I’ve always found honesty to be the best policy, which is why I’m going to state upfront that I found Dennou Coil to be horribly overrated. Not in the “this is bad, what were you thinking” sense, but the “this is good, but there were other infinitely superior shows this year” sense. It’s one of those anime that sound great on paper, at least from what I’ve seen of the other reviews already written out there. It hit all the right notes, or at least knew what notes to hit while looking incredibly hip and cool, a contemporary tour de force a decade in the making.

Unfortunately, DC felt like Noein to me; something that just didn’t cut it regardless of technical superiority. It had a stellar soundtrack, a more or less original premise, solid characterisation, avant-garde animation, and quantum physics jargon — a winning combination, by any standards. Yet for all its promise and potential I found myself watching an anime just like any other, even if it had everything going for it. I was, for a lack of better word, nonplussed, and couldn’t understand the praise heaped upon it.

Naturally, it gets my goat whenever I have to wonder if I just didn’t “get it”. This inevitably volatile issue of taste will of course differ across the blogosphere, but what exactly was it this time round that made me stay in my chair when everyone else was giving a standing ovation? I made the connection a few days ago, and it’s an answer that takes us all the way back to 2002: Haibane Renmei.

this would’ve been considerably epic had it actually happened

The obligatory knee-jerk reaction of indignation at comparing the two here wouldn’t go amiss, but here’s my explanation as to why. DC, cyberpunk bent aside, brought absolutely nothing new to the table with regards to the crux of the story: the main arc, namely Isako’s, felt like a rehash of Reki’s in that respect. Of course, in order for this comparison to work effectively you have to at least have a working knowledge of HR, and what made it so powerful, in addition to understanding that I’m not talking about the peripherals, or the genre in which each show is steeped in.

When I say that DC bears similarity to HR, I’m talking about how the conflict between the characters in the main arc are depicted. Isako’s determination to summon Michiko and open up portals to the Other Side wasn’t unlike Reki’s feather-dyeing and delaying of her Day of Flight; the two of them, aside from being in denial about their problems, are also running away from them. In the same vein, Yasako and Rakka are similar in the roles they play — not only are they protagonists new to their respective worlds, they also act as a foil to Isako and Reki, delivering them from their despair in a climatic finale.

Is there anything inherently wrong with all this? Not really. I can’t find fault with DC on technical grounds because it possesses flawless production values, the cream of the crop in terms of what anime has to offer this half of the decade. Yet the same could be said of HR, which can still give any anime made in 2007 a run for its money thanks to its solid soundtrack and exquisite animation that doesn’t show its age. Despite all that, however, what I can find fault with is how it doesn’t add much to the central theme that holds up both shows, despite it having a 5 year advantage over HR.

In my opinion, anime that deals with ideas or concepts that have been done before should always build upon its predecessors, even if it means violating the rule of thumb in which an anime should be judged: on its individual merits. It isn’t so much authorial intent here as it is how memory works; if the quality of anime reached a plateau in 1998, why should I bother with what’s airing in 2008? Would anyone have given Kanon 2006 a second glance if it was still animated by Toei, sans pointy chins and two cours instead of one? Or would Ghost in the Shell: Stand-Alone Complex and its Innocence/Solid State Society spin-offs be as popular had it stayed at the level of the first movie or manga?

For all purposes DC didn’t fail per se in that regard, assuming you hadn’t seen HR, or made the connection between the two. I noted in an earlier post that there aren’t good or bad anime, just good or bad opinions, which is true if you accept my definition of what makes a good or bad opinion. As an example, this review is bad because it fails to appreciate the swathes of sci-fi and intricate story in which DC has been clothed; instead of deliberating on its strengths, I choose to focus instead on the central arc, and point out its similarities with another anime that deals with the same theme, albeit more succinctly.

But rightfully so, for HR is economical in the sense that it doesn’t waste valuable episode time on the setting or pointless world exposition — rather, it doesn’t want to tell us more than the bare essentials, instead choosing to focus on the characters in it. What drives the story isn’t the mysterious wall, the city of Glie, the strange phenomena of children growing from seeds that fall from the sky, or even the world itself (plagiarised inspired by Murakami’s two novels no less).

in case any of you were wondering, no, I don’t make custom fanart for the sake of a post

It’s the characters. There’s always the danger in neglecting what should be the core resource of an anime when it comes to world-building of any sort; the more complex you go, the more likely you are to forget the one thing that matters. DC barely managed to escape this trap, having lost me at one point or another with its endless array of jargon and an insatiable desire to introduce one sub-plot after another, if only to have them tie up neatly with the main one. While I could see what it wanted to achieve with Daikoku City and its vast array of technological wonders, it seemed like it could’ve done with a more focused plot outside of the fun but harmless meandering.

Throughout my reading of Code Geass reviews I’ve noticed a common thread of reasoning among those not commonly disposed to shows of its make in order to justify why he or she liked it, if said blogger has issues with being associated with shows of similar caliber. It’s the separation of “good” from “enjoyment”, the logic here being that an anime doesn’t necessarily have to be good for you to like it; you just have to enjoy it, even if it’s genetically flawed to begin with. Issue of originality aside (the Haibane-sque resemblance is repeated in Blue Drop to some extent, anyway), I enjoyed DC for what it was worth.

Contrary to what would be an almost unanimous groundswell of approval, it wasn’t the best of 2007 for me. At times it seemed to delve into intricate plot workings that would delight any Death Note fan in terms of an inter-connected meta-narrative, yet its greatest strength is also its downfall. For all of Code Geass’ shortcomings I’ve never had to read an elaborate outline of events in order to fully grasp the plot after I’ve watched it, and that’s how things should stay, with DC as the exception. I’ll keep my status quo and leave the reading of Cliffs Notes for Shakespeare, thank you.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 8th, 2008 at 11:30 pm and is filed under Anime, Review. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Related Posts by Tags

• Anime as a measurement of time: 2007’s obligatory reflection, or It was the best of times, it was the worst of times
• Dennou Coil 08 - Words that we couldn’t say
• It’s like Mizayaki decided to stop churning out the same old boring crap