Forum - View topic

The Tatami Galaxy (Yojō-Han Shinwa Taikei) (TV).

I really like Yuasa's visuals on their own, but I rather feel that they've become something of a crutch to him, that is to say he uses it on all his projects regardless of how well or poorly they actually suit the story (and people still eat them up because they're "artistic", call me cynical if you must).

In an era where more and more people are going to college, mightn't a more grounded, accessible art style have served the story better?

While the story delivers its central metaphor effectively, the characters really don't strike a chord as genuine human beings, Watashi feels more like a symbol of college students in general than any actual college student I've met, and most of the other characters are more or less static by necessity as a consequence of the story's structure.

The plot tries to flesh them out through variable perspectives, but they end up being more assemblages of human traits and flaws than true characters, at least to my eyes.

As for the plot, inserting elements early on and then having them appear later in the story isn't automatically impressive storytelling, that's just making the audience feel like they're in on the joke. It's continuity fanservice, basically, and it's a manipulative trick that I've grown tired of.

Also, while the ending was fitting it took far too much dialog to get there and much of the last two episodes was spent on general philosophizing rather than forwarding the central metaphor.

How a character so clearly warped as Watashi can manage to be so eloquent is beyond me.

I'm sorry, but even though this series is most definitely good I just can't see it as the masterpiece everyone else seems to think it is.

MadShadow42 wrote:

I really like Yuasa's visuals on their own, but I rather feel that they've become something of a crutch to him, that is to say he uses it on all his projects regardless of how well or poorly they actually suit the story (and people still eat them up because they're "artistic", call me cynical if you must).

Indeed, and I might add that Scriabin's trills and 4th/5th oriented harmonic structure got really old by the 10th piano sonata, Dali's Hallucinogenic Toreador was merely beating a dead horse, and by the time he began The Castle, Kafka was too Kafkaesque for his own good...surely you get where I'm going by now? They're called idiosyncrasies and they're what make the outstanding artists stand out.

Quote:

In an era where more and more people are going to college, mightn't a more grounded, accessible art style have served the story better?

Interesting. I wasn't aware going to college made one fancy "more grounded, accessible" art styles, whatever the hell those are. Because no one at all likes Picasso, Rothko, Pollack, et al...especially not well educated college students.

Quote:

While the story delivers its central metaphor effectively, the characters really don't strike a chord as genuine human beings, Watashi feels more like a symbol of college students in general than any actual college student I've met, and most of the other characters are more or less static by necessity as a consequence of the story's structure.

Okay, let's take your surmise of Watashi's character. I believe in an earlier post I alluded to the whole 'judging a fish by its ability to climb a tree' thing. Case in point. If your objection to a synecdoche is that it is in point of fact a synecdoche...yeah. His name is I/me, or in other words: generic protagonist in first person narrative.

Quote:

The plot tries to flesh them out through variable perspectives, but they end up being more assemblages of human traits and flaws than true characters, at least to my eyes.

You know, I actually wrote an essay on the difficulties of defining an individual contra a sort of memetic colony with a democratically elected avatar. Perhaps we could get together and discuss your insights into this indelible line between an assemblage and a 'true' character?

Quote:

As for the plot, inserting elements early on and then having them appear later in the story isn't automatically impressive storytelling, that's just making the audience feel like they're in on the joke. It's continuity fanservice, basically, and it's a manipulative trick that I've grown tired of.

I'm afraid either you're being a bit too vague or I've lost my edge, because I can't seem to divine exactly what you're criticizing here.

Quote:

Also, while the ending was fitting it took far too much dialog to get there and much of the last two episodes was spent on general philosophizing rather than forwarding the central metaphor.

For shame! Sophiophilia in a story about college! That's certainly no place for philosophy and excessive introspection!

Standing out is not automatically a positive thing, is what I'm saying. Is Yuasa's style unique? Absolutely. Laudable, even. But (a) if it doesn't suit the material that doesn't mean jack and (b) I have a nagging suspicion that if the direction/style accompanying the show's problem-laden writing were more conventional the fans would not be so quick to defend it. Feel free to disagree, my gripes with the art are a relatively subjective nitpick.

What I'm getting at is that this show is effectively putting up a barrier of entry with its alienating style, which I find frustrating because college is becoming a more universal part of life for people on both sides of the pacific. Oughtn't one of the very few shows that addresses this juncture try to be more universal itself? Again, this is a small, subjective point.

But you see, I find the very choice to make him a synecdoche to hold the show back from realizing its full potential. It's easy to lecture the audience by conveying everyday life through an archetype, far harder but far more rewarding to present reality through believable human characters. Presenting an archetypal character who can't be seen as human creates an emotional barrier.

That's an easy one. MOTIVATION. Every single one of the characters in this show might as well have sprung into existence as college students because that's the entire scope of their existence, it's their sole purpose to convey a metaphor about college life. They have no drive or backdrop beyond that.

I've heard many fans praise this show by declaring that "everything has a purpose". No, everything has continuity. It's not the same thing. Is there still an arc? Definitely. Does the repetition serve a purpose? Sort of, it's part of the metaphor. But for the most part, it's an extended joke (albeit a clever one). Don't look at pudding and call it meat..

I thought people didn't like being spoonfed answers. For Watashi to spout his conclusions at us rather than allowing us to find our own answers isn't storytelling, it's preaching. Hell, the answer it took him an episode and a half to find was obvious after half an episode, and some of the tangents he went on led to him spewing other concepts and conclusions that, while understandable in theory, wouldn't have come naturally without him saying "I have the answer, and I'm going to tell it to you". A theme ceases to be a theme if it has to be explained verbatim to the audience just to get its point across. It's manipulative.

I should clarify that I do think the characters of Tatami Galaxy are entertaining and likable (I didn't like some of them, but I could see why some people might). When I say motivation, I don't mean they all have to be proactive and driven to be realistic, that would be stupid. What I mean is that even people we'd describe as "unmotivated" actually have some sort of motivation for being that way, such as fear of failure or disillusionment with the end goal (or simple laziness). They need something at their cores to tie together their actions and decisions, that's what makes good storytelling meaningful and relevant to us as an audience, and that's where I find the characters lacking, feel free to disagree.

As for your idea that it's more a story of how college affects human beings than how human beings are affected by college (at least, I think that's what you're arguing), I'll counter that they are functionally the same. The issue of plausibility/relatability remains, particularly because we, the audience, are human beings.