Forum - View topic

REVIEW: Shigurui: Death Frenzy DVD

Manga-ka Takayuki Yamaguchi, the brain (for lack of a better word) behind the universally reviled Apocalypse Zero...

What I meant by "benefit" was "benefit to the product."

I haven't seen either Shigurui or Hellsing, so I feel a bit blind comparing them, but from everything I've heard, it seems like the plot in Shigurui is subservient to the action and violence.

That is to say, it seems like the violence is the main attraction. It is THAT which I compare to the Coliseum, not the presence of violence in general. As for the divide between real and fictional, you definitely have a point. It is a point that I respect, but I don't personally agree with it. I think that the two affect each other a lot more than we'd like to admit. I can't prove my viewpoint any more than you can prove yours (there are many cases that go each way), but it is a conclusion I have reached after many years of contemplation (and working with children, who aren't nearly as adept at creating emotional and social masks).

The problem is that Carl latches on to these instances, exaggerates them, misses the entire point of the story and paints an unjustified picture. It's an incredibly poor review that relies on hysterics and slinging unsubstantiated insults at anyone who likes it -- something which Carl and Casey have stooped to far too much.

I've read Carl's review several times now and to be honest, all the complaining doesn't make much sense to me, unless you're really... honestly, ludicrously thin-skinned.

Shigurui, on the other hand, lacks that almost completely, so the appeal isn't there for me. It's just no fun to watch.

Review:

"If you dig panty shots, you're gonna love this show." Likely demonstrably true by the sheer number of panty shots, the marketing, the box art, etcetera.

Fan response to said review:

"WHAT!?!? I LOVE this show and I don't care about the panty shots!! WHY DO YOU INSULT ME SO?! UNPROFESSIONAL BIAS BLARGRHEGGRHRGGGRHHHHRGGGHRHhhhh"

So that makes it a little harder to take the complaints seriously; it's like, Carl's reaction to the show does not say anything about you personally, so why do you react like it does?

Though even gorehounds may find the series' conclusion, which fails to resolve any of the major conflicts, singularly unsatisfying.

But that isn't all. Shigurui doesn't just embrace the gut-splattering violence of medieval machismo, but also its knuckle-dragging treatment of everything from cripples to women to homosexuals. In Shigurui's world women are objects to be traded, the handicapped are smug, back-stabbing cowards, and homosexuals are self-fellating perverts who leave a trail of bloodied boys in their wake.

In them Chris Bevins makes several unfortunate comparisons to the works of Akira Kurosawa (by way of Takashi Miike), David Cronenberg and David Lynch—all of whom, the long-deceased Kurosawa included, can excrete more wit and intelligence after a breakfast of bad burritos than this series can muster throughout its entire length.

I've read Carl's review several times now and to be honest, all the complaining doesn't make much sense to me, unless you're really... honestly, ludicrously thin-skinned. Which I've noticed a lot of fans are, especially those who take severe personal insult to seemingly everything.

I've read Carl's review several times now and to be honest, all the complaining doesn't make much sense to me, unless you're really... honestly, ludicrously thin-skinned. Which I've noticed a lot of fans are, especially those who take severe personal insult to seemingly everything.

Except I've only mentioned Carl's unneeded asides as, well, asides, and have never really taken offense to them (unless we're going to redefine "insult" as "minor annoyance" now).

Like many others complaining here, I've focused on the actual content of the review. But if you're going to stroke us all with the same brush as those that complain whenever their favorite moe shows are given negative marks, regardless of what's actually said, okay.

Example: the second episode concludes with a scene of a master swordsman pissing himself. It's not that they're deliberately playing it for yucks, because the audience should be naturally inclined to think "holy shit that's ridiculous". If someone expects the conventional wink-wink-nudge-nudge oh hey another homage by Tarantino to indicate that the staff realize the absurdism, okay, but that's not the same for all viewers across the board. Elfen Lied, as boring as I find it, has that kind of mean-spirited awareness when it explains away the reason for the idiocy in male leads in harems and literally make the tsundere be two different personalities.

But it's reductive and disingenuous to claim that that's the sole appeal, and that only fans of violence and sex will go for it (because reviewers are hardly mind readers).

Again, nearly all complaints here about the content; but if you insist:

Because, I dunno, it's not exactly flattering being called a gorehound simply for the enjoyment of one series.

And while not personal to any fan, really, it's these points where there's a display of what the reviewers wants to see rather than what is:

But that isn't all. Shigurui doesn't just embrace the gut-splattering violence of medieval machismo, but also its knuckle-dragging treatment of everything from cripples to women to homosexuals. In Shigurui's world women are objects to be traded, the handicapped are smug, back-stabbing cowards, and homosexuals are self-fellating perverts who leave a trail of bloodied boys in their wake.

Because Carl is breaking the most obvious rule of interpreting the negative attributes of characters to be representative of what the creator(s) think(s) of people like that in real life; if, say, there's a black character in the work given a heinous attribute, even if all of the characters around him are just as if not worse, then that means the writer obvously considers blacks to be subhuman. You can't use that kind of logical fallacy, let alone cherry-pick negative portrayals by ignoring part of the material.

In them Chris Bevins makes several unfortunate comparisons to the works of Akira Kurosawa (by way of Takashi Miike), David Cronenberg and David Lynch—all of whom, the long-deceased Kurosawa included, can excrete more wit and intelligence after a breakfast of bad burritos than this series can muster throughout its entire length.

...where Carl doesn't even acknowledge the criticisms those three directors receive -- and there's plenty if one is familiar at all with modern cinema -- which renders that entire paragraph as a construction for Carl's delivery of his witty metaphor with unsubstantiated claims that those three directors are in the clear of any excess and taking themselves far too seriously. The passage deviates from the critique of the work itself and renders it redundant and self-indulgent.

I know it's easier to basically breeze through the thread and essentially dismiss the criticisms raised about the review as "knee-jerk reactions taking this as a personal insult,"

I mean, all of that could be true, but I'm a bit skeptical. You obviously want substantial feedback that disagree with your reviewers, but it's also important to recognize it amidst the deluge of crying fans.

Quote:

Because, I dunno, it's not exactly flattering being called a gorehound simply for the enjoyment of one series.

Carl did not call you a gorehound.

If, like Luke seeking refuge inside a tauntaun's abdominal cavity, you're looking for a gory, smelly haven from the cold wastes of namby-pamby peacenik action, then perhaps Shigurui is the title for you. Of course, you could always just watch Berserk again and skip all of the stylistic excess, humorless posturing and festering misogyny, and get likeable characters, a genuine plot and some real humanity in the bargain. Plus you won't taste raw tauntaun for weeks afterward. Though some folks like the taste of raw tauntaun. If that's you—dig in. Though even gorehounds may find the series' conclusion, which fails to resolve any of the major conflicts, singularly unsatisfying.

I am not drawing a direct correlation between watching ultra-violent anime and watching two men hack at each other; I'm drawing an indirect one. I am simply saying that I think the same mindset is at work, and we're traveling down the same path that eventually led to the Coliseum in ages past. There will always be exceptions and people who have very clearly drawn the line (which, HellKorn, based on our discussion, I think you are one of), but there are people who don't know how to draw the line either.

Thanks for the great discussion. I look forward to seeing you in more discussion threads.

They're "unneeded" to you. You're not Carl's editor; if you don't like his writing style, fine, but that's how he writes. He's been writing that way for years. It's his voice.

OK, let me point to something here - "I've focused on the content", but in your very next sentence you're complaining about feeling personally insulted by a broad statement, taking personal offense when none was intended. This happens again later.

My reaction to it is different from yours, Carl's reaction to it is different from either of us. You seem to posit here that yours is more correct, and that we're somehow wrong, and ultimately that's the real problem here, because we ought to be writing about the show the way you would be writing about it, not the way we actually reacted to or interpreted the material.

Carl's opinion is that the show doesn't have much going on for it outside of the sex and violence and even that isn't fun to watch. That's what it boils down to. If you read that as "he's saying I'm only watching this show for the sex and violence" then to be honest you're internalizing this stuff way, way too much. The review is not about you.

I've seen the show, and while you have sort of a point - sort of - I don't necessarily agree with the notion that because the men in the show are also scumbags that excuses the portrayal of the violent perverted homosexual or the endless violence against women, or that nobody should ever take offense or have a problem with those elements of the show.

If a show has a horribly racist portrayal of a Hispanic man in it but also has a bunch of other horrible racist crap in it, that doesn't completely pardon the material and that doesn't mean it's not OK to talk about the offensive stuff or even dislike it for the parts that offend you.

The rest of this suggests that what you want is fairly cold, clinical and academic analysis of the work, presented without personality.

You also have to understand that a lot of what you're suggesting is that there's something wrong specifically about Carl's reviews and Casey's reviews, something deep, something systemic, which is a serious charge. That's a really heavy thing to suggest.

And I guess that's the line I think you're crossing - the suggestion that Carl is unfit to review this show, rather than simply presenting an opinion on it that you don't agree with.

If you want to give this thread a read -- or the exchange between Zac and myself, at the very least -- it'd be cool. Wouldn't mind you sharing your thoughts, as well, either on that thread or in this PM.

That said, Yamazaki's sexual attraction with the new kid was rather interesting; in an explosive montage of sexual imagery, Yamazaki's obsession was conveyed really effectively and acknowledged the fact that: yes... some Samurai were probably gay (which, as far as I can tell, probably isn't a popular subject in Samurai stories).

From what I've seen, Shigurui takes it a step further. Shigurui doesn't spare the audience from the depravity of its characters. Ex: The [seppuku scene]. Needless to say this goes against basic human nature. People just don't disembowel themselves on a regular basis.

Gah, now I'm even more torn about getting this series. Texhnolyze has been mentioned a few times and I loved that series, so should I give this one a chance as well?

the review touts the sex in this as some sort of porno or something... i really have to disagree... i found the sex scenes and nudity in this to be handled with a sense of discretion and artist sentiment... even when it is rape... it's not treated like some sort of eroticism for the viewers pleasure... there's no gaudy fan-service in this series... and i thank god for it... to be able to show nudity without "giggling like a pervy grade schooler" about it, is something i can really appreciate... it shows, both how beautiful and how horrific sexual acts can be... and it does it without turning it into some sort of explicit side show...

The violence in this is very unrealistic, beginning with the disemboweling scene in the first episode.

There has to be a wink in there somewhere, something that tells you that this is not meant to be taken too seriously; Hellsing practically becomes a farce by the end, and Hirano goes out of his way to wink at the audience.

I see little difference between "entertainment" like this and the old Roman Coliseum. I weep that we live in a time where someone can legitimately make a living producing entertainment with this much gore and violence and pass it off as "artistic."

...It's this excessiveness that I object to, and it's this excessiveness that makes me think that this "artistic" piece is simply trying to shift the line of acceptability one step further. I've heard that it doesn't glorify the violence, but I haven't heard from anybody what the main selling point is if it isn't the excessive violence. (I'm not talking about the plot of the story; I'm talking about the selling point that they use to get those DVDs off the shelves and into your player.) Maybe someone can enlighten me?