Some Thoughts from Tristan MacAvery
Although I’ve provided voices for several dozen films from A.
D. Vision, the role for which I’m best known, and the role that has made
me most popular with fans, is unquestionably that of Gendo Ikari in “Neon
Genesis Evangelion.” It may be due to the popularity of the series,
or to the character of Gendo himself, or my portrayal of him, or perhaps
all three—but most of the people I’ve met at conventions or by fan mail
have said that it was Gendo that got them interested in contacting me.
I’m asked many questions about Gendo and my portrayal of him.
Did I consider him an interesting character? How did I make him sound
so wicked? How do I feel about being hated (and I assume they’re
speaking of their revulsion toward Gendo)? And above all of these:
How could you possibly play someone who is so evil?
It’s to this question of evil that I find myself commenting most
often. Gendo, the evil father. Gendo, the master manipulator.
Gendo, the cruel dictator. Gendo, the trickster. Gendo, the
man you really wouldn’t want to be stranded on a desert island with, if
for no other reason than the fact that he’d never speak to you—just stare
at you over the bridge of his intertwined, gloved hands.
THE FIRST CLUES
Let me start by telling you what I learned of Gendo, and how
I learned it. I began the role in the fall of 1996, and it was only
the third or fourth film that I had done for ADV. Matt Greenfield,
who directed me in “Suikoden: Demon Century” and “Super Atragon,” thought
that I would do well as the enigmatic Gendo, and he offered me the role.
I appeared in the studio, like the lamb to slaughter, without any preparation
other than what Matt told me as we went along.
Revelation: I performed the role without ever having seen a single
second of any episode of the series. Depending on how well you think
I did in interpreting the character, this either makes me extremely intuitive
or a lazy ass who should never be allowed near a microphone again.
However, this is not an uncommon procedure for many voice actors,
including those at ADV. When going to an ad agency, to record a radio
commercial, I rarely have an advance look at the script; I read it over
several times right there in the corporate offices (usually, the kitchen!),
go into the studio, and run through it until the director gets the take(s)
that s/he wanted. In my case, with Matt, I did much the same thing.
So my first glimpses of Gendo were not only through Matt’s eyes, but also
through the first two episodes that I recorded.
I could spend a great deal of time on this part of the discussion—those
who know me are well aware that I’m a verbose little cuss—but this isn’t
the article for it. What’s relevant here is that my first clues to
Gendo being evil or not-evil came exclusively from the animated body language,
from the performance of the Japanese seiyuu, and from Matt’s script and
his description of the rest of the show. As the show developed, therefore,
my opinions of Gendo’s relative evil-ness changed from episode to episode.
At first he’s manipulative; at the first test of Rei’s Unit-00, he’s highly
emotional and impulsive; he’s almost affectionate toward Shinji once in
a while, then shuns him brutally at other times. Throughout the show,
my opinion of Gendo flowed with the telling of the story.
So where does that leave me?
Right back at the beginning.
DEFINITIONS AND DOGMA
The problem with determining if Gendo is “evil” begins and ends
with one question: What is evil?
It’s no good using the conundrum that “evil” is the opposite
of “good,” because neither is clearly defined. An immunization shot
is good for a child’s health, but the pain of the shot, the trauma of the
doctor’s office, the fear based in the child’s inability to understand
the reasons for this torture—these could be considered evil. Basic
military training is “good” in that it creates an efficient coordinated
effort among its parts, but it is “evil” in that it must destroy individuality
and independent thinking in order to do it. Euthanasia contains the
“good” of mercy to a terminally ill patient and the “evil” of taking a
life.
Go into the archives of Time magazine, and search out their Man
of the Year for 1936. Would it shock you to discover that it was
Adolph Hitler? When Hitler came to power, Germany was at its lowest
point; runaway inflation (a shirt cost a year’s wages, and one million
Marks were enough to buy you a single beer), corruption in the government,
a complete breakdown of civil order, and the rest of Europe treating the
Germans as if they had collective B. O. Hitler quite literally turned
a disheartened and disillusioned country into a trim, efficient, fiscally
sound, and socially responsible state. He did more “good,” in his
first years in office, than any other leader in any other country in this
century, perhaps in all recorded history.
When did this great benevolence become “evil”? Perhaps
when Hitler’s own paranoia began to overtake his good sense. Part
of his political foundation was to somehow prove that the Germans were
not merely the equal of any other citizenry of the world, but that they
were superior. Usurping and modifying Charles Darwin’s concept of
“survival of the fittest,” Hitler’s political machinery generated the idea
of the Master Race—and the rest is not merely history, but what we actually
think of when we hear the name of Adolph Hitler: The Holocaust, the concentration
camps, and the horrifying fanaticism of the Third Reich.
From this example, we might take another look at “good” versus
“evil,” and instead choose the words “order” versus “chaos.” Hitler
imposed order upon the country, and it was “good”—until the order became
so extreme and so limiting that it actually generated chaos and “evil.”
Like most things, from medications to paranoia, a little can be beneficial
or even help to keep you alive, but a lot will end up killing you.
FROM SANITY TO MADNESS AND BACK AGAIN
Let me offer one other concept of “evil” for you to consider.
Most people would agree that “sanity” is a “good” thing, and that “insanity”
or “madness” is not good, possibly even “evil.” A sane person probably
doesn’t walk around shooting people at random, given ordinary circumstances.
A sane person probably doesn’t stalk others, or abuse a spouse, or claim
that the King of Sweden is using the fillings in his teeth to broadcast
anti-Semitic vegetarian pizza recipes to Soupy Sales and Marvin Hamlisch.
So aside from not being very funny, sane people are considered “good.”
Would a sane, “good” person set another person on fire?
They did in the 17th century, all across Europe and Great Britain.
A woman accused of being a witch was burned at the stake by “good” people
who were trying to save her soul. In their eyes, not only was the
burning a “good” thing to do, but they felt that the witch was grateful
for this purification, so that her soul could be freed to go to Heaven.
Hundreds of women were burned in the feverish “witch trials” of the day.
(Contrary to popular belief, none were burned in this country; many were
drowned, stoned, or crushed, but no burnings. Apparently, we’re more
civilized here.)
It is clear that the definition of sanity depends heavily upon
the mores of contemporary society. Today, even the Religious Right
could have trouble burning a witch—but as little as 30 years ago, a group
of white-sheeted “good” people could lynch others for the color of their
skin. And in this year of 1998, several “good” people tortured and
killed a young man because of his sexual orientation, and thus far have
had little punishment for their actions—and little is expected.
Contrast this with someone who, although a fictional character,
has been called the greatest psychopath ever described: Dr. Hannibal “The
Cannibal” Lechter, of the novel and film The Silence of the Lambs.
This “insane” “evil” man killed and ate human beings, eviscerated victims
in his escape from prison, and was a skilled manipulator of other people’s
psyches. We watch, with mingled horror and fascination, as he quite
literally wore another man’s face, carved from his victim, in order to
be confused for that victim and rushed into an ambulance.
But is Lechter insane? I would argue the he has a kind
of super-sanity, a clarity of mind and purpose so sharp, so precise, that
the socially acceptable pretenses of custom, law, and religion present
no barriers to him. He is not “sane” by our definitions, because
we produce a common set of restrictions on our behaviors—we agree, by law
or custom or whatever, not to perform certain acts, like killing and eating
each other. But if sanity is order, and insanity is chaos, then Lechter
is by far the most sane person on the planet. Nothing could be more
chillingly exact than his views of reality. His mind is relentless,
unfettered, and uncompromising order. For him, our personal restrictions
and self-delusions must seem utterly mad.
THE FINAL VERDICT
In a nutshell: No, Gendo is not evil.
There is no question that Gendo is monomaniacal. He exists
solely for the purpose of destroying the Angels—for whatever ulterior motives
he may have. It might be for the implementation of Human Instrumentality;
it might be for the creation of “Adam” and a new race of humans; it might
be because of an ancient grudge or curse that was predicted in the Dead
Sea Scrolls. There are flirtations with the personality of Adolph
Hitler here—a possible Master Race, and the obvious similarity of being
“elected” (put in place by Gehern, then Selee) to save the world (the state)
with his own military force and his own method of “governing.” But
as we discovered with Hitler, there is no indication of madness or “evil”
in wanting to impose order onto chaos.
Likewise, we could compare Gendo to Dr. Lechter—demonstrating
a kind of super-sanity, a clarity of purpose that even those closest to
him cannot fully fathom. Gendo breaks many rules of society (the
way he treats Shinji is at the least abusive, and we still wonder just
what he did to Yui), and he breaks innumerable legal rules as well, but
every action is designed exclusively to fit his ultimate purpose.
His mind is clear, sharp, uncompromising; he will do anything, quite literally,
to defeat the Angels. We may yet discover that he has a plate of
Faber beans and a nice Chianti waiting for him at Terminal Dogma, as he
dines on some Angel’s liver.
Any measurement of Gendo as “evil” can only be based upon relative
comparisons—evil by the standards of society as we know it, or the law
as we interpret it, or religion as we receive it. Just as there is
no pure and independent definition of the term “evil,” there is no way
to condemn Gendo or his actions as “evil.” If the Angels really are
out to destroy the world—and if you’ll notice, the only thing they try
to destroy is NERV, not the world—then Gendo is saving us all. One
guy tried to do that with words, and a bunch of people nailed him to a
tree. If the planet is truly at war with an alien power, I think
I’d actually want Gendo to be in charge of the defense force; he’ll get
the job done, by God . . . or perhaps by Gendo.
We can’t even judge Gendo as “evil” because of his cruelty to
others. Remember, in his eyes, everything—every action, feeling,
thought—is subjugated by what might be called his Prime Directive.
Those of you who remember Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics might consider
that Gendo’s First Law is exclusively about destroying Angels. Any
and everything is second to that. If that is “evil,” then we must
consider any First Law suspect, for that which comes in second will be
severely affected by it.
CAVEAT LECTOR
For those of you who must insist that Gendo is evil, I would
ask you to consider something. Evil can only be determined by comparison
with something else. It is a duality, like hot and cold; if you plunge
you hand into ice water for 30 seconds, then take it out and hold it under
tap water at room temperature, the tap water will feel “hot.” Any
duality, such as good and evil, can only provide comparative measures—good
as opposed to evil by direct comparison of the actions.
Therefore, dear reader, I submit that you are comparing Gendo
to something or someone else, deeming Gendo to be evil in comparison to
that other thing or person. In this case, is it possible that your
own ego gets a boost by thinking that you’d never stoop to doing the “evil”
things that Gendo is doing? Or that you would find another way to
save the world, to be good to Shinji, and to preserve the human race?
If so, I must think that you are a stronger soul than I.
I played the voice of Gendo—a fictitious character in a fantasy world—and
found that I am no more sane, no more lawful, no more good than he.
I wandered down the philosophical road over which I have just escorted
you, and I find that I cannot condemn him. Make no mistake, I wouldn’t
care to live in Gendo’s definition of an orderly world; I’m too accustomed
to reveling in my own chaos, thank you very much. But I would not
see his attempt to impose his version of order upon the world as any more
evil than similar attempts made by the founding fathers of the United States,
or by Hitler, or Stalin, or Ghengis Kahn, or Jerry Falwell and Rev. Wildmon.
If Gendo teaches us about evil, it is not because he is inherently
evil. It is because he allows us to see that no one—no human, no
church, no government, no god—has the right to impose their version of
order upon us. It is not the order itself, but its definition and imposition
by another that is evil. My Native American ancestors spoke
of Walking in Beauty, in a balance between order and chaos. By accepting
all, and being ruled by none, one may be free to see what is good or evil
by that comparison—and then make the choices from the heart that make one’s
path beautiful.
Tristan MacAvery is a voice actor and writer/director for ADV Films
in Houston TX. He has appeared in over 40 animé features,
and has written and directed dubs of such shows as “Ushio & Tora” and
“Dark Warrior: First Strike.” He’s also an armchair philosopher who
is clearly too much in love with his own voice.
Contact him at:
Intangible Plastics
Tristan MacAvery
PO box 1167
Dayton TX 77535-1167
All opinions formulated in this article are based
on the TV series.
