Full Metal Alchemist: Van Hoenheim Couldn't be a Woman, and Here's Why

Well, maybe he could be, but it would be very hard and could even come off as awkward.  Why is this the case though?  I'm going to talk all about this below.  Also, I'm not writing this to be controversial, but to offer an analysis of Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood (2009-2010) from my own point of view.  Enjoy!

So, if you've never seen Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, I highly recommend doing so asap.  It's a very well-thought-out show that is based in a lot of principles of Western and Eastern philosophies.  The two main characters, Edward and Alphonse, like many others in the world they live in, practice alchemy.  Throughout the series, the two boys search for ways to get their bodies back after sacrificing themselves with alchemy to try to bring their deceased mother back from the grave.  You'll find in the first few episodes of the series that the boys failed in their attempt to bring their mother back, resulting in Edward losing an arm and a leg and Alphonse losing his entire body; at that point, Alphonse is forced to cling on to life by way of having his soul alchemically bonded to a suit of armor.  It might sound a little hard to follow on the outset, but if you give it a chance, I guarantee you'll quickly see that the show is a masterpiece.

On to my point about the show.  So, the father of Ed and Alphonse Elric, Van Hohenheim, is a mysterious man who leaves his family behind to try and resolve a problem he believes is mostly his fault.  And this problem is no small potatoes--it could cause the imminent demise of the entire world.  As a result of this important obligation, Van Hohenheim is not there for his family, even when they need him most, because the world needs him to fix the issue he contributed to.  This is a complex moral dilemma that causes some emotional damage for Van Hohenheim's children that made them feel abandoned.  And, in all reality, they were. You have to ask yourself though: what would you have done if you were Hohenheim?  Save the world, or be there for your family?  Either way, you would be shirking one responsibility or the other, but obviously his family falls under the "saving the world" category as well.  

"Wanderer Above the Sea of Fog," by Caspar David Friedrich

What's my point? Well, I was pondering the show after watching it a second time through, and I tried to see if all of the characters would work gender bent just for fun. Oddly enough, I discovered that Van Hoenheim, as executed, could not be a woman, while the other characters could be switched just fine.  Why?  I wasn't sure about it at first, but now I think I have an idea.  First of all, Hoenheim's character was a wanderer, which women usually are not portrayed as. I mean, think about the most famous wanderer types you know of: Captain Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Caribbean, Aragorn from Lord of the Rings, and that famous painting, "Wanderer Above the Sea of Fog."  In sum, I discovered that women are seldom ever in the role of the wanderer.  Coincidentally, I took a class this past semester on diasporas in which I learned that men have historically moved about more often, while women only move to go from one permanent dwelling to the next.  I.e. if a woman moves, it is not to explore opportunities or horizons, but to buckle down and take care of her estate.  Interesting, right?  This is wonderfully changing as time moves on, but is how things have been for quite some time.

In the case of Van Hoenheim, I try to imagine Ed and Alphonse's mom changing places with him, and it seems unusual.  Why?  It's hardly been done.  Both in art an in real life.  Also, I honestly think that a woman would bring her family with her, rather than leave them behind.  That said, changing the gender of the wanderer type to female once in a while with the intent to alter the current culture surrounding art could be super interesting.  Think about it: moms going out to save the world finally, while dads hold the fort (sort of like the new Incredibles movie, but to an even greater extent).  This could be a real opportunity for art to take up moving forward, but there would have to be a few conditions. One would have to be that the woman is strong enough to hold her own--no male travel companions. It is essential that the wanderer, no matter the gender, travel long distances alone.  This is not something women do very often in TV or movies.  Generally, what I'd love to see moving forward is more women on the move with an agenda of their own, rather than following someone else's rules and decisions. 

Well, I hope you've enjoyed this article! Let us know what you think in the comments below. Do you think Hohenheim could be a lady? Let us know below and explain why you think so. 

--Corey Cherrington

Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind: The First Ghibli Masterpiece

If you're looking for a Sci-Fi adventure film and if you love the Studio Ghibli-verse,* you're in the right place. Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind  (1984) is a spectacular Ghibli feature that is set in a post-apocalyptic, dystopian universe and is sure to tickle your fancy.  Not to mention it's pretty freaking cute...  I'll talk more about that later. ;)

So, the film starts out focusing on a young, red-headed girl named Nausicaä, who is the princess of the Valley of the Wind.  We're first introduced to her as she is scavenging in the wilderness equipped with her breathing mask. She demonstrates a childlike fascination with the world that gets the audience to fall in love with the post-apocalyptic wasteland she lives in.

As we get to know Nausicaä, we find that she is not only noble by birth, but that she has a noble heart. That is to say, she has a bigger heart than most others in her world, herself uniquely offering love to some of the uglier, more vicious creatures surrounding her. In fact, it is this type of love and acceptance that saves her by the end of the film. To put it into simpler terms, Nausicaä is kind of like that stereotypical little kid who will take all the needy plants and animals home to give a helping hand. You know, sort of like an Eliza Thornberry type. Very cute, and actually good characterization overall of Nausicaä as a person.

The overall message built into the film is that humans desperately need to take better care of nature.  This is pretty common for Ghibli films, Pom Poko and Princess Mononoke standing as just two examples of other environmentally friendly Ghibli films.  That said, I love how Studio Ghibli tied the environmentalist concerns of the film to the fundamental, universal principle that we need to appreciate and love life in all its forms. And when we extend our love and appreciation of life to other beings, we shouldn't judge on appearance. I know this is incredibly sappy of me, but I LOVED this aspect of the film, mainly because I think this is a life lesson that too many humans can't even begin to get a clue about.  So, in sum, I'd say that the moral and ethical dilemmas dealt with in the movie leave the viewer with a net positive impact; this being the case even though environmentalist messages can generally get real old real fast, especially if done poorly.  Not the case here though!

At least for the most part.  While it was mostly great, some points in the movie felt like overkill, as the bad guys who were essentially against nature did not seem to have any good in them whatsoever.  Disagree if you like, but I thought that the characters' sides were written in black and white.  If they were against nature, they were bad, and if they were friends of nature, they were good.  Not really room for an in between.  Also, I don't really follow the bad guys' logic in picking a fight with the giant, dangerous creatures that stampede and kill people.  Not to mention their desire to resurrect the gargantuan creatures that destroyed everything in the first place, simply for the sake of expanding their kingdom.  I don't get it... Especially since everyone seems to be struggling to survive at all.  Ain't nobody got time for a territorial war in this kind of world;  at least, if we're trying to be realistic here.

On a different note, the music was fabulous, in my opinion.  It wasn't AMAZING, but it was good.  Probably my favorite melody from the film was Nausicaä's tune that she sang to the ohms--it was a great embodiment of an innocent childhood friendship (listen to the melody below).  Very cute.  Also, because this is a Ghibli film (made by the Ghibli people before the studio was technically created), the fact that the animation was great is pretty much a given.  The landscapes in particular were really cool because they captured pretty well what I would imagine a post-apocalyptic world to look like.  I especially like the opening scene, when Nausicaä takes a deceased ohm's eye home because it looks like a really interesting half crystal ball.  The pollutants (spores) looked like snow in the sky and on the ground, which I thought was an intriguing set-up.  Really great imagining of what a post-apocalyptic world would look like.

As for the story itself, I'd say it's pretty simple, but I think this movie is more about the art speaking for itself than the story being complex.  In fact, I think the purpose of this film is more to inspire introspection on the topic of the human impact on the environment than to entertain.  I like this about the film though because, due to the fact that the movie lets you breathe and allows you time to think about what is taking place, the message comes out in a clear, yet not annoying way. **American films about the environment, PLEASE take note!**

All in all, despite some of the flaws in this movie, it was a work of art.  And not only is it enjoyable to watch, but it leaves you thinking about some critical life lessons.  I'd give it an 8/10 because it is a great movie, but some things could be slightly better or more interesting.  I do also have to point out that this film was made in the 80s, but it could more than compete with all of the cartoons coming out today. Crazy how, if a film is done right, it doesn't matter when it was made--it's the work that was put into it that matters.  Miyazaki is a genius though, so this is not surprising.

That's all for now!  Did we miss anything? Completely disagree with our assessment?  Love everything we said?  Leave your comment below to tell us what you think.

--Corey C.

*For those of you who don't know what Studio Ghibli is, you should know!  They're an amazing animation studio that has come out with some of the best animated features of our time, and I'm not just saying that.  They have proven themselves time and time again with films like Kiki's Delivery Service, My Neighbor Totoro, Spirited Away, and others.

Alice: Go Through the Looking Glass... and Stay There

I recently watched the new film, Alice Through the Looking Glass with friend of mine, and I thought I'd share some of our insights with you guys.  I mean, near everybody has been talking about this film for a long while now, and probably not everybody has seen it yet, so why not help you guys find out if it's actually worth a watch?

This is a great film!  Disney used his own
sense of creativity, while maintaining a tone
similar to Carrol's books.

Going into the film, I knew it would not be like the Lewis Carroll book, nor would it compare to Disney's 1951 version of Alice's story, which was actually a combination of two of Carroll's tales--Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. Personally, I've read Carroll's Wonderland, and after so doing, knew I'd be greatly disappointed by anything that did not properly represent the mystery and intrigue of Carroll's magical land of wonder.  I'll be completely open here: the book just contained so many memorable, silly and absurd poems and jokes that I loved, and is honestly one of the best books I've ever read.  This may make me a bit biased towards the book, though I still appreciate any attempts to recreate the magical world Carroll invented for Alice in Wonderland, as you can't go completely wrong with such well-thought out absurdism.  :)  The fact that I like and appreciate Disney's 1950s version of the story is living proof of my willingness to accept other interpretations of the stories Carroll told.  Then, there is Burton's new version of Through the Looking Glass though...  And I can safely say that it was not because of my biased for the book that I was not a fan of the new film...

In general, the new Tim Burton films about Alice's world really intrigue me because they were clearly filmed under Burton's personal creative license, without a lot of consideration for the integrity of Carroll's original storyline.  In effect, the films separated so much fundamentally from the original books that they seemed like a mere fan fiction that used only some elements of the story, but took advantage of nearly all the characters.  This sort of made the new films a different dimension of their own, or a sort of warped version of Carroll's books.  I don't necessarily think this would offend Carroll, but it does disrupt a lot of the English-ness and the artistry of Carrol's stories, making them more generic Hollywood and completely compliant with American film standards.  

Illustration from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll

*SPOILER ALERT!*

If you pay close attention to the premise of Alice Throgh the Looking Glass, you will notice that, rather than having its base in the original book, it chooses its own storyline completely.  In fact, basically the only similarities are the title and the concept of the looking glass.  Okay, normally, I'm not a very intense critic, but I feel this movie merits a great deal of criticism for its need to borrow Carroll's characters and conveniently ditch his story.  This is actually pretty sad because Carroll, I believe, is one of the most talented story tellers in the history of the English language. Even so, I gave Tim Burton's version of Through the Looking Glass a chance to prove itself as a story equal in greatness to Carroll's.  Unfortunately though, the movie just did not have a great storyline; it was cheesy overall and extremely typical of Hollywood storytelling.  That is, it was predictable and so generic that it fell flat.

Interesting that Hatter was the center of so much of the film...  
Burton really went crazy with this one, didn't he?

I'll explain myself a little more here.  You see, the beginning of the film was an unrealistic portrayal of Alice as a ship's captain in the mid-late 1800s, which is not a probable circumstance of that time period. As much as I wish women could have done more to lead things like ships and cities in the 1800s, it was unfortunately and undeniably a man's world. Occasionally, I can live with anachronisms if they're done tactfully and/or they are self-aware, but this was so clearly an unrealistic plug for feminism it was embarrassing to watch... Don't get me wrong, I love me some feminism. However, if you want to have a strong female lead, don't force it, just allow her to be strong in her circumstances and rise above them on her own.  I want to see how women overcame actual cases of oppression in the 1800s if you want to show anything about 1800s feminism!  I know for a fact that many women of the 1800s proved to be strong enough to rise above at least some societal limitations, so why not portray something of that nature instead?  I wasn't quite sure what to make of that part of the film.

I haven't seen this film yet, but I hear from many
sources that it is also an example of Hollywood's 
tendency toward Trend Feminism in film.

In the same breath, the whole ship's captain thing was not even in Carroll's Through the Looking Glass. So, did it even need to be there at all?  Granted, it could possibly be in one of the other short stories Carroll wrote, but why abandon the original story line soooo much that it isn't even Through the Looking Glass any more?  With that, by adding that part, the Burton film played in to what I call "Trend Feminism," which is becoming more and more prominent in films (especially by Disney) today.

What Trend Feminism in Hollywood does is it repeatedly tells us "Look, she is a strong female character! We are feminists and therefore cool!" A disastrous outcome of Trend Feminism is that it does all this without actually allowing the character to excel on her own. Apparently, Hollywood assumes that audiences have become so passive in intellect that we need to be told something rather than shown.  This should not be the case though.  The story should allow the audience to think on their own and draw their own conclusions; it should also give the female lead the opportunity to be a strong woman by her own right and merit.  I mean, every woman has the power to do so! Long story short: I as a feminist see the feminism in the film as trivialized Trend Feminism that was only that--part of a current trend.  

Then, there is the overall story of the film, which I thought was very poorly written.  You see, all it does is scramble itself to pieces while Alice runs from place to place and is often told, "Alice, you are the only one who can save us!"  Seems way too coincidental to me.  Then, there are those two words: "only" and "save."  Is Alice really the only  person who can save the "Underlandians?" Or do they say "only" to make Alice as convenient to the plot as possible?  On that same thread, there were far too many conveniences surrounding Alice for the story to have seemed plausible at all.  Or entertaining for that matter.  The word "save" is also significant because it marks the numerous clichés that build the movie's plot.  I'll talk more about this in a moment.

Illustration from Carroll's Through the Looking Glass

Burton and crew, as artists with creative access to some of the best English literature of the 1800s, could have created a film that was thought-provoking, wonderful, and captivating all at the same time.  That was not the case for this movie though... What had actually happened was Burton unfortunately leaned on Hollywood's crutches of, "Let's just create a hero that everyone must depend on.  Then, let's have them save the day and give the film a happy ending."  I've got two words for you: BOR-ING.  Is another version of "you're the only one that can save us!" particularly necessary or even enjoyable to watch?  In my opinion, this cliché caused the potential for wonder to be robbed from what Through the Looking Glass should have had as a film.  Why is that?  Well, because the movie fell into Hollywood's cookie cutter mold for a generic story.  So, I'd say I agree with the Guardian when they say that this film is deserving of only two stars at most.

Okay, I kiiiinda love this guy, no matter the version of Alice!
I think he raises the cool points of the movie at least a tiny bit.  ^_^

Sure, the film was kinda pretty, interesting to look at, and featured a star-studded cast. At the same time though, it contained pretty standard Computer Generated effects (and I'm getting that from my friend, who is a Computer Science major...) on top of all the other failures of the movie... Gah, so much potential just wasted...  For me, this just speaks further to the fact that, even where the film is somewhat good, it inevitably falls... well, flat.

To sum it up, I really really really wanted to like this film and have it be a staple in my diet of movies that I re-watch.  I mean, the books and the 1950s Disney film are sooo good that I wanted (and actually almost expected) this film to join those works in my own personal "Hall of Fame." After seeing it for myself though, I decided that it was acceptable to see once, but I don't plan on watching it again any time soon.  So what is my recommendation for you? I'd recommend watching the movie once in the cheapest way accessible to you, just for the experience. Who knows, perhaps you will like it better than I did? But, to me, it simply does not have longevity when it comes to great films I want to watch again.  And it certainly was not thought-provoking enough to generate future interest for me as a viewer.

Thanks for reading, Pragmus fans!  Keep rocking our socks and please subscribe to the blog!

Corey Cherrington

(Pragmus Sigma)

Blog and Social Media Administrator

P.S. Here is another good review!  

<<Did you see Burton's version of Through the Looking Glass? Let us know what you thought!  Feel free to leave your comments below.>>