What the hell was Akira about???

SpaceCowb0y

Just watched Akira and while it was visually amazing, especially considering how old it is i had no real idea what was actually going on while watching it and then was left completely lost with the ending! Can anyone shed some light on what it was actually all about?

nix

Where did the rest of the posts from this thread go?

johnny_ultimate

nix wrote: »

Where did the rest of the posts from this thread go?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057117655

Things went a little awry.

SpaceCowb0y

Does that mean all the posts will eventually find their way back here??

Nervous Wreck

Nope.

SpaceCowb0y

Awh

johnny_ultimate

Anyway, to reignite the lost discussion, a brief reconstruction of what I said earlier:

Akira is a sci-fi culmination of many prevalent trends in post-war Japanese cinema. The social upheavals and other after-effects of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs can be felt throughout many important and popular Japanese film genres. There's monster movies like Godzilla (the creature born from a nuclear explosion). There's the Sun Tribe and New Wave films like Crazed Fruit, Cruel Story of Youth etc..., representing an anarchic and nihilistic youth and society far removed from the people portrayed in films from the likes of Ozu. And there's the body horror films that remain one of the country's most popular exports to this day.

Akira, along with its relative contemporaries like Shinya Tsukamoto's Tetsuo, can be seen as a natural culmination of all these trends. Sure, at its core, it's a fantastical, bleak and sometimes almost impenetrable bit of dystopian sci-fi. But it's also a stark articulation of many of the concerns that dominated Japanese cinema - and indeed Japan more generally - throughout the second half of the 20th century. There's the explosions of a nuclear nature that mark the beginning and end of the narrative. There's a society in chaos, gangs roaming the streets. On a more specific level, you can look at the Olympic Stadium in the film. In reality, the Tokyo Olympics in 1964 were perceived as a major signifier of Japan's progress after the war. In the film, we can read it as a dark subversion of that idea, a 'what if...' signifier of social collapse following a major catastrophe (and, on a deeper and more cynical level, perhaps, signifying the disconnect between the authorities wishing to promote the rebuilt country and the actual reality).

Sure, the plot is pretty dense, albeit visually and stylistically remarkable. But beyond the literal workings of the story, there's much deeper and fascinating depths to Akira.

Bipolar Joe

Read the graphic novels, they're awesome. There's only so much they could fit into the movie, and as a result, lots of stuff got left out.

LuckyLloyd

Skerries wrote: »

it's one of those films you have to watch several times to even get a basic feel and understanding of it

In my humble opinion, no movie should require several viewings to be appreciated or understood. There needs to be some realisation upon an initial viewing, and a good piece of work should operate on multiple levels where you notice more strands every time you rewatch.

I feel the same way about Akira as I do Finnegan's Wake, and I say that as the holder of a literature degree. Life is too short for obtuse pieces of art imo.

folan

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

In my humble opinion, no movie should require several viewings to be appreciated or understood. There needs to be some realisation upon an initial viewing, and a good piece of work should operate on multiple levels where you notice more strands every time you rewatch.

I feel the same way about Akira as I do Finnegan's Wake, and I say that as the holder of a literature degree. Life is too short for obtuse pieces of art imo.

Many people disagree. I've rewatched Akira a few times, i've seen something new every time. I've enjoyed the same in many mediums, and i, along with many others, enjoy what you would call a challange of interpretation.

And life is the longest thing you can ever possibly do.

SpaceCowb0y

I'm fairly sure i'll get around to watching Akira again, just to try and make some sense of it all for myself and if for nothing else then just to admire the artwork of the film!

Someone mentioned prior to the posts disappearing that the explosion at the beginning of the film was Akira basically becoming too powerful and blowing up much in the same way as Tetsuo at the end which i hadn't really thought of after watching it initially, but that makes a whole lot of sense as Akira basically destroyed Tokyo and thus Neo-Tokyo the landscape of the film was created!

nix

Another great manga from that time is fist of the north star if you havent seen it, not taught provoking like Akira but another classic manga imo (atleast i remember it as a classic, not sure if it has aged well)

And Johnny, can you tell me that Evangelion order again please? your post went missing so i have nothing to refer to now

e_e

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

In my humble opinion, no movie should require several viewings to be appreciated or understood. There needs to be some realisation upon an initial viewing, and a good piece of work should operate on multiple levels where you notice more strands every time you rewatch.

I feel the same way about Akira as I do Finnegan's Wake, and I say that as the holder of a literature degree. Life is too short for obtuse pieces of art imo.

To me a piece of art is not great if it doesn't leave me with anything to ponder or challenge my perceptions in some way.

I don't even think that Akira is a film that can't be appreciated on one viewing either. The striking visuals and sublime score are more than enough to satisfy from the first watch.

I've only seen Akira once but Ghost in the Shell is the best comparison I can give. A film that vaguely intrigued me at first but that I also felt a little distanced from. Something drew me back though and I've now seen it at least half a dozen times. A film that rewards observance and repeat viewing tenfold.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

nix wrote: »

Another great manga from that time is fist of the north star if you havent seen it, not taught provoking like Akira but another classic manga imo (atleast i remember it as a classic, not sure if it has aged well)

And Johnny, can you tell me that Evangelion order again please? your post went missing so i have nothing to refer to now

i assume with eva it's 1-26 of the series, then end of evangelion.. then I guess the newer evas which haven't finished airing yet

also if you want to watch a giant robots anime watch rahxephon. it's like evangelion but good.

--edit

although don't google too much about rahxephon cos like.. spoilers. spoilers matter with that show.

SpaceCowb0y

e_e wrote: »

I don't even think that Akira is a film that can't be appreciated on one viewing either. The striking visuals and sublime score are more than enough to satisfy from the first watch.

I've only seen Akira once but Ghost in the Shell is the best comparison I can give. A film that vaguely intrigued me at first but that I also felt a little distanced from. Something drew me back though and I've now seen it at least half a dozen times. A film that rewards observance and repeat viewing tenfold.

The visuals and the score in Akira are immense! The only Manga i've seen that has appealed to me more, visually speaking anyway, so far is Spirited Away! A real master class in animation!

Ghost in The Shell is next on my list to watch when i get an opportunity to!

Skerries

folan wrote: »

Many people disagree. I've rewatched Akira a few times, i've seen something new every time. I've enjoyed the same in many mediums, and i, along with many others, enjoy what you would call a challange of interpretation.

And life is the longest thing you can ever possibly do.

exactly, just look at David Lynch's films such as Lost Highway or Mulholland Drive

LuckyLloyd

e_e wrote: »

To me a piece of art is not great if it doesn't leave me with anything to ponder or challenge my perceptions in some way.

I don't even think that Akira is a film that can't be appreciated on one viewing either. The striking visuals and sublime score are more than enough to satisfy from the first watch.

I've only seen Akira once but Ghost in the Shell is the best comparison I can give. A film that vaguely intrigued me at first but that I also felt a little distanced from. Something drew me back though and I've now seen it at least half a dozen times. A film that rewards observance and repeat viewing tenfold.

I'm not disagreeing with that. My contention is that if one is left bewildered at the first viewing or it takes multiple viewings to get in concert with what's going on then the work is flawed. The best art is stuff that works on a simple surface level and can be appreciated to some degree with an initial viewing; but releases evermore secrets or strands of meaning the deeper you dig into it. That is truly 'great' imo.

I think obtuseness is frequently confused for greatness.

ambro25

SpaceCowb0y wrote: »

Someone mentioned prior to the posts disappearing that the explosion at the beginning of the film was Akira basically becoming too powerful and blowing up much in the same way as Tetsuo at the end which i hadn't really thought of after watching it initially, but that makes a whole lot of sense as Akira basically destroyed Tokyo and thus Neo-Tokyo the landscape of the film was created!

In terms of what-the-movie-does-not-say plot, that summary is spot on.

I have the entire manga (comic) in hardcopy, and my version is 26 episode-books long, each 70-odd pages in nearly A4 format (IIRC :pac:)

IMHO the movie is -paradoxically- both an oversimplification of the original source material and a suitable condensation of the 'socio-historical and ethnological commentaries' conveyed by of the comic. Too much ground to cover for the limited movie duration, too many shortcuts IMHO. It needed another hour, or maybe to be done as a two-parter (much as I have always disliked trilogies, "prequels", etc.).

The movie is a magnificent piece of art and anime, but so much of the original source material (incl. some really rich potential for further outstanding scenes) has been trap-door'd it hurts! E.g. (again IIRC, not watched it in ages) there's no US-led involvement (special forces/bombings/aircraft carriers nearby/etc.) in the movie, but that is a non-trivial part in the latter third of the manga, and which I would hold as equally significant a 'message' by the author as the nuclear themes subtended by Akira's and Testuo's more extreme manifestations.

e_e

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with that. My contention is that if one is left bewildered at the first viewing or it takes multiple viewings to get in concert with what's going on then the work is flawed. The best art is stuff that works on a simple surface level and can be appreciated to some degree with an initial viewing; but releases evermore secrets or strands of meaning the deeper you dig into it. That is truly 'great' imo.

I think obtuseness is frequently confused for greatness.

It's a hard thing to measure though because it very much depends on the viewer. For example I found The Tree of Life and Only God Forgives so much more lucid and coherent than some people did yet I know they're the kind of films that people glibly call "random" and "pretentious".

Also I really think that some films click together on reflection too, I'd rather a baffling film that left me reaching conclusions days later than a mildly enjoyable film that I'd forgotten by the time I stepped out of the cinema. Post Tenebras Lux in particular was a film that I wasn't sure if I loved or hated after watching, but 11 months later I'm still thinking about it. Being shown something completely new and then trying to piece it together is really rewarding to me. I can sense bull**** because if a film is annoying/boring me rather than intriguing I do zone out.

LuckyLloyd

e_e wrote: »

It's a hard thing to measure though because it very much depends on the viewer. For example I found The Tree of Life and Only God Forgives so much more lucid and coherent than some people did yet I know they're the kind of films that people glibly call "random" and "pretentious".

Also I really think that some films click together on reflection too, I'd rather a baffling film that left me reaching conclusions days later than a mildly enjoyable film that I'd forgotten by the time I stepped out of the cinema. Post Tenebras Lux in particular was a film that I wasn't sure if I loved or hated after watching, but 11 months later I'm still thinking about it. Being shown something completely new and then trying to piece it together is really rewarding to me. I can sense bull**** because if a film is annoying/boring me rather than intriguing I do zone out.

The Tree of Life is 'great' whereas Only God Forgives is 'obtuse' imo. Now, how do I reach those conclusions (leaving aside that no - one gives a **** about what I think)?

The former unapologetically drives home exploration of a central theme (THE central theme). While it has some overly whimsical conceits (the Big Bang and end sequence could have been dropped imo) and interesting layers, the core idea is tangible and the immediacy of the childhood recollections should appeal to most. Sure, it's all experimental and may be unpopular to many on the basis of its non standard narrative, etc but noone would be unable to grasp what its about or feel some conncection. Its choices in terms of delivery and structure are chosen to deliver a strong and clear message. As such, it is beautiful / fascinating / challenging cinema that is the way it is for a pupose with accessible themes.

By contrast, Only God Forgives was for me an exercise in style first and substance second working backwards from sketches of scenes / cinematic ideas and shaping some concepts around them. You could argue (as you have on this forum) that there is an interesting treatment of fundamental concepts in there, but you have to look really hard to find them. There is no surface level, there is no cohesiveness (or deliberate fragmentation). It all hangs there in a 'make of it whatever you want' fashion.

There's a clear difference there imo, but what the **** do I know. :pac:

e_e

That's the thing though, I didn't have to look hard at all to find the the narrative/thematic through-line of Only God Forgives.

It's not quite a film that adds 2+2 for the viewer but it's not too difficult to see the film's revealing of past trauma, guilt, family commitment, repressed sexuality, violent urges and ultimately redemption/forgiveness through its central drama. In a funny way it's like Tree of Life set in a hellish criminal underworld.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzCR6QoHngQ

o1s1n

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with that. My contention is that if one is left bewildered at the first viewing or it takes multiple viewings to get in concert with what's going on then the work is flawed. The best art is stuff that works on a simple surface level and can be appreciated to some degree with an initial viewing; but releases evermore secrets or strands of meaning the deeper you dig into it. That is truly 'great' imo.

I think obtuseness is frequently confused for greatness.

Something to keep in mind with Akira - you are not the target audience. The target audience was one based in Japan in the 80s, most of which had probably read much of the already serialized comic in Young Magazine.

I'm a huge fan of Akira and will admit it does have it's faults (mainly pacing towards the end) - but a huge part of the 'wtf is going on' experienced by people on the first viewing is a lack of knowledge of what it is they're actually watching.

If you put yourself in the target audience position, was reading the serialized comic and had standard Japanese thoughts/ideologies about nuclear war, destruction, life, the universe and everything then it would be a hell of a lot less 'wtf is going on'

The film has an incredible amount of stuff going on. From the mind blowing quality of the animation itself (I don't know how into animation you are, but filming night scenes is a generally to be avoided - to open a film with such a lengthy, incredibly detailed one would be seen as madness - have you seen alone how many reds are used?)

To both the amazing musical score and true lip synced animated dubbing of voice actors. (something which is lost if you watch a dubbed version) - Check out this genga I got recently, lip syncing of Tetsuo's mouth. Absolutely incredible, the amount of work involved in that alone.



So yeah, it might seem like a whole lot of 'what the hell is going on' - I know I experienced that the first time I watched it back in the early 90!. But if you explore the Akira universe it's an absolute feat of animation. One which I don't think has been surpassed, not even by Miyazaki (but that's an arguement for another day!)