Deleuze anime and cartoons
The impact of film on the viewer is incredible. Benjamin wrote almost a century ago about cinema’s affect on the population watching. Merleau-Ponty expanded arguing that information garnered is bodily absorbed not rationally deduced. With the overall impact of film there is much to gain from film but much to distance from.
Zizek refers to movies to philosophically narrate his point. His narrativising in an allegorical statement. Using film to express a theory of structural reality. In one attempt, he explores the rise of the empire after the fall of the republic. Closing in on Anakin’s transition to the dark side. Such use of cinema to decipher his point. His philosophy is pursued through visual imagery. Denoting cinema to illustrate his point. A characterisation powerfully manifested in its secondary use. The visual par excellence is a bright choice in illuminating his abstractly complex idea. Philosophy is quite the difficult phenomena reverting to cinematic tropes is a profound way of connecting the idea to the event. Yet, he focuses on critically acclaimed films that readers have viewed. Having watched Star Wars in the past and knowledgable of its content, his conclusion reshapes the plot line with his philosophical project.
His strategy speaks to the weaving through the director’s thematic storyline. Whether or not the director’s intent, it is the conclusion drawn philosophically from the prose that caters to the invested. Zizek looks to draw ideas from cinema. The same cannot be said about the surface level concoction. The metaphorical message is a semiotic cause daunting in the naked eye. Zizek relates to the story of The Graduate. In it he argues that Mrs. Robinson’s immorality was all a ruse to ensure her daughter would remain pure. Finding these gems is truly a marvellously keen eye for detail. There are many things Zizek picks up on that the average observer does not. Whether or not they do so unconsciously is irreverent. The visual absorption does make that rational link available. The average viewer perceives the Jedi as good and the Sith as bad. Especially to the youth so simple in the semantic deduction unable to see the complex picture.
There is something to be said of our adolescent portrait of cinema. Even rewatching Star Wars in adulthood the inverse twist to imperial good is not easily construed. Unless one is looking for potholes and theories beneath the surface, the more colourful Jedi are still the good guys. The ascetic Jedi order and republic shortcomings are not parlayed sufficiently to arouse any sympathy for the Sith. The global domination arc is not a tempting good guy response. The hero is the underdog wishing to vanquish evil. The dark aura and the deadly space machine constitute a devilish plot for galactic control. The semantic reading is convincing to the action packed thriller. Most people are watching for enjoyment not philosophical inquiries. The Graduate is a story of maturity and unknown future from the protagonists perspective singing along to Simon and Garfunkel’s beautifully catchy tunes. The cinematic prose cheers for romance and jeers at the controversial affair between Benjamin and Mrs. Robinson.
Audiences take in themes and values but there is a commonplace to enjoin ideas and themes. Cinema does make it their mission to educate the public about their goal. From movies of the Godfather to Pulp Fiction, there is wisdom throughout. Film has told a tale unveiling its motive visually. Yet in this regard it paints a societal picture. It pivots themes that it wishes to convey. Public reception of the visual occurrence may result in mimicking. The event and not the idea is absorbed. Perceiving the event as a factual possibility, inspired by its efficiency becomes a hallmark of one’s routine. This is not necessarily so. Telling a story on a screen does not resemble realistic human emotion generationally nor situationally. It may attempt to capture the genuine human experience but many a time it is out to tell a story. Reaching the pinnacle of the thematic outcome at any cost. The ideal is taught in the face of the commonplace possibility. Crafting a plot line with encouraging characters to cheer on to do the impossible.
Growing up, going outside away from video games was to gain experience. Technology was a means of distraction. Fun with friends but insufficient education. Today, learning a craft online is simple and easy. Self education in derivatives or building a tree house. Options are limitless. The upcoming generation is seduced by technological freedom. One can be taught everything. The old folk wisdom is replaced with computer generated truth. Chat GPT has become that intelligent marker. While the current stream is finding answers from other people across the world. Quora is a Q&A website. It creates a platform to discuss and learn from other’s knowledge and experience. Yet Chat GPT may change all that namely receiving answers from a robot. Still, it is generating solutions from prior human creation. There is a dependence emerging on technology to teach us what to do and how to do it. While this is divorced from cinema, it is not too far off. It is a visual creation educating over a visual narrative. A law versus narrative symbiosis type dialectical oscillation.
Internet is the godchild of cinema. The visual licence takes on an orderly categorised order for information. No longer speaking in riddles, it is out in the open. The underlying cause of technological education is all too real. Film has taken on a deeper power in the hyperreal setting. It is similar to the Santa myth. Young children believe Santa is real dressed in red riding with his reindeer to deliver presents to good children from the North Pole. All parents are aware of this lie but tell it to their children anyways. The children grow out of it and then persist the lie on their kids. Cinema is the same. Cinema is not the real world. The young fairytales are fantasy. Growing up with life adaptations from the satirical cartoons influences the adolescent mind. Watching real people act out affects the mind in a developmental style. Mimicking characters in their walk and posture. While teenagers are supposed to escape cinema into the real world, the more and more real life high school dramas only perpetuate specific wardrobes. Movies are one thing, television shows are another. The weekly reminder of ideal high school life and character indulging is intoxicating. Chemically binding the viewer to the fictional character’s life.
While reality tv is technically that bubble in the real from the illusionary. The characters are the same. Reality TV does seem more genuine but how certain is the audience that the show is not directed with a goal. No matter. The ability to separate the cartoon from real life is easy but not from human to human. Consciously America’s Got Talent and Top Chef differ heavily from Drake and Josh and Friends. Yet a show like Keeping with the Kardashians finds a middle ground where the real and the illusion are intertwined. It is real life but also cinematic. Still all these have the same factors in common. Viewership sees people just like them expressing themselves in ordinary ways. If they succeed or fail in those ways that must be something to follow. Especially when the characters are acting in accordance with the plot’s intent. Appealing to the character’s lives and their impact. There is no growing out of it. It is a cyclical loop of cinematic education. Praising types of characters and actions in accordance with the director’s goal.
It is beyond cheering and jeering. It is internalising the praised and voiding the ridiculed. Drake despite his carefree attitude towards his studies is a ladykiller. Every girl wants him and every guy wants to be him. While the satirical side emerged consistently, it was impactful. Many kids shows from The Amanda Show to The Sweet Life to iCary were real life but comedic. Looking back there were too many laughs to be taken seriously. It was Santa in the moment but alright not to be taken too seriously. Still, the real life moments and proper human trend of schooling and living with a family, doing teenage things could not escape the viewer’s mind. Even James Bond movies which are so foreign from the viewer’s capability still aspire to be. If a person could reach that point and be that awesome, the viewer tries to become that. It is the aspiration for the ideal. Cinema makes the impossible wishfully plausible. To some degree absorbing some of his demeanour can be utilised to better the self. While this may be true it is not parallel to the real world as cinema is chemically constructed.
Television drama shows depict the most obvious relation influence. A teenager watching other teenagers developing together. Aspiring youngsters watch television with all its aspiring characters. While some television shows may have a stronger pull than others, all pierce the cognitive division of real and illusionary. Real life personas are inherently influential. Learning love and romance from movies no matter how complex the situation is microscopically focused. Embodying the character to become more popular and more liked. It is not all wrong but it is not all right. Santa is not all myth. The plot line may be but the gift giving and good v. evil is real. The same is true of the tooth fairy. The archetype is fictional but the message is real. It is the character engagement that falsely internalised over the overall message. If cinema falsely depicts real life and foreshadows others to fall into that trap. If the character could accomplish it then obviously the viewer can. The viewer identifies with the character to mimic in his successes.
Cinema constructs an illusion with specs of truth. It is this mix that garners viewer support and empathy without striking the absolute truth. A perfect example is of both Tom Felton and Jack Gleeson. Felton who played Draco Malfoy was Harry’s rival and antagonist. He said that girls were not fans of his demeanour. In a sense they could not separate him from his role. Felton was Malfoy and girls did not take too kindly to it. Though even more extreme and sinister is Gleeson’s situation. Gleeson played Joffrey the childish maniacal menace. Due to his incredible acting, Joffrey was the most hated character in the beloved series. Reportedly, fans harassed him. While Felton’s character was met with empathy, Gleeson’s was met with scorn. Verbally abused in public over a fictional character is the burden of the audience’s inability to separate truth from illusion. Given the sexual and perverse nature, young adults or adults were harassing him. For children it may be understandable but for teenagers, it only furthers their cinematic hold. The unmistakable disconnect between actor and character is the audience’s misperception and hypnotic assimilation.
Characters on television are redeemed by their realistic side even if the cases are irregular. Medical shows are notoriously false. Ironically, it is the comedy Scrubs that is the most medically authentic. Yet, the show is more about the drama than the medical aspect. Recalling watching House, the character development and their interactions are more memorable than the medical case at hand. The side character’s are nameless even if their profession is recalled. The side character, such as the magician’s illness which affects House concerning mortality and the beyond calling is so swiftly sweeps under the rug. Episodic characters are relational to the primary character development. House is a perfect example of personally identifying with a character. Recognising the resolute hypocrisy in disassociating from cinematic overhaul. Yet it is ironic, it is not a perfect memo but there is where to connect. House’s dire behaviour makes sense from a viewer walking with a cane due to medical complications. Cinema is not perfect but it is also not empty.
While an interest in outlaw figures is a personal favourite from a love of societal rebellion. This passion is more of an alignment than a sought aspiration. Still, the latter is not without impact. In this regard, Japanese anime comes to mind. American cartoons tend to be comedic: Simpsons, Family Guy, and South Park. The more action packed cartoons are eastern cuts. Many anime fans find the classical satirical content in American shows to be more valuational in anime. Shows like Death Note, Fullmetal Alchemist, and Naruto are hero journey narratives with bliss purpose and empowering tropes. The imaginative aura beloved by readers find film adaptations minimally relatable is akin to life adaptations of former cartoons. The focus on the character themes and motifs are more recognisable behind the fictional story. The irrational relatability is intersected. On the one hand Naruto’s cartoonish side disconnects the viewer from the character but his horrid past pierces the emotional coil clinging to the viewer's heart.
It is the story arc propagated by fictional logos with human pathos. There is more a link between the characters and their episodic counterparts as those characters influence one another. There is more of an unlimited range with animated capability but it is also the ethos behind the Japanese cinema that pushes these themes. The cartoon is never replaced as the real. Viewers may dream of a fantasy realm where they can become a ninja or fire energy blasts from their palms but the engrossment is the character themselves. There is a deeper interest and merited fold. The obsession may even go deeper than fans of Grey’s Anatomy and Criminal Minds. Perception is clearer to the animated ideal of attributes over self proliferation. That isn’t to say anime doesn’t have a diverse genre or in romantic senses there is hyper-sexualisation. Whether due to Japanese culture, taboo immaturity or average human fetish it does raise a red flag. Still overlooking this mark for the story at large does bypass the fan service.
Speaking of anime fiction, there is a 2D male/female fetish. This is the aspirational real. It is not solely the sexualised drawings but the character’s personality. Their personality’s rage against the societal stigmas of men chasing women. These girls run after the male protagonists no matter how much of a goofball. To the stereotypical loser male, shy and outcasted this is a godsend. What life could be if it was a video game. While this may make for some tenuous unhealthy relationships and calls into question the AI girlfriend possibility, there is an empowering mechanism of revolting against norms. Will 3D girls run after you as they do in the fictional programs, maybe not but it is about the ideal plausibility to be oneself and proud of it. The ideal can easily be distinguished from real, while for life adaptations it’s taken at realistic face value. The viewer can not be the protagonist but can acquire his skills to capture the heart of the near perfect 3D girl. There is a separation between the two. It allows more personable imagination for the self to find its true self. The females are beautiful but they are heroines to the male protagonist.
Cartoons are best displayed as humorous portrayals of human action. Cartoons are not real, many of their famous stories are sci-fi at the max. Fans are left to recognise the illusionary on screen as another world. Even if they wish to identify with the character there is only so much they can do. While the visual eclipses the imaginative novella, the characters are not real. The visual does not trick the viewer because rational relation is reducible. Cartoons cannot be faked into reality. Viewerships connection to the show is about thematic and entertaining content. Aroused by the plot and character development. Enjoying the journey with its ups and downs. There is no getting lost with genuine linkage. While there are limitations and imperfections, it is a model to contest with as a growing person. Humans are surrounded with visual content to influence. Books are replaced with television. The cartoonish middle ground aids in solidifying the real world from the falsehood that is merely an organic platform to rejoice.
No comments:
Post a Comment