|
View Poll Results: Penguin Drum - Episode 20 Rating | |||
Perfect 10 | 30 | 46.15% | |
9 out of 10 : Excellent | 24 | 36.92% | |
8 out of 10 : Very Good | 6 | 9.23% | |
7 out of 10 : Good | 2 | 3.08% | |
6 out of 10 : Average | 0 | 0% | |
5 out of 10 : Below Average | 0 | 0% | |
4 out of 10 : Poor | 2 | 3.08% | |
3 out of 10 : Bad | 1 | 1.54% | |
2 out of 10 : Very Bad | 0 | 0% | |
1 out of 10 : Painful | 0 | 0% | |
Voters: 65. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools |
2011-11-26, 04:47 | Link #81 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Philadelphia, Pa
|
I think the show can be taken in two different ways. One being that the things happening are surreal, meaning that they represent or reflect something about the characters motives or subconscious state of mind, or that the things happening are a form of magical realism. Either interpretation is valid, in my opinion, but can lead to different conclusions as to what the show is trying to say.
If we take it literally then the child broiler is the place where their society chooses those worthy and those unworthy to live. You'd have to consider what you think about a society where they make unworthy children "disappear" and how the people in the society could turn a blind eye to it. That might make the actions of penguinforce/kiga seem more rational in why they'd rebel against such a place, though you might also still disagree with their methods. Objects like the diary, penguindrum(if it isn't the diary) or the apples would then be magical items that are used by the characters to change fate or help each other. If it surreal and the child broiler then it would likely represent a state of mind. A state of mind that the character's enters when they lose hope, not when society dictates it. This put the onus more on them and less on the society, though you might still blame the society in someway for causing them to lose hope. When they go to the child broiler then it is a metaphor for them fading into the background of society. They could just become another indistinguishable person or retreat completely from society. This would mean that kiga is fighting a mentality of the citizens in the society but their method of fighting it becomes almost ludicrous in this scenario. The diary, penguindrum, or apples then are more symbolic and less simply magical. They'd be symbols for the characters willingness to help each other, or push the other to change their own fate. I generally believe that surreal is most likely the "true" message but the literal message is also just as valid. The literal message is also the more dangerous interpretation because if you take it at face value then how could you not, at least in some small way, want to see such a society burn?
__________________
|
2011-11-26, 07:59 | Link #84 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Age: 35
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seito_S..._.22Onibara.22
Did somebody post this before? Well, here it is again. Also, you guys are taking way too detached a view of things if you think that "invisible existences" or "people who won't amount to anything" refers to just the poor, discriminated against, or disadvantaged. Keep in mind that Japan as a whole has been in a depressive/deflationary state economically for several decades. Also understand in general the self-denial, pessimism, guilt, and submissiveness that are the lingering echoes of Japan's loss at the stage of the second World War. The Child Broiler is not the metaphor; the metaphor is the children themselves--because it is the entirety of Japanese society that Kiga (or Pingroup or Aum Shinrikyo) sees to be at risk of turning invisible. "Survival Strategy", indeed. This question is tangential to the characters, their drama, and relationships, but what exactly does it mean to "amount to anything"? Can any person actually claim that? Under what circumstances, through the lens of which ideology, when and where? Himari said, "to live is to be punished". From a nation which lived through both this years' Great East Japan Earthquake and the atom bomb, this line sounds natural, doesn't it? The line between life and death, "chosen" and "unchosen", is not so simple as a mere moral directive not to ignore the unfortunate. That complacency or sense of personal security is itself ignorance. When Mawaru Penguindrum's characters speak, "you who will never amount to anything", they are addressing every last person who sees the show him or herself. lol, this was a pretty godly episode. Also hilarious in its ridiculousness, directness, and irony. "Countless children are turning invisible as we speak"--yeah, the very ones watching the present episode, subsection of the otaku/anime subculture which is a breeding people who've turned away from reality: the NEETs and hikkikomoris of Japan. The barely disguised social commentary was both so ballsy and so pretentious it nearly had me laughing my ass off. Anyway, characters, characters. Yeah, I really love them. Himari is a fucking sex symbol--I think I've got a fetish by now after those relentless post-credit voice samples. Don't have sex, do not chase, because if you let your cuteness be consumed, you'll be thrown away. To be "chosen", to be alive now, means in no way that you will remain so indefinitely. That inevitability is what Himari is afraid of. She wants the Fruit of Fate. In a way, this is her own "Survival Strategy". I feel so fucking lonely for Kanba. In the OP, his is the only profile running off to somewhere else. Well, this is something I remembered during the previous episode--though it's kinda trivial to bring it up now that his Natsume relation is confirmed: Shouma 晶馬 is the same 晶 as the Princess of Crystal (晶). Kanba 冠葉 is the same 冠 as the Prince of the Crown (冠). Regarding Kanba's motivations, it is now clear that he is not moved by blind "faith" in his parents. From the beginning, Kanba has thought "Shouma, keep your innocence for Himari". Now twice, Shouma said "We don't need parents", and Kanba's agreed. Kanba protects Shouma/Himari as much as his parents in hiding his association with the latter. Let the "innocent" ones stay "innocent" of associating with terrorists, in other words; not to mention he was protecting his source of money for saving Himari's life. Kid!Shouma was a bit of a bleeding heart. The "Fruit of Fate" appears to have been something which allowed him to "save" someone he'd "chosen". Was that a gift from Kenzan: a single chance for him to change the fate of someone in this frozen world, separated into the "chosen" and the "unchosen"? Himari told Shouma, about "Sunny" the cat--do not show kindness to someone if you have no intention of saving them fully. But, by the end I think that Shouma was prepared for and understood that it was not "everybody" he wanted to save, but Himari, specifically, herself. It was this burden, this acknowledgement of responsibility (that having saved Himari, Shouma had decided that he would save her to the end), that is the source of his current guilt. The main point in all three cases is, of course, where does one get the arrogance to think of "being chosen", "protecting", or "saving"? If to live is to be punished, that goes for every last human. "Saving others", "being saved"; before such things as that, what is most important is first every person's determination to be able to "save" themself. Well, here is a more immediate question. Natsume was wrong; of course both Kanba and Shouma believe that the Takekuras are a family. However, in either case Himari is the obvious center of the whole thing. If Kanba is not bound to Himari by "fate", then how do either Himari and Shouma respond to Natsume's attempts to "reclaim" her brother? Do they resist, do they have reason to resist? And if they do not resist, then how can Kanba possibly respond to them? I see Himari as sex, but it is true that neither Kanba nor Shouma wish to see her romantically. If the familial relation cannot be maintained, however, then under what premise do they continue relating to each other? On a last note, incidentally, I still think that Sanetoshi and Kiga are no longer associated/equivalent entities. At some point they fell out. Sanetoshi gave Pingroup the illusion that they were "chosen" to correct society, but after their failure, Sanetoshi ditched them, Pingroup renamed themselves, and they ran away carrying on that illusion. If what "Mary" stole from the "Goddess" was some sort of component of the Fruit of Fate, then what Sanetoshi is using the children for might be some way of getting it back. |
2011-11-26, 08:16 | Link #85 | |
✘˵╹◡╹˶✘
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australia
|
Quote:
I don't want to get too deep on the morality of the issues (especially how close the event to the actual Sarin attack). But maybe that's why Ikuhara invent the "Child Broiler" and lots of surreal element in the first place. So the audiences won't feel the need to assimilate the issue with the real event, hence can look at the events in this anime with different mindset. For example, i don't think we can pay any sympathy towards any real terrorists, quite the same way we may toward the Takakura father. Because there's that strong condemnation within our society,making us feel the need to follow, even without hearing their back story. (Edit: saying that alone really made me sounded like i am defending terrorism....)
__________________
|
|
2011-11-26, 09:50 | Link #87 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: France
|
Quote:
(EP 9) |
|
2011-11-26, 13:14 | Link #89 |
✘˵╹◡╹˶✘
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australia
|
I know lots of our speculation is correct, but Ikuhara really did a nice job of messing with our head. I means he even changed Shouma's voice actor, just so we would think Himari's soul mate is Mario.
I remembered back in ep 10, many of us were so sure that it was Mario. And i did complaint that it was unfair to base the deduction on the credits. Turned out , Ikuhara really trolled us PS: Btw, 1st it was Kanba on siscon, then remember that triplet theory?And we thought Shouma is the siscon instead. Turned out the twins were clean, and only Masako is the brocon of this series. The end product may even take the incest tag out at this rate
__________________
|
2011-11-26, 14:13 | Link #90 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: 雲の向こう
|
I never knew Utena turns into a car at the end of the movie.
I never watched Utena, though I had been planning to. I never expected to discover this spoiler in a Penguindrum thread, where spoilers, other than what is relevant for the most-recent episode, is not allowed. Thanks, I appreciate spoilers. (No, not really. I hate spoilers). |
2011-11-26, 14:20 | Link #91 |
Bittersweet Distractor
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 32
|
I think people are getting too hung up on what's the right interpretation. I think it's pretty obvious for anyone who knows Ikuhara that he intentionally makes things ambiguous so people use their imagination to connect all the ideas. Not everything needs to be spoon fed to an audience .
__________________
|
2011-11-26, 14:44 | Link #92 |
Me, An Intellectual
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Age: 33
|
I'm not sure about it though. They might be family but it could've also meant "Brother" as in "Brothers" in a group. Like "Aniki" but something more righteous. I wouldn't be surprised if they're really siblings though. Another brilliant episode.
__________________
|
2011-11-26, 14:45 | Link #93 | |
Mmmm....
Join Date: Sep 2006
|
Quote:
Although if that what was really being said, then that's even a better joke. |
|
2011-11-26, 15:28 | Link #94 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
|
Quote:
Also, the group that Kenzan leads has a fraternity/cult feel to it. In that case, they're all "brothers", and it makes sense for the leader to be "our father" to everyone in the group - they often refer to each other that way in real life in such groups. So Masako and Kanba don't necessarily need to be blood related. I think people are jumping to conclusions (like about Mario being Himari's soulmate) too quickly yet again |
|
2011-11-26, 23:49 | Link #97 | |
✘˵╹◡╹˶✘
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australia
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2011-11-27, 00:06 | Link #98 | |
Senior Member
Author
|
Quote:
That being said, I do think that a less Japan-centric interpretation is also viable here, as I see where Guardian Enzo was coming from earlier on in this thread. Basically, I think that the metaphors used in this anime can mean more than one thing alone.
__________________
Last edited by Triple_R; 2011-11-27 at 11:38. |
|
2011-11-27, 11:31 | Link #99 |
Cross Game - I need more
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: I've moved around the American West. I've lived in Oregon, Washington, Utah, and Oklahoma
Age: 44
|
Chosen vs Unchosen
This episode was very thought provoking and I've been thinking about it for a while. My thoughts went all over the place so I might ramble a bit, but I hope that people will read and respond. I'm interested in others thoughts.
The main theme from this episode (and has tied together a theme that's been running through all the episodes before) is the chosen vs the unchosen. The belief is expressed that there are those that are chosen,and those that are not chosen. Those that are not chosen are tossed away like trash, while the chosen rise to power, wealth and fame. Triple H is an example of this. Compare Himari (Unchosen) to her friends (Chosen). Whether the Child Broiler really exists in story or not is of little difference to me. The symbolism we are to take from it is the same. At some point children are given up on. They are not "chosen" and so are tossed away. Immediately this made me think of the Japanese educational system, and the emphasis on entrance tests. The chosen few go to the elite schools, what happens to the unchosen? The ones that don't get in to the elite schools. Additionally I've been given to understand that in Japan the most important impact on your future employment is which college you attend. Not your grades. Not how well prepared you are to preform. But which college you attend. Thus those that are "chosen" advance. What happens to the unchosen? Maison Ikkoku is actually one of the rare shows to follow a man who is one of the unchosen. Godai got into a college so poor that even mentioning it's name makes prospective employers reject him. He can't get a job, despite being diligent and honest. There seems to be no reward for his virtues, for they are not valued, and his flaws are despised. Of course, Godai does ultimately triumph- but not by going the normal route- and he's still poor. Of course Maison Ikkoku was made during the boom years, so perhaps things are more desperate now. Interestingly the solution of Godai in Maison Ikkoku is echoed in Penguindrum. Godai is not chosen by the world, but he is "chosen" by Kyoto (his Love Interest), and by his fellow residents at Maison Ikkoku (his nakama- even though they are abusive towards him). Essentially Godai chooses his nakama at the end. Similarly, Shouma has created a small family, in which he choose them. The world unchose Himari, but Shouma chose her. Tabuki's mother unchose him, but Momoka chose him. So on, and so on. I wonder if part of Shouma's funk right now can be explained by his sense that his parent have "unchoosen" him, (choosing Kanba instead?) I think this aspect of being "unchosen" speaks to the condition of a lot of young Japanese who can not get permanent employment and so are reduced to eternal part-time work. Similar conditions exist through out the world right now. Spain. Italy. The Arab world. The "unchosen" young cannot find employment. This is a much more serious condition outside of the United States. The US has a much more fluid workplace and so a part time worker does have the possibility of moving up and advancing. Becoming "chosen" even if he was "unchosen" before. Even so, it is a problem here as well. Much of the Occupy Wall Street movement is driven by college students who thought they were "chosen" and then suddenly discovered that they are not. It used to be you went to college and graduated and you got a job no problem. Not so anymore. They feel cheated. This is also finally made clear to me the difference and similarity of the Tea Party and the Occupy movements. Both of them are furious at a system that they see as choosing winners and losers unfairly. Both bridle at the fact that there are now the "chosen" and the "unchosen". The difference is that they have completely opposite solutions. Occupy Wall Street says that everyone should be "chosen". If a person is "unchosen" then the government should interfere to choose him. They are angry at the bailout, because why did the bankers get bailed out but not ordinary Americans. Where is my bailout? The Tea Party thinks that no one should be chosen. Or at least, that there should be no central power that decides who is chosen and who is not. Thus the problem is the government "choosing" winners in the first place. It explains why they are so furious about the bailout of GM and the Solyndra scandal. To them the government made them "chosen". To the Tea Party the solution is to depower the government so it can't choose anyone. There also an untapped sentiment in the Tea Party that would favor breaking up the big banks (unfortunately for the Tea Party they have yet to find a politician who supports this and also supports their other more conservative views). The theory of the Tea Party is that if no one central figure is powerful enough to impose a regime of chosen and unchosen, then we will all fall back on the old way: We are "chosen" by our family or friends or individual employer. Since the power to choose is spread out there are so many options and opportunities to be chosen that eventually most everyone will find a place. And even if one person deems you "unchosen," there is always another person who will deem you "chosen". These are radically different concepts about how to determine chosen and unchosen. I'm curious where Penguindrum will come down on it.
__________________
Last edited by Sackett; 2011-11-27 at 11:55. |
|
|