On “Character” III: Architecture of Signification
Now, to clarify a bit, the first post put forth a model of signification, which in itself is fairly problematic (the details thereof I’ll address below):
visual appearance [signifies] personality [signifies] ideology
The second post briefly investigated how visual appearance itself is a structure of signs, so thoughts on the more “micro” elements of the character were developed. In this third post, I hope to look into the act of signification (to fix this model), the processes which glue these seemingly inert, semiotic paradigms together, using glasses, once again, as the main investigative clue.
To start off with, the problem with the previously mentioned linear model is that, in the cases where visual appearance doesn’t signify personality, and in such light I would be tempted, therefore, to draw a diagram wherein all three aspects have reciprocal means of signification, there really isn’t such a hypothesized reciprocity of signification. This statement holds only when we analyze characters from the bottom up, or in other words, in that very order of appearance to personality to ideology. In such a hierarchical ordering of signification, it is literally impossible to say that ideology has the potential to signify before visual appearance simply because we cannot conceive of the object’s ideology until we see and come in contact with the object. This is in contradistinction with a “bottom down” approach to character construction where we are presented with opportunities to imagine characters before we see them – film using, arguably, the most powerful techniques of print media summed up in the hedonistic proverb “more is less”. If we are informed, vaguely or otherwise, of an idiosyncratic “mecha anime”, we are presented with the ideological framework – war, fighting [robots], emo [teenager pilots] – onto which personalities and visual appearances are referred to (ie. Suzaku, Kira, Shinji, etc.). Thus we are left with a hierarchical model with three usages: (1) ideology signifying personality and appearance; (2) appearance signifying personality and ideology; (3) in the rarest case, personality simultaneously signifying ideology and appearance. The third case is a rarity since it implies we have a personality that isn’t necessarily restricted to appearance – perhaps a disembodied voice or a visage continuously obscured in shadows.
For good measure, there isn’t a single anime I can think of that effectively uses personality as a basis for signification and in its entirety. 5cm begins to fictionalize Akari through Takaki’s destinationless texting and her gradual disappearance (though she does return), though we had already seen Akari in the beginning, nullifying any real sense of visually unconcretized personality as the basis of signification. However, and of all things, Charlie’s Angels has the bodiless “Charlie” whose voice is the only kind of signifier available to us. You could make an argument that anime utilizing narrators pose a case (DBZ, LoGH, Hayate), but I would suspect their fictive “being” to serve no function within the story itself.
In Mitchiko to Hatchin, the similarities are given; the family wears glasses. From this image you can posit “this family of cruel people wear glasses,” but such syllogism does not allow for the predictable “thus, all cruel people wear glasses.”
Michiko herself is undoubtedly the most important visual element since…
…she is the only character that willingly removes her glasses: the police officer never has glasses, and Maria’s are forced off by Hatchin, who even remarks, both literally and metaphorically at that, “do you know who you’re looking at? Look at me!” and…
…Michiko’s face, most importantly eyes, are obscured while in prison, the first time we see them are when…
…she faces off against the helicopter outside the prison with the search light shining on her face.
The important bit here is “the Morenos family”, or, more precisely, the metaphorical and discursive space that constitutes and upon which the ideology of family, house and home is contingent. It’s significant to note that, while Mitchiko is the only one that willingly removes her glasses, she only does so within the household (on the table on her bike), further corroborating the metaphorical space as the typical Plato-esque “cave” out of which the soon-to-be-enlightened crawl. (It’s more of a Matrix-esque “this is what you really see”.) However, in this case, it’s not really about the spatiality that constitutes the binary of in and out, but of self-consciousness, the looking-glass and self-imposed ignorance which are, just as glasses are, imposed or removed from the individual: it’s more of a way of seeing (or not seeing) things. Just as those with glasses cannot comprehend vision outside the lens, the police officer cannot comprehend such vision within those very lenses. It is for this reason that Maria is most frightened after her glasses, her only sense of worldly comprehension, are knocked off of her face.
It is apparent that, while glasses are sometimes removed, the actual, visual appearance doesn’t change; it serves as our control variable here. We’re able to determine the signifying effect of glasses, and, as was stated above, that (for instance) the removal of Maria’s glasses rendered her a helpless girl on the receiving end of Hatchin’s rage, it is the lack of the contextual signified which, at the basis of our pyramid model, alters the visual appearance, subsequently signifying an altered personality (cowardliness) and, furthermore, a different ideology (ie. justice, karma).
The recurring phrase “look at me” also deserves further investigation. It’s used exclusively by Michiko and Hatchin, the protagonists that also conveniently make up the title (by no coincidence, I suspect). Taken both figuratively and literally, the visual relationship between the two women is indicative of the metaphorical power of vision and sight. Michiko’s sunglasses are also meaningful, since they obviously set her apart from the nearsighted, clear lenses; the instance when she removes her lenses situates her within the metaphorical space of the family, she receives clarity of perception and judgment. The visual appearance of the lenses, that they are tinted (pun intended), emphasizes her more conspicuous personality in relation to the rest of the Morenos family, and finally the ideologies – again, [poetic] justice, karma, retribution, penitence, sin (large Christian symbols like the crucifix buttress this, as well as the theme of incarceration) – that engulf her being.
Considering the top-down approach to signification – ideology signifying personality and visual appearance – the prison scene does offer a slight example of this. The institutional incarceration that we are more familiar with is accompanied by, amongst many things, the homogenization of the object of the prison’s function, imprisonment, the prisoner, of course. What are in actuality diverse humans we see as these representations of a faceless mass of people donned in the same drab garments. When faces of prisoners are shown, and rarely at that, they are typically low in detail. The ideology of the prison is oriented towards the signification of people as brash and crude with almost no visual appearance: the lack of appearance only denotes a coarse, unattractive aesthetic with in turn corroborates that very dehumanizing ideology of imprisonment.
11 comments11 Comments so far
Leave a reply
For all who are wondering how to get raw/subs from this blog, it will not be answered. Please use your good sources to figure it out.
Also, please refrain from using smileys with the "<" and ">" characters. Your comment WILL be cut off if you do. Styling html such as <em>, <strong> and <p> can be used. Please use spoiler tags (<spoiler></spoiler>) around any spoilers you may post.
Do note that most comments will not be deleted as we believe in freedom of speech. However, comments without any constructive criticism and only made of vehement personal insults will be deleted at the author's discretion.
Loading ...
Wow this seems like a lot of food for thought. This seems to remind me about psychology and english put together to anaylse anime.
Good Analysis, you gave a lot of thought and structure to the anime, but you dont think that the triangle logic is somewhat missing something.
Wow – you wrote a research paper here
the series almost seems to suggest that glasses hinder our true visions or something… or that the producer just hates glasses
[...] ←[75] [...]
In literature it’s common to see glasses representing a distorted view of reality, or somehow a physical or mental barrier between the person and the outside world, but people generally don’t apply the same standards to anime. It’s good to see that you’re spending the time to analyze this anime (which I’ve never seen nor heard of) with such depth.
Very well written and interesting post.
Well, it’s only a problem if we assing absolute values (1:1 correspondence) between signifier and signified. We’ll have a problem if we claim, ‘glasses’ only signify ‘cruel personality’ in Michiko to Hatchin. It only takes one kind meganekko character there, or an episode where Hana wears glasses to break the rule.
However, it would be very interesting if they did an episode where Hana wears glasses and changes personality – becomes cruel, even if only for that episode. We would see a stronger signifying statement.
There will be a plurality of ideas signified by signs, but it is always interesting to me what these could be. So it is less about the ‘play’ or dynamics of signification in your fluid pyramid model. Your perceived ‘flaws’ in your original post and theory is easily freed by stating it this way:
visual appearance ‘also’ signifies personality, and personality ‘also’ signifies ideology – among possible signifieds.
Ghost: Right, the problem with the signifying model was that it didn’t go “backwards” – and it still is hard and rare for it to work like that. Ideology rarely signifies visual appearance alone, and it’s even hard to define ideology within an anime, as it usually turns out to be “atmosphere”.
I don’t really get your first point…”it’s only a problem if we are assigning absolute values” – what does the “it” refer to? While, yes, we cannot say that just because the Morenos family wears glasses and is cruel – therefore everyone in the anime that wears glasses is cruel – that’s why I wanted to explicitly say that the space of the household was the most significant factor there. Though there are exceptions, as in other episode Michiko takes off her sunglasses (she acquires several pairs). Although that could also corroborate the fact that this was an episodic metaphor, the only time we see this notion of “the house”.
@ lelangir
I apologize if I wasn’t too clear. While there is a signifier:signified relationship between ideas and signs, it also doesn’t follow that the particular sign may not or does not signify anything else (even within the anime). Also, you’re right about the space of the household, that too signifies the cruelty perhaps in different ways than the glasses, but they support each other.
So even in the anime, or even the episode, the glasses and the space of the household may signify different things, and may even be unrelated to personality and ideology. The glasses may signify the filters by which the whole family views the world – which leapfrogs personality and goes straight to ideology. Using your original model, it may look like this:
Glasses (visual) [signifies] Religion is power over others (ideology) [signifies] cruelty and hypocrisy (personality). This may be just as true as the ideology [signifies] personality [signifies] visual example you outlined in your post (awesome job by the way, especially the way you noticed the removal of the glasses and the “look at me” device).
Ultimately, the triangle model may not quite work as much as perhaps a web or a flow-chart.
Ghost: Hmmm, I think what I meant by “metaphorical or discursive space” is that the space of the house establishes a, so to speak, “zone of signification”, wherein certain signifiers signify certain signifieds. I don’t think the household as a space signifies anything – it is the place in which signfication is situated, not the place from which signification is “elicited”.
Although you’re right too, that since this household is a sign in itself, it must be represented, and it is then subjected to signification. So we can all make our hypothesis, as there isn’t really a correct or incorrect vision of what something “should mean”.
Yeah, definitely; I agree that there are times when semiotic paradigms get skipped. It’s possible, as you mentioned, that ideology signifies visual appearance then signifies personality. I guess this route could be taken in flashbacks, where there is a strong ideological backdrop to a story, and a certain person is mentioned or remembered, though they are silent, and then later their personality is actualized.
I think this was, originally, the last post about signification, in such a Saussurian way, and next I was going to talk about cast structures and binaries and such (which should prove rather fun).
Looking forward to it already! ^_^
^_^ [signifies] predisposition to glee [signifies] ‘all culture is deculture’ ideology
You may not be watching this (brilliant) show anymore, but, for what it’s worth:
http://claiming.wordpress.com/files/2009/01/glasses1.jpg
http://claiming.wordpress.com/files/2009/01/glasses2.jpg
http://claiming.wordpress.com/files/2009/01/glasses3.jpg
http://claiming.wordpress.com/files/2009/01/glasses4.jpg