MovieChat Forums > Innocence (2004) Discussion > Adolescent, borderline puerile philosoph...

Adolescent, borderline puerile philosophy

posted 19 years ago by hungryhipppo
81 replies | jump to latest

People who hail this film as 'deep' need to calmly rethink their notion of what it means to be human. If anything, this film reminded me of a 'quote journal' that a friend used to keep: it was a collection of famous sayings the person would write down.

Every single quote in the movie came from the mouth of a person like you or me, and is built from words that other peopoe like your or me agreed to use to communicate to one another. The whole mirrors thing...rubbish. Batou's brother failing in the search for meaning? Who hasn't heard that one before? The film seems so eager to say something that it forgets the true gem of humanity/life is communication itself. Philosophy, my donkey. =] The whole 'aemaeth' 'maeth' trick carries about the same philosophical signifigance as a baseball manager's signs. Don't think so? Both cases are based on premeditated/pre-organized 'signs' designed to communicate meaning. We, the audience, shouldn't confuse the deus ex machina of the major's hacking talent and her choice of signal to Batou to be anything more than that. If the major was able to send her signal undetected in the first place, she could have just as well shown Batou a big damn banner reading: Congratulations! It's A...Trap! If Kim couldn't stop whatever the major did anyhow, why bother with sending a 'subtle' tipoff? Extending some credit to Oshii, he has the major insert herself and Batou's dog in the 'hint'; I'll give Oshii the benefit of the doubt and say that he was making a commentary on what gives Batou a 'reason to exist', aka the dog and contact with the major, and the major using the chance to share a bit of an intimate moment with Batou. The whole 'amaeth' 'maeth' thing is just a thing that some guy made up in some other story - great literary work or not - made up and then requisitioned for use as a simple visual signal from one cop to another.

Basically, the danger in buying into and heralding such philosophizing is that you're so dazzled and awed, too busy applauding the creator for using it (and to some extent, yourself for 'getting' it) You're too busy nodding your head or comtemplating it to see that in reality, the world and the universe are far too big to be encapsulated in quotes (self-congratulatory, or existential crying-out, or emotionally stirring, or whatever kind) - quotes built from nouns and verbs that we humans agreed on. Put your Monty Python hat on and imagine Eric Idle and John Cleese engaged in the following conversation:
- Ok, when I say "Green," it means 'go.
- Green means go. Got it.
- Hey...
- What.
- You fancy this'll catch on?
- What do you mean?
- This whole green means go thing. You know, green...lush leaves, fertile grass, garden of eden...
- You fancy anybody'll give a @#$%?
- Well...someone might.
- You're right, let's just go with it.

It might be a clumsy example but it makes the point in its own blunt way: Anything that comes from the mind of a human can by nature only be an observation. No such thing can be a truth except amongst other human beings. To presume anything as a deep universal truth is akin to walking into a house that someone else built with their own two hands and plopping yourself down on the couch and spewing commentary on the decor. Who asked you? Compared to the intricacy of fabric of the universe, human speech/communication is about as delicate and ingenious as a dixie-cup-string phone. But hey, it works. And we get by. But the moment you start saying hey-we're-so-deep-aren't-we-great, that's the moment you start to stagnate, and potentially lose the drive to pass the deep and go for things deeper still. That's why the art universally regarded as 'best' usually accomplishes two things: excellence in execution, and unspoken acknowledgement of the 'unattainable' (in other words, humility and the longing for things greater still). This is where Innocence loses its footing with many viewers: the second anyone catches a whiff of pretension, they back away with their palms held out: No, thanks, man. I gave at the office. The simple reason is that we're built to detect someone who thinks they've got it all figured out. Pretension is the death-cologne of those who've lost a bit of their humility/humanity and who think they have it all figured out but in reality have stalled at some desert crossroads along the drive for bigger and better things.

Remember, everything in this movie - quotes and imagery and all, and original or not - *everything* in the picture was filtered through the mind of one man: to hail any of it as deep or meaningful is a dangerous and witless thing to do. Picture every piece of 'significant' knowledge or 'enlightenment' ever obtained in this world and imagine it as the cottage-cheese sludge being funneled through one man's mind. Now picture the lower tip of the funnel. Narrow, isn't it? I'm not saying that Oshii is narrow-minded; all of us make everyday decisions in the same way, artists included - you funnel and filter out the 'junk' and go for what you have to. But don't forget that the real picture of humanity is the 'sludge', and how each and every person goes through it looking for meaning and occasionally getting stuck. And once you find what works for you, you go with it and grow with it (usually into adulthood.)

That's why Innocence's philosophizing is borderline adolescent and why many people criticize the film's 'pretension': all of its ponderings are either things that *every* human being does, or Oshii's hand-picked (make no mistake about that) sayings. Those types of obsevations are what most human beings grow out of by their twenties. Sure, who wouldn't like the time to lay or mope around pondering the human condition: most of us lack the discipline or intellect to bother with it, or the talent and flair to express what we've found in a way that appeals to the slovenly masses - hence artists like Oshii find work. Bottom line, if you've read this far, I hope you've done away with the notion that Innocence - and films like it - are anything more than beautifully packaged personal quote journals.

[–] dopefishie 19 years ago

I enjoyed Oshii's interpretations of life via this film.
I related to the opinions expressed by his characters and identified with the symbolism and the messages that the film conveyed to me.
Pretension is relative. What may seem to be pretentious to one person may not be true for another b/c we all have different experiences which allow us to interpret the world uniquely thru our own subjective filters. People that tend to have similar experiences AND that interpret these experiences similarly can then identify and agree with one another b/c they have found something that resembles themselves in another.
Art is a beautiful form of communication. Film and animation are wonderfully expressive mediums. What I saw in Ghost in the Shell 2 resonated with me. It educated me as to what kind of person Oshii is and what his thoughts are on many subjects.
Any time one person communicates their own unique thoughts to another; learning is taking place. We learn from one another and GROW. Thats the whole point. Growing. Bettering yourself. It puts the lotion in the basket.

[–] King-Mob 19 years ago

Reccomend me some books/films that are please. I thought GITS:Innocence was great visually but for people to consider it deep, I think that's pushing it...

[–] Cylinsier 19 years ago

You make an interesting point, but what bothers me is that you imply some greater process for making a movie "deep" exists, yet by your own admission anything manmade that we take in, are or otherwise, is just that: manmade. Therefore, you are faulting a movie for doing something that it cannot help but do; be the product of only one flawed human being's perception of what is deep and philosophical. In the end you may be right but there is no point in even arguing what you say as there is no solution. If you were to name off an example of something you do find to be truly deep and intellectual, I could easily counter with your exact argument and because we all are entitled to our opinions and there would be no right or wrong answer in this case, I would be just as right as you are.

This is an extremely well-thought out criticism but an ultimately futile one and somewhat depressing as well. If this is truly what you believe, how do you find enjoyment in any book, movie, painting, song, or other form of artistic expression? The original purpose of a film is to be entertaining, and GITS2 achieves this in my opinion. If it doesn't in yours, that's fine. But if it doesn't because of this...I can only imagine you have no love for anything non-scientific, anything black and white, because you find everything else to be simply a flawed presentation of a single person's perception of reality.

I think the greatest depth we ever have any hope of reaching would be one originally percieved by man. After all, we can't reach it if we can't reach it, right? My point is that this film should be appreciated for its bold presentation of philosophical ideas that, though they may be common, recycled, sophomoric or otherwise, are beyond what 99% of films out there attempt to achieve. If you don't like the movie, just say so (although not here as bashing threads are an iritation on IMDB). But you shouldn't attempt to criticize a film's philosophical merit by presenting a long, detailed argument that serves to described itself just as well as it does the subject matter.

In the end, you may have to face the fact that this is probably the deepest its going to get and if you can't deal with that, learn to enjoy movies for what they are: entertainment. I guess if you are in need of a more intellectually challenging experience, you could always visit the philosophy section of your local library? Perhaps a little raw Lacan, Foucault, or Kant, free of anything but the pure untainted words directly from their flawed human minds will satisfy you.

[–] dopefishie 19 years ago

i am inclined to agree with you.
davidhlee79 makes an impressive arguement
but ultimately it is self-defeating.

[–] darren_e_r 19 years ago

Davidhee79, I don't want to burst your bubble but you are not sure of anything you say. You are speculating, just like GITS2 is.How can you criticise this? who do you think you are?

[–] sirtmagus_2000 19 years ago

Boring.

You are boring.

Stop boring me.

[–] a-m-kelly 19 years ago

so.
stop.
reading.

[–] lukeashmoore 17 years ago

ahahhahahahah classic

[–] Flipao79 19 years ago

" I hope you've done away with the notion that Innocence - and films like it - are anything more than beautifully packaged personal quote journals."

Uh, nah, I've done away with your senseless paragraphs of self congratulatory nonsense.

Oshii's film is both visually poetic and intellectually enticing. Philosophy, however, is far from being an exact science, and it's interpretation is always subject to individual prejudices.

I suggest you do away with your "Adolescent, borderline puerile" issues and watch the film again with an open mind.

You might even enjoy it.

[–] jason-639 19 years ago

Your so-called 'critique' of the philosophy of this movie fails utterly to address any aspect of it, primarily, I suspect, because you failed to grasp it. Instead, you launch into a rambling diatribe regarding-- hmm let me see if I can sort this out-- the inability of words to encapsulate the truths of the universe, the inability of the experiential human to achieve universal truth, and some impenetrable rants regarding art, and, er... funnels.

You could copy your post (without the 2nd paragraph) and apply it equally to... most anything. You're really just saying, "oh, we can't find truth AT ALL, words are useless, one man's opinion is flawed, etc, etc."

On top of that, you say a lot of dumb things-- like: it is dangerous and witless to ascribe any depth or meaning to work that has been filtered through an individual mind. (Huh??!)

What this really says to me is that you don't have any cogent criticisms of the actual thought processes present in this movie. Arguers retreat to semantics when they don't have a good argument. But it's okay, I'll give you a second chance to actually address _this_ movie. Here's a few questions to get you started:

You seem to miss utterly the significance of the Shem, so perhaps a leading question will point you in the right direction: Besides the theme of truth vs. death, what (blindingly central) theme is illustrated by the use of the Shem?

What is the signifcance of the birds and fish? What do they represent? What is the significance of animals in general?

Why isn't the rampant solipsism in this movie a suitable refutation of your position?

Is the "science vs. the human soul" dilemma-- as illustrated in this movie-- refutable? Is there anything unique about the way in which Oshii frames this dilemma?

Address these issues intelligently, and then I'll listen to you if you want to criticise Mamoru Oshii's philosophizing as adolescent. Oh yeah, also, it would be nice if you would provide examples of other movies in which you consider the philosophizing to be more 'adult' than this one.

[–] williamvere 19 years ago

Both the criticism and most of the responses expressed here are to some degree insensible. Mr. David H. Lee's criticism is indeed self contradictory; he argues that a thing produced within language may not be deep or philosophical... but these criteria are themselves defined within the structures of language, and his criticism also stands within the bounds of the language he is criticising. Any argument that declares the language that it is written in to be insufficient to convey real sense is contradicting itself.

The response offered by Jason 639 is also insensible; that is, it too contradicts itself. By saying that we cannot properly criticise via semantic analysis is to suggest that the meanings that sentences and other propositions contain cannot be broken down in any form: effectively, he denies that the rules of grammar have any meanin, and thus hamstrings any further reading of his own sentences. If a sentence, without our having engaged with the argument contained therein, makes no sense, then there is no point further examining the argument. To put it another way: Not X, where X is an irrational string like XGGHJJj, makes no more sense than X. We must begin with semantics, before we dive into those things built upon the semantics.

In response to Jason 639's very last point, he should be reminded that david h. Lee did not in fact claim that any film did have a philosophical depth (although he may well believe this) his argument stands on its own.

A reminder to everyone. Please, please, please, attack the argument, not the person putting it forwards.

Lastly, somebody wanted to know of a few books or films that were in some sense deep. I cannot speak for David H. Lee, and neither can i suggest any films; i can, however, suggest the following books, as reading them will not only inspire, but it will better teach your mind how to think.
Not suggesting you need it, just saying.

Before any others, the online encyclopedia of philosophy is an invaluable introduction (WWW.IEP.UTM.EDU/) to a wide variety of topics, although you won't find \evrything there. Stanford also has one, although with many shared entries.

1) Eccles, introduction to mathematical reasoning (expensive, not immediately or obviously relevant, but really good. will show you how logic, in its formal sense, is used to prove propositions in maths. ties in nicely with

2) Langer, introduction to formal logic (my copy is an old one, third ed. there may be better ones out there - unfortunately, the main one i use is a university textbook, not published... It gives more of an insight into the implication of logic to language)

3) Wittgenstein, Tractatus logico-philosophicus (you knew it was coming... why am i reading all of this logic? oh that's why, to understand old ludwig. a book of astounding brilliance)

4) Neitzche, beyond good and evil (the most accessable, but don't take him too seriously. was rejected by women and spent his life in pain from sifilus. Not attacking the man, but it colours all of his prose with a bitterness and a dislike for humanity. and he's easy to take the wrong way, if you take that all at face value)

That's actually a pretty eccentric selection of texts (but I love em)... I don't say that everything the last two say is correct, but deep it certainly is, and they're two of the best writers in the philosophy of the last two centuries. it's a good starting point. could be followed up with spinoza, plato, and should be accompanied with discussion of it all while you read it, or your mind will end up wrapped around itself... and by good discussion, I don't mean on the internet.

[–] jason-639 19 years ago

Williamvere:

Excuse me, but if you'd like to criticize my position, you're going to have to represent it correctly. For instance, I never said that we cannot properly criticize via semantic analysis. And you go spinning wildly off further by saying that I'm suggesting that the rules of grammar don't have any meaning!(?) Where exactly are you getting this from? I'm actually suggesting the opposite: words have pretty good agreed upon meanings that we use for the purpose of intellectual discourse. Those who choose to retreat to an attack on the meaning of those words, generally don't have a good argument to make about the issue at hand. This happens all the time in philosophy-- and law for that matter.

Now you go on to say that we _must_ begin with semantics. How tiresome this would make all communication! How tiresome it's making _this_ discussion! You're making my point for me: we're not even talking about the movie anymore.

Again, I say, if you'd like to criticize the philosophies represented in this movie, please do so. That would be an interesting and relevant discussion. If you'd like to talk about the uselessness of words, or the importance of semantics, I'm sure there are good places for that. Elsewhere. Down the hall somewhere.

P.S.:

I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to use the word 'insensible'. I think what you meant was that you found that you were unable to make sense of my response. I'd be pleased to shed a little light on it: please quote specifically any section that failed to make sense to you, and I'll illuminate it.

[–] Xenofan29A 19 years ago

I can back up William Vere(?) on Nietzche. Beyond Good and Evil was fascinating. I don't agree with a lot of it, but it's extremely well written and is a great insight into Nietzsche's thought.

On the movie itself, which I saw today,

The philosophical dialogues of the film are mostly pilfered, as the last person said, from other sources. However, it is what is done with these elements that gives the film itself meaning. I think that the original movie was better done in every way, and that includes its philosophising. This movie had a lot in it though, so I wouldn't discount it completely, despite Oshii's semi-haphazard seeming writing.

To counter the original arguments,

You seem to say that no normal person can have a "deep" view of life, or possibly that film should not be a philosophical expression. A juvinile philosophy? Maybe, but the film is, as above stated, really an expression of philosophical thought in general put into anime form. That is, you are saying either that the philosophers so highly regarded for centuries have a "juvinile" philosophy of life, or that collecting them into a film "essay" and making your own comments on them is "juvinile."

The "humans as dolls" argument was also mentioned in Evangelion. (Amazing how I can relate anything to Eva, eh?) There, however, the question that it left off on was "If God exists, are humans nothing but dolls to him?" But I digress. This isn't an Eva board.

[–] UberNoodle 14 years ago

Xenofan:

You use the term 'pilfered', but why? Is the word 'quoted' not enough? Why introduce a nuance of dishonesty? It seems to me that you are saying that no philosophy can be quoted, else it is theft. Need I point out that all cultures on this planet have at their cores constantly quoted philosophy?

Oshii never claims to have written these quotes, and a film is not the right medium for citations and a bibliography. It seems to me that most of the negativity on these boards against this film is born from simple intellectual cringe and insecurity.

[–] Johnny_Wrong 12 years ago

Philosophy students = wannabe philosophers = wankers.

[–] Nanotechnician 12 years ago

You're exaggerating quite a bit.

[–] jeska_T 19 years ago

If your point is that the philosophical content of the film was blatant and naff, you're probably right.
The whole film is wrought with extremely blatant references to theorists and theories - hell, the lady engineer taking care of the prototypes was named Harraway! Cyborg Manifesto? I don't think any of the references here were intended to be cryptic, or overly complicated for the bulk of people to understand.

Just please remember, it's incredibly difficult to suffuse a film with apparent philosophical content and still have it accepted en masse. Particularly when the film is being translated. A lot of subtlty is lost in translation and I get the feeling that a great deal of dialogue is lost in both of the films.

Both the Ghost in the Shell films were viewed widely throughout the world and both succeded in raising a lot of relevent issues.

By the way, some people would consider 'beautifully packaged personal quote journals' as the author being postmodern.

Cast not the first stone of pretention.

[–] Triclops 19 years ago

Hear hear, the film is indeed about mass appeal, anyway, cinema across the board has a habit of pilfering philosophie, the mere fact that it managed to elicit a response out of a "deep" thinker means it is doing its philosophical job well enough... (and might I just add, how sad it is that you to even start to criticise such an amazing human creation with an oxymoronic thought experiment) - I have personally just come out of the cinema, (my first big screen manga after years of vids and dvds, yay!)and have to say I loved every damn glorious second of it... long live stilted philosophy, its a classic manga trait anyway, and should be seen as a sign of quality... ;D

[–] darren_e_r 19 years ago

Agreed. That's the problem with philosophy, there is never a right or wrong answer. Unfortunately this gives "Philosophers" the opportunity to criticise EVERYTHING they see. A movie cannot defend itself, especially if the audience read so deeply that their discussions do not focus on the direct plot of the movie. I think the film deals with interesting comparisons and slightly haunting predictions. The bleeding heart weekend philosophers on this forum should remember that they do not know life's answers. They should respect other people interpretations, especially when this movie is a communication being delivered on a worldwide stage and you guys are merely speculating on an internet forum...

[–] Chujo 19 years ago

I got the impression that all speech in the film - the endless pilferring of ideas and quotations in particular - was a deliberate attempt to portray speech patterns of beings that think at synthetic, automated rates.

to quote the opening legend:

"In a future time when most human thought has been accelerated by artificial intelligence and external memory can be shared on a universal matrix,"

I took the language of Innocence to be a very literal extension of this idea - not dissimilar to Blade Runner's jumbled 'city speak'.

[–] Krauser-san 19 years ago

Holy *beep* how boring...................
*shoots self*

-----------

[–] dopefishie 19 years ago

it seems to me that film makers today are more than just dabbling in philosophy. They are philosophers. one hundred years ago, the only way for a philosopher to express his/her opinion was to write a book. but today, if someone has a particular philosophy, they have the option to make a movie about it. It's not about whether someone can or can not write a book. a film is just another medium in which to work and express ideas. Ghost in the Shell is a perfect example of this.
Dont get me wrong, i'm not saying all films are visual works of philosophy; but there are certainly a minority of films whose experiences are like watching a book of philosophy come to life.
It would be insulting to say to any philosopher who wrote a book that they are "just writers who dabble in philosophy." Likewise, i'm sure it is insulting to say to any philosopher who makes a film that they are "just directors who dabble in philosophy." Philosophy transcends the restraints of any medium and permeates its way into the heart of the human mind.

[–] ottffsse_sequence 19 years ago

I have to disagree with the original poster. The ceremony scene is beautiful and mysterious. That is enough to foster deep thought in itself. It is not simply eye candy, for just the image of burning doll faces can inspire a myriad of philosophical interpretations. The visual has a thousand words to it.

I think this is one of the best antimated feature films ever and I gave it an 8. Personally, I do not think the venerable "Blade Runner" has any more "deep" philosophical exclamations than this.

People who enjoyed this film should check out Tarkovsky's "Solyaris" (the real one), and of course "Blade Runner" and Kubrick's "2001: ASO" to get a sense of the "big" sci-fi names in cinema.

My current YMDB top 20:
http://www.ymdb.com/ottffsse-sequence/l30901_ukuk.html

[–] UberNoodle 14 years ago

Chujo:

Exactly. It is a true information age where neural connections to the 'data matrix' allow instantaneous retreival with a mere thought. Humanity shares a common brain - a common memory, like our DNA. This is also an allusion in the film as well, or at least in the first film.

I am not sure what a society based on such information overload, coupled with rampant synthetic augmentation (and replacement) of the human body, would be like, but I imagine that citizens would speak like they do in the film.

[–] lukeashmoore 17 years ago

wrong, philosiphers embrace, critics or debunkers criticise. the commentay on the matrix films says it all really. dont hate me

[–] GeorgeWaltonLucasJr 19 years ago

Adolescent, borderline puerile philosophy

I get it! You were warning us about the content of your post!