Haven In Hell – NightHeaven's Blog

http://forums.productionig.com/ ： jerryku

I think “Innocence” is about what you see in the poster for the film: dogs and dolls. Also, in the trailer, it says “Innocence. That’s what life is.” Dogs and Dolls are innocent because they are not cognizant, they are not conciously self-aware, they have no ego. I’m not sure how to put it. But I heard someone saying that Motoko’s quote at the end of the movie, where she talks about how people see evil in the mirror of oneself, is about how people lose their innocence by becoming obsessed with themselves, their own importance, own purpose. And do you remember Kim’s spinning globe that Togusa spins in the mansion? I think that globe represents “life”, and thus, “innocence.” As it spins, the globe shows images of all sorts of animals. Lions, monkeys, and at the end, a dog. Innocent creatures that don’t think about their own importance very much.

In an IGN interview of Oshii, Oshii says that in the first GITS movie, he thought that what makes a human a human is their mind, and their memories of life. The body is not important. But then he says he has a different conclusion for GITS2, and he says our body as a whole is what makes us human, and our relationship with others is even more important. And I think when he says “our body as a whole entity”, he’s talking about how it fits in with life in general. Our human bodies are a part of mother nature, that kinda thing.

In GITS2, Kim, who is nothing more than a cyberbrain… with no body.. is insane. He has no relationships with others. He is not innocent. This is what happens to people when they disconnect themselves from their bodies and relationships with people. They go mad.

In fact, almost everyone is sad, moody, and somber in this movie. Every human being that is. Oshii said somewhere about how GITS is not really a ‘vision of the future’. It’s about the present, because he thinks the world is so full of sadness right now, and that’s why so many characters seem sad. But Batou’s dog is not sad, and the cheeriest character in the film, Togusa, is repeatedly shown to be strongly connected to his family, especially his daughter.
Togusa is definately the most innocent human character of the film, sometimes he comes off as naive or kinda spaced out. He doesn’t mope around like Batou does, he playfully spins the globe as he walks around Kim’s mansion. He eats a bun while Batou interrogates. He curiously gazes into the model replica of the mansion.. and in the end, he says he can’t be Batou’s partner anymore. It’s not just because he has a family, it’s also because his family represents his innocence. Working with Batou seems like it will lead to his loss of innocence, it will corrupt him. Remember that Togusa only says he wants to stop working with Batou after Kim has hacked into his cyberbrain, which scared the bejeezus out of Togusa. Afterwards, Batou questioned Togusa’s confidence that he even had a family! In the end, Batou says “you got a daughter, and that’s real.”

Batou’s dog and Togusa’s daughter bring the two men a lot of happiness because it links them to an innocent kind of thinking. Is there anything to be questioned behind those kinds of relationship? Nope. What are some things that make human beings non-innocent? The way i would answer such a question…… Greed, war, materialism, etc. If we sit around talking about how our country, culture, people, race, are superior to others… and how we need to run around converting people to our way of life, it just shows how self-obsessed we are, and how innocent we are NOT. We’re obsessed with ourselves so much that we think others should become like us, that they’ll be better if they become us.

But a dog doesn’t do that. Neither do dolls. Dogs are innocent, and happily give affection to their owners regardless of any of these things we human beings consider important.

At the end of the film, it’s said that the dolls, if they could’ve, probably would’ve screamed to say they did not want to become human (or to have souls anyway). It’s a loss of innocence, to become human.

Another thing that I just thought of… the huge city that Batou and Togusa fly through. They say something about how the cities can be representations of the societies that produce them, I believe. That city is supposed to come off as humanity’s obsession with their own importance. Their technological mastery. Their total abandonment of nature, and total control/domination of nature itself. That city’s buildings were so mechanised looking, so lifeless looking. They were monstrosities. Abominations! The white birds fly around, a juxtaposition of innocence and loss of innocence. Of true soul, and then lost of soul. Batou says the city is full of corrupt criminals and corporations: human greed. So the city fly through sequence is supposed to paint humanity’s evolution as dark, corrupt, and sad. Not innocent. And not really in tune with what life is truly about.

So in the end, I think the reviews that say GITS2 is just added on top of GITS1 did not really sit to think about the message of the film. They need to take into account what Oshii said about the differences of the two film. And then see that the first GITS was really low on anything sentimental, on any social relations. It was about Motoko as a solitary figure. But Innocence is full of sentimental things. Batou’s dog, batou’s connection with motoko (his “guardian angel”), Togusa’s family.

What do you think?

Also, I just thought about the parade sequence, and so I’m reinterpreting it. Some have said they thought the parade sequence was out of place and just a CGI show off, but i think the symbolism is easier to pick up when I think of this “humans are not innocent” approach.

First off, in one scene, everyone is wearing a mask except for one lone Buddhist monk. Most of the masks people are wearing are human-looking. So the idea behind the scene is to show that people are not innocent, they are disconnected with life, and they are celebrating their human-ness.

The Buddhist monk, however, has no mask, because he represents a religion that, I think, believes all life has a sense of equality. You can reincarnate as a cricket, you may have been a dog in a previous life. Humanity is not the supreme dominator of all life in Buddhism, like it is in religions such as Christianity. (And remember when Batou’s plane flies past all those big statues at the top of the city? These statues are monuments to mankind… they tower in the sky like gods over nature.) The Buddhist monk, I think, represents innocence, a person at peace with life. (Although he doesn’t look particularly happy in this scene!)

At the conclusion of the parade, we see a scene where all the masked people are throwing dolls into a big bonfire. I think the dolls represent innocence itself, and so humans are just throwing it away, into a fire, destroying their own innocence.

And during the final battle scenes, we see the gynoids’ faces break apart as Motoko destroys them, revealing their true selves underneath. This happens because as the gynoids are dying, they are losing their soul, their humanity. And thus, they are returning to a state of innocence. The Buddhist monk has no mask; as the gynoids die, their “masks” come off.

Finally, I think there’s a message behind the scene in Kim’s house of illusions. In one room Batou goes into, the ceiling of the room is full of blue clouds and white birds. That’s innocence and life. But the room, as we look below, has a group of people dressed up in fancy clothes, sitting around a table that is on fire. I think the people are supposed to come off as concieted, look-how-important-I-am types. Their innocence has been burned away too, like the dolls at the parade.

Kurotowa

Very interesting discussion here. I do have to admit that I saw a few somewhat different things in this film that don’t seem to have been brought up in this thread, so for fun, here’s my bit:

Starting from the beginning, the film asks the question of why would these young female looking gynoids, an apparently lifeless robot sold to rich people as a sex toy, rise up against it’s master in violent rebellion in direct conflict of it’s apparent “programming” (which states that it cannot hurt humans to maintain it’s survival, apparently a reference to Asimov’s three rules of robotics)? If you assume that the robot behaves strictly in response to it’s programming, then this raises the questions of whether it’s behavior was either a deliberate part of the programming by a disgruntled software designer, a random computer virus, or some glitch? Or was it something else? Batou is assigned to answer that question, and in doing so the film once again seems to ask the same question of the first film, which is “What determines the difference between a living human and a robot/doll who looks human on the surface?” If GITS was about directly answering that question, then GITS 2 is more concerned with the *motivations* behind that which makes us human and how it does or does not seperate us from being simply a mechanical object.

Getting back to the gynoids, one of the chief themes early on at least seems to be the treatment of “pets”. If you assume that the gynoids are just machines or dolls and aren’t “living”, than the idea of one rebelling against it’s intended “function” seems baffling. In theory, the way a lifeless object is treated should make no difference to how it reacts if it was never programmed to react a certain way, BUT if it WAS a living human and not a machine, the idea of a little girl being treated like a sex toy and then dumped on the side of the road could believably destroy her feelings to the point that she would commit murder. Having humanity adds motivation to the crime that wouldn’t be there otherwise. I suppose Oshii wanted to make the point that how you treat something, even if you perceive it to be “non human” is important. It might actually be more human than you think. The way the humans are tossing the dolls carelessly in the fire in the parade scene or even the rich elite watching their world burn on the table in front of their eyes…these scenes show humans who are apparently oblivious to the way that their treatment of supposedly “lesser” things around them can have an impact on both the world and even their own lives.

Batou’s dog is also a “pet” and, like the gynoid, it apparently is a clone that only carries the soul of a living thing placed inside a mechanical body. But to Batou there is no difference, he treats his pet with love regardless of whether or not it is “good enough” to be considered a living thing or not. The rich people buying the sexaroids apparently don’t see it the same way. They are a product and they can treat them how they want. In reality there are such humans. In many countries for example, little girls are sold as sex toys to rich clients who treat them like objects purchased at the store, screwing them and dumping them on the side of the road as if they were a lifeless doll or a disposable pet. Do you think these humans doing bad things to these pets really realize how little there is seperating themselves from what they are wronging?

I’ve seen Oshii discuss this topic of how humans treat animals before, specifically in the Oshii miyazaki debate that took place at the time of Patlabor 2 (you can read the whole thing here:http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/interviews/m_oshii_patlabor2.html). In that interview Oshii said, “I think there is such a reflection. We’ve been focusing too much on humans, and animation isn’t the exception. Even when two persons are talking, probably a bird is flying over their heads, a fish is in a pond, and a dog is watching you when you look down. In my case, the eyes of animals are always on my mind.” and a little while later added, “As I said before, the gap between the reality of our life and politicians’ thinking is widening. I think it’s the same thing as the question of how we can close that gap. To say you care about animals and to say you have to reexamine postwar history properly once more– they are actually the same thing…It’s the actual era in which we’ve been living, and I really want to make (a film about it) properly.” It looks like he finally got around to making it…the film seems very intent on trying to get us to ask ourselves what is living and what is not. Sure, a Biology class could bring you up to speed in a week or two, but I suppose it’s more fun to ask the question in the Oshii world.

While the film is complex and sort of confusing (did anybody else notice the lack of Itoh as the screenwriter in this film? If it can be said that Oshii meanders around within the confines of Itoh’s structured scripts then when Oshii decided to do both himself it seems more like he is meandering within the meander which makes following it twice as hard…) at the very least the gynoid question does get resolved. Since the rich customers wanted an “authentic” sex toy that acted like a human, the programmers decided to hook up a real human soul to it. In doing so, the doll became capable of rebelling because it now possesed that which makes a human truly different from a doll.

In terms of visual symbols there is way too much to talk about from just a few viewings. From the “parade of giant dolls” marching mechanically through the city to the way the characters are manipulated like marionettes when someone is able to overcome their defenses (not just the ebrain hacking that goes on, at one point Batou is even using actual puppet strings to manipulate a member of the yakuza to illustrate that point) a great effort is made to describe the slim distinction between a living and non living thing (or the distinction between a human and a doll that looks human). But I leave such analysis to the experts, I speant far too much time staring at insignificant background details both times to really claim much comprehension of the overall story

jerryku

QUOTE

“As humans have become more ‘mind-oriented?and the environment has become more urban, some have forgotten the idea of the human body,?says Oshii. “As far as they’re concerned, the human body does not exist anymore. The reason that people of today choose to have dogs is that they’re looking for a substitute to the human body.?When I asked Oshii during the round table to clarify this quote, he explained that some people have family or children that take them away from technology and out of their heads to their bodies, but for him it is his dogs that do this.

Batou and Togusa, right there!

QUOTE

“This movie does not hold the view that the world revolves around the human race. Instead, it concludes that all forms of life—humans, animals, and robots—are equal. In this day and age when everything is uncertain, we should all think about what to value in life and how to coexist with others. We all need friends, family, and lovers. We can’t live alone. In the year 2032, when this movie takes place, robots and electronic beings have become necessary companions to people. Actually, that time has come already. What we need today is not some kind of anthropocentric humanism. Humanity has reached its limits. I believe that we must now broaden our horizons and philosophize about life from a larger perspective. With this film, I hope to reflect upon the uneasiness that pervades the world today. Under such conditions, what is the meaning of human existence??- Mamoru Oshii

Other portions of the interview says that:
- Oshii didn’t feel Japanese until after he did this movie.
- “We live in a cruel and frightening world.” ” It is this culture of fear and anxiety that I want to depict cinematically. ”

You know, I’ve been reading reactions to Innocence all over the web…… and the vast majority of reviews and viewer impressions ignore all of these things that Oshii was trying to get across, regardless of whether or not the review/impression is positive or negative!

It took me forever to get the jist of the movie, I left the theater having no idea what the message was, what the quotes were for, or anything. I had to come to this forum and hear all the quotes over again, and then really sit and think about the movie before I began asking myself some questions. I’ve had a lot of fun trying to figure things out with everyone. But damn, I guess the movie is way too subtle about putting forth any philosophical dilemma for most people (like me!!). I for one did not see this “culture of fear and anxiety” depicted strongly. Nor did I feel there was a strong message of people “forgetting the idea of the human body”, until Kim showed up, and that was already late in the movie. But I did miss much of the Hathaway conversation, so I will have to rewatch that.

At best, I can interpret Kim’s illusions were a way to say that what your mind believes can be an illusion, it’s not true life. Definately Kim’s mansion was “fear and anxiety” for Togusa! And as we see at the end, Togusa freaks out and wants to quit. So Batou tells him what Oshii says above, you gotta focus on your body, through your kids, for example. Because what your mind believes can lead you to fear, anxiety, and doubt. But your body and relationships with others are real. Another important thing, I think, is the scene where Togusa’s body “explodes”, revealing his “cyborg” body. At first I just thought this scene was just to freak you out, but now I’m thinking that since Oshii intended Togusa to represent the viewer….. Oshii is directly telling the viewer not to forget their body. It’s important, and you really don’t want your body to be meaningless, and yes, if it exploded and you were a cyborg inside, you’d be freaked out about it. lol (For those who don’t remember, Togusa has a cyberbrain, but his body is all human.)

So I think the movie gives a lot of answers, in the form of quotes, and imagery… to questions that most viewers never realised were being asked. The viewer SEES the answers/conclusions clear enough, but often doesn’t bother to think about them, because they didn’t see the questions to begin with. And so, you have all these reviews saying that the parade was irrelevant, and that all these philosophical quotes are thrown around for no reason. I think people could’ve put the dots together a lot easier if the questions had been asked earlier and more obviously earlier in the film. (again, maybe the Hathaway scene is what i’m ignoring)

ocelot

“Walk alone, with few wishes, committing no sin, like an elephant in the forest.”

I’m not sure if I got the words exactly right, but I’m intrigued as to how this idea fits into the whole scheme of things.

My take on it is the pursuit of happiness – Kim mentioned something about how only animals, lacking the developed awareness that we humans do, are able to experience true paradise – they have ‘few wishes’ to feed their egos. I suppose this could have something to do with Motoko citing the mirror’s view of oneself (the ego) as a seed of evil – a loss of innocence, and ultimately, a loss of happiness. Paraphrasing Batou: “..what of all the dolls that didn’t want to become human?” These dolls suffered the pain of being concious, of being emotional, of being aware of themselves. Also, notice how the parade was basically devoid of humanity – save for a few people wearing masks here and there, and, if my memory serves me correctly, all these masks portrayed unhappy faces.

“Walk alone” however, I don’t quite get. There seem to be a lot of hints at affirming oneself through the physical – Batou through his dog, Togusa through his daughter – their humanity was confirmed through their physical relationships. This was a source of peace for them, where Togusa even said he was happy. However, Aramaki quoted the ‘elephant’ line to Togusa, I’ve forgotten exactly in what context, and Motoko said it as well before she left the doll’s body. She seemed to be walking alone, having transcended her body into the net. I wonder – was she at peace there? She seemed to be, having not exhibited the need or desire to stay in physical form, to actively physically be with Batou. However, Kim ‘walked alone’, and look what it did to him…

On a slightly different note, Kim had a lot of interesting stuff to say. Something about his bid to know life only after knowing death – but what he was experiencing was really only the death of his body. And then his suggestion for man’s apprehension of the doll – that our fear was based in the notion that we ourselves may be nothing but dolls, having nothing to truly distinguish us from the machines we create. And he showed Togusa, then Batou, that fear by masquerading himself as doll-like versions of them. Contrasting, then, Batou’s encouragement to Togusa to find himself by being with his daughter.

It’s almost like Oshii is saying: ” We can’t prove or disprove that we have ghosts. All we have are our shells, and they are our only tools for affirming that we are here.” Maybe this is somewhat an element of Oshii’s statement that he was trying to convey the idea of all forms of life being equal – the fact that all of life has to affirm itself in this way. However, obviously, in the movie the phenomena known as ‘ghost’ is not only recognized, but is also manipulated in some way.

Oh, well – me confused. I know what I just said may not be particularly well thought-out, but if anybody has any additions or comments, that would be appreciated. Also, does anybody remember Haraway’s take on the whole theme?

Kurotowa

If I was to describe Ghost in the Shell as a movie about “discovering what it is that makes us human” then the Matrix would be something more like “waking up to reality”. I have difficulty finding anything more than a few superficial connections between the two. At least to me, the themes do seem completely different.

Whomever brought up Terminator tho, I think made an excellent analogy/correlation to the sort of thing I think Oshii was aiming for in GITS2. I really do think that the idea that even this “lifeless killing machine” can become something that we cry for the moment we attach human emotions to it says a lot about how we evaluate things.

Part of understanding a film about the world we live in starts with looking at the world we live in in reality itself. I have seen firsthand that horrible things happen when people don’t treat other living things as if they are really living beings with feelings. For example, I had a neighbor who would take his family on trips and would just chain his dog outside in the front yard (where it is completely unprotected from attack, with just a small bowl of food and a small bowl of water) for a week in the middle of “winter” all alone with no humans looking after it. I remember hearing the dog crying during the day and at night and barking feriociously when practically anything came near it on the sidewalk. When the neighbors were back things weren’t much better. The dog was chained in the back yard and the boys next door would kick it and mess with it for pleasure. The people were completely oblivious to the concept that a living thing should not be treated this way, and then one day the dog finally bit one of the boys. I don’t even think there was a debate in that family that they had done anything wrong to warrant such an “assault”. The dad concluded that the dog was violent, and took it to the pound where it was probably put to sleep.

As a dog lover, I’m SURE Oshii has seen other people treat dogs this way (it happens all over the place…since dogs, like poor people, aren’t protected by the law they are victimized all over the place). I am also sure he has understood the connection between this (treating an animal like a lifeless thing) and what happens to humans in similiar situations when they are treated like lifeless things. I remember a job I had in the past which promoted a low level manager to manage my department. He had no real education, no real observable desirable traits (i.e. nothing to indicate that he was a decent human who cared about others), and certainly not much of anything I would consider intelligence (based on how he worked I sometimes wondered if it was part of his job description to download music from the internet). Nevertheless he brought his boss security in his incompetence and that is apparently worth something. First thing he did as the “man in charge” was intimidate the female workers in our department (all poor and barely holding onto their jobs). To keep their jobs, they all had to have sex with him. He would call them out to give him blow jobs on their lunch breaks whenever he felt like it. If they complained or threated him, he simply called a meeting announcing “cut backs” and that was that. I knew these girls, one of them grew negative and in desperation tried to find a decent boyfriend to get out of such a vulnerable situation. She slept with countless men in our office…all eager to exploit her vulnerability in the same way the boss did (for easy fun) with no intention of helping her survive. Eventually she had violent outbursts and turned to drugs. The manager? Completely oblivious to the chaos he was creating, he continued to screw (literally) things up for an entire year before he was finally demoted back to where he was before where he couldn’t do any damage.

When people treat an animal poorly it really does seem like they have no clue how much damage they are doing to the thing. Looking at the faces of the neighbor and my old manager convinced me at least, there was no indication that they even felt sorry (or even felt period) after they did what they did. They are innocent in a way…there is no evidence that they even feel the slightest shred of guilt. They think it’s just another extension of entertainment, that a living thing is there to amuse them, and then to discard when it is inconvienent to deal with their needs. The idea of giving the “pet” the constant love, protection, and maintenence it needs is something a lot of people…lost in television or the internet and detached from life…seem not to be getting these days. Hell, even reading one of the reviews for GITS2 horrified me…the reviewer was complaining about how he felt cheated because he didn’t get to actually see the gynoids getting raped. I don’t know if you guys don’t find the world freightening with this sort of thing going on…but I sure do. It’s refreshing to finally see someone have the guts to actually make a movie about this to begin with…it’s not exactly a crowd pleasing subject.

Anyways, I do not think most of us will have a fair chance to fully interpret Oshii’s messages until it comes out on DVD where we can pause things and really take a look at everything. I do want to comment on one more thing tho:

“Walk alone, with few wishes, committing no sin, like an elephant in the forest.”

I’m not sure if I got the words exactly right, but I’m intrigued as to how this idea fits into the whole scheme of things.

It seems very Buddist. To horrible paraphrase the principles behind Buddhism what is being suggested here I think is that the way to enlightenment is to systematically remove your desires (have few wishes), isolate yourself from society (walk alone), treat other humans well (committing no sin), and seek nothingness…the purest form of existence (Motoko…anyone?). In following the path you are to become more in tune with nature, as throwing away all your stuff and isolating yourself from society WOULD leave you with nothing better to do than to think about life and your place in the world. All distractions would be gone and you would know what your emotions mean at a much clearer level. Maybe if my manager or the neighbor attached their emotions to other living things they wouldn’t have done what they did? Certainly I don’t think they would be so “numb” if people were doing these things to them. I don’t know how being an elephant in the forest fits into this directly, but I am pretty sure it’s some way of saying “you can become a better person if you do this”. This is the first Oshii film with heavy Buddhist philosophy in it (maybe that’s why he thinks this is the first film he has made that makes him feel japanese…certainly there is no shortage of buddist ideology in other anime ^^).

max314

QUOTE
If I was to describe Ghost in the Shell as a movie about ‘discovering what it is that makes us human’ then the Matrix would be something more like ‘waking up to reality’. I have difficulty finding anything more than a few superficial connections between the two. At least to me, the themes do seem completely different.

The ‘waking up to reality’ part of the Matrix discussion is but the first baby steps of somethingmuch larger. The first movie is very concerned with questions like ‘what is real?’, thus delegating the role of machines to nothing more than stereotypical villains. He second movie complicates matters. The fact that the Oracle is actually a program and the introduction to the Merovingian and his emotionally-charged possey lets us in to a knew concept – the fact that ‘human = good’ and ‘machine = bad’ analogy can no longer work. It’s much more in shades of grey. By Revolutions, we have one of the most profound dialogues of the trilogy – the evolution, if you will, the the question of ‘what is real?’ in the first Matrix:

Rama-Kandra: You do not understand.
Neo: I just have never…
Rama-Kandra: …heard of programs speak of love.
Neo: It is a…human emotion.
Rama-Kandra: No – it is a word. What matters is the connection the word implies.

As far as Neo is concerned, he know the concept of love only in its state of simulacrum – the concept, the ‘connection the word implies’ has been lost, and only the superficial use of the word remains. Also, the fact that we are now talking of sentient programs able to feel emotions such as love, means that we’re brought more into the realms of, say, the Puppet Master of Ghost In The Shell. The Section 6 guys crack a joke in the limo about how maybe he had a crush on someone at Section 9 – a little snippet you might miss if you’re not looking out for it.

This is butone example in the trilogy (specifically the sequels) where there are strong thematic ties with the Ghost In The Shell franchise that had such a huge influence on The Matrix.

QUOTE
Whomever brought up Terminator tho, I think made an excellent analogy/correlation to the sort of thing I think Oshii was aiming for in GITS2. I really do think that the idea that even this ‘lifeless killing machine’ can become something that we cry for the moment we attach human emotions to it says a lot about how we evaluate things.

That would be me

Yes, very much so. The ‘humanising’ of the machine sort of indicates to me an innate human reaction – empathy. But it is the context of the empathy that is so interesting to think about, the fact that we empathise with an object within which we see ourselves reflected. The terminator, the doll, is what we and the characters are forming a relationship with. I hunk of metal and a computer processor we actually feel for! In many ways, perhaps this was Oshii’s idea in Innocence that the body, the physcial form that we posess is the only confirmation of what’s ‘real’. but, again, if you tale the idea from The Matrix that reality depends on your perception, well, I guess you could start writing a nice, long essay about that

Perhaps the terminator can be at peace. Apparently, Oshii talks of how these dolls never wanted to become ‘human’ (as we learned from The Matrix and Ghost In The Shell, what precisely that means is debatable), so perhaps the terminator’s last line in Judgement Day almost emboddies all of that:

‘I know now why you cry – but it’s something I can never do.’

QUOTE
Part of understanding a film about the world we live in starts with looking at the world we live in in reality itself. I have seen firsthand that horrible things happen when people don’t treat other living things as if they are really living beings with feelings. For example, I had a neighbor who would take his family on trips and would just chain his dog outside in the front yard (where it is completely unprotected from attack, with just a small bowl of food and a small bowl of water) for a week in the middle of ‘winter’ all alone with no humans looking after it. I remember hearing the dog crying during the day and at night and barking feriociously when practically anything came near it on the sidewalk. When the neighbors were back things weren’t much better. The dog was chained in the back yard and the boys next door would kick it and mess with it for pleasure. The people were completely oblivious to the concept that a living thing should not be treated this way, and then one day the dog finally bit one of the boys. I don’t even think there was a debate in that family that they had done anything wrong to warrant such an ‘assault’. The dad concluded that the dog was violent, and took it to the pound where it was probably put to sleep.

As I said in a previous post, personality is dependent upon past experience and personality. The same applies for dogs.

Those f. uckers (the family, not the dog…)

QUOTE
‘Walk alone, with few wishes, committing no sin, like an elephant in the forest.’

I’m not sure if I got the words exactly right, but I’m intrigued as to how this idea fits into the whole scheme of things.

Lookin at it, it would seem like a mantra referring to the absolute satisfaction with the world, and a state of oneness with it. An egoless existence that coincides with Oshii’s own viewson what the ideal existence is. Personally, I don’t believe in it. It renounces the responsibilities that human beings face as social creatures. but in the context of purely theoretical discussion, it’s cool to talk about.

I’ve had the ending spoiled with Kusinagi’s new plane of existence on the net and rejecting her physical body, so I’ll just stick with it for now. It’s on a par with Neo’s merging with Smith at the end of Revolutions and permeating the machine world and the Matrix as a result (notice how all the machine eyes are now green instead of red, ?la Matriculated, and the full-colour, sun-shining version of the Matrix). It could also be likened to the terminator’s willingness to self-terminate. Arguably, it could be because it was John’s orders that they were trying to prevent the war, but ultimately, the terminator defies John’s commands (‘I order you not to go!’) and comes up with its own response: ‘it has to end here’.

The score piece playing over the Superbrawl was entitled Neod鋗merung (Neo Rising), and its lyrics were taken from the Bhagavad Gita or the ‘Hindu Bible’. One of the passages that is perhaps most important here is:

“And when he is seen in his immanence and transcendence,
then the ties that have bound the heart are unloosened,
the doubts of the mind vanish,
and the law of Karma works no more.”

These lyrics play right at the end as Neo is slammed into the asphalt from hundreds of meters in the air – he actually crashes just feet away from the phone booth he originally flew off from in the first film (check the aeiral shots) as the karmic cycle comes full circle. In his rage, Smith asks why he is doing what he is doing, why he continues to persist – and the only ‘why’ is the choice itself: “because I choose to”. Karma, purpose, reason for being – all has vanished, and all that is left is the will to go on. Neo soon realises that the cycle must complete, and that his own death is necessary to bring everything back into balance. The Deus Ex Machina marks the comlpetion, declaring that “it is done”. Neo now pervades the machine consciousness – the first anomaly to actually reach the machine city and cause a ‘revolutionary’ change in the perputuation of life and rebirth pertaining to the Zionites. The man-machine relationship has entered a new stage, and all because of Neo’s sacrifice and the fact that he himself has ‘transcended’ into the machine network in much the same way the Kusinagi seems to have ‘transcended’ into the net with no physical body. I suppose this could be dubbed the stage of ‘true enlightenment’, but note how this is a state to be acheived not a state to be granted. It is the “bitter-sweet” experiences of life (as Keats would say) that allow our soul to be developed and eventually accept death.

I dunno, I think it’s kinda interesting.

eclip5e

Happiness & Humanity:

Innocence is a film that just asks to be analyzed from as many perspectives as possible, and it asks many more questions than it answers, but if looked at simply, it can reveal a very easy to understand message. Some of the obvious questions and concepts it puts forth are the tried-and-true of the sci-fi genre, “What makes us human”, “what defines life”. Where Innocence diverges is its depiction of humanity at-odds with nature and humanity itself.

In the near-future world in which Innocence takes place, humanity has abstracted itself above its attachments to the body and nature by creating cyborg body replacements, building skyscrapers, and controlling the environment. Humanity marvels at its conquering of nature and our physiques. Simultaneously, however, we ignore the real important issues of what it is to be alive.

Innocence presents some major concepts that this near-future world seems to be ignoring, a world that the current state of the world will soon devolve into if we are left unchecked. Humans are looking at themselves as a seperate force above nature, as a special group of beings that are able to isolate and abstract ourselves from nature to remove any uncontrollable outcomes. They are looking at the world from a one-sided battle of “us” vs “them”. In the near-future world in Innocence, humans have totally removed themselves from the world-system, and are now beginning to pay the price.

With this platform as the basis of the story, Oshii begins to tell his message. His message is a return to our origins, a “Oneness” with our surroundings and the world. This has a heavy leaning to many ancient religions and philosophies included Zen and Buddhism among others. There are many references to this idea, such as the Monk in the parade scene, the recurring animal presence, the white (pure) seagulls, and many many more. Animals have always been seen as “One” with the natural world, it is only obvious that it is a reference to such an idea. Oshiis’ message is that of a return to the basic principles of happiness and satisfaction, and that technology and “the current path of society” will never be able to achieve because it is not its primary goal. He presents the idea that “Oneness”, and living in parallel with nature as a “cohesive whole” instead of isolating the self from nature is the true path to Happiness.

The idea of happiness is referenced many times in the film, simply put, as questions to the main characters.
- Togusa asks Batou is he is happy.
- Aramaki asks Togusa if he is happy.
- Batou asks Motoko if she is happy.

Each character replies in her own way. Interestingly, Aramaki tells Togusa “We are never as happy or sad as we say”, suggesting that it is impossible to be happy with the current state of society.

The main message of the film is that current society is hurtling towards a state of constant war against the natural path of the world. Oshii portrays this as an unwinnable, and disutopian war, however, when Batou asks Motoko if she is happy, she replies along the lines of “I don’t have such qualms”. This implies that her state of “Oneness” with the world satisfies her, and this brings an uplifting end to an otherwise dark conclusion to the film.

So perhaps we are taking the wrong path towards the future, but all is not lost.

Just my 2 cents.

max314

QUOTE
Happiness & Humanity:

Innocence is a film that just asks to be analyzed from as many perspectives as possible, and it asks many more questions than it answers, but if looked at simply, it can reveal a very easy to understand message. Some of the obvious questions and concepts it puts forth are the tried-and-true of the sci-fi genre, “What makes us human”, “what defines life”. Where Innocence diverges is its depiction of humanity at-odds with nature and humanity itself.

The idea that humanity has separated from and is fighting the natural order of things. Kewl.

QUOTE
In the near-future world in which Innocence takes place, humanity has abstracted itself above its attachments to the body and nature by creating cyborg body replacements, building skyscrapers, and controlling the environment. Humanity marvels at its conquering of nature and our physiques. Simultaneously, however, we ignore the real important issues of what it is to be alive.

The egotistical, egocentric nature of the human mind, our ‘superiority complex’ our belief in our ‘divine right’ over all else could be seen as a form of inter-specific form of fascism.

QUOTE
Innocence presents some major concepts that this near-future world seems to be ignoring, a world that the current state of the world will soon devolve into if we are left unchecked. Humans are looking at themselves as a seperate force above nature, as a special group of beings that are able to isolate and abstract ourselves from nature to remove any uncontrollable outcomes. They are looking at the world from a one-sided battle of “us” vs “them”. In the near-future world in Innocence, humans have totally removed themselves from the world-system, and are now beginning to pay the price.

It’s interesting – we talk of paying a price. Whatever you want to acheive in the world, a price must always be paid. Always. The fundemental law of physics, the conservation of energy – the idea that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, it merely changes its form – can be applied here to this universal truth. Interestingly, humanity going backwards (real devolution, as far as I’m concerned) will also have its price. The problem is, however, do we, as a species, have the capacity, the willingness to ‘pay the price’ of going backwards and returning to ‘innocence’. Oshii says that this is the natural state of the world, the way it was ‘meant to be’. Personally, I believe that what is ‘meant to be’ is precisely what is happening. Again, we look at ourselves as being far too important, even in a superficially humble discussion like this.

Now, imagine we’re shit. We’re absolutely nothing. We cannot control the inevitabilities of the universe and of nature. Our way of life, our way of thinking, our very existence is not really within our control! In fact, the very concept of us destroying nature is due to nature creating us! We’re the ones who are not in control! We’re the ones with our strings being pulled! We’re the ones who are victim to the direction of the the world and trapped in the construct of time! That’s why the Matrix still exists at the end of Revolutions – control “is inevitable”. The laws of the universe cannot be escaped – not even the Zionites with their political and military infrastructure.

It’s just not possible to revert back to this Oshii-Wordsworthian concept of absolute ‘innocence’ and ‘purity’, because even those concepts are entirely from an egocentric perspective.

QUOTE
With this platform as the basis of the story, Oshii begins to tell his message. His message is a return to our origins, a “Oneness” with our surroundings and the world. This has a heavy leaning to many ancient religions and philosophies included Zen and Buddhism among others. There are many references to this idea, such as the Monk in the parade scene, the recurring animal presence, the white (pure) seagulls, and many many more. Animals have always been seen as “One” with the natural world, it is only obvious that it is a reference to such an idea. Oshiis’ message is that of a return to the basic principles of happiness and satisfaction, and that technology and “the current path of society” will never be able to achieve because it is not its primary goal. He presents the idea that “Oneness”, and living in parallel with nature as a “cohesive whole” instead of isolating the self from nature is the true path to Happiness.

The idea of happiness is referenced many times in the film, simply put, as questions to the main characters.
- Togusa asks Batou is he is happy.
- Aramaki asks Togusa if he is happy.
- Batou asks Motoko if she is happy.

Yup, see above for my views.

QUOTE
Each character replies in her own way. Interestingly, Aramaki tells Togusa “We are never as happy or sad as we say”, suggesting that it is impossible to be happy with the current state of society.

Personally, I think it’s about the idea that we all wear masks in society – if someone asks you how you are, you say “I’m fine”. Your house could be burning up, your life down the crapper, but you’d still pull out an “I’m fine”. Again, as a society, we’re trapped within our self-made construct! but remember – we say it’s self-made, but what about the nature that made us the way we are

QUOTE
The main message of the film is that current society is hurtling towards a state of constant war against the natural path of the world. Oshii portrays this as an unwinnable, and disutopian war, however, when Batou asks Motoko if she is happy, she replies along the lines of “I don’t have such qualms”. This implies that her state of “Oneness” with the world satisfies her, and this brings an uplifting end to an otherwise dark conclusion to the film.

So perhaps we are taking the wrong path towards the future, but all is not lost.

Just my 2 cents.

Let’s first get past the notion that death is bad. “It is inevitable”, but it’s not bad. Personally, I feel that society’s seemingly inevitable self-destruction is precisely what needs to happen. We need to destroy ourselves for the karmic cycle to start over. From oblivion comes the light. From the Big Bang came the universe. “Everything that has a beginning has an end”, and everything that has an end has a new beginning.

Fantastic discussion, E-Man!

Kurotowa

As far as I have been able to understand from my studies, in Buddhism, the push to achieve “nothingness” and “oneness” are actually two heads of the same coin. In achieving nothingness, the purest form of existence, you achieve “oneness” with the world around you. This dual nature is definitely symbolized in Motoko, when she was finally able to shed everything inlcuding her own body she both has literally become “nothing” in the physical sense, and at the same time became “everything” by merging with the world around her. You can say in a way that this is all a metaphor for death, but that is not exactly what Buddhism was about. It is trying to put you in a position to where you understand what death is while you are alive for it is only then that you can understand life (I think this was somewhere in the movie too!).

When buddhism became “politically comodified” the isolationist & nothingness aspects became less emphasized in certain practices because people that isolatated themselves from everyone didn’t become very productive workers (i.e. the people who are devoted to hardcore buddhism such as the tibetan monks are more along the lines of the original thought whereas the people in the cities follow a slightly “modified” buddhism and can reach enlightenment by worshipping gold buddha statues as an example…I think the two types were called Hinayana and Mahayana Buddhism but so much time has passed that I cannot be sure). By the way, this ideology is not just east…if you look at the bible (well again, depending on the version and political goals of the people behind it), Jesus was saying the same basic things (throw away your material possesions, follow the path on god, etc.). In a political sense this sort of ideology (reaching a pure existence, becoming one with the earth, etc.) has simply formed the backbone of leftist/socialist ideology as we know it today (I blame it on the darn Studio Ghibli co production, their ideology has assimilated Oshii ^^). But that topic is way too big to get into now…

Well, I think my initial idea that we would be clueless as to what Oshii intented while making Gits (yes, you are free to interpet it as anything you wish, but when it comes down to it the question to always ask is “what did the creator intend by doing things this way?”) is sort of eroding after reading the last few posts on here. I think Eclipse summed it up clearer than I could. To be innocent does not mean that you didn’t commit a crime. What it means is that your simply “aren’t fully aware” of the crime you are committing. A child who pulls the wings off a fly cannot know pain and death so we say what he is “innocent” even when objectively he is still ravaging the fly. An adult who does the same thing knowing that the fly is going to suffer horribly as it dies would be considered guilty by that same turn of logic. In a way, Oshii’s film seems like a war against innocence. A desire to rip a human being open and reveal to the world what a life really is.

Of course I don’t know how effective that actually can be…I mean if people can’t figure out that unhappiness and violence are simply byproducts of the way an unhappy animal is treated, then how in the hell are they supposed to figure out Oshii’s cryptic riddles?

iamNataku

Interesting, well-thought out dialogues, but I can’t help but point out that, ironically, the intellectualization of this thread (mind) has become completely seperated from the its subject, that being Oshii and his film Innocence (body).

Of course, there is nothing wrong with this, as I’d imagine such a film would prompt such discussions, but I’ll leave the Buddhist dogma to other forum members to talk about.

Personally, my only goal in discussing Innocence is at possibly understanding why Innocence, as a film, resonated both with myself and with others, especially since I have been mostly ambivalent towards the majority of Oshii’s films. Honestly, this the first film of his that I’ve watched where I actually felt anything.

I think back to Oshii’s statement about how he didn’t feel Japanese until after he made the film. That says to me that Oshii didn’t try to make any film in particular, especially a Japanese one, and instead just made the film that came most natural to him.

On that line of thought, that would also mean that everything that appears in the film may have a logic, but the logic is an emotional one, not an intellectual one. I would imagine that trying to understand the film intellectually would yield few results, as it seems that Innocence wasn’t created intellectually. (Hence the frustrations of those who try to intellectualize the film.)

As Oshii also said, one doesn’t have to understand the film in order to appreciate it. I’ll go one step further and add that perhaps the only way to understand the film is to reflect upon ones emotional reaction towards it. That’s pretty much the only way to approach all great works of creativity.

Again, I find it highly ironic that we have allowed ourselves to do the exact thing that Oshii himself admonishes by becoming lost within the complexes of the mind without having any directive connection to a definitive source.

That definitive source, in this case, would be Innocence, its creator Mamoru Oshii, and the viewer himself.

iamNataku

QUOTE
Let one walk alone, committing no sin, with few wishes, like an elephant in the forest.

Thinking of Wordsworth, I’m tempted to see Innocence now as an expression of solitude. Observing that almost every character is shown in a “solitary” light, that is, disconnected from any human relationships (we never see Togusa with his familly until the very end), it could be possible that Oshii feels that solitude isn’t a choice but instead a result when one chooses to be fully human or “innocent.”

Of course, for Oshii, “innocence” is defined more as a state of being completely true to oneself, outside the care of society. Where I see Oshii and Wordsworth as similar authors is in how they seem to feature individuals who have chosen their “innocence.” Like Wordsworth, who tends to focus on one solitary character for each of his poems, each scene in Innocence tends to focus on a solitary character, whether it be Dr. Haraway, Batou, Kim, and even Togusa.

I think back to the scene in the beginning where Togusa and Batou go back to one of the detective offices. (My memory’s shakey on this one) The officer that they talk to is quite rude to both Togusa and Batou, and afterwards Togusa reflects upon how he is no longer just “a part of the force.” He is now, temporarily, outside of society. (Again, real shakey on this scene, so if anybody can remeber it more clearly it’d be appreciated.)

For Oshii, to be innocent is to be outside of society, mentally, not physically. Oshii isn’t necessarily saying that society is unnatural, like Wordsworth does, but instead states that one’s most “innocent” self is something that will bring that person into conflict with existing society. Solitude is the result of this conflict. “To walk alone” is to live according to oneself.

I will say though that that the film does become very Wordswordian in execution, in that it ceases to be a meditation on “Innocence” and moreso a meditation on how various people “cope” with their innocence.

Characters like Haraway seem to be very comfortable with their innocence, being at peace with their solitary life outside of society. I’ll go out on a limb an say that even Kim was at peace with his innocence, thinking back to several of Wordsworth’s poem, including The Idiot Boy, The Mad Mother, and We Are Seven.

The characters in both The Idiot Boy and The Mad Mother are, by society’s standard, “mad” or “crazy” because they live in their own worlds. But they are completely happy within these worlds, “committing no sin” and “wishing for very little” as the axiom goes.

It is only those who are still of society who are repulsed by such individuals. Even further, such individuals who are “innocent” greatly stand out to others, “like an elephant in a forest.” This is why I said one’s reaction towards various scenes in Innocence was so important.

For exmaple, the parade scene (complete w/ elephants) was the only scene that greatly stood out and repulsed me, not because Oshii was stating that human beings have become “less natural,” but because we are being shown the perspective of Oshii through Batou (The only shot in the sequence that doesn’t focus on the parade is a close-up of Batou). The world of man, society, appears to be extremely offensive to somebody who is not of that world. It is a cinematic conceit that allows you to see the world through the eyes of an “innocent.”

This is the reason why we are shown Kim’s Mansion shortly afterward, so that we, as an audience, can see what an “innocent” looks like through the eyes of society, which in this case, is Togusa. Oshii is judging neither Kim or society. He is just objectively giving us both sides of human experience through a pair of opposites, Batou and Togusa. In fact, almost every scene in the film operates either through “innocent” eyes or through “social” eyes.

The scene in Kim’s Mansion in particular is especially similar to Wordsworth’s We Are Seven. In “We are Seven” we have a girl who is playing alone near the graves of her two siblings. The rest of her family, save for her mother, has moved away, leaving her in solitude. Yet, the little girl plays, gleefully and emphatically stating that “We are seven!” (Coincidentally, Matoko, as a little girl, appears in Kim’s Mansion, playing in solitude.)

At first, the narrator admires the beauty of the girl’s world, much in the same way both Togusa and us, as an audience, admire the beauty of Kim’s Mansion (and of that funny little waiter doll). But soon the admiration turns towards disgust at how such a girl can ignore the “reality” that her siblings are dead (and how Kim can exist within such a mechnical world). The narrator in We are Seven screams at the girl because he cannot handle another human being living in a world that contradicts his own. But it is to no avail, because she still believes that “We are seven!”

Oshii, like Wordsworth, brings up the simple question stating: “What is wrong with this?” If the person is happy living in their world of innocence, what is wrong with that? According to both Oshii and Wordsworth, to be innocent is to be crazy, by worldly standards. A character like Kim only seems “crazy” if you are still apart of society, hence the typical reaction of both the audience and of Togusa.

At the end, perhaps Togusa feels that he is not ready for the “innocent” life, and at the end of film chooses to return to society. I also noticed how almost everybody in the film has a problem with how Batou handles the case. The supermarket scene allows us, as an audience, to see how Batou appears to the social world. (If you’ve seen the film, you know how he appears.) He is now living innocently, and so therefore, he is in conflict with everybody else in the film.

Another way that Oshii perhaps differs from Wordsworth is that Wordsworth stresses that peace in innocence can only come from being close to nature. Oshii proves otherwise as both Dr. Haraway and Kim are shown to be quite distant from “nature” yet still at peace. (Most computer programmers I’ve known generally seem more at peace than most other people.) So it’s possible that Oshii really isn’t commenting against technology in Innocence. He’s merely an artist realizing that computers are now a vital part of the human experience.

Also, the isolation of several other Wordsworth characters are shown to be due to their own ego (Lines left upon a Seat in a Yew-tree) or because of the viciousness of society (The Vagrant Female). Oshii only seems interested in expressing the spiritual pain that comes from living individually and naturally. In fact, there doesn’t seem to be much in terms of social commentary or judgments, as far as I can tell, in Innocence at all.

For note, the character design for Dr. Haraway is based off the woman who showed Oshii and his team around when they were location scouting in Italy. Many of Wordsworth’s characters are people that he actually came across in his life as well. Perhaps the woman who was Oshii’s escort was also an “innocent” solitary figure, comfortable in her own world.

Through Innocence as a film, Oshii could be represented by Batou, obvserving how various people deal with their innocence. “Are you happy living in such a way?” he asks of everybody around him. As Oshii said, he didn’t feel Japanese until after he complete the film. Perhaps through the production of Innocence, Oshii, always the “crazy” outsider, was able to finally come to peace with his innocence.

Comments are always welcome as my memory of the film is quite shakey. I’ll admit that some of these points are a bit stretched, but at least it gave me a different perspective on the film.

Wordsworth’s Complete Poetical Works

max314

QUOTE (iamNataku @ Sep 28 2004, 04:22 AM)
QUOTE
Let one walk alone, committing no sin, with few wishes, like an elephant in the forest.

Thinking of Wordsworth, I’m tempted to see Innocence now as an expression of solitude. Observing that almost every character is shown in a “solitary” light, that is, disconnected from any human relationships (we never see Togusa with his familly until the very end), it could be possible that Oshii feels that solitude isn’t a choice but instead a result when one chooses to be fully human or “innocent.”

Of course, for Oshii, “innocence” is defined more as a state of being completely true to oneself, outside the care of society. Where I see Oshii and Wordsworth as similar authors is in how they seem to feature individuals who have chosen their “innocence.” Like Wordsworth, who tends to focus on one solitary character for each of his poems, each scene in Innocence tends to focus on a solitary character, whether it be Dr. Haraway, Batou, Kim, and even Togusa.

Yeah, I mean, if you look back at Wordsworth’s first poems in ‘The Prelude’ (the 1805 text, not the other one, because this is actually Wordsworth’s original, unreleased work that was discovered later and he didn’t publish it because he had some slightly non-Catholic views that he altered and published when he was older), he focusses on his childhood when he was brought up in a Cumbrian village (Cumbria kicks arse, by the way – I went there on holiday a few years ago, a beautiful place) and recalls those childhood experiences that he yearns for after having recently come out of the thick of London city (Keats, by contrast, lived his whole life in London). Curiously, his ‘spots of time’ where he had an experience regarding himself and nature only ever occur when he is alone and separated from the group. From what you say of Innocence, it seems that characters are closer to a state of ‘oneness’ when they are alone and, subsequently, are able to ponder their own selves now that they are disconnected from the collective. Personally, I’m the kind of person who finds a sense of peace when I’m disconnected from the mass – I actually feel free. Whatever that may be.

iamNataku

You’re still not fully grasping what I said Max. As I tried to explain in my last post, Oshii doesn’t define being “alone” from society as something noble, as Wordsworth does. According to Oshii, no matter how you are living, you are still apart of the “collective mass.” To despise society is to despise onself. There is no “oneness” for Oshii in Innocence, because simply existing by one’s own rules, regardless of one’s nature, is more than enough. The thought of being “alone” or “disconnected” is an illusion. This is why I used Wordsworth’s poem We are Seven.

Being alone for Oshii means being alone in mind, not in physicality. This is why I said that I don’t feel that there is much social commentary or judgement in Innocence. It is also the reason why in the film, although Togusa has physically become distant from society, his still thinks socially, which is why his viewpoint in the film is one of society, even though he may appear to be walking alone.

Oshii doesn’t view society as corrupt or something to avoid, as Wordsworth does. Not to beat this quote into the ground, but Oshii didn’t feel Japanese until after making Innocence. Meaning, he now is able to accept his “innocence” while also still seeing himself as part of the Japanese society. This, to me, was a huge revelation.

Innocence stresses being at peace both with the social world and with one’s difference in relation to the social world. But, when one chooses to live soley according to one’s own intuition, you will be brought into conflict with the social world. Sometimes following onself leads to having a partner, sometimes it leads us to being in the thick of society. Regardless, following oneself means being alone in mind. This is the pain that Innocence expresses. (In both the original GITS and in Innocence, none of the characters really comprehend each other. They respect each other’s logic, but there is always an emotional distance.)

QUOTE (Death and the Labyrinth: The World of Raymond Roussel)
In Roussel’s fictional world, a litter of kittens performs on parallel bars, people disguise themselves as tiny objects, a man wears a bracelet that is a giant earthworm. His novels, naive plays and poems, which mesmerized the French Surrealists, are populated by human machines, lovers taken by surprise, magical substances, prisons and tortuous signs. Roussel’s word inventions inspired Giacometti, and Gide revered him as a genius, yet this recluse who apparently committed suicide in 1933 is today considered a minor writer.

I would say that Oshii has a much more mature outlook on the world than Wordsworth, as Wordsworth still saw himself as being “outside” of society. Being an outsider was a noble choice for him because the “world of man” was looked down upon. As I also stated, Wordsworth believes that man can only be at peace outside of society in nature. Oshii shows differently in that the world of nature and the world of man are more or less the same thing by portraying both Dr. Haraway and Kim as being content, even though they are living in highly unnatural states. (The same could be said of Matoko.)

Oshii doesn’t divide the world like Wordsworth does, but instead strives to show human existence in it’s totality. When Oshii was younger, he was influenced much more by western theology, which is why he, like Wordsworth, saw the highly technological Japanese society as something that was meant to be denied. Innocence is his first truly Japanese work, in that Oshii allows himself to see the value of both the individual and of society.

This is why I said it’s dangerous to prematurely relate an artist’s work to another, because each artist has a unique viewpoint that is specific to them. Ignoring these differences in favor of reducing their work down to simplistic categorizations shows both a disrespect towards the work as a work of art, and a disrespect towards the artist as a human being. Don’t deny Oshii the value of his life experiences just so that you can feel better in tackling a supposedly difficult and complex work of art.

iamNataku

Oh no! This thread has been great. I’m a film student, so dissecting films is nothing new to me, but let’s not lose the actual film (and filmmaker) in discussing messages, philosophy, religion etc. Not too many have discussed the actual film “structure” or how certain scenes operate within the film as a whole. In other words, how can you discuss what a film communicates if you don’t discuss how it communicates?

IG Member Brian Ruh’s interview w/ Oshii
QUOTE
“I watched many European films when I was a student,” said Oshii, “Such films by Luis Bu駏el, Ingmar Bergman and Michelangelo Antonioni.?I began to think about Jean-Luc Godard when I became a director myself.”

What’s even funnier is that although many here have talked about Oshii’s literary/religious/philosophical influences in search of understanding the film, I have yet to hear anybody talk about the most obvious (and important?): his cinematic influences. The main reason why Oshii’s uses quotes in Innocence is not for intellectual extrapolation, but because it is a cinematic conceit that Jean-Luc Godard has used many a time.

Wikipedia on Mamoru Oshii
QUOTE
“This desire to include quotes by other authors came from Godard. The text is very important for a film, that I learned from him. It gives a certain richness to cinema because the visual is not all there is. Thanks to Godard, the spectator can concoct his own interpretation. [...] The image associated to the text corresponds to a unifying act that aims at renewing cinema, that lets it take on new dimensions.?

Godard is a huge influence for Oshii as well as filmmakers such as Michaelangelo Antonini, Andrei Tarkovsky, Krzysztof Kieslowski, Luis Bu駏el (Togusa’s cyberhack sequence definitely), Chris Marker, Andrzej Wajda, Jeray Kawalerowicz, Andrzej Munk, and Ingmar Bergman. Many things done in Innocence are done for aesthetic reasons, not intellectual ones. Watch the films by above said filmmakers and you will see how obvious this is, due to Oshii’s inspiration by said directors.

Amazon.com Reviewer on Luis Bunuel’s Un Chien Andalou
QUOTE
“Un Chien Andalou” embodies the words that display Bunuel’s work: Beautiful, dark, graphic, shocking and brilliant. The opening shot, one of the greatest and most memorable is a stroke of shocking genius. Some have attacked “Un Chien Andalou” because it literally makes no sense, even Bunuel gave credit to that. But it’s not supposed to. “Un Chien Andalou” is instead meant to be some sort of dream experience, a nightmare or collection of dream sequences put on film.

Case in point: Raymond Roussel’s book Locus Solus, which is a source material for Innocence, was created purely as an aesthetic experience. It has very little in terms of messages or religious/philosophical ideology. Of course, only those who have a love for language and syntax care for the work, as it is literally obtuse beyond belief. If you were to research much of Oshii’s artistic inspirations, you would see that many are composed in a similar fashion. (For note Max, Jean Baudrillard is one of the few literary people who extol the work of Roussel. )

Amazon.com Reviewer on Locus Solus QUOTE
Roussel’s novels are giant puzzles, in which he describes images and stories that have a unique carnival logic. Punning relationships generate textual rebuses (rebi?), in a way that makes the reader aware of the book as a mechanism, but Roussel gives too few clues to really understand it. In Locus Solus, Roussel gives a tour of the museum garden of an eccentric millionaire, who, like Roussel himself, collects with a frenetic and psychedelic rationalism

AICN’s interview w/ Oshii
QUOTE
Cbabbitt: The use of color and tone to emphasize confusion between alternate realities is quite striking, for example the shift to a realistic tone at the conclusion of Avalon or the infusion of yellow in some of the more surreal scenes in Innocence, what is it about these contrasts that appeal to you?

Oshii: Well, as for color, each color doesn抰 have a specific meaning, so whether it抯 red or yellow, in my mind I want to call the attention of the audience that is a symbol of some kind and it doesn抰 have to be red or yellow specifically. And basically, I use red and yellow because they work better in animation, and opposed to that purple and green are very difficult to work with and they can only be created with additional work. It抯 more of a stylistic approach, not so much of a deeper meaning. I usually like to use gray or grayish colors and my treatment of colors can only be achieved because of the digital technology.

Again, as I said earlier, the key thing is to synthesize. Combine the intellectual experience with the aesthetic one. The reason why I enjoyed Innocence so much was because it was communicating so many things in different ways. But the next time I see this film, I would like it to have an even more powerful affect upon me.

If you’re going to argue interpretations about the film, relate those interpretation back to various shots/scenes/sounds/lines of dialogue within the film to support your statement. Explain how Oshii uses cinematic conceits to convey his meanings. Then, we can all gain a greater appreciation for the film itself, and not of our own intellectual capabilities at extrapolating text.

The only reason I choose to discuss this film is so that I can see it in a new light upon the next viewing, not so that I can run off and write a 30 page term paper about the metaphors and references in Innocence, leaving the actual film in the wake once I’m done picking it apart for my leisure.

If you guys feel that a film’s “politcal or ideological” messages are more important than the actual film itself, then that’s fine. I apologize for disrupting this thread, but I will say that it is this exact mentality as to why Innocence was snubbed at the Cannes Film Festival, whereas Fahrenheit 9/11 was given the Palme D’or. Why? Because F9/11 was jam packed with messages and politcal ideology, and that’s all people today seem to care about.

A work of art isn’t an op-ed piece. It’s truth only relates to the person who created it. Leave the social commentary and whatnot to the news reporters. Oshii’s viewpoints aren’t Buddhist, Hindu, or Christian. They’re Oshii’s, which probably contradict all methods of thought in some fashion. Arguing whether or not Innocence is a “Buddhist” film is pointless, because it’s neither. It’s an Oshii film.

Let’s not scientifically rip apart the art (body) so that we can strengthen our own ideologies (mind). At the end of the day, all we have is the body, so let’s treat it with the respect it deserves. This seems to be, to myself anway, what Oshii was trying to communicate through Innocence.

QUOTE
“My theme is always dead simple. I never regard my works as ‘difficult to understand.’ If they look ‘difficult to understand,’ that is probably because I do not hold very much interest in story or drama.”

IG Member Brian Ruh’s interview w/ Oshii

Kurotowa

If you don’t want to talk about Buddhism that’s fine, but I’m sure you’re more than capable of presenting your views without slamming or dismissing the views of others in the process. You keep on saying you’re waiting for us to discuss the overall themes of the film? That was page 1 and 2 where we did that, we were starting to get past that into discussing the ideology of the film (which always influences the theme because the belief system influences the overall messages in a film). Then, fascism suddenly enveloped the thread and that was pretty much the end of the conversation. How can you expect to get people to talk freely when there are value judgements now being placed on thoughts?

You’re still not fully grasping what I said Max

the Buddhism aspect brought up by Max is pretty much entirely irrelevant to the film’s theme.

Ignoring these differences in favor of reducing their work down to simplistic categorizations shows both a disrespect towards the work as a work of art, and a disrespect towards the artist as a human being. Don’t deny Oshii the value of his life experiences just so that you can feel better in tackling a supposedly difficult and complex work of art.

Why talk about a film if it doesn’t enrich one’s experience while watching it? It only becomes empty intellectualization.

Arguing whether or not Innocence is a “Buddhist” film is pointless, because it’s neither.

Not exactly the kinds of things that encourage people to take a chance with their thoughts. When this thread started being about what we “should and should not talk about” and what “is and is not right” it simply died. The discussion about the rest of the film and all that “pointless intellectualizing” will just have to take place elsewhere.

Kurotowa

All good politicians know how to pretend that they didn’t say something politically when they know that they really did. It’s called damage control. On the interview in the GITS DVD Oshii says he DOES intentionally put messages in his film but he doesn’t care whether or not the audience understands them or not. The important thing for him is that the audience is taken to a new place and can enjoy themselves. And it’s good that he feels this way. I feel that way too, I am not so much concerned with discussing Oshii’s film further when the people involved here (at least) seem perfectly happy accepting the idea that there is no message in the film at all. That way life goes on, those that want to see it can and those that don’t want to don’t have to (and more importantly, it allows Oshii to escape without coming under fire for his choice of “difficult subject matter”). It’s the way it should be, and it is always the sign of a clever film maker or writer when they know how to protect themselves in the press. The interviews after all, are not seperate from the film in the audiences eyes.

Oh, and since his quote was taken completely out of context a few posts up let me return the deleted part to the quote that was mentioned previously:

You employ a lot of quotes from philosophers in your work. Can you tell me how different philospophies and influences have shaped you as a filmmaker?

Whether I抦 interested in philosophy or not, the answer will be yes. As to why I use quotes from many famous philosophers the answer to that is that I want to prove how unimportant the dialogs are to a movie. In GIS 2 you don抰 really have to listen to any of the dialog, it抯 just part of the many details in the movie and you don抰 have to pay any attention to a lot of the dialog in order to understand and appreciate the movie.

Notice the difference between “don’t have to” and “can’t”. It’s the same thing he was saying after GITS1, the message is there but whether you see it or not is unimportant

Kurotowa

Being alone for Oshii means being alone in mind, not in physicality.

Er…actually, for Oshii it DOES mean being isolated from humans in both states. Oshii has made it clear that he is a loner on many occasions, he has said on the Avalon DVD interview for instance that he doesn’t care much for being around humans at all but he has an affinity instead for animals (especially dogs because he sees them as “outcasts”). The most recent affirmation of this attitude can be found here:

Interview tidbit:

O: Why is that?

MO: You won’t make money, it’s hard, and you’ll lose all your friends.

O: And yet you’re still an animator.

MO: Well, I don’t care whether I have any friends.

As stated earlier, an audience can make up any explanation for the film they wish. People can ignore that Buddhism is the religion of Japan and the simple statement Oshii said where he stated this was the first film that made him feel “Japanese”. People can ignore the link between the elephant as a prominent buddhist symbol (like the hawk is to westerners) symbolizing the oneness of all animals and the “stunning coincidence” to the animal messages that appear in the film (as pointed out on the buddhist site earlier in this thread, they can also ignore that the parade is a direct reinactment of a hindu buddhist ritual). They can ignore the link between the elephant and the words in that quote which, coincidentally or not, ARE a direct reference to the 4 noble truths attached to buddhism. Or they can choose to ignore that Oshii IS an isolationist living with a basset hound who creates films primarily about characters (such as Ash in Avalon or Batau in GITS2) who are also isolationists who also live primarily with basset hounds and have relatively little interaction with other humans (outside of shooting them). But people can also be *wrong* in interpreting the intent of the creator of a film…especially if they confuse what the creator thinks with what they *personally* think (I don’t think very many of us talking about this are buddhist…but that doesn’t mean we can’t decode literature properly).

To put it simply, as I noticed that Nataku elaborated on this in the last couple of posts, ‘To walk alone’ does not mean ‘to be alone’.

They are not one and the same. Therefore, the Buddhism aspect brought up by Max is pretty much entirely irrelevant to the film’s theme.

Agreement never makes an argument right. If it did, the world would still be flat and we wouldn’t be seeing any craters on the moon. To challenge the assertions made you are going to have to discredit a great many interviews with Oshii where he explains his isolationist behavior, and find a way to disregard both the symbolic link of the elephant and the text accompanied that happen to push the 4 noble truths of Hinaya Buddhism, a form of buddhism primarly concerned with the values of isolationism. Simply saying “Oshii’s not a loner” and “Buddhism is irrelevant” doesn’t cut it. You have to prove it to be right.

Ryosei

QUOTE (iamNataku @ Oct 1 2004, 03:30 PM)
I can’t see how what I’m saying differs that greatly from what you’re saying Kurotawa. Plus, neither I, nor Ryosei, stated that Oshii “wasn’t a loner,” nor did Ryosei say that Buddhism is irrelvant to Innocence. I believe he said that the aspect of Buddhism that Max brought up was irrelevant.

This is exactly correct Nataku, thanks for stating such more than clearly than I. I apologize, for my words were far more vague and indescript than they should of have been.

I meant exactly as Nataku presumed; that merely the singular aspect of Buddhism that Max brought up (again instigated by the now infamous ‘elephant’ quote) was irrelevant to the film, not Buddhism as a whole.

The theology of Buddhism has a very significant role in Innocence, however the aspect of said religion stated by Max, in my humble opinion, does not, whatsoever.

Secondly, in the post immediately preceeding that of Nataku’s I’m quoting from, Kurotowa provided a number of quotes in a response to his mini-discussion with Nataku. However, one of said quotes was mine, yet no distinction was made, and as such, in however small way, Nataku was asked to respond to something that he did not say, or may not have agreed with (even though I know he did).

This is a big no-no, and something I do not want to see happen again. I extremely dislike those who are far too careless with their quoting, and this is an example. If you wish to use my quotes ever again as a aid to your discussion, please, do not do so in this way again.

Thirdly, saying that one does not care if he/she has any friends, in no way presumes they prefer an isolationist lifestyle. Kurotowa, I urge you to calm your often flamboyant assumptions, as they seem to be rather misguided at times.

Finally, in my opinion, the reason Oshii (and anyone else for that matter) used such a large amount of quotations in Innocence boils down simply to this quote:

“A quotation in a speech, article or book is like a rifle in the hands of an infantryman. It speaks with authority.” : Brendan Francis

Small excerpts from that Avalon interview (bolded part especially seems to play into a main theme of GITS2):

Oshii:

When a female dog I had taken in died, I was really affected by it at the time. I had taken in other abandoned dogs and they had remained untamed. But this female dog definitely had an owner at one time. She wasn’t scared of people. She was very pretty-a real princess! One day she fell pregnant, but she dies before she could give birth. Even today, I can still remember that scene and the look on her face. It affected me deeply. It remains firmly fixed in my memory. I think it was like an awakening for me. I had in me protective feelings for weaker creatures, and that experience made me fully aware of them. On the other hand, I don’t care much about people’s fates. I try not to think too much about what can happen to them. In truth, I don’t really feel much compassion for people. But I’m completely the opposite when it comes to dogs. I wonder why. I don’t know.

…

Oshii:

I ended up quite seriously thinking that I must have been a dog in a previous life. I don’t think the Western world has this way of thinking.

….

Oshii:

I always feel as if I am living on a borderline. Although I actually live in Japan, I always feel slightly removed from myself.

There are also many many other things to observe from this interview that can be used to aide in interpreting GITS2 (especially on the bits for his specific attraction to “stray dogs”), but since any red blooded Oshii fan already has the DVD you can just put it in and watch it ^^

iamNataku

Even though I can’t speak for Ryosei, I never claimed that my “arguments” were the correct ones. In fact, there’s no way that my words could have been arguments since there’s no objective interpretation of the film.

As per the request of eclip5e, I took Max’s subject of Wordsworth and related it to the actual film. It would be nice if others would be willing to synthesize the various amounts of information that have been posted in this thread by showing how it relates to the overall film, but perhaps that’s asking for too much.

The title of the thread is “Interpretation of Innocence.” I gave my personal interpretation of the film. As already stated, anybody can make up their own interpretation, so what exactly is the point in arguing? If you don’t like my interpretation, then simply write and post your own. I come to this thread so that I can read other people’s actual interpretation of Innocence, not various religious and literary commentary that I am already more than familiar with.

For the record, this was the beginning of my post:
QUOTE
Thinking of Wordsworth, I’m tempted to see Innocence now as an expression of solitude. Observing that almost every character is shown in a “solitary” light, that is, disconnected from any human relationships (we never see Togusa with his familly until the very end), it could be possible that Oshii feels that solitude isn’t a choice but instead a result when one chooses to be fully human or “innocent.”

I can’t see how what I’m saying differs that greatly from what you’re saying Kurotawa. Plus, neither I, nor Ryosei, stated that Oshii “wasn’t a loner,” nor did Ryosei say that Buddhism is irrelvant to Innocence. I believe he said that the aspect of Buddhism that Max brought up was irrelevant.

iamNataku

Here’s a page where that quote can be found:

http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_09.02.0…ntheshell2.html

QUOTE
“I’m a big collector of quotes from various books,” says Oshii. “I like to read and every time I come across a good quote, I write it down. So I have a good collection of all these quotes. Before I started writing the script, I thought of all the dialogue in terms of the quotes I wanted to use.”

Another quote from Avalon interview:

http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=11825

QUOTE
I’m maybe interpretating that, but the name of you main character, Ash is the same as one of the Pokemon’s coach. Does the world need spirituals guides ?

It’s not on purpose. That said, as a dog always need a master, who happened to be a human, I wonder why if in case of humanity, there was a master who could be God. Even if I don’t have any particular religious belief, I’m looking for an answer to this question, understanding what guides our life. But it’s maybe more simple than that : for kids it’s parents, maybe for me, theses days, it’s my wife who’s guiding me.

As for how this whole “isolationist” debate, I believe it was sparked by one of my posts. Having said that, I believe I was trying to explain the difference between the solitary characters in Innocence and the solitary characters in the poems of Wordworth. (Although overall there are some great similarities between Innocence and Wordsworth’s work. Read some of the poems I referrenced and you’ll see what I mean.)

Wordsworth generally had a negative view of society, so being seperate from society was a noble thing. Nature = good / The world of man = evil. This is the typical view of a “isolationist,” as somebody who defines themselves as being “outside” or “different” from society.

From what I could discern, there is no judgment of society in Innocence. The characters are solitary, but they aren’t anti-social. They don’t mind working together when they have to. Batou has no qualms against having Togusa as a new partner even though he very much cared for Matoko. In general, every character is shown in a sympathetic light. (A stark difference from say a Stanley Kubrick film.)

It doesn’t seem that any of the characters would ever mind being in the “thick” of society, and in fact, Oshii could be just showing how people have become more isolated (and sad?) in this new technological world of ours. (Matoko alone in the Net/The girl alone in the gynoid body/Batou alone in his high-tech detective posistion/Dr. Haraway alone in her high-tech occupation/Kim alone in his high-tech mechanical obsessions.)

Although, I think the coolest thing in Innocence, just like how all of us from around the world can communicate to each other through IG’s boards, is that Matoko was able to communicate to Batou (several times) because of technology. Technology can isolate people, but it can also bring together people who otherwise would not have been able to communicate.

The funny thing is that I didn’t even know that Oshii was married, but that just shows that by just looking at the actual film itself, one could see that Oshii isn’t totally anti-social. Quotes from interviews are good, but it’s the movie that has the final word. Let’s try to stay on topic.

Kurotowa

I was wondering if anyone could provide the translation for “Ishikawa” and “Wakabayashi”. In the Stand Alone Complex TV series, there is a cyber parlour called “Parlour Ishikawa” that Ishikawa the character seems to have some affiliation to, I was wondering if there was some significance in the meaning of the name.

Can’t say for sure, but the name “Ishikawa” is a long standing repeat in Production IG films dating all the way back to the Patlabor series. You’ll see familiar names from the IG staff pop up all over the place. For example, see a few familiar names that pop up on this small production IG press release blurb:

QUOTE
Mitsuhisa Ishikawa, President of Production I.G, was awarded this year’s Entrepreneur of the Year award for the country of Japan. Ishikawa’s award in the Growth and Start Up category places him with past recipients like Sun Microsystems Co-Founder Scott McNealy (1987), Michael Dell of Dell Computers (1989), and Howard Schultz of Starbucks Coffee (1992). In May 2004, Ishikawa will join entrepreneurs in 35 other countries at the World Entrepreneur of the Year competition in Monte Carlo, Monaco.

Ishikawa, with Takayuki Goto, founded Production I.G in 1987. The company has since produced some of the most successful anime ever made, including Patlabor, Evangelion (co-production with Gainax) and Ghost in the Shell; recently I.G also provided several minutes of animation for Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill.

As for Wakakabayashi, it is also a last name, as far as I can remember it is used as the family name of the leader of the Yakuza gang in the film. I do not know what significance it might have.

As for the other stuff:

QUOTE

All good politicians know how to pretend that they didn’t say something politically when they know that they really did. It’s called damage control.

Luckily, Oshii’s a filmmaker and not a politician.

You’re just twisting the nice man’s words so they fit your description of good film.

Actually, I am not twisting anything. I never said Oshii was a politician nor did I imply that he wasn’t a film maker. At the same time, you do not have to be a politician to know how to answer questions “politically”.

QUOTE
Kurotowa provided a number of quotes in a response to his mini-discussion with Nataku. However, one of said quotes was mine, yet no distinction was made, and as such, in however small way, Nataku was asked to respond to something that he did not say, or may not have agreed with (even though I know he did).

This is a big no-no, and something I do not want to see happen again. I extremely dislike those who are far too careless with their quoting, and this is an example. If you wish to use my quotes ever again as a aid to your discussion, please, do not do so in this way again.

Thank you for your guidelines as to proper quoting, I was not aware that any such guidelines existed. I still contend that I was not “careless” as the quotes were addressing “value judgements” placed on thoughts, not specifically the people making such judgements. I did not really care who said what, only to provide a sampling to show you why this thread started out interesting and now “sucks”. But no matter…now I know…and knowing is half the battle.

As for Oshii being an isolationist, if the two interviews provided where he says he doesn’t care if he has friends and doesn’t have much compassion for humans to begin with aren’t enough there are always many others you can read where he talks about how he now lives in the mountains alone with his dog (and forget the isolationist aspects of his Kerberos films, or the loner main characters in his other films, those could be just an accident). You don’t expect me to do ALL the work for you, do you?

« [碟评]机械天使之舞－攻殻機動隊 O.S.T.乐评 Interviews with Mamoru Oshii »