Iris' Gender

[Inferno Rodan]

To say the romance aspect is totaly within the human cast is naive.

You say naive. I say realistic.

I swear, G3 is the Evangelion of the kaiju fandom. People consantly look for hidden meanings in it that aren't there.

[kpa]

Interesting discussion. I think the simplest (and most accurate) explanation comes from Daiei... in their GAMERA 3 press materials Iris is identified as male, and the English subtitles Daiei created for their subtitled theatrical prints and the Japanese DVD also refer to Iris in male terms (he, him, etc). On the other hand, I've never seen anything from Daiei or the filmmakers stating the monster is either female or a hermaphrodite. Since it's their character I'll take their word for it that Iris is male... and that seems to better fit the stalker/sexual predator undertones to the monster's relationship with Ayana.

[g2kmaster]

To say the romance aspect is totaly within the human cast is naive.

You say naive. I say realistic.

I swear, G3 is the Evangelion of the kaiju fandom. People consantly look for hidden meanings in it that aren't there.

How is a twisted romance between Ayana and Irys unrealistic? The thing with young lad Moribe is a romance, yes. But it isn't the only one. The interpretation Cimmerian Dragon has been posting makes sense.

And funny you should say that, since the Gamera trilogy and Evangelion were both helped along with the help of Shinji Higuchi.

Though, Keith's response also makes sense. Promotional materials say male and the simplicity goes hand in hand with the Occam's razor concept.

[Living Corpse]

I find Evangelion boring.

And I'm glad nothing in G3 is outright told. Any answer would not have lived up to the mystery and it's more fun to come up with our own theories as to why Iris was made then just be told outright.

[g2kmaster]

Well now, there are some things in G3 which are outright told, though all of it deals around the Heisei Gamera universe's reason as to why kaiju keep attacking Japan.

We know Gamera uses mana. We know that when Gamera came back to life, it used enough mana to break the magatamas which Asagi and the Japanese goverment had, which helped allow him the freedom to use his Mana Cannon attack. That adds up with the fact that Gamera was trying to form a connection with Ayana with Ayana fighting it to stay connected to Irys in the last 30 minutes of G3. There for, the magatama Ayana found was a fail safe for Gamera's mana use. But sadly it got trashed when Asakura Mito decided to try to form the bond, and failed via being crushed by either the monsters, the dubirs, or both (which one can say also answers the question why Gamera just can't pull something out of his ass again, which is something you can complain to Gvs.SG (1994) about).

Things which are not really explained is things like the divinity of the monsters and such, which can be debated left and right, with a good bit of that debate comming from how you interpret Ayana being chosen. And of course you got this Irys gener issue, in which almost all answers make sense on one level or another.

[SuperSaiyan4Godzilla]

Interesting discussion. I think the simplest (and most accurate) explanation comes from Daiei... in their GAMERA 3 press materials Iris is identified as male, and the English subtitles Daiei created for their subtitled theatrical prints and the Japanese DVD also refer to Iris in male terms (he, him, etc). On the other hand, I've never seen anything from Daiei or the filmmakers stating the monster is either female or a hermaphrodite. Since it's their character I'll take their word for it that Iris is male... and that seems to better fit the stalker/sexual predator undertones to the monster's relationship with Ayana.

Despite Irys probably being male, I still find his design to be a hermaphroditic nightmare (much like HIM). The high heels, phallic/vaginal protrusion at his waist, the breasts on his chest (or man-manly pecs), and the obviously phallic tentacles.

There is an interesting part of Irys that has been seemingly looked over. Many female creatures in mythology have the ability to suck a man's life force from him through various means (sex being one of them). I believe the fae had this characteristic, for example. Now, we have this male creatures that could be a hermaphrodite. And he sucks the life force from beings with these phallic tentacles. So, we still have this hermaphroditic image even in some of his powers...Did you go over this, Cimmerian Dragon or is this a new thing to through into this analysis?

To say the romance aspect is totaly within the human cast is naive.

You say naive. I say realistic.

I swear, G3 is the Evangelion of the kaiju fandom. People consantly look for hidden meanings in it that aren't there.

Oh, no, the meanings are there. It doesn't matter if the creators intended on them being there or not. These are meanings that the viewers see. If there is substantial evidence provides by the viewer, then it is a viable meaning and analysis of the text. And there isn't just one meaning in a text, but a plethora of them. It's called multidimensional meanings.

[Legion1979]

Oh, no, the meanings are there. It doesn't matter if the creators intended on them being there or not. These are meanings that the viewers see. If there is substantial evidence provides by the viewer, then it is a viable meaning and analysis of the text. And there isn't just one meaning in a text, but a plethora of them. It's called multidimensional meanings.

That seems like a pretty fancy way of saying that someone is allowed to read into something however they want to - even if it doesn't make sense or contradicts an author/filmmaker's intent - as long as it makes sense to themselves and they stand by how they feel.

Guess what guys?! I watched Godzilla's Revenge last night and it suddenly dawned on me that - through Ichiro's actions - the movie is a statement on the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. After sleeping on it, I'm confident I can write a 10-page, pretentious college level essay explaining why, and hide the inanity of my findings behind terms like "multidimension meanings". And it's a valid conclusion even if Honda was to come back to life tomorrow and tell me he didn't intend it to be that way.

Seriously though, when it comes to film, IMHO what matters is authors intent. You can speculate and come up with your own meanings all you want, but there's no way to make something valid if it's not what the people making the movie intended.

[Legionmaster]

That seems like a pretty fancy way of saying that someone is allowed to read into something however they want to - even if it doesn't make sense or contradicts an author/filmmaker's intent - as long as it makes sense to themselves and they stand by how they feel.

They have to have evidence to support their claims, however. That's the catch.

Guess what guys?! I watched Godzilla's Revenge last night and it suddenly dawned on me that - through Ichiro's actions - the movie is a statement on the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. After sleeping on it, I'm confident I can write a 10-page, pretentious college level essay explaining why, and hide the inanity of my findings behind terms like "multidimension meanings". And it's a valid conclusion even if Honda was to come back to life tomorrow and tell me he didn't intend it to be that way.

Except you have no evidence to support your claim. which is why it's wrong.

Seriously though, when it comes to film, IMHO what matters is authors intent.

Which is the intent fallacy. You'd know this if you had any artistic training in film. Which is the funniest part about you being snooty, because you don't have the intellectual foundation to be so.

[SuperSaiyan4Godzilla]

Oh, no, the meanings are there. It doesn't matter if the creators intended on them being there or not. These are meanings that the viewers see. If there is substantial evidence provides by the viewer, then it is a viable meaning and analysis of the text. And there isn't just one meaning in a text, but a plethora of them. It's called multidimensional meanings.

That seems like a pretty fancy way of saying that someone is allowed to read into something however they want to - even if it doesn't make sense or contradicts an author/filmmaker's intent - as long as it makes sense to themselves and they stand by how they feel.


Seriously though, when it comes to film, IMHO what matters is authors intent. You can speculate and come up with your own meanings all you want, but there's no way to make something valid if it's not what the people making the movie intended.

Mike, I've said this to you a thousand times. Let see if it sticks...

Intentional fallacy - (in literary criticism) an assertion that the intended meaning of the author is not the only or most important meaning; a fallacy involving an assessment of a literary work based on the author's intended meaning rather than on actual response to the work.

If I'm analyzing a film, I do not CARE about what the authors think. Their opinion is not relevant to my viewing of the film.

I will use this example again:

Frank Miller claims that Batman and the Joker are a homoerotic nightmare and that the two are ultimately gay for each other. And if Batman would come out of the closet, he would be fine. Now, let's look at the fight between the Joker and Batman in The Dark Knight Returns. Batman is stabbed by the Joker, and the knife is presented as a phallic image. This is blatantly obvious in the frame after Batman is stabbed (or right before, its been awhile since I've read it): the Joker's hand position puts the nice exactly at his crotch and it is obviously a penis. This, combined with Miller's statements, basically says that Batman and the Joker are gay. But, consider the rest of the novel. There is nothing else that hints at this. It is even contradicted by Batman and Catwoman sharing a passionate kiss...

So, is Frank Miller correct? Or is he wrong about his own text?

Now, excuse me. I am going to go and make our genre intellectually stimulating instead of sitting around, adhering to "facts" and letting it sit in a drooling stupor and rot in the corner.

[Cimmerian Dragon]

Which is the intent fallacy. You'd know this if you had any artistic training in film. Which is the funniest part about you being snooty, because you don't have the intellectual foundation to be so.

I think you could have worded that a little less harshly...But yes, I think you're absolutely correct regarding the intent fallacy.

Despite Irys probably being male, I still find his design to be a hermaphroditic nightmare (much like HIM). The high heels, phallic/vaginal protrusion at his waist, the breasts on his chest (or man-manly pecs), and the obviously phallic tentacles.

There is an interesting part of Irys that has been seemingly looked over. Many female creatures in mythology have the ability to suck a man's life force from him through various means (sex being one of them). I believe the fae had this characteristic, for example. Now, we have this male creatures that could be a hermaphrodite. And he sucks the life force from beings with these phallic tentacles. So, we still have this hermaphroditic image even in some of his powers...Did you go over this, Cimmerian Dragon or is this a new thing to through into this analysis?

No, I never specifically considered that. I'm not sure if I can actually see evidence of this line of thought in the film itself, though. That's not to say it couldn't have been in the filmmakers minds, just that I can't recall any element that I would be able to cite as evidence for it.

I will say that there is a lot of cultural precedent for demonic lovers of either sex to physically drain the bodies of their victims, however. So Iris may fulfill that role regardless of its gender-function in the narrative.

To say the romance aspect is totaly within the human cast is naive.

You say naive. I say realistic.

I swear, G3 is the Evangelion of the kaiju fandom. People consantly look for hidden meanings in it that aren't there.

Oh, no, the meanings are there. It doesn't matter if the creators intended on them being there or not. These are meanings that the viewers see. If there is substantial evidence provides by the viewer, then it is a viable meaning and analysis of the text. And there isn't just one meaning in a text, but a plethora of them. It's called multidimensional meanings.

I was primarily concerned with intentional subtexts within the film, but SS4G has pointed out a crucial idea here.

If we analyze a film based only upon authorial intent, then we're dependent upon their being aware and in total control of their goals for that work. That neglects a fundamental aspect of psychoanalytic literary criticism: the author may not have been aware of the significance of every symbol they placed into a piece of art. That doesn't mean that they included elements that carried inherent meaning for others simply because they were ignorant of those meanings. What I'm describing is the inclusion of elements that actually satisfied an authorial desire, but a wholly subconscious one.

Think of an author who was traumatized by "X" in childhood, and later in life writes a story which he believes has nothing to do with it. However, an objective reader sits down and reads it, and despite being entirely unaware of the author's psych history, still sees a subtext of "X" running through the story. Others see the same thing. Now, the author absolutely did not consciously intend this subtext to be present, and perhaps cannot even see it when it's pointed out to them...and yet it is there.

Of course, childhood trauma is an incredibly cliched way of explaining this. Something a little less dramatic might be archetypal theory. Here human beings, since they possess the same basic brain/instincts/etc, share a common psychological vocabulary. When many people, from disparate lands and cultures, look at object "Z", they form a fundamentally similar reaction to it. This is why we see a great deal of uniformity across various mythological systems, and see patterns like the "Hero's Journey" played out with remarkable consistency in the literature of otherwise wildly different cultures.

If this is true, certain images and ideas may trigger a similar, atavistic response in viewers. The artist may or may not have been aware that they were going to be touching on those deep-seated impressions, but they may very well have been unconsciously influenced by the very same notions that affected their audience when they were creating the work.


Well, now we're really a long way from where this thread started.
But boy, this is a lot more stimulating.

[Tyler]

There's still that weird fetus thing floating behind Ayana before Gamera pulls her out. What was that supposed to be or am I just seeing an organ?

[Cimmerian Dragon]

There's still that weird fetus thing floating behind Ayana before Gamera pulls her out. What was that supposed to be or am I just seeing an organ?

I don't think we know what that is, or if it is anything of significance.

However, since we've discussed at length the fact that Ayana is curled in the fetal position while being held within the abdomen of Iris, it seems obvious that the womb metaphor was intentional. I suppose a coincidence is always possible, but I can't believe Kaneko could just "accidentally" fill the scene with that level of loaded symbolism.

That would be akin to Boris Sagal filming the scene of The Omega Man where Neville dies with outstretched arms after being stabbed in the side with a spear (and after saving humanity with his literal blood), and then saying that the messianic and crucifixion symbolism was unintentional.

Edit: Because I know know what Tyler was talking about.

[g2kmaster]

There's still that weird fetus thing floating behind Ayana before Gamera pulls her out. What was that supposed to be or am I just seeing an organ?

I personally didn't see anything that looked like a fetus behind Ayana. I did see something akin to an eyeball, therefore, just an organ. Hell, it even looked like it blinked.



You can see in the bottom half that the eyelids of the thing is closing. Maybe Irys has a third eye within itself? To keep watch of what it's DNA Snatcher (That's what that attribute of Irys' is called within books on the film in Japan) has inside of it.

I don't think it would be a separate organism within Irys though.

[Tyler]

Whatever it is I find it distracting everytime I see that scene.

[Cimmerian Dragon]

If you were talking about the big orb, then I agree with g2kmaster that it really doesn't look like one.

Ayana plays that role in the composition herself.

[g2kmaster]

I'm just going to say, other than the fact that the fight has a great pattern to it(sky battle, rest for eye of storm to pass, fight on land, rest a bit inside the JR building, fight to the death), striking visuals of such, has maybe for the first time two monsters fighting INSIDE of a building, the analysis offered in this thread gives significance to almost every action both kaiju make. It's not just fighting to the death or to a defeat. It's more.

[Tyler]

Here's some rather penisy Iris concept art
http://www.angelfire.com/film/guardian_ ... ideas2.jpg

[Cimmerian Dragon]

Thwarted by Angelfire again...I see NOTHING!

[HayesAJones]

Tyler, if your penis looks like the words "Angelfire", you need to see someone about that.

[Terrier]

I prefer to see Iris as a female, even if just because the two previous antagonists (Super Gyaos and Legion) were female. However, I admit that something could be said about Iris being male.

We have that the Gyaos are all female and hermaphrodite. A parallel could be made with a real life species of lizard I don't know the name, wich consist solely of females whose decendants are pretty much "clones" of their mothers. That could be what the Gyaos do, they grow in numbers, but there is not a diverse crossing over, there is no evolution. If Iris is male, and what-you-gonna-do, its tentacles are intended to give the idea of impregnation, then the idea that "he" is supposed to bring the evolution to the Gyaos seems fitting. Of course, even if the idea is there, the way Iris and the Gyaos work wouldn't necesary be that direct and "graphic", though now I wonder if all those Gyaos at the end were originally heading to that place expecting Iris to impregnate them. I also wonder if, as someone suggested, Iris was taking Ayane's genes for itself... who knows what could have happened.