Forum - View topic

Interview: Princess Principal Director Masaki Tachibana

HoboSoup wrote:

Ah Flip Flappers. The show that has the most same sex romance relationship tones and imagery without actually ever having the characters be in a relationship, with just enough plausible deniability to say the characters are straight. Another one of those series people say "you're reading to much into it". There's a lot to also delve into with this series, but the more horror school episode is a good example, the solo focus on the lily that's in the vase, which is focused on numerous times. The lily wall paper. Plus tons of other hints and winks throughout just that episode alone and there's so much of that throughout the entire series. But alas. However in a hilarious turn of events the director for Flip Flappers is directing the anime adaptation of Citrus. Which is completely Yuri with no room for deniability and people saying "you're reading to much into it."

What are you talking about? First, Oshiyama is not Citrus' director. He isn't even involved in the anime, as far as I know. And second, Oshiyama and Yuniko (the main writer for the first part) always made it clear to say Flip Flappers WAS a yuri story. Of course you could deny it, but you would just be wrong.

As for the PriPri case, it doesn't even matter anymore. Given the number of fanart, the fanbase it got and how the director said it now, I know exactly what kind of appeal they'll have to do for the second season, regardless of how they planned it at first. I saw enough anime to know at least that much.

Sigh.... really i dont get how people watchin the show cant see the romantic feelings they have for each other. First of all,we have Ange who spend 10 yrs to become a spy for the sole purpose to cross the Wall and reach Princess,with the intention to escape to Casablanca where just the two of em can libe peacefullt together.This it very itself is alrdy kinda romantic,and if its a guy and girl,there wont be any deniability.Then,we have in ep 3,we have Beato and Ange falling out of the plane. Beato explicitly states she loves Princess,and if ur not convinced that its romantic,then the pripri game states it is so under her profile.Ange,hearing that,then say that"i hate the dumb princess",but we all kno Ange always lie,and Beato knows and pointed it out as well. Next,on the mission on the boat,Ange and Princess were talkin abt tellim their teammates abt them knowin each other sonce childhood,and in part of the convo,Ange says that she hates how she used to be,but Princess states its the old her that she loves. Next they had a convo where Princess states "i dont want to hide our relationship anymore" to Ange,and rly at this point the writers must be doin this on purpose.Sure u can say they mean childhood friends status but rl,the way they say it.Next on finap scene where Ange implies that had a romantic interest which got interrupted,and the next scene is she and princess holding hands.Thats rly speaks for itself who she is referring to. It rly doesnt make sense if she's referring to someonelse. Ultimatelt,if all these are between a boy and girl,people will say that theyre in love without deniability. These are just some examples i can think of and there are others.I rly dont believe all these are not intentional and were just "friendship" Most directors will nvr verbally canonise yuri relationships and i think this is one of em and they do so to not "offend" our rather homophobic society. The official arts also rly favors them loving each other romantically. Also,flip flappers which is made by them,features a rly good romantic yuri relationship,and if they can do it for them,i dont see y not for pripri.

Such a postmodernist approach to interpretation is ridiculous. Given your approach, people can make any story mean whatever they want. An author is the creator of the story and therefore is obviously in the prime position to dictate what is a valid interpretation and what is not. Fan-fiction does not supersede what is canon.

Death of the Author rejects that the author has a monopoly on interpretation. But it never disputes the author's written events... ...Death of the Author can overturn any claims the author makes about the authority of their interpretation. It never advocates for the overturning of the author's actual content if it doesn't fit your understanding of it.

Each piece of writing contains multiple layers and meanings. In a well-known quotation, Barthes draws an analogy between text and textiles, declaring that a "text is a tissue [or fabric] of quotations", drawn from "innumerable centers of culture", rather than from one, individual experience. The essential meaning of a work depends on the impressions of the reader, rather than the "passions" or "tastes" of the writer; "a text's unity lies not in its origins", or its creator, "but in its destination", or its audience.

No longer the focus of creative influence, the author is merely a "scriptor" (a word Barthes uses expressly to disrupt the traditional continuity of power between the terms "author" and "authority"). The scriptor exists to produce but not to explain the work and "is born simultaneously with the text, is in no way equipped with a being preceding or exceeding the writing, [and] is not the subject with the book as predicate". Every work is "eternally written here and now", with each re-reading, because the "origin" of meaning lies exclusively in "language itself" and its impressions on the reader.

Hmm, I don't entirely agree with your understanding of Death of the Author, but I also don't think I've actually said anything that contradicts this. This is an external interview where the director simply states that a yuri relationship wasn't their intent. It's not canon or textual, and is simply his authoritarian statement outside of the actual work. This falls very directly under Death of the Author by literally every reading I can find. If textually, PriPri strikes you as a lesbian romance story, then your interpretation is just as valid as anyone else's.

Quote:

Each piece of writing contains multiple layers and meanings. In a well-known quotation, Barthes draws an analogy between text and textiles, declaring that a "text is a tissue [or fabric] of quotations", drawn from "innumerable centers of culture", rather than from one, individual experience. The essential meaning of a work depends on the impressions of the reader, rather than the "passions" or "tastes" of the writer; "a text's unity lies not in its origins", or its creator, "but in its destination", or its audience. No longer the focus of creative influence, the author is merely a "scriptor" (a word Barthes uses expressly to disrupt the traditional continuity of power between the terms "author" and "authority"). The scriptor exists to produce but not to explain the work and "is born simultaneously with the text, is in no way equipped with a being preceding or exceeding the writing, [and] is not the subject with the book as predicate". Every work is "eternally written here and now", with each re-reading, because the "origin" of meaning lies exclusively in "language itself" and its impressions on the reader.

Mojave wrote:

relyat08 wrote: Hmm, I don't entirely agree with your understanding of Death of the Author, but I also don't think I've actually said anything that contradicts this. This is an external interview where the director simply states that a yuri relationship wasn't their intent. It's not canon or textual, and is simply his authoritarian statement outside of the actual work. This falls very directly under Death of the Author by literally every reading I can find. If textually, PriPri strikes you as a lesbian romance story, then your interpretation is just as valid as anyone else's. Quote: Each piece of writing contains multiple layers and meanings. In a well-known quotation, Barthes draws an analogy between text and textiles, declaring that a "text is a tissue [or fabric] of quotations", drawn from "innumerable centers of culture", rather than from one, individual experience. The essential meaning of a work depends on the impressions of the reader, rather than the "passions" or "tastes" of the writer; "a text's unity lies not in its origins", or its creator, "but in its destination", or its audience. No longer the focus of creative influence, the author is merely a "scriptor" (a word Barthes uses expressly to disrupt the traditional continuity of power between the terms "author" and "authority"). The scriptor exists to produce but not to explain the work and "is born simultaneously with the text, is in no way equipped with a being preceding or exceeding the writing, [and] is not the subject with the book as predicate". Every work is "eternally written here and now", with each re-reading, because the "origin" of meaning lies exclusively in "language itself" and its impressions on the reader. Once again, "I think they're in a romantic relationship" isn't an interpretation. That's where you're misapplying Death of the Author here. That's a simple yes/no/maybe check of canon. "Their interactions here are a representation of the personal uncertainty that arises in the conflict between professional duty and personal longing, multiplied by the fact that each is undergoing that conflict in a manner and degree unique to them" is an interpretation. Death of the Author applies only to the latter, never the former. What the author is saying is that they textually wrote this as a non-romantic relationship, and that those who hope for a romantic relationship between the two are incorrectly not picking up on that. Meaning it is canon, certain readers just failed to grasp that for whatever reason. Where interpretation comes in is someone saying "The characters aren't in a relationship, but the reason for that is that they each feel a strong sense of duty to marry and produce offspring for their families in a system that prioritizes the continuation of noble familial lines, thus overriding any feelings they could have for one another." According to Death of the Author, the author couldn't say "No, that interpretation is wrong." What it doesn't change is the fact is that if the author states that they are canonically not in a romantic relationship, then canonically they are not in a romantic relationship. Debating facts of the story, "Are they or are they not in a relationship" is not an interpretation. Debating the reasons for why the relationship is the way it is would be an interpretation. If an author states that the facts of the story are a certain way, then canonically it is so, and any disagreement with that stems not from a difference in interpretation, but in the disagreeing party incorrectly reading the text and not picking up on the correct facts, whether they be subtle or obvious. The reader can disagree with whether it was written too subtly, but if the author states that the fact of a story is x, then Death of the Author doesn't provide the reader any way to overturn that basic fact. What it does give them is the tools to interpret what deeper meaning that basic fact has, free of whatever deeper meaning the author says they intended.

Its been an absolute pleasure seeing you two (Mojave and relyat08) argue back and forth in the sense of literature and I think it's really nice to see people arguing using a trope(death of the author) regarding the relationship between Ange and princess. From what I read(i could be wrong), both of you interpret their relationship as being platonic rather than romantic based on the show, so there's no bias there in your argument. However,relyat08 thinks people interpretation of the two as a romantic couple is as valid as the author's and other people as all works can be interpreted differently by different people, while Mojave thinks the word of the author is absolute and any other interpretations are misunderstandings but not discouraged. I would like to input a little, though it may have little or nothing to do with the trope itself. The fact that the question is raised regarding their relationship speaks that maybe not most, but many of the fans of pripri interpret their relationship as romantic. Yes it can be argued that many all-girls cast animes will have many yuri subtexts, but they are all mostly fanservice and just played for laughs and never taken seriously. However, the relationship between Ange and Charlotte does not seem that way.There's no denying there is a deep bond of friendship between them, but unlike most all-girl cast shows, they don't interact in a fanservice-y way(ala hibike euphonium, where all the interactions between kumiko and reina are just blatantly so when they are just friends and have canon straight love interests). What they have though, are interactions where its really hard not to question whether it's just as friends or something more. There are many examples of this but what sticks out to me the most is the last scene on the beach, where Ange was about to say something about her romantic interest. It was interrupted, and the next scene afterward was Ange and Princess holding hands. Now, this seems to imply something, and most would imply that Ange was referring to Princess as said romantic interest. I don't know what you two see this as, but it's inevitable that shippers will say it's canon and all that. Is it possible to interpret it platonically? Yes, but it then raises the question who was she referring to ? (theres no male characters around) and it just wouldn't fit in with the atmosphere of the moment with them holding hands and what not. Perhaps this is just a tease, but like I said, there are other interactions such as these in the show. Not to mention Ange and Princess in the official arts are depicted so yuri-heavy and in addition to that, there is really no contradiction to their potential yuri relationship, meaning there are no male love interest or protagonist. Also, we have to consider the fact that most directors when it comes to yuri relationships in their anime, will never explicitly state their yuri-heavy couple is canon. This is due to the still controversial nature of same-sex relationships. Director Tachibana, states they didn't interpret it as romantic when they made it, but it is possible that he may just be one of these directors. If this is not the case however and they really mean them to be just friends, then its also fine, and frankly the show itself is good without the potential yuri aspect. All the yuri subtext or text may just be put in to yuribait fans into watching their show, which is not uncommon in anime.Yuri fans, however, can take console in the fact that the studio now does know that many people see them as a romantic thing, and seeing as it's still a rather small and young studio, would take that into account and may develop them more in a possible second season. Furthermore, he may have stated it was not his intention for the first season, but he seems openminded in them being romantically involved and this bodes well for yurifans.

A good litmus test for this is, if the characters were opposite genders, would people assume they had feelings for each other? Because we Westerners have issues with this, too--the most subtle of hints will make practically everyone jump to romance when it's a boy and a girl

HoboSoup wrote:

Ah Flip Flappers. The show that has the most same sex romance relationship tones and imagery without actually ever having the characters be in a relationship, with just enough plausible deniability to say the characters are straight. Another one of those series people say "you're reading to much into it". There's a lot to also delve into with this series, but the more horror school episode is a good example, the solo focus on the lily that's in the vase, which is focused on numerous times. The lily wall paper. Plus tons of other hints and winks throughout just that episode alone and there's so much of that throughout the entire series. But alas. However in a hilarious turn of events the director for Flip Flappers is directing the anime adaptation of Citrus. Which is completely Yuri with no room for deniability and people saying "you're reading to much into it."

What are you talking about? First, Oshiyama is not Citrus' director. He isn't even involved in the anime, as far as I know. And second, Oshiyama and Yuniko (the main writer for the first part) always made it clear to say Flip Flappers WAS a yuri story. Of course you could deny it, but you would just be wrong.

As for the PriPri case, it doesn't even matter anymore. Given the number of fanart, the fanbase it got and how the director said it now, I know exactly what kind of appeal they'll have to do for the second season, regardless of how they planned it at first. I saw enough anime to know at least that much.

Wtv wrote:

HoboSoup wrote: Ah Flip Flappers. The show that has the most same sex romance relationship tones and imagery without actually ever having the characters be in a relationship, with just enough plausible deniability to say the characters are straight. Another one of those series people say "you're reading to much into it". There's a lot to also delve into with this series, but the more horror school episode is a good example, the solo focus on the lily that's in the vase, which is focused on numerous times. The lily wall paper. Plus tons of other hints and winks throughout just that episode alone and there's so much of that throughout the entire series. But alas. However in a hilarious turn of events the director for Flip Flappers is directing the anime adaptation of Citrus. Which is completely Yuri with no room for deniability and people saying "you're reading to much into it." What are you talking about? First, Oshiyama is not Citrus' director. He isn't even involved in the anime, as far as I know. And second, Oshiyama and Yuniko (the main writer for the first part) always made it clear to say Flip Flappers WAS a yuri story. Of course you could deny it, but you would just be wrong. As for the PriPri case, it doesn't even matter anymore. Given the number of fanart, the fanbase it got and how the director said it now, I know exactly what kind of appeal they'll have to do for the second season, regardless of how they planned it at first. I saw enough anime to know at least that much.

What do you mean it doesn't matter? The director just confirmed even after realizing its large fanbase they don't see the relationship as romantic so nothing is going to happen. I've watched enough anime and been disappointed enough times to know that.

Not that you can't enjoy fanart and stuff, but I think fans should take this as a warning to not expect much gay in S2. I've been down this road far too many times.

...

kotomikun wrote:

A good litmus test for this is, if the characters were opposite genders, would people assume they had feelings for each other? Because we Westerners have issues with this, too--the most subtle of hints will make practically everyone jump to romance when it's a boy and a girl

Oh good, glad to have this finally spelled out. So here's why either it ISN'T homophobia, or else people can go JUST as extreme in the OTHER direction:
Gundam Wing
We not only have everyone proclaim no real "story" romance between Heero & Duo (altho LOTS of "baiting" merch) we LITERALLY have both characters end up together with an opposite sex character. And yet ALL the Yaoi fans claim they're a "canon" pairing, presumably because they have some times in the series where Heero ISN'T trying to kill Duo.

There's also PLENTY of heterosexual pairings that simply aren't "liked" and thus get derided as being not written at all or having everyone claim OTHER pairings are "proven" in canon. (NaruHina (who end up MARRIED) vs. NaruSaku (who people think were written as a couple, desipte the previous) vs. NaruSasu (who people claim are ACTUAL true loves despite BOTH being married and having children)) There's also TONS of "don't exist, but let's pretend they do" in SPORTS manga (Prince of Tennis and Kuroko's Basketball are just two I've know of where you get implications that characters are at least interested in girls (along with their sport) but fandom thinks EVERYONE is gay)

Heck, to use Madoka as example (again) everyone says Sayaka & Kyoko are a lesbian couple, which "conveniently" ignores the FACT that the whole reason Sayaka became a witch in the first place is because she loved a BOY. Like, she was LITERALLY heartbroken when he got together with a different girl. But no, she's a lesbian because she smiles and touches hands with another girl who wants to help her.

Also here's two pieces of official art for the series

But on the Sayaka and Kyoko, are you implyin bisexuals dont exist?

Dadadaanime wrote:

...

So what I'm gathering here is "Relyat08" and "Mojave" have different view points where neither one is necessarily wrong or right. They're both seemingly valid ways to interpret and enjoy a story. Since neither of them can really be objectively right or wrong here I think they should simply agree to disagree in the end.

Also ya the beach scene among others combined with the official art that feels heavily romantic, I'm getting a lot of mixed messages from the creators here.

Looking at other topics on this people seem to be as divided as this ANN thread. There's a quote I saw from a Reddit post that reminded me further of how the dynamic reallyfeeks like a romance tale to me, "Ange said she wants to be a queen so that nothing will ever stand between her and Charlotte, while C insisted they both should run away to Casablanca". It's always an option that they can run away together and live in a little white house in Casablanca, which throughout the series directly reminded me of the movie "Casablanca", a movie that feels like a similar time period. Casablanca is a film that's a romantic drama and is generally regarded as great romantic classic. So I don't understand why people think it's so far fetched that I think it's possible that they were inspired by that film and the idea of Casablanca being romantic.

Also here's two pieces of official art for the series, which people will probably still tell me that it only looks like two best friends in their eyes. https://imgur.com/DxtBJUf and https://imgur.com/n1msKiy - Personally I'd say those are very romantically leaning and if it were a guy and a girl most people wouldn't deny it for half a second. Other people might not deny that it's romantic but they'll instead tell me well official art is marketing, sure you could argue that but I feel like the marketing should be representative of the show and the tones of the show. I simply personally feel that with the official art, marketing, a lot of general threads that feel romantic in the series it all tells a consistent narrative, but again people could say this is my opinion, however at the very least I feel like people that are saying we're a bunch of crazy shippers should ease up a bit.

Lastly I find that those Official Art pieces for Princess Principle are a lot more "Yuri" than the official art for the anime adaptation of Citrus. In the PriPri art Ange and Princess are focused on each other, their gaze and general tone are locked onto each other and the scene feels very intimate. Where as the official art for Citrus has been very sexual, the characters in a lot of the promotion art are looking at you the viewer. There's a very sexual piece of Citrus official art where both girls are in a bubble bath but they're both looking at the viewer as if you just walked in on them. So the entire piece of art for Citrus doesn't feel romantic or intimate but rather it feels like it's fan-service made to cater to the viewer. Which I find to be extremely weird, since PriPri is supposedly a series that does not have a yuri relationship where on the other hand Citrus is a series that focuses on a yuri relationship, in fact it's even undeniable and concrete that Citrus has lesbian characters.

HoboSoup wrote:

Also here's two pieces of official art for the series

"Official Art" means jack squat. Posters and clear files and all manner of items that use "official art" are made to sell to rabid fans. Here's some Code Geass "official art"
https://static.zerochan.net/CODE.GEASS%3A.Hangyaku.no.Lelouch.full.118188.jpg
(I'm sorry if this isn't "romantic" enough, I didn't feel like wading through REAMS of Suzaku x Lelouche art to find which ones are "official", this literally came up quickest, I KNOW I can do the same with Gundam Wing, but I'll leave that off simply because I know everyone wants to say "nothing hetero is ever established in GWing", whereas Lelouche has a literal harem in Geass and Suzaku is emphatically in love with Princess Euphemia)

someooone wrote:

But on the Sayaka and Kyoko, are you implyin bisexuals dont exist?

That is not what I'm saying at all. I'm pointing out that looking at a show like Princess Principal and saying "they're not gay, the creators have explicitly SAID they're not written romantically" is no more homophobic than claiming that Heero+Duo or Suzaku+Lelouche is heterophobic.

Kotomikun's point was that people will LEAP at the chance to claim a "hetero" relationship but then jump through hoops to deny a "homo" relationship. I'm saying there's PLENTY of evidence to the contrary. I'm saying there's PLENTY of anime where the cast is predominantly single sex and the creator had NO intent to write ANY romance (for WHATEVER reason), this is pretty much ANY sports anime/manga as well as numerous other series. Maybe they don't feel competent enough, maybe they aren't interested, maybe they just want to focus on the central conflict. That doesn't mean the characters CAN'T be gay, but it also doesn't mean they clearly ARE gay.

If a series is like this one where the CREATOR says they leave it up to the fans to interpret as they wish, then yuri fans are free to say there's a romance, but people who DON'T see it shouldn't be labeled as "homophobic" simply because they don't. I'm not a yuri fan, but yeah, I think they look like they had romantic feelings for each other, but it's entirely possible that they have a platonic relationship especially in light of the fact that we basically see ZERO males their age in the show. I'm a heterosexual, married man, but I think it'd be cool to retire to a house playing games with my friends for the rest of my life. It's basically what I'd do if I ever won the lottery.