Kill La Kill

[sev]

i think after watching enough imaishi cartoons, i've concluded that he really just likes t&a. he has a very silly crude sense of humor, and i think re: cutie honey ep 1 and pretty much all of panty and stocking are good examples of this

[zwimmy]

Kill la Kill me Baby!!!

[BluPhoenix]

hold me, thrill me, kiss me, kill la kill me

[Bamyasi]

[spoiler]Kill la Baby[/spoiler]

[naturally]

Kill la Kill me Baby!!!

where's the other キ at?

[zwimmy]

fuck off weeaboo

[BluPhoenix]

fuck off weeaboo

[Bamyasi]

I hate to beat a dead horse but just want to say one more thing about this because it's been bothering me (not you guys, just that my arguments may have been unclear).

i think the only argument you could make to justify the sexualization would be if the scenes ultimately empower women or inform people about the issue

It sounds like you're saying that sexualization should be empowering in all cases. I'm not arguing that it shouldn't. All I'm saying is that when you label a character an "object" (as a rule, subjects act, objects are acted upon), because of something that happened to the character, you privilege that over what the character actually does. I would argue this in itself relegates the character to the status of object.

I couldn't care less what happens to Ryuuko. She'll probably be dead or something in like 6 episodes, knowing Nakashima. I would just rather focus on her actions, because actions shape characters. If said character is put into sexually degrading situations for the sake of style, I'd still rather focus on their actions.

I have no idea why I'm defending this show so much because I probably don't like it half as much as some people in this thread.

[Bamyasi]

I think using object in two different ways was what confused my argument. I meant that labeling a character or person anything (not just object) based on things that happen to them is objectifying. Now I'm are short-circuiting.

I think this entire discussion can be summed up thus:

• The sexualization in this show bothers me because I don't see any narrative importance in it and find it detracts from the story and characterization.
• The sexualization in this show doesn't bother me and I don't think it detracts from the show so here are a bunch of dumb arguments in defense of it.

You're right in that it's there for no apparent reason and because I cannot defend no reason I will now hand it over to Stephen Spinella.

Rubber - No Reason (Opening Scene)
Anyway yeah you're really good at logic and rhetoric. Not that it means much coming from me!

[zwimmy]

HOLY FUCKING SHIT DAT EPISODE 3

So much revealed... So much fightan... And a little bit of...


[spoiler]3D.[/spoiler]


It bugged some people but it didn't really bother me since everything was so fast. This is Trigger's first TV anime after all, before they got all dat LWA money. Still I'm hoping there's going to be some nice sakuga moments in the future where they dumped a fair bit of the budget into.

[Stu4U]

[spoilerimg]http://i.imgur.com/HNpzpAd.jpg[/spoilerimg]

[Bamyasi]

Well it looks like sexualization as social commentary is going to be a major motif in this show. I hope I'm not the only one who feels stupid for getting their panties in a bunch over it early on.

[spoiler]3D.[/spoiler]

Didn't the first two episodes have CGI in them as well or am I mistaken?

Anyway
[spoiler=PREDICTIONS]

• Ryuuko's having to wear the kamui to avenge her father will be made an obvious metaphor for the anime industry having to use fanservice to bankroll their projects.
• The string imagery that frequently appears will become analogous to the spiral energy in TTGL, perhaps representing string theory(?)
• Trigger is going to find a way to once again ruin Christmas as per tradition (PSG finale, Inferno Cop pilot).

[/spoiler]

[Gilthwixt]

This episode went a bit better. Trigger may very well be trying to do some incredible commentary on sexualization, but for right now I'm still a little unsure of how successful they'll be.

[spoiler]I will admit something though. Early in the episode, when Satsuki took off her clothes to put on Junketsu, I noticed I wasn't bothered by that part because she was nude, as opposed to naked. Unlike last episode where Ryuko was vulnerable and cornered by her teacher, Satsuki was in control of the situation. She was essentially disrobing to put on what amounts to her battle armor, a source of power, which makes sense. So later, when Ryuko realizes she cannot use Senketsu at full power while being embarrassed by her exposure, I found it hard to call bullshit since it's technically the same concept. It brings me back to the discussion we had earlier: who are we to assume that the sexual nature of Ryuko's costume is meant to pander to a male audience? Women who wear sexy clothes aren't necessarily doing it for male attention, but instead for their own enjoyment, as a source of empowerment, for a sense of control over their own sexuality blah blah blah.

And yet, Ryuko isn't a real person. Despite being written to have her own aspirations and animus, she's still subject to whatever the writer, director and character designer (none of whom are female) have planned for her, which is something I can't separate from the narrative. In the end, when they're still poised to make a lot of money off of merchandising this series, such as by selling figurines, it still feels like Ryuko is just another sexy marionette made by men, for men. They didn't have to design her that way, and the characters outright saying "I'm sexy because it's empowering" doesn't necessarily make it okay because it's still Imaishi et al speaking. Only time will tell if they manage to do this parody/commentary of theirs successfully. Who knows, by the end of the series I might end up calling them geniuses.

Anyway, some things I'd like to point out:

-They're still slipping in some unnecessary bits, such as Ryuko slumped over with her ass in the air, but that was before her "awakening", so that could be intentional. Other parts, such as the teacher coming onto Ryuko, came off better this time because she was more in control.

-Mako was crazy ridiculous this episode. Like holy shit.

-This series will inevitably be compared to Sailor Moon, which was written by a female author and has been debated as a feminist work, and if I'm not mistaken pioneered the whole sexy nude transformation sequence.

-This series probably passes or will pass the Bechdel test but does that really mean anything?

-Despite being opposed to one another, Ryuko and Satsuki are similar in that the Kamui represent an obligation to their fathers: Ryuko wears hers to avenge her father and Satsuki I'm guessing was supposed to wear hers in an arranged marriage for her Father's benefit. Patriarchy could be an important theme for the series and based on what we've seen it's possible (probable?) that the two will eventually team up to fight some ridiculous villain in some sort of overblown metaphor for defeating patriarchy, but who knows.
[/spoiler]

[zwimmy]

i regret nothing

i've also yet to watch this episode but everyone tells me it's ass

It's the best episode so far, by far. A lot of things unfold and the action is very intense.

[Bamyasi]

i've also yet to watch this episode but everyone tells me it's ass

If by ass you mean asstounding, then yes.

[spoiler=A lot of fucking words ahead, beware.]

This episode went a bit better. Trigger may very well be trying to do some incredible commentary on sexualization, but for right now I'm still a little unsure of how successful they'll be.

Give them a chance. As SeannyJ pointed out, Satsuki calling her subjects "pigs" for ogling could be analogous to the audience's fixation on Ryuuko's body and/or the sexualization in the show, in which case we are the pigs, which is pretty fucking meta yo. There's definitely some subtext going on here (using ones body to control vs. be controlled, outfit designed based on father's "tastes"/worn by daughter for vengeance, etc). All will become clear in time, but before that it will probably become less clear, given the studio in question's history.

Women who wear sexy clothes aren't necessarily doing it for male attention, but instead for their own enjoyment, as a source of empowerment, for a sense of control over their own sexuality blah blah blah.

There's no need to blah, you have a valid point, one I sense will become central to the show's themes.

In the end, when they're still poised to make a lot of money off of merchandising this series, such as by selling figurines, it still feels like Ryuko is just another sexy marionette made by men, for men.

Are women not allowed to enjoy miniature plastic renderings of sexy/sexualized females as well?

They didn't have to design her that way, and the characters outright saying "I'm sexy because it's empowering" doesn't necessarily make it okay because it's still Imaishi et al speaking.

Eh well, sexy is subjective. A lot of people dislike Ryuuko because she's oversexualized. It's almost as if someone was planning on this becoming a polarizing factor...

Patriarchy could be an important theme for the series and based on what we've seen it's possible (probable?) that the two will eventually team up to fight some ridiculous villain in some sort of overblown metaphor for defeating patriarchy, but who knows.

I think I finally understand where you're coming from now. I didn't immediately recognize that your problems with the sexualization in the show were mainly political, so it was my mistake for defending it based purely on aesthetics. I guess we differ in that, if everything else in a work is passable (style, writing, technical prowess, etc.), I don't really care about politics. Sure, all art is political, but if you want an example of why judging art based solely on politics is bad, watch the Oscars.

But yeah feel free to judge it however you want. My only concern with political critiques of works from other countries is that the foreign critic has to assume so much, and some of these assumptions may be based on cultural biases or preconceptions. This is of course also true for aesthetic critiques, but at least you have some wiggle room there.

I hope we understand each other better. Thank you for joining me on this journey of self discovery. Hugs all around.

[spoiler=Disclaimer (pfftyeah)]Feel free to rip apart anything I've said here but I can't guarantee I'll respond. I've fuddled up this thread enough already and I don't want to continue ruining it for everyone else.[/spoiler]
[/spoiler]

[iinnkk]

In the end, when they're still poised to make a lot of money off of merchandising this series, such as by selling figurines, it still feels like Ryuko is just another sexy marionette made by men, for men.

Are women not allowed to enjoy miniature plastic renderings of sexy/sexualized females as well?

^^^^^^
that me

[Bamyasi]

iinnkk is DizzyAngelDemon. You heard it here first.

[spoiler=Not really relevant BUT]

And yet, Ryuko isn't a real person. Despite being written to have her own aspirations and animus, she's still subject to whatever the writer, director and character designer (none of whom are female) have planned for her, which is something I can't separate from the narrative.

Episode 2 was actually storyboarded by a female, but I didn't really think that mattered.
[/spoiler]

[Gilthwixt]

Feel free to rip apart anything I've said here but I can't guarantee I'll respond. I've fuddled up this thread enough already and I don't want to continue ruining it for everyone else.

It's fine by me, I think this sort of discussion is healthy. I mean yeah I'd like to discuss predictions for the plot but we're sort of doing that already. And if we're right and this series is being intentionally polarizing, then it'd be a disservice not to talk about this way. I don't think we were meant to just passively enjoy this series (even if some of you are, which is fine), so unless someone else has a serious problem with the discussion I'm fine continuing it within spoilertags so no one's forced to read it.

[spoiler]

Are women not allowed to enjoy miniature plastic renderings of sexy/sexualized females as well?

I would say women like her are the exception to the rule, wouldn't you? And if we're going to give Imaishi's team some leeway given the context that he's a Japanese creator making something for a Japanese audience, how much of the intended demographic is female? How many female otaku are there that buy sexy figma? (no really, I actually don't know. If it's more prevalent than I thought then okay, point taken)

I think I finally understand where you're coming from now. I didn't immediately recognize that your problems with the sexualization in the show were mainly political, so it was my mistake for defending it based purely on aesthetics. I guess we differ in that, if everything else in a work is passable (style, writing, technical prowess, etc.), I don't really care about politics. Sure, all art is political, but if you want an example of why judging art based solely on politics is bad, watch the Oscars.

Well, I didn't really mean to drag politics into it but in today's world of social media I find it hard to separate my political standards from my entertainment standards. I have a lot of LGBT friends, a lot of female professors, and a lot of friends both male and female that are always posting or talking about these kinds of issues, to the point where it's starting to frame the way I view things. That's the point though, isn't it? Awareness. I'm not social justice tumblr bad, but with a show like Kill La Kill it's hard not to want to think about it this way, and like you said that could very well be the intention. Let's be serious here though, the politics of feminism in art and the circlejerk that is The Oscars are two very different kinds of politics. One is hoping to see a variety of strong portrayals of women, and the other is a Hollywood orgy.

Another thing that I think is important to mention is that I have no problem with other works being sexualized; I'm not about eradicating everything that doesn't adhere to some ill-defined standard off the face of the earth. They're not for me but they have their audiences, so whatever. I avoid them and don't go jumping down anyone's throats for liking them. It's just that, even coming from the guy who did Dead Leaves and TTGL, I didn't think Kill La Kill would turn out like this. This isn't what I had expected when the first trailers and character designs came out, but now that I'm invested, it's hard to back out. I like this show since everything else about it is awesome, but if something sticks out to me as stupid I'm going to call it out. A lot of places online had played up (and even still claim) that this show was going to "save" anime, whatever that means to you; whatever "that" is, it isn't this.

Like you said though the polarization seems intentional so I'm easing up for now.

But yeah feel free to judge it however you want. My only concern with political critiques of works from other countries is that the foreign critic has to assume so much, and some of these assumptions may be based on cultural biases or preconceptions. This is of course also true for aesthetic critiques, but at least you have some wiggle room there.

Fair enough, but we live in a globalized society. It's hard for political issues and stories not to bleed over from one country to the next, and it's not like Japan is China or Iran. I find it hard to believe that Imaishi's team didn't have a western perspective in mind, considering how LWA drew a lot of funding from their western kickstarter, and how recently other japanese designers have had to address criticism by the west for their portrayal of women before, such as Team Ninja or Vanillaware. So again, this probably plays more into the whole "just as planned", intentional commentary thing.

Episode 2 was actually storyboarded by a female, but I didn't really think that mattered.

I wasn't aware of that. It doesn't really matter, but it's something. I give Bayonetta a pass partially because her character designer is female, but mostly because of the tone and execution, which until this episode wasn't there yet with Kill La Kill.

[/spoiler]

[Bamyasi]

I'm glad we're framing this discussion politically. Now that I understand the grounds of complaint, I can respond to some points I wasn't able to previously. Given this will be easier with the third episode having aired, but I think you guys deserve your points to be adequately addressed, because I didn't really understand or acknowledge them the first time.

[spoiler=A fucking essay]
First, I'll restate my original point so I can better explain why I made it:

• Ryuuko's character is not and should not be weakened by the sexually objectifying situations she's put in. If she is, it's the fault of the viewer, not the piece.

I hate to use Flash as example because he appears to have ducked out of the conversation and probably won't defend his arguements:

I agree with rtil that it's probably tongue-in-cheek, but it still weakens the character, because it drives the attention away from her thoughts and emotions and from the plot itself.

No instance of sexualization in this show I believe has driven attention away from Ryuuko's thoughts or emotions. It was apparent she did not want to wear the kamui at first encounter, or to be seen fighting in it. Every instance of her being publicly humiliated was accentuated by her flushed cheeks and the masses of men (and Mako) gawking at her (Basically representing the proletariat, easily influenced subjugated in the face of sexual imagery, though this was not as apparent before episode 3). Sure, embarrassment and shame can be just as sexually arousing as the exposed flesh that elicits them, but so can anything, really. I would argue that any distraction Ryuuko's sexualization causes, any weakening of her character, is due to some notion that bared midriffs and sexual vulnerability should always take narrative precedence over what the character is doing or feeling.

Doesn't it scare you that they take this really tough, angry-looking character and hang her upside-down with a huge cameltoe+underboob combination and then she shrieks for a while?

I guess for some people, Ryuuko's peril in the face of the crowds, teacher and fat man made her less sympathetic, but it had the opposite effect on me. It made her seem vulnerable, and I believe vulnerabilities are essential to writing strong characters, no matter what they are or how they're illustrated (I mean, how many people actually identified with Mako's dad, the rapist teacher, or the horny kids, even if each represented a different facet of the audience? Perhaps this is the point?). From a political standpoint, yes, I would argue any kind of vulnerableness is better than an infantilized female character with plot armor so thick that nothing bad can ever happen to her, or whose vulnerability or weakness is perfectly compensated by the man she relies on (see: Gravity for examples of both). THIS IS A LIE. Nobody can compensate for your weaknesses, not any man, especially not George Clooney. At least sexual fantasies aren't lies, and can actually make people vulnerable.

I don't really think she overcomes the sexy/racy situations she's put in at all, because we're not talking about conflicts that need to be resolved here, we're talking about the way she falls upside down and hangs in the air with a huge cameltoe and then falls flat on her face or whatever. You know? It's just her tits showing, it's not an obstacle she has to overcome.

I would argue falling down is always an obstacle to overcome, especially if it's humiliating. Differentiating this from a regular obstacle just because it's sexy or sexualized is just further proof that bared flesh and skyward asses are obscuring your objectivity.

Out of the three implied rape jokes in these two episodes, one was with a doctor and another was with a teacher. That's supposed to be funny? Men in such positions of power sexually abuse women all the time, it's a serious problem. If they wanted to play Mako's dad as a lech and the professor as some weirdo with a stripping fetish for laughs, they could have done it without Ryuko being vulnerable, in way that didn't have such a rapey feel. I would have found it hilarious, especially the teacher, but as it is I couldn't help being a little weirded out by it.

Perhaps these instances were supposed to make you feel uncomfortable? I just think it's a little extreme to say that a work of fiction is not allowed to depict taboo scenarios just because they conjure up anxiety. In my opinion, framing serious social issues comically can make the message even more powerful. If the mood shifted dramatically every time Ryuuko was put into sexual danger, the show would become absurd in an entirely different way. Ryuuko just lives in a world where lower class citizens are frequently disciplined through sexual humiliation, by each other or the upper-class (and this isn't far off. Think of how much the NSA and the other PTB know about your taste in porn/how society's fixation on sex is being used against us for the purpose of our own subjugation). If this was exclusive to female characters, I could definitely see why it would be a problem, but it's not, so it never bothered me.

But in an action show where the MC isn't actually an airheaded bimbo, where she's a competent individual who actually has desires like you said, that aren't centered around devoting herself to some guy? I just don't get why they would build her up to be this total badass, but then humiliate her like that. It's almost as if that's the point/joke, that powerful female protagonists will never be more than just tits and ass to stare at (or that they'll never escape being seen that way, depending on how forgiving you're willing to be.)

I don't want to mince words, but it sounds like your saying here that a bimbo would be more deserving of the humiliation Ryuuko is subject to, but I know that's not what you mean. Again I think you're really close to something with the second point, and I sense this will become a major theme in the show.

independent of any reason for its occurence, be it building sympathy or whatever, the Kill la Kill sexualization (as of episode 2) is just clearly objectifying to women in a way that would really make any reasonable person feel at best uncomfortable and at worst infuriated.

In what way is the sexualization in Kill la Kill (even as of episode 2) objectifying to women? It's objectifying to Ryuuko, sure, but how did Ryuuko become a synecdoche for all women? Is it because she's the main character? Would you ever say a male main character represented all men? Are the men ogling at her and trying to rape her not just as objectified as she? Are men good for nothing more than lusting over women? There are so many gawkers, surely they must represent more men than Ryuuko represents women.

What I'm saying is that Ryuuko is objectified because she's blatantly treated as a sexual body without regard to her actual feelings over and over again in the show, beyond the point of any reasonable story-telling purpose.

What I'm saying is that this objectification only occurs to a Western audience because of how specifically sex has been made taboo here. You wouldn't say Ryuuko was objectified if she was forced to, I don't know, eat 40 cakes or something, even if it was without regard to her actual feelings (please don't think I'm conflating cake stuffing with rape. Ryuuko was never raped in the first 3 episodes of Kill la Kill, so it's insensitive to even make that a point of discussion. I'm comparing cake stuffing with sexualization, nothing else). You would probably see it as tragic. Given, consumption of cake can be highly sexual, but that wouldn't occur to most people who don't have stuffing fetishes.

Moreover, what are people's personalities if not the result of the external occurences that shape them? You can't isolate someone's personality from his or her environment, so why is treating a person as "an object of action" such a bad thing anyways? Aren't we all objects of actions?

Yes

I would say women like her are the exception to the rule, wouldn't you? And if we're going to give Imaishi's team some leeway given the context that he's a Japanese creator making something for a Japanese audience, how much of the intended demographic is female? How many female otaku are there that buy sexy figma? (no really, I actually don't know. If it's more prevalent than I thought then okay, point taken)

I have no idea how much of the target demo is female. I just think saying "by gynephiles, for gynephiles" would be more accurate (not that anyone uses that term).

Let's be serious here though, the politics of feminism in art and the circlejerk that is The Oscars are two very different kinds of politics. One is hoping to see a variety of strong portrayals of women, and the other is a Hollywood orgy.

Well you're right about the orgy, but I would argue both have their own agenda and set limitations on what art may and may not do. My original argument was the Ryuuko is a strong female character and how much skin she is showing or what happens to her should never, ever change that fact. I'm all in favor of strong portrayals of women, because I'm first and foremost for strong portrayals of people. It seems like the feminist agenda is to only allow women to be portrayed in a certain light (as equal to men). To achieve this, female characters in the West are typically masculinized, because strength is seen as an exclusively male attribute, but feminine characters of both sexes can also be strong. I define strong as believable, which usually involves said character having desires. Feminists saying women can't be or have to be portrayed a certain way I see as no better than Patriarchs saying the same thing. They're both equally oppressive, I would argue, especially if it's another country's industry or culture in question.

It's just that, even coming from the guy who did Dead Leaves and TTGL, I didn't think Kill La Kill would turn out like this. This isn't what I had expected when the first trailers and character designs came out, but now that I'm invested, it's hard to back out. I like this show since everything else about it is awesome, but if something sticks out to me as stupid I'm going to call it out. A lot of places online had played up (and even still claim) that this show was going to "save" anime, whatever that means to you; whatever "that" is, it isn't this.

I guess that's another difference between us. I wasn't very hyped at all for Kill la Kill because I found Trigger's other two projects pretty disappointing. Even a talented director and amazing writer didn't stir much excitement. I went in with pretty much no preconceptions, so perhaps that's another reason I didn't notice the stuff that annoyed you. It's your right to criticize stuff that bothered you (it was probably meant to incite that reaction), and I hope this whole workout helped us both enjoy the show more, because it certainly made me watch it more closely. Also anyone who claims anime needs "saving" should take off the rose-tinted nostalgia goggles. A huge portion of my favorite shows were animated in the 80's and 90's, but so much stuff is being made now I have trouble believing that anyone wouldn't find at least one show this season that didn't strike their fancy. Given, the anime industry's level of output makes it a huge, career wrecking investment to keep up with even most of the shows, so I guess that could be part of the complaint.

Fair enough, but we live in a globalized society. It's hard for political issues and stories not to bleed over from one country to the next, and it's not like Japan is China or Iran. I find it hard to believe that Imaishi's team didn't have a western perspective in mind, considering how LWA drew a lot of funding from their western kickstarter, and how recently other japanese designers have had to address criticism by the west for their portrayal of women before, such as Team Ninja or Vanillaware. So again, this probably plays more into the whole "just as planned", intentional commentary thing.

Imaishi certainly did have us in mind when making this. That's exactly why I think it's so important to remain sensitive to cultural differences in our criticism. I guess we differ in that I would rather see Kill la Kill as a self-contained dream within a dream from a country that is entirely inaccessible to me. This feeling of alienation from the source is to me just as beautiful and relevant in a Globalized society as say a poem by Baudelaire. In fact, I crave it.[/spoiler]

[naturally]

it feels like the show's not even really going to start until ep4