they imagine to be under siege. I don't know how to feel about the idea of a creator much smarter and more insightful than me who considers masculinity to be something both clearly definable and also useless-at-best -- in large part because I don't know if I'd be able to make a case to the contrary. If I tried to find someone else's arguments to draw on, presumably I'd find a whole lot of people I want nothing to do with. Maybe this is one of those topics where it's best to just not engage. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
ATastySub
Past ANN Contributor
 Posts: 700 |
|
|||||||||
That means someone still paid for you to survive. You didn't magically exist outside of the system for free. I have no idea how you thought this was a rebuttal to the point being made. Privilege is a definite part of capitalism and part of the criticism of it is that the less privileged don't get to mooch of their parents for 3 years while literally choosing to do nothing.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
DavetheUsher
 Posts: 505 |
|
|||||||||
|
Imagine unironically posting a Matt Bors comic and thinking that was an epic gotcha...
Shows are up to individual interpretation, and the nice thing is no one has to prove themselves right and no one can prove other people wrong. A person's interpretation is their own. But saying a show specifically designed to sell merchandise to otaku is anti-capitalist is always an interesting take to see. If that was the message, then I think advertising for fans to buy Mabu and Reo branded soap dispensers and iPhone cases, or Kappazon mugs and towels takes a bit away from that message myself. A bit like when an anime YouTuber tells me to be sure to support the anime industry by using their Crunchyroll referral link in the description down below right after telling me how intellectual property doesn't exist and to always say no to capitalism. Usually what happens is people themselves are self-proclaimed socialists, so they interpret any piece of media where the villain is an evil company as some kind of anti-capitalistic stance, as opposed to just being one individual or group that needs to be taken care of. That's usually why you never see this scenario pop up in other genres. A group of warriors taking down an evil king is never seen as a stance against monarchical societies, just that one ruler was pretty corrupt and needed to be taken down so the much more chill estranged prince who was spirited away as a baby can take the throne as the rightful heir. Maybe if the ending wasn't rushed we could actually see this "Otter Empire" for ourselves and what the Otters were like. So unless Ikuhara has "Proud Socialist" in his Twitter bio, and constantly praises it on social media, I don't really subscribe to that interpretation myself. The only thing I saw on his Twitter was advert tweets for the blu-rays and some concert events. So my only takeaway from the show myself was to not hide your desires and be true to yourself. A fairly standard, but positive message. 
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
jesusalcala11
Posts: 132 |
|
|||||||||
That was not a rebuttal, Gabriella asked a question to the audience and I gave an answer. I did made a mistake putting my response in the middle of my contentions. I should have put my response before getting into my contentions.
As I said before, I think Ikuhara criticizes an obsession in consumerism, rather than being anti-capitalist. Also, criticizing one aspect of capitalism is not the same as being anti-capitalist. Saying our relationship to money can be improved is not the same as asking for the complete rejection of property. If I am wrong and Ikuhara is anti-capitalist, then Ikihara would be a hypocrite. Ikuhara would be like a politician proclaiming the evils of abortion while he has paid for abortions for his mistresses. It would have been possible for Ikuhara to avoid capitalism by putting his work into public domain and uploading his work through torrents. The basis for capitalism is ownership. If Ikuhara had foregone ownership and any profiting from his work, he would have not perpetuated capitalism while stil sending out his message. However, as DavetheUsher pointed out, Ikuhara posts advertisement for his product on his Twitter. So I don't believe he is against capitalism. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Cardcaptor Takato
Posts: 5252 |
|
|||||||||
|
Whether Sarazanmai is anti-consumerism or anti-capitalist, I don't think that he has merchandise for his shows makes Ikuhara hypocritical anymore than Tomino would be a hypocrite for making Gundam an anti-war message while also making weapons of war his core toy marketing. Given the low ratings Yuri Kuma Arashi got in Japan, I doubt Ikuhara is on JK Rowling levels of money here. But I do think the heavy presence of the symbolism of the Amazon boxes in the show definitely points to economic inequality being a theme in the show. I also think people are confusing socialism with communism.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
SailorTralfamadore
 Posts: 499 Location: Keep Austin Weeb |
|
|||||||||
At both you and DTU: 
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Alexis.Anagram
Posts: 278 Location: Mishopshno |
|
|||||||||
https://youtu.be/ShIg-3NRQj4?t=1723 There's a reason we refer to the bust cycles in capitalism as "recessions": they represent a contraction in economic activity resulting in negative growth. Recessions do not resolve themselves as there is no market mechanism which can effectively manage stagnation, so they're typically managed through external (primarily governmental) measures to inject the market with some sort of stimulus to promote a return to positive growth: financialization, defense (i.e. war) spending, increasing the money supply, etc. Gabriella simply boiled the economic reality of capitalism down to its bottom line: if markets are not growing, they are in stagnation or recession, which, absent an active effort to repair them, will result in collapse. Of course the paradox inherent to that dynamic is that markets can not (or we could say, simply do not) grow forever, but they absolutely can and do decline until they crash. Thus, capitalism is at best an inherently volatile system for organizing and managing resources; at worst one might even say it's unsustainable.
More integral to the definition of capitalism than private ownership of wealth is its causal antecedent in private ownership/control over the means of production. The trouble with your distinction here is that consumerism is not some incidental byproduct of capitalist societies: it is the functional engine which drives them. Public consumption (on a massive scale) of privately produced and distributed goods is the key measure by which growth is achieved: capitalism can not sustain itself without a consumerist model to drive large-scale profits for private enterprise, therefore it must advance consumerism as a principle of economic organization. And that, naturally, points to another paradox of the system: of course no goods in a capitalist society are actually produced by the private sector-- they are produced by the public (labor) for the private sector, to be repackaged and resold to the public at a cost to them and a profit to the business class. And the only reason things are done this way is because we are religiously conditioned to view the accumulation of private wealth as the most desirable outcome of the natural economic order. Of course we can choose to reject the consumerist model of social exchange in theory, but in reality that stands as an equal rejection of capitalism on the whole. Hence, Sarazanmai is as anti-capitalist for its anti-consumerist leanings as Gabriella infers in her review-- as is Ikuhara and anyone else who understands that the profit motive should not be the central social tenet determining individual and collective relationships. I welcome you all as allies to the homosexual, socialist revolution. 
You've inadvertently reinforced precisely the point I think Gabriella was making: the exact question or concern that Ikuhara poses through these destructive symbols is, "What do we do with people who are considered 'unproductive?'" Should someone who doesn't want to (or is incapable of) pursuing employment or education be left to starve on the streets? Should they be abandoned by society simply because they aren't in a position to participate in it in a way that is to their benefit? Is that a reasonable communal reaction to someone who is considered "unfavorable" by a system that defines productivity as relative to social status rather than any actual performance of labor? Consider that (U.S. data) the majority of people who are poor and who can work, do, and that it's children who are hit hardest by economic disparity, representing half of the world's poor despite only making up 30% of of its population. The trouble is not that most people approve of these institutional realities (I would wager the vast majority do not), but that we live in a system that aims to frame every relationship as transactional, centering interactions on what each participant can bring to the relationship and determining social value accordingly. It follows then that we should not seek out partnerships (platonic, familial, or romantic) for feckless human emotions like joy or love, but view each one as an investment in which we anticipate a return: we have children so that they can become "productive adults," we date or marry with the intention of enhancing or securing our economic fortunes, and when these plans go awry and the complex and sometimes impossible demands of capitalist culture are not met, we divest through divorce and even disownment. Of course these rigid assertions will not hold equally applicable to everyone, in fact I believe that most people unconsciously (and consciously) rebel against them as a result of their innate human drive towards empathy and emotional connection, but before anybody pats themselves on the back for marrying out of love, I would challenge them to seriously ask themselves if they think most people with any notable measure of wealth would, or even feel like they could, enter a relationship with someone who is homeless? Most people won't even stop to talk to someone who is perceived as being homeless, because a homeless person is typically perceived as having nothing to offer and, worse, may even ask for something and give nothing in return. The idea of "getting something for nothing," of being entitled to anything in life as a right of privilege due to being born, is so antithetical to how capitalism frames reality that we are rigorously conditioned not to engage with any theory of civilization that espouses "equality of outcome" as an aspiration. We're taught that all people must provide payment for services rendered: and that any failure to pay will result in a moral debt to society. It may be that these pressures are present in other economic models, arguably any system which institutes class hierarchy is capable of producing them, but as a feature of capitalism they are especially pervasive and ripe for critique. On that note, I would highly recommend the second part of the lecture series I linked at the start of this post as it features a deconstruction of neoclassical conceptualizations of the "consumer" as a representative unit by highlighting the diverse, human connections that make up individual experiences, and also describes the weaponization of competition by firms as, at the essential level, acts of economic war. All stuff that I think really bolsters an anti-capitalist reading of Sarazanmai of the sort that Gabriella put forward, although conversely I also think it underscores how much deeper Ikuhara really could and should have gone in terms of defining this conflict and its resolution for his story. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1ZGQRgxHp8&list=PLB1uqxcCESK6B1juh_wnKoxftZCcqA1go&index=2 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group