"Anime isn't deep, it's just entertainment"

Originally this began as a shared topic between myself, Bateszi, Hidoshi, Impz, Martin, Owen and TheBigN. Following our collective synchronised posting, DrmChsr0, DS, lolikitsune, Michael and Yumeka also shared their thoughts.

We, the Original Seven, were given the above statement to formulate an argument for/against/nebulous middle ground. This is what I wrangled from my brainmeats . . .

Within popular culture there's a natural desire to equate depth with pretension, or the overt use of culturally celebrated things like religion, philosophy and politics with highbrow intellectualising. But really, how many anime have actually pulled off the use of these successfully? With enough skill to call it an art form, something that isn't as disposable as the simplistic term 'entertainment' suggests?

There's a definite distinction between ostensibly deep anime and anime that has a deep effect on its viewers. Evangelion cherry-picked from Jung, the Kabala, Christianity etc. as a means to imbue symbolism into its visual presentation but barely used these theories and ideologies beyond superficial gain. Yet, it managed to transcend its joy in obvert intellectual masturbation by representing a further kind of substance; a baser, emotional substance.

This is where I want argue that anime can be more than 'just entertainment' (avoiding the obvious tangents that depth and entertainment aren't mutually exclusive - which I support, let it be known). The reason Evangelion's success was so widespread is partly because it had those hints of philosophy and psychoanalysis (giving those inclined something to research and analyse), but more importantly it portrayed a startlingly complex and realistic characterisation that profoundly moved a majority of its viewers.

Granted, you could apply individual mental illnesses to each character with a rigid conformity, using Freud and Jung in a more practical sense, but their application in the context of the show is what elevates it above mere profiling. Every character in Evangelion has a history that merits their emotional state and their subsequent behaviour throughout the course of the show. The true depth is in how it convinces us of its characters confused, messy humanity; not in how one may perfectly exemplify of a Type-A personality or some extreme of animus or anima.

The most enticing prospect of Rebuild, the thing that pulls it above the shameless cash-in motivations, is that Anno intends to do Evangelion again without the wankery - without the pretence that bewildered more than it contributed. I hope, as a fan, Rebuild will demonstrate the true strengths of the series without the religious/philosophical albatrosses that caused so much vitriol in its lengthy analysis ("it's so up its own arse" "I still don't fully understand it"). The big question, in regards to the topic, is whether Rebuild will be considered as 'deep' as its original without the philosophical window dressing.

The point in using the rather lazy example of Evangelion is that it exemplifies two kinds of depth: one of technical, academic depth (although its success in this remains hotly debated), and one of emotional depth.

Ergo Proxy, as much as I enjoyed it, demonstrated the extreme of having ticked all the Let's Be Deep boxes but lacked the ability to make it inherent enough not to alienate the audience. If it had the same sophistication of character as Evangelion, much of its smug, Philo 101 attitude wouldn't be so repugnant and pompous. It relates back to the principle of 'means to an end' - unless you're making an anime as a means to educate on whatever philosophical theory you're using, then see it as a foundation rather than a badge. Just because an anime chucks Descartes soundbytes everywhere and names characters after prominent Western philosophers this doesn't automatically denote its intelligence. If anything it makes it look like the idiots that quote SparkNotes in English Lit seminars. Everyone knows where they're sourcing these supposed wisps of contemplation and everyone knows there's nothing beneath their snappy artifice. Much of the criticism that anime can't be deep, that it is just entertainment, comes from is these failed attempts and their misuse of what I see to be legitimate sources for fictional exploration.

The Ghost in the Shell franchise (oh god, another 500 words) is another curiously contained example of major failure and stunning success when considering depth in anime. Both films, the first much less so than the second, are appalling demonstrations of obtuse, intellectualised-into-the-ground ideas of a director showing how obscenely left-brained he is. GitS: Stand Alone Complex and 2nd GIG, however, reflect a compromise in being incredibly intelligent and sophisticated but not so much that it flies over the heads (or in the faces) of its viewers. The degree of astute social commentary in the GitS TV series is where its true depth lies. Whereas Evangelion gives us invasive, uncomfortable analysis of the human condition, GitS offers a study in our behaviour as a society and as a political machine. 2nd GIG also did the unthinkable for a GitS affiliation and gave us character development that didn't feel like it had a wooden plank shoved up its backside. Whether this is crucial in explaining why I feel the second series is better than the first, and infinitely better than the ostentatious, irritating films, I'm not sure. Regardless, GitS TV demonstrates that anime can be mature and intelligent without spectacle and self-important nasal gazing; the polar opposite of its film parentage.

So I've reeled off a few notorious examples and I admit they were the ones that immediately sprung to mind when the words 'deep' and 'anime' were said, but for the sake of balance let's consider some non-futuristic, non-flashy anime.

Honey & Clover is positively drowning in its own depth. I deny anyone with a soul who says they haven't wept like a shameless child at least once over Honey & Clover's two series run. Mushishi, again, literally abused our heartstrings and often didn't even have recurring characters to warrant the emotional attachment we felt to many of its stories. Even Gurren Lagann, an anime that wouldn't immediately command attention for its depth, manages to draw you in and feel as many highs and lows as the more sober, straight-faced examples. All these examples are anime that don't necessarily present themselves as High Art but nonetheless achieve the same levels of accomplishment as their slightly bloated contemporaries.    

So, the overriding consensus is that depth, as far as I see it, relates to whatever way an anime affects you beyond the superficial. The apologist in me wants to acknowledge visual depth; the impressive visual substance and all the hard graft is probably took to realize it to any degree, but ultimately it's the lingering emotional response that I say is most important. Intellectual depth has its worth, but in the case of anime, as much any medium of entertainment, it means jackshit if there's nothing more. Depth is a collection of factors that complement each other to extent of genuinely affecting its audience. And anime can, and frequently has, reached these kind of heights.

Comments

[Impz]

Well, the issue with the topic is that you have to actually define the meaning of deep in your own terms. However, I believe that the context of the topic is a dichotomous between deep and entertainment, which usually means an active and passive viewing and involvement in the very artwork that is presented.

Using your definition, it is clearly true that the anime that you have mentioned has depth, but to use it in the two parallel terms that is presented in the topic, it seems somewhat inaccurate.

In addition, as much as we like to mention about the deepness of anime, the many anime that you have mentioned are perhaps a rarity in the forest of anime that is available. A small boat does not make a fleet, and it simply shows that anime, on a general context, is still a quick fix of entertainment.

Nevertheless, I did enjoy the reading quite a bit.

[intro]

I never cried once during either season of Honey and Clover. I suppose that makes me a horrible person.

[Mike]

I actually do think that the psychoanalytic stuff in Eva was meaningful in the context of the story. The entire story can be read in light of the Oedipus and Electra complexes, and seems intentionally structured so, particularly as you get closer to the end. Jung's idea of selfhood also makes notable apperances. It's also notable that Carl Jung was one of the original modern people who was fascinated by Kabbalah, and Kabbalistic imagery is everywhere in Evangelion.

But I agree with your other point--the religious and metaphysical imagery in the show is shallow and they've admitted it too; it was just to look cool.

As for the other shows you mention I've seen: GitS the films is made by Mamoru Oshii, ex-seminarian, who clearly really wants to be a philosopher. But his movies genuinely explore philosophical issues. I too enjoy the TV shows more, but they are more political and philosophical, which is fine (it's no less intelligent in the least), but, well, it's easier to write a theology paper on the Oshii movies. :) (Which is what I am going to be doing this month.)

I've come to realize that the strength of H&C is in the monologues. The monologues contain a kind of self-awareness and understanding of interior life that is exceedingly rare in anime. They are also very eloquent. The plot is otherwise quite ordinary.

[0rion]

"2nd GIG also did the unthinkable for a GitS affiliation and gave us character development that didn't feel like it had a wooden plank shoved up its backside."

Oh, how I lol'd at that line.

[TokiDoki]

zomg others have pondered this question... and I thought I was the only one. Though there are differing arguments to this question, my stance is that I enjoy anime as a form of entertainment and don't really worry about the deeper meaning if any.