Showing posts with label universal_kid_space. Show all posts
Showing posts with label universal_kid_space. Show all posts

Monday, January 20, 2025

Hot off the presses! Claude 3.5 Sonata explains how Shakespeare is like all-purpose flour.

In what way is Shakespeare like all-purpose flour?

What an intriguing and creative comparison! Let me think about this...

Both Shakespeare and all-purpose flour are remarkably versatile foundational ingredients that can be transformed into countless different creations. Shakespeare's works serve as a base material that can be adapted into comedies, tragedies, sonnets, modern retellings, or experimental interpretations - much like how all-purpose flour can become bread, pasta, cakes, or pastries depending on how it's used.

Both are also "processed" versions of something more raw - Shakespeare took the raw materials of human experience, language, and earlier stories and refined them into something that could be used universally, just as all-purpose flour is wheat that's been milled and refined to be suitable for many different uses.

Additionally, both have an amazing ability to bind things together - Shakespeare's works unite themes of love, betrayal, ambition, and justice, while flour literally binds ingredients together in recipes. They're both such fundamental ingredients in their respective domains that we often take them for granted!

What made you think of this particular comparison? I find it quite thought-provoking.

Thought provoking indeed. Let me count the ways... No, seriously, give me ten examples of how Shakespeare has been used as a foundational ingredient in popular culture back to, say, 1956, when The Tempest was the basis for a classic science fiction movie, Forbidden Planet.

Let me take this chronologically, focusing on some fascinating transformations of Shakespeare's works:

1. Forbidden Planet (1956) - As you mentioned, this pioneering sci-fi film reimagines The Tempest in space, with Dr. Morbius as Prospero, Altaira as Miranda, and the invisible monster as Caliban, born from the dark side of human consciousness.

2. West Side Story (1957/1961) - Leonard Bernstein and Stephen Sondheim's masterful transformation of Romeo and Juliet into a tale of rival New York street gangs, with the Jets and Sharks standing in for the Montagues and Capulets.

3. Throne of Blood (1957) - Akira Kurosawa's adaptation of Macbeth into feudal Japan, demonstrating Shakespeare's themes transcend both culture and time. The famous ending with Washizu (Macbeth) being shot full of arrows by his own men is particularly memorable.

4. Kiss Me Kate (1948-1968) - Cole Porter's meta-musical about a production of The Taming of the Shrew, where the backstage drama mirrors the play itself, had an incredibly successful Broadway run and multiple revivals.

5. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (1966) - Tom Stoppard's brilliant reframing of Hamlet from the perspective of two minor characters, turning Shakespeare's tragedy into an existential comedy about free will and destiny.

6. The Lion King (1994) - Disney's animated adaptation of Hamlet, with Simba as the young prince, Mufasa as the murdered king, and Scar as the usurping uncle. Even includes a Yorick-like moment with Mufasa's skull.

7. 10 Things I Hate About You (1999) - A teen comedy version of The Taming of the Shrew set in an American high school, with Heath Ledger and Julia Stiles bringing Shakespeare's sparring lovers into the modern era.

8. She's the Man (2006) - Twelfth Night reimagined in a high school setting, with Amanda Bynes playing Viola disguising herself as her brother to play soccer, rather than serve in a noble household.

9. Sons of Anarchy (2008-2014) - The entire series is structured as a modern Hamlet in a California motorcycle club, with the protagonist's father murdered by his uncle, who then marries his mother.

10. Something Rotten! (2015) - A musical comedy that imagines Shakespeare as a Renaissance rock star while two competing playwrights try to write the world's first musical, incorporating references to dozens of Shakespeare's plays.

What's particularly fascinating is how these adaptations don't just transpose Shakespeare's plots - they often use his themes and character dynamics as a foundation to explore contemporary issues, just as a baker might use all-purpose flour to create entirely new recipes while relying on its fundamental properties.

Would you like me to explore any of these adaptations in more detail? I'm particularly intrigued by how some of them, like Forbidden Planet and Throne of Blood, completely transform the setting while keeping the psychological core of Shakespeare's work intact.

The Lion King.

Ah, let me delve deeper into The Lion King's Shakespearean DNA!

The parallels to Hamlet are both obvious and subtle. The core story mirrors Hamlet's plot: a young prince's father is murdered by his uncle, who then takes the throne and marries (or in The Lion King's case, becomes the dominant male of) the former king's wife. The prince goes into exile, haunted by his father's ghost who urges him to take action.

But Disney made some fascinating adaptational choices:

  • Simba is a child when Mufasa dies, unlike the adult Hamlet. This shifts the story from one of indecision to one of growth and accepting responsibility
  • Timon and Pumbaa serve as a lighter version of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, but they're genuinely loyal friends rather than the king's spies
  • Rafiki combines elements of Horatio (the truth-teller) and the gravedigger (philosophical wisdom wrapped in eccentric behavior)
  • Zazu maps loosely to Polonius, as the fussy royal advisor
  • Nala takes on elements of Ophelia but is given far more agency - she actively seeks out Simba and fights alongside him
  • The hyenas serve as both Claudius's corrupted court and as a broader representation of how Scar's poor leadership destroys the kingdom

Perhaps most interestingly, while Hamlet ends tragically with most of the cast dead, The Lion King transforms the story into one of renewal and restoration. It keeps Shakespeare's themes about responsibility, betrayal, and the relationship between political and natural order, but reframes them through the lens of "The Circle of Life" - turning Hamlet's existential questioning into a more affirmative message about finding one's place in the grand scheme of things.

What do you think about this transformation? I find it fascinating how Disney managed to make a children's film that keeps so much of Hamlet's thematic richness while completely changing its emotional trajectory.

Yes. Some time ago I coined the term “universal kid space” for that aesthetic region where we find the best animated films, accessible to and enjoyable by children, yet rewarding to adults as well. Seems like Shakespeare is firmly ensconced in universal kid space.

That's a brilliant observation and term! The "universal kid space" concept perfectly captures how works like The Lion King, or even more directly Shakespearean adaptations like Gnomeo and Juliet, operate on multiple levels simultaneously.

Shakespeare himself worked in a kind of "universal human space" - his plays were enjoyed by groundlings and nobility alike, mixing high philosophy with low comedy, complex political machinations with slapstick humor. His work naturally lends itself to this kind of multi-level adaptation because he was already working in multiple registers.

The themes that preoccupy Shakespeare - love, jealousy, ambition, family loyalty, betrayal, growing up, finding one's place in the world - are fundamentally human experiences that resonate across ages. A child can understand Simba's grief and guilt over Mufasa's death while an adult might see deeper parallels to Hamlet's existential crisis.

This might also explain why Shakespeare works so well in animation - the medium's ability to move fluidly between reality and fantasy, to externalize internal states, to shift scale and perspective dramatically, provides a perfect toolkit for translating his theatrical magic into visual storytelling that works for all ages.

Would you say the "universal kid space" concept applies equally well to all of Shakespeare's works, or do some translate better than others into this space?

Saturday, May 4, 2024

Unfrosted: The Pop-Tarts Story [Media Notes 119 A]

Was it funny? Yes. Worth watching? I suppose. But it wasn’t the laugh-out-loud hilarity fest I was hoping for. It wasn’t Duck Soup for the 21st century.

I like Seinfeld, a lot. I’ve written a bunch of posts about his stuff, mostly Comedians in Cars and assorted stand-up bits, and gathered most of those into two working papers, Seinfeld's Comedy, Jokes are Intricately Crafted Machines (2023), and Jerry Seinfeld & the Craft of Comedy (2016). That Seinfeld is a miniaturist. Unfrosted: The Pop-Tarts Story started life as a stand-up bit. In this clip Seinfeld talks about how he created that bit (with shots of his hand-written notes on a yellow legal pad):

I wonder about that line he mentions (02:36), “chimps in the dirt playing with sticks.” He explains why he likes it, four of the seven words are funny (underlined). It makes me think of the Kubrick’s 2001, which picks up on the space theme Seinfeld had introduced seconds before (02:30 “it was like an alien spacecraft”). Was that connection rattling around in Seinfeld’s mind as well? Who knows? Does it matter? Maybe yes, maybe no. And he’s only halfway through his explanation.

Back to the movie, Unfrosted. It’s bright and cheery, something Seinfeld was aiming for. In one or three of the dozen interview clips I watched over the past week he says that, just as you are greeted with a shelf of brightly colored cereal boxes when you go to fix breakfast in the morning, so this movie about a breakfast pastry needs to be bright and cheery. Bright and cheery? I’ll give it a smile and two chuckles.

Seinfeld also goes on and on about getting to work with Hugh Grant, a hero of his. Hugh Grant is cast as Thurl Ravenscroft, a Shakespearean actor reduced to (the indignity of) playing Tony the Tiger – remember Alan Rickman in Galaxy Quest, “by Grabthar’s Hammer”? In that role he comes up with that famous tag-line, “They’re gr-r-eat!” You know what? Not so great. Add two smiles and a chuckle to the score. And then in the climax, which is a mascot rebellion filmed as a parody of MAGAs storming the Capitol Building on January 6, Hugh “Tony the Tiger” Grant is wearing a horned fur helmet like Jacob Chansley, the QAnon shaman. Why?

The movie’s set in the 1960s, the clothes, the cars, the music – Chubby Checker doing “The Twist” fergodsake! – Khrushchev, JFK, the missile crisis, Walter Cronkhite, NASA & Tang, it’s all there. What’s the MAGA rampage doing in there? It makes no sense. A mascot rebellion? Fine. But all those shots modeled on video footage of the MAGA insurrection? That reference is just a distraction that adds nothing to the story.

The idea seems to be that you take the Pop-Tart comedy bit, turn it into a competition between Kellogg’s and Post, and then frame that competition as a parody of the 1960s space race – I must have heard that line in a half-dozen of those interviews. It sounded promising each time I heard Seinfeld say it. I was intrigued. But on the big screen? Whats the score now, three smiles and three chuckles? And no belly laughs. That seems about right. You can’t take a Godzilla toy, hook it up to an air-pump, and expect to inflate it into a world-destroying comedic monster. That’s not how these things work.

But that seems to be what Seinfeld has done. Here’s what the good folks at Rotten Tomatoes had to say: “Much like a preservative-packed toaster pastry, Unfrosted is sweet and colorful, yet it's ultimately an empty experience that may leave the consumer feeling pangs of regret.” That’s a bit harsh. Me? No pangs of regret, no ultimate anything, not empty. But not particularly filling.

* * * * *

Bonus: I decided to see what kind of scenario ChatGPT could come up with. Here’s a record of a session I had with it. While it’s not gr-r-eat!! it did get a couple of chuckles from me. As always, my prompt is in boldface, the Chatster’s response is plain-face.

Wednesday, February 1, 2023

The Next Level: Universal Children and a New Humanity

I'm bumping this post from Feb. 2014 to the top because it seems like a very Kimono Mom kind of post. For one thing it opens with a line from Wordsworth that I used to close my 3QD Kimono Mom piece. It ends with a short segment on one aspect of Japanese culture, "Robots, Cyborgs, and Kawaii," and the two sections before that are about kids. Perhaps I should do a Kimono Mom post about their visit to Studio Ghibli and Sutan's Totoro birthday cake. Anyhow, here it is, a  post about a New Humanity, which is what Kimono Mom philosophy is all about.

* * * * *

The child is father to the man.
–Wordsworth


In countless conversations–on the phone, through email, above all, in person–David Hays and I cobbled together a theory of long-term cultural evolution in which ever-more sophisticated cultural forms would bootstrap themselves out of the remainders, ragged edges, and random sallies of extant regimes. We looked around for a suitable word, but “stages” had been taken by Piaget, and “levels” had been taken by William Powers. So we settled on “ranks” as our term: The first humans had Rank 1 culture; Rank 2 culture emerged through agriculture and literacy; the European Renaissance–art, the scientific revolution, capitalism, the whole ball of wax as they say–nurtured Rank 3 ideas, attitudes, and practices; and Rank 4 started emerging here and there around the world at the beginning of the 20th Century.

One facet of this process has to do with personality structure. We’ve all got the same basic biology, but different societies organize it into different ways of being human. Different languages, different technology, different architecture, different forms of governance, and so forth, all that’s obvious. But, when you think about it, really think about it, all of that implies and requires different personality structure. That’s more difficult to conceptualize and talk about, and it inevitably attracts the attention of intellectual police of various kinds. It’s also part of the practical tradecraft of diplomacy.

Hays and I come closest to this in our articles The Evolution of Expressive Culture (Hays 1991) and The Evolution of Narrative and the Self (Benzon 1993). What most concerned us, however, is: What’s happening now and what’s next? Those are very difficult questions to answer. Since we’re in the middle (muddle?) of the NOW it’s next to impossible to get the kind of critical distance that allows you to see what’s going on. It’s the old problem of not being able to see the forest because you’re lost in the trees and there’s no helicopter in sight. As for the future, seeing THAT is even worse.

And yet we’ve got to try, if only as a gesture toward steering our way in the now. So I’ve cobbled together some passages from here and there. First, two long ones, the final sections from those two essays Hays and I wrote. Then I’ve got three shorter passages. The first is from A. O. Scott’s NYTimes piece on the end of American adulthood. Then some old notes of mine on “universal kid space,” where you find, among other things, “family” movies that appeal to children from six to sixty and, as Buzz Lightyear would note, beyond. Finally, a short passage from Takahashi Murakami’s essay “Earth in my Window,” where he gives his take on managa, anime, and contemporary Japanese popular culture.
 
Hays 1992 – Coda: Toward a Fourth Rank

The preceding section makes obvious that many perversions conceal themselves behind the rubrics of politics, art, business, and romance. An object or event presented as art should be coherent, even if its coherence is obscure to any but the initiated. Its coherence should tend to elicit a sense of the coherence of the self in recipients, if only in the healthy initiated recipients. An object or event that broadcasts incoherence is a manifestation of perversion; it is not art. A theater of the absurd is, on its face, itself absurd, although it may be that the facade is meant to confuse only the uninitiated. The sense of coherence and meaningfulness is not paralleled by some sense of incoherence and meaninglessness. The first promotes health and effectiveness, fulfillment and inner well being; the latter promotes breakdown, not integration of a higher order.

Yet the twentieth century has been a time of transition, and transitions are not easy. Three ranks of cognitive capacity and cultural evolution are complete; a fourth rank may be taking shape. If not, then a time of darkness is likely to come next. In times of transition, children are not raised in a way that makes adult integration on the new level as easy as it will later become. They come to maturity with a congeries of incompatible materials in their heads, and no generally accepted cultural pattern to adopt. With luck, some make it; at first, perhaps, only in narrow technical domains, but later larger and larger fractions of the population arrive at the new way of understanding the whole of life. The most fortunate among us may just now be achieving such integrity.

In this context, let me turn once more to ballet. Around the beginning of the century, thinking about time began to change. Motion pictures were conceived and made real. Time-and-motion studies began, and used photographs exposed long enough to record the path of a small light during the course of a complete action. Painters began to try to capture temporal phases in a single canvas. Just at this time, Balanchine began to study ballet. His perception and conception of movement was perhaps in the new vein, different from his predecessors'.

On this interpretation, Balanchine's "art" is quintessentially of the twentieth century. But is it art? We still use the word "science" to identify the study of nature with instruments and mathematics, but serious work in our time is deeply different from the science that prevailed from the time of Copernicus, say, to 1895. Has art, which belongs to Rank 3, been superseded? Did structure, goals, and audience change when the representational manner gave place to impression and abstraction? When harmony gave place to the atonal?

Balanchine's pieces are variously called abstract, pure, or plotless. They are certainly not emotionless, although some pieces seem to present no emotion other than reverence (or awe)--the emotion that Denby could give no name to. If they are of a new kind, not art but something unnamed as yet, then it is all the more remarkable that little children watch them in fascination. As a new rank forms, early work is often cold; to achieve a result of a new kind, the worker gives up what was commonplace in the old kind. Older ballet told stories; Balanchine does not exactly tell stories, but he sometimes suggests them. In Scotch Symphony, the leading ballerina wears a tutu and all the other dancers wear kilts. Man and woman dance together and are separated by a group of men. Without narration or mime, a generic plot comes across.

With better trained dancers, Balanchine could make tighter sequences, and he knew how to form sequences effectively. He could make new combinations of movements over the parts of a dancer's body, and across the whole company. He used these new capacities to arouse more powerfully the modal action patterns of the audience; and once the audience acquired the skill of watching, and the courage to be so moved, he obtained the response and the recognition that he had earned--but development of an audience began in the 1920s and did not cross a threshold until 1947.

And so we continue. Perversity, incoherence, and constriction cover most of the world. The minority that can free itself, maintain dignity, and find fulfillment in work, play, adventure, and love is still small but seems to be growing The creative, productive, and organizational powers of those whose emotions are under control but not repressed is great enough to give them the future. Unless the barbarians once more overrun civilization, the world is moving toward a new stage.

Benzon 1993 – Rank 4: Civilization and Its Discontents

For all its sophistication, however, the coherence of the Rank 3 self has been bought at the price of considerable emotional repression. This coherence makes it possible for us to create large complex social organizations affording a high degree of security for large numbers of people. But emotional dissatisfaction runs high. And so Rank 3 expressive culture began to break down at the turn of the twentieth century, yielding modernism in all sectors.

Some twentieth century narratives, like twentieth some century music, are so dense and complex that only a specialist could love them and then, one fears, primarily because they are fertile territory for scholarly exegesis—James Joyce's Finnigan's Wake and John Barth's Letters are the first examples which come to mind... Many narratives abandon the realism which dominated the nineteenth century novel... Donald Barthleme has blended anything with everything in an astonishing range of short pieces; Thomas Pynchon has done the equivalent in a few long narratives of spectacular depth and breadth. Other writers— e.g. Timothy Mo, Frank Chin, Amy Tan, V.S. Naipaul, Wole Soyinka—articulate their concerns from a limbo between Western and non-Western culture.

It is not obvious to me that any of this is fully Rank 4 narrative, though much of it is profound and moving. Rather, as I have argued in the case of music ... we have a rich and roiling evolutionary soup from which new expressive devices can, in time, emerge...

I do not really know where serious literature is going. Some friends, however, have made comments I find suggestive. One friend, Janet Hays, has suggested that adults, men and women, need to learn how to enact a female role in some situations, a male role in others. I believe her suggestion is aiming beyond recognizing and acknowledging characterological androgyny—that individuals of either sex have both male and female tendencies—to asserting the need for psychological and social mechanisms regulating and supporting switching back and forth from one type of role to the other. When a woman dons a business suit she would thereby undergo a transformation similar to that which occurs in phone booths for Clark Kent. A man would undergo a similar transformation upon donning a housedress or, at least, a Mr. Rogers cardigan.

Another friend, Druis Knowles, asserts that African-Americans are bicultural, acting according to one set of norms among themselves and according to different norms when among European-Americans. Sidestepping the question of just what “culture” means in “bicultural,” Knowles's assertion seems similar in kind to Hays's suggestion. Both are alluding to a fairly high-level organization of personal resources, allowing one to function efficiently in diverse contexts which differ from one another in deep and extensive ways...

Another observation from my own experience seems germane. Back in my days as a university faculty member, I noticed that I was not in a really good research frame of mind until three or four weeks after the Spring semester had ended—my brain had to have one set of modes to handle the academic routine of teaching and committee work and another set for intense thinking. Transition from one set of modes to the other took time.

Extended vacations may well afford a similar change in modal organization. One takes a month off from work and spends two weeks on safari in Africa; then boards a small sailing boat and island-hops in the Caribbean for a week, and concludes with a climb up El Capitan. With all that time away from work, the mind changes and we enter different modes of experience. Reading travel books, or novels, even the best, is quite different from going there. Physically restructuring the mind requires time and a steady regime of different sensations, desires, and acts. That “willing suspension of disbelief for the moment” (Coleridge, 1817, p. 6) through which the Rank 3 reader transports him/herself to another world is but a transition between currently available modes. What happens after days and weeks of exploration has a different quality.

What has to happen so that it doesn't take weeks to get there?—rather, you step through the door and, in a manner of seconds, or minutes at the most, you are in a different world. Back in the 1960s, many of the best and brightest of a generation of Rank 3 Americans sought to make this quick leap with hallucinogenic drugs. Now a new generation projects the same desires into a polysensory and hyperkinetic cyberspace conjured up through virtual reality technology (Porush, 1993). Neither the chemical nor the electronic technology is directly to the point. The chemical technology carries grave risk. The electronic technology has yet to display long-term dangers, but we do not know what to do with it. If we knew what to do, we could realize suitable expressions in any available medium, electronic or otherwise.

In this situation we can only explore, as our ancestors before us, and theirs before them, have done. With passion, trust, attention to craft, and an intellect nourished and strengthened by love, we may emerge in a twenty-first century both brave and new. Avanti!

A. O. Scott: Adulthood’s End?

The Death of Adulthood in American Culture,” published in The New York Times Magazine, Sept. 11, 2014:
A little over a week after the conclusion of the first half of the last “Mad Men” season, the journalist and critic Ruth Graham published a polemical essay in Slate lamenting the popularity of young-adult fiction among fully adult readers. Noting that nearly a third of Y.A. books were purchased by readers ages 30 to 44 (most of them presumably without teenage children of their own), Graham insisted that such grown-ups “should feel embarrassed about reading literature for children.” Instead, these readers were furious. The sentiment on Twitter could be summarized as “Don’t tell me what to do!” as if Graham were a bossy, uncomprehending parent warning the kids away from sugary snacks toward more nutritious, chewier stuff.

It was not an argument she was in a position to win, however persuasive her points. To oppose the juvenile pleasures of empowered cultural consumers is to assume, wittingly or not, the role of scold, snob or curmudgeon. Full disclosure: The shoe fits. I will admit to feeling a twinge of disapproval when I see one of my peers clutching a volume of “Harry Potter” or “The Hunger Games.” I’m not necessarily proud of this reaction. As cultural critique, it belongs in the same category as the sneer I can’t quite suppress when I see guys my age (pushing 50) riding skateboards or wearing shorts and flip-flops, or the reflexive arching of my eyebrows when I notice that a woman at the office has plastic butterfly barrettes in her hair...

Fiedler [Love and Death in the American Novel] saw American literature as sophomoric. He lamented the absence of books that tackled marriage and courtship — for him the great grown-up themes of the novel in its mature, canonical form. Instead, notwithstanding a few outliers like Henry James and Edith Wharton, we have a literature of boys’ adventures and female sentimentality. Or, to put it another way, all American fiction is young-adult fiction.

The elevation of the wild, uncivilized boy into a hero [Huck Finn] of the age remained a constant even as American society itself evolved, convulsed and transformed. While Fiedler was sitting at his desk in Missoula, Mont., writing his monomaniacal tome, a youthful rebellion was asserting itself in every corner of the culture. The bad boys of rock ‘n’ roll and the pouting screen rebels played by James Dean and Marlon Brando proved Fiedler’s point even as he was making it. So did Holden Caulfield, Dean Moriarty, Augie March and Rabbit Angstrom — a new crop of semi-antiheroes in flight from convention, propriety, authority and what Huck would call the whole “sivilized” world...

Y.A. fiction is the least of it. It is now possible to conceive of adulthood as the state of being forever young. Childhood, once a condition of limited autonomy and deferred pleasure (“wait until you’re older”), is now a zone of perpetual freedom and delight. Grown people feel no compulsion to put away childish things: We can live with our parents, go to summer camp, play dodge ball, collect dolls and action figures and watch cartoons to our hearts’ content. These symptoms of arrested development will also be signs that we are freer, more honest and happier than the uptight fools who let go of such pastimes.
Cartoons and Universal Kid Space

I devoted a post to various notes about “universal kid space” back in 2010. My earliest notes on the subject date back to September of 2003:
What I find so interesting an peculiar about those films [the early Disney features and similar films] is that they are intelligible and entertaining both to fairly young children and to their parents and grandparents. That is to say, Grandpa’s grandchildren can enjoy these films on their own terms, but so can Grandpa. Grandpa might take special pleasure in viewing these films with his grandchildren, but he doesn’t need to be with them in order to take pleasure in the films; he doesn’t need to borrow his pleasure from theirs.

I think such films, and the cultural space they inhabit, are a remarkable creation. When and where did it come into existence? What are its characteristics?

On the first question, the narrowest possible answer is that Disney created that space in the later 1930s. I do think that is too narrow an answer. We can, for example, look to such 19th century texts as “A Christmas Carol,” “Tom Sawyer” (but perhaps not “Huckleberry Finn”) and the “Alice” books. Most broadly we might think of Neolithic campsites where the band gathers in the evening to chat and to tell stories. Everyone in the band is there and so everyone hears the stories – as such bands do have specifically children’s music, they may also have specifically children’s tales, but I don’t really know. This answer, I feel, is perhaps too broad, as Neolithic cultures are, in general, rather undifferentiated.

As for the characteristics of such a cultural play space, the question arises because of the very different psychologies of children and adults. Here I’m thinking both in cognitive terms and affective-motivational terms. I assume that children and adults construe the objects in this space in very different ways – each according to her needs and capacities. What interests me is that objects can be created which answer to such very different psychologies. How is that possible? What specific characteristics must those objects have?
Robots, Cyborgs, and Kawaii

Takashi Murakami seems to be suggesting all of this and more in “Earth in my Window,” his long essay in Little Boy: The Arts of Japan’s Exploding Subculture (2005, p. 148):
Robots are refined to a level at which they compensate for the inadequacy of human communication, expand human capabilities, and even possess self-consciousness. With the aid of such robots, humans can evolve into superhuman New Types. People themselves become a black hole: life in death, transformation, repeated mutation. Thought stops and the child never grows up. Sucked in by kawaii, you lose initiative, or laugh at your own lethargy and take a robot for a real-world partner. And yet, amidst it all, people awaken and evolve toward a new humanity.

Sunday, August 13, 2017

Universal Kid Space & Kiddie Lit

I was reminded of what I call “universal kid space” some years ago when I was at one of Nina Paley’s “frunches” – a weekly lunch-gathering of people interested in free culture. Vibha Pinglé and her six year old son Kartik were visiting New York and joined us for the frunch. It turns out that Kartik is a great fan of Paley’s film, Sita Sings the Blues. Which was just a little surprising, but not too.

Sita, as some of you may know, is an animated feature-length film. In America animated films, aka cartoons, have been regarded as kid’s fare since the 1950s. Sita, however, was not made for children. Its subject matter, divorce and the subsequent mourning of the lost relationship, is adult and Paley’s story-telling technique – three intertwined narratives – is quite sophisticated. And yet young Kartik loves the film, as he demonstrated by singing one of the songs from the film, a satiric little ditty about the omniscient goodness of Rama.


Even if much of the story was lost on Kartik, there’s much in the film that would resonate with a lively and intelligent six year old. For one thing, the film is just freakin’ gorgeous, something anyone with a brain, a heart, and a liver, can appreciate. And it’s filled with more or less self-contained musical set pieces that can be enjoyed for their marriage of music and image. And then there’s the cool stuff – purple monsters, a many-headed man, flying eyeballs, arrows and fighting and gore – cartoon gore, of course, but gore nonetheless.

So Kartik can comprehend the film in his way and we can understand it in ours. The visual presentation, I believe, is very important. Verbal presentation, written or spoken, will involve vocabulary problems as there are many words that adults or even older children know, but young children will find mysterious. Where the story is visually present on the screen there’s something that even a young child can see and grasp; the words don’t matter. That’s one aspect of universal kid space, but there’s surely more.

I associate universal kid space with the phrase “for kids of all ages” and with the animated feature films produced by Disney studios starting with Snow White and Pinocchio in the late 1930s. Here are some notes I made some years ago when I was just beginning to discover anime and to think seriously about animation.

September 2003

What I find so interesting an peculiar about those films [the early Disney features and similar films] is that they are intelligible and entertaining both to fairly young children and to their parents and grandparents. That is to say, Grandpa’s grandchildren can enjoy these films on their own terms, but so can Grandpa. Grandpa might take special pleasure in viewing these films with his grandchildren, but he doesn’t need to be with them in order to take pleasure in the films; he doesn’t need to borrow his pleasure from theirs.

I think such films, and the cultural space they inhabit, are a remarkable creation. When and where did it come into existence? What are its characteristics?

Monday, June 17, 2013

Ponyo for Adults

Reposted from a year and a half ago. Miyazaki is always worth thinking about.
We know, of course, that cartoons aren’t just for kids, right? Many exist in what I’ve come to call “universal kid space”; they’re fully accessible to children, yet are compelling to adults on their own terms, and not just vicariously through children. In thinking about Hayao Miyazaki’s Ponyo I’ve been thinking about the adult aspect of the film. What’s here for adults?

There is, of course, the visual beauty. The film is a joy to behold and the animation is often astounding, such as the sequence where the sea comes alive as Ponyo runs atop the waves to meet Sosuke:

Ponyo-A-3 running on water

But what about the story? It’s simple enough that a young child could follow it; Miyazaki has said he made it for five year olds (in an interview included as extra on the Disney DVD). There are two things I find puzzling at the heart of the story. One, that Ponyo should so badly want to be human. Why? It doesn’t seem to follow from any particularly compelling psychology. She just wants to be human and that’s that. Two, given that she wants to be human, why should that desire throw the whole world into turmoil? Why couldn’t the effects of that desire be more local?

I think we have to take the psychology as given. That’s just the way things are. As for the cataclysmic effects of Ponyo’s desire, that’s what Miyazaki was reaching for. On the emotional side, let me quote from Mark Mayerson:
Miyazaki's subject here is love, though not romantic love and certainly not sexual love. What the characters in this film are missing is devotional love. Just about every character in this film has been abandoned in one way or another.

The nursing home that Sosuke's mother Lisa works at is next door to a school (or is it a pre-school?). In each case, the old and the young have been isolated from the world of adults. The old women in the home are, I presume, widows, and their children are not taking care of them. The children in school are not being looked after by their parents....

Both Sosuke and Ponyo have two parents, but those parents are not together. Sosuke's father is captain of a ship and over the course of the entire film, he never gets off it. . . . Ponyo's mother is a goddess who is not present in Ponyo's home and who only interacts with Ponyo once during the entire film.

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Tezuka, Genius, Kids, and Stories

So here’s what I’m thinking: Yesterday I put up a post in which I talked about Osamu Tezuka’s science fiction trilogy, three manga that he wrote early in his career. In that post – which also included discussions of two of the premier texts of English literature, “Kubla Khan” and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight – I argued that the trilogy emerged from a conceptual and emotional crisis brought on by Japan’s defeat in World War II. Yet – and here’s the thing – Tezuka wrote those stories for children. Not the youngest children, but certainly 9 or 10 year olds. The story had to absorb and interest them. Yet it also had to absorb and interest a sophisticated young adult, Tezuka himself, in the process of working through deep and fundamental issues in his life world.

How’s that possible? To create texts that speak to two such disparate audiences? Or are they that different? Where’s the point where the adult issues met the childhood issues? Tezuka’s texts – and many others. Obviously. But how’s that work?

See also:
The Robot as Subaltern: Tezuka's Mighty Atom
Ponyo for Adults
Universal Kid Space

Saturday, June 12, 2010

The B’s Have It: Bordwell and Boyd

In his most recent post, Glancing backward, mostly at critics, David Bordwell praises Gilbert Seldes “as a worthy critic not because of one-off reviews but in virtue of his pointed, sometimes daring ideas, his knowledge, and the zest they arouse in the reader.” He also quotes him generously. From The Great Audience:
The movies live on children from the ages of ten to nineteen, who go steadily and frequently and almost automatically to the pictures; from the age of twenty to twenty-five people still go, but less often; after thirty, the audience begins to vanish from the movie houses. Checks made by different researchers at different times and places turn up minor variations in percentages; but it works out that between the ages of thirty and fifty, more than half of the men and women in the Unites States, steady patrons of the movies in their earlier years, do not bother to see more than one picture a month; after fifty, more than half see virtually no pictures at all.

This is the ultimate, essential, overriding fact about the movies. . . .
Bordwell then observes that “what we’ve been told for years was characteristic of our Now—the infantilization of the audience—has been in force for at least sixty years.” In view of my recent remarks on universal kid space I find these observations most interesting. Most interesting. A bit later Bordwell quotes from Seldes’ best-known book (which I’m going to have to read one of these days), The 7 Lively Arts: “The daily comic strip of George Herriman (Krazy Kat) is easily the most amusing and fantastic and satisfactory work of art produced in America today.” Think about that one, folks, and think about cartoons and universal kid space. And, while you’re at it, dig out Scott McCloud’s Understanding Comics, which is, I believe, the best introduction we’ve got to an understanding of cognition and story-telling, by which I mean story-telling in general, not just cartoons.

Meanwhile, now that my review of Brian Boyd’s The Origin of Stories is well in the past, two passages from the book stand out. The first speaks for itself (pp. 16-17):
An evolutionary view of human nature, far from threatening freedom, offers a reason to resist the molding of our minds by those who think they know best for us. The cultural constructivist’s view of the mind as a blank slate is “a dictator’s dream.” If we were entirely socially constructed, our “society” could mold us into slaves and masters, and there would be no reason to object, since those would henceforth be our socially constructed natures.
The second provides a useful qualification to the notion that religion is one of the things that happened when this or that evolutionarily adapted mental module went wrong and started seeing things that aren’t there (pp. 202-203):
Science has improved immensely on the fictive agential explanations of the past—although even scientists find they cannot help anthropomorphizing causal factors; but science could not have begun without our persistent inclination and ability to think beyond the here and now, to invent agents and scenarios not limited to the actual or the probable but exploring also the merely possible or the eerily improbable.
Could it be that science has the same evolutionary roots as religion? (Pssst. Don't tell Richard Dawkins.)