So what this analysis is all about?
It's self-explanatory. Hellsing, Ultimate or no Ultimate, is something no sane parent would want to show his/her kids. In a world where the morally insane outnumber the morally sane, however, Hellsing serves as an effective thinking tool (or maybe not depending on how much of a barking mad person you are). Even more so in a nation where being more moralistic can easily be confused for being actually moralistic. From NTU to the local version of Kill Bill, 'tis only natural for Alexander Anderson's knives to be outed in full force.
Before John continues risking his furry neck, allow him to post a warning:
As mentioned just now, Hellsing, Ultimate or no Ultimate, is something NO sane parent would want to show his/her kids. You DON'T teach innocent children the cruelties of reality by displaying scenes of gore, violence, and guts spilt here and there. You DON'T teach impressionable tweens and teens the birds and bees by showing them what is necrophilia. Xiaxue's A-bomb might be somewhat (?) safe for a certain age group, but Hellsing is for the mature while the Ultimate version is definitely for the mature and wise. Seriously, it's like comparing the atomic bombing of Nagasaki (i.e. Xiaxue's A-bomb) with that of Hiroshima (i.e. Hirano Kouta's Hellsing). Both are devastating in their own rights, but John won't be surprised if one side's casualty count was actually higher due to the difference in population density. Not to mention the fact that no one will ever know the exact numbers.
What this analysis will cover
Firstly, John is not going to cover the whole plot. In fact, the only reason for John's knowledge was the series wiki found here. John did not watch the series, but that didn't prevent this typing/talking otter from... well, typing/talking. Secondly, this post will only cover the topic of monsters and the reality of contradiction which may have escaped some/most of the viewers. Thirdly... well, maybe John will add more things. Or maybe not.
Definition of Hellsing
Hellsing is a very special word. Originally known as Helsing, the Abraham van Helsing in the series was never a Jackman Helsing. Instead, Hirano Jigokuta made this Helsing into... well, a jacked up Helsing. This Abraham van Helsing was neither a courageous man in black nor a righteous man in white. He's a man in grey. Seeing his wife as no different from a dead wife due to her insanity caused by grief? Check. Most likely becoming a hero just because he owed John Seward (definitely not this John here) a debt? You bet. Refusing to kill Dracula? This was proof of Abraham van Helsing being neither a courageous man in black nor a righteous man in white, but rather a jacked up Helsing in grey.
The second part shouldn't be seen as a decisive factor behind how Jigokuta reimagined an otherwise noble and intelligent vampire-hunting professor. But the first and third factors definitely told us something. And that is Abraham van Helsing was no honest Abraham.
Considering the climatic fight between Alucard and Alexander Anderson, one can interpret the Anglicized version of Helsing to be this: A song sung from the depths of hell.
Now there is a difference between the above definition and a song coming from hell. Below two videos represent a song coming from hell.
This video below, however, is the real definition of a song sung from the depths of hell.
A song from the depths of hell
Sung by a lord and king
Wallachia mourned for its dead
Man, woman, and child for the Turks
He was a slave to the sword
His servitude to the iron pikes
The fire of wrath knew no bounds
Righteous hatred understood no end
Foes and vassals were the same
Souls consumed and doomed to fade
Wallachia still mourns for its dead
All the king's horses and his men
Enemies and common folk march alike
Heeding the devil's call to fight
~By Kuok Minghui
Note: Every poem here is done by this typing/talking/writing French otter. Please do not steal even though John L'Otter is too piss poor to afford a lawyer beyond the pro-bono option. M.Ravi, maybe?
Where the monsters hailed from
Whence do monsters hail?
Are they the figment of our greatest fear?
Are they the children of our inner hate?
Or mayhap they are truly our very selves?
~By Kuok Minghui
Vampires. Not the ones you read in Twilight. Let's cut the chase here, shall we? In the history of mankind, perhaps no one invoked memories of vampiric monsters like two individuals. One was a woman and a lady, the other a man and a lord.
The former was more vampiric than the latter, her name was Elizabeth Báthory.
No, not this Elizabeth. Also, the royal granny is never her... well, partying granddaughter?
Serial killer? Check. Slaughtered innocent girls just to bath in their blood? You bet. All in the name of eternal youth and beauty everlasting? Scary thought... but yeah.
The second one was none other than Vlad III. Also known as Vlad the Impaler, it must be stated that this Slavic dictator wasn't responsible for 377A. The title Impaler wasn't an indication of his sexuality, but rather his favourite way of execution. In fact, his brutality level was so damn high, the Ottoman Turks had to deal with their very own PTSD.
Alucard releasing his 0 proved one thing: He was truly a monster befitting of the name Dracula. No one like him could ever be called human. Then again, many are those we see as monsters. It's worthy to note that the enemies were separated into two categories: The German Nazis and those like Enrico Maxwell. It's utterly hypocritical for Maxwell to see Alucard as an abomination for three reasons.
1. By calling Alucard a monster, he ignored the fact that he himself was a power hungry monster.
2. By calling Alucard the devil, he ignored the fact that he was also a devil in his own right.
3. By calling Alucard Dracula, he ignored the fact that he was also a son of the devil by helping the Germans.
Edit on point 3: Maxwell wasn't helping the Germans per se, but he was indeed being a son of the devil named the Major.
Edit on point 3: Maxwell wasn't helping the Germans per se, but he was indeed being a son of the devil named the Major.
So why did Enrico Maxwell call Alucard a monster, the devil, and Dracula? Because he saw how far the cruelty of Vlad III had gotten. And it's real, trust John. It's very easy for us to judge Enrico Maxwell just like how easy it was for him to call Alucard... well, Dracula. Granted, we should never call what is wrong right. Wrong is wrong even if everyone else called it right. But what do we see when we decided to look deep and hard inside ourselves? Do we see a shining paragon of justice? Do we see a struggler trying to do and say what is right despite our constant failures? Or do we see a Dracula in the same way Enrico Maxwell was guilty of sacrificing innocent lives for the sake of personal gain? (Note: See the hypocrisy here concerning his reaction towards Alucard's treatment of his own subjects and foes alike?)
Add Note: Apparently, Elizabeth Báthory was a Slav as well. #WhyAlwaysSlavs
Add Note: Apparently, Elizabeth Báthory was a Slav as well. #WhyAlwaysSlavs
Christianity+Agnosticism=A reality of contradiction
You may one day ask: What would Christianity be without Christ? A Christian without Christ is called Ian. Ian is the name of a guy, this logic can be extended to the whole of humanity as well. This is NOT an attack on any nation or any culture. It is the cold hard truth when it comes to human nature. If the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew was able to tell the cold hard truth, so can this... well, person here.
The world of Hellsing is what happens when Christless Christianity reaches its greatest height. In name, the world of Hellsing was one of Christianity plus the supernatural. Protestants+Roman Catholics+occult=blasphemy, right? If that's what you see, then allow John to tell you the cold hard truth: It's NOT just that.
Hidden under the radar was the fact that God was never seen in this series. Not. Even. Bloody. Once. You know what that looks like? Christianity+Agnosticism. Agnosticism, in a nutshell, is the belief that...
1. God is real, just that we don't know which side He's on.
2. God is real, just that we can never reach Him.
3. God is real, just that we're most likely screwed anyway. That has to be the most depressing part if you're to ask John.
Of course, this is an oversimplification of things. John L'Otter is no John Calvin, so you'll have to ask someone else if you want to know more. Either that or Google is your BFF.
So why did John mention theology here?
God and Monsters
"Only a human can destroy a monster. Only a human could dare hope to."
Why did Alucard speak one of the baddest quotes thus far during his final duel against Alexander Anderson? It's evident that Alexander Anderson became a monster to defeat a monster. Before we try finding the answer to this question, let's get one thing clear: Alexander Anderson became a monster due to his faith.
Instead of a show of hypocrisy, Alexander Anderson's insane show of faith further proved how much of a contradiction the world of Hellsing truly was. In a world where Christianity was nothing more than a facade for actual Agnosticism, Alexander Anderson could be seen as the real hero. Yes, he's not the protagonist. Yet as one of the main antagonists (the other being the Major), he's the... well, only heroic figure. His role in the plot was nothing less than a contradiction, for the most notable "villain" was, in fact, the most notable hero.
As for Alucard, the most notable "hero" turned out to be more of a villain. Actually, he's truly one himself. Therein we can see the genius of Jigokuta. At the hands of any Hollywood scriptwriter, Alucard would have been relegated to the standard evil doing monster we're used to seeing. At the hands of Jigokuta, Alucard was truly worth every 0.1 of Hellsing Ultimate's 8.3/10 IMDb score compared to Thor: Ragnarok's 7.9/10 and Wonder Woman's 7.5/10. This is NOT to say Thor Odinson and Diana Prince sucked as heroic figures. Far from it. But compare them with Alucard and you should see the difference in depth. Leave power level in the purgatory, let character depth shine first in the heaven above.
The battle between the two monsters of God wasn't as simple as a fight unto the death. On the first glance, Alucard was the winner. But Anderson's final words indicated he himself was the true winner. In a world where God was nowhere to be seen and only there to be believed, Alucard became a monster. Before he became the monster we're so familiar with, he was already a monster of God. His brutal methods and deplorable means were waged in the name of God. Everyone is seeking a reason for his/her own actions, self-justification is always our favourite pastime. For Alucard, God became the reason and self-justification. He slaughtered countless lives in the name of God, he committed atrocities in the name of his God. Prayers of faith and mercy were nonsense to him, actions of righteous hatred were the only way to heaven. Not only did this signal Alucard's downward spiral into hell, but this was also the perfect evidence proving him to be a monster of God. On the first glance, Alucard denouncing God was due to circumstances involving his descent into the state of monstrosity. In reality, he was already a bloody monster before he realised it. Effectively, Alucard was a victim of a world ruled by Christianity, yet defined by the throne of Agnosticism. At the same time, it must be stated that his decisions were of his own and no one else. When Alucard was still a human Vlad III, he had no choice but to resort to extreme tactics. Why was he so adamant that God would never listen to prayers of faith and mercy? Because by doing so, his people would be doomed! The men would be slaughtered, the children enslaved, and the women raped. Vlad III had no choice but to be Vlad the Impaler. The desire to save his people became a life of deeds without the creed. And it's due to this way of living that Alucard cursed God for abandoning him. And here lies the interesting question of who abandoning who. Was God guilty of abandoning Alucard or was Alucard guilty of abandoning God? Only one answer is for certain: Damned either way.
Now let's look at Alexander Anderson. More than Alucard, this was a monster of his own making. Anderson opted for the best option. He had no hope of defeating this monster, so he decided to be a monster himself. A monster of God. The irony here couldn't be any more evident. Here we have a current monster of God fighting against a devil who used to be one himself! Alexander's status was the reason why Alucard became a monster while he was still a human Vlad III! There's no difference between Alexander Anderson of now and the Alucard of then. That's the mockery facing the two. Anderson must have sensed it, but Alucard definitely knew it. This was the reason for his anger. He hoped for Anderson to kill him. Anderson had the chance when he was still a human. Then he forfeited the right.
The moral high ground
Monsters have no moral high ground. This was Alucard's logic. Yes, they're N times more powerful than humans. A pragmatist would surely say it takes a monster to take down a monster. In a show of cruel humour, Alucard was an idealist. How can a human destroy a monster? How could a human dare hope to?
This is where we see another contradiction in the world of Hellsing. The first contradiction was the relationship between religion and Agnosticism. The second one referred to what Alucard said: "Only a human can destroy a monster. Only a human could dare hope to."
To him, a monster didn't deserve to live, its only right was to die. This was the price demanded by immortality, truly an irony it turned out to be. A monster killing a monster would just sustain, if not at least prolong the vicious cycle of conflict. For a human to kill a monster, however, there's hope for this cycle to be halted. Even if it's to be just a reprieve lasting less than a year, it's still better than nothing. But for this to happen, the human being in question must never feed his/her dignity to the merciless world. Monsters became monsters because they couldn't handle any longer the wounds bleeding inside them. Or at least that's Alucard for ya. Yet, if humans refused to give up their dignity, how could they hope to defeat the monsters? When you think about it, the world of Hellsing was actually one of despair and not one of hope. Alucard's wish was merely an extension of the tragedy defining his descent into hell.
404: Winner not found(?)
Again, we see another irony. It seemed that Jigokuta enjoyed torturing us with ironies and contradictions in the name of despair. There's a German word for it: Schadenfreude. Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung would have been impressed if they're still alive like Alucard and... Alucard?
Anyway, did Anderson truly lose the fight? If we're talking about killing Alucard, his failure proved himself to be the loser. But observe carefully his dialogue with Alucard, his famous last words to a foe he's unable to defeat: "Demons do not cry. You became a demon, because you couldn't cry anymore right? Humans cry and when their tears finally run dry, there's nothing left, but a demon or a monster and one final prayer for death. So, laugh demon. Laugh that arrogant laugh of yours and remember I beat you to it."
Beat Alucard to what? To the grave? Perhaps death was merely secondary. Anderson became a monster in form, but he never lost his dignity as a human being. The definition of his own dignity lies in his unshakeable faith. So by translating his dignity into action, did that make Anderson more of a monster or more of a human?
On the first glance, the above question made no sense. After all, Alucard did the same thing, right? Wrong. Alucard's dignity was never about his nation, people, and family. Rather, these things existed for his dignity. They were the reason for his dignity, not his dignity per se. As for Anderson, he harboured a hope. This hope was the reason why his faith was his dignity and not just the reason for it. His deeds made him no different from Vlad, but the difference lies in hope. Vlad hoped for the deliverance of his nation, people, and family. That's why he became the monster known as the No-Life King, a bitter accuser against God. For Anderson, deliverance was about himself. Nothing more because he's only a human, nothing less because that's the true face of his dignity. And therein we see another irony: Had Anderson won the fight, he'd truly become the new Alucard instead. Anderson had every reason to say Amen first, for he won the war by losing the battle. Alucard won the battle but lost the war, that's why he could only answer Amen to Anderson's final moment.
So did Anderson go to heaven? It's very hard to say. The vision he saw could easily be the truth of his inner world, the inner world of an upright man whose life as a priest would have turned out differently had reality be not so... well, Agnostic.
As for Alucard, he became a winner by his own right as well. The ending revealed a clean break from his damning past. By only retaining Schrödinger, whether it's due to self-will, the inability to do so, or both, Alucard managed to retrieve that one thing he craved the most: Not deliverance but the very dignity he believed to have lost after abandoning his humanity.
Before John ends this epic post, here's another song truly sung by hell itself.
Paradise found and lost
Where will our prayers go?
Jerusalem in sight and far
When shall we see our God?
Blood, death, and screams
Why do we cry?
Faith, mercy, and a curse
Must we be monsters?
Eternity and an arrogant laugh
Where is the hell our souls shall go?
On the first glance, the above question made no sense. After all, Alucard did the same thing, right? Wrong. Alucard's dignity was never about his nation, people, and family. Rather, these things existed for his dignity. They were the reason for his dignity, not his dignity per se. As for Anderson, he harboured a hope. This hope was the reason why his faith was his dignity and not just the reason for it. His deeds made him no different from Vlad, but the difference lies in hope. Vlad hoped for the deliverance of his nation, people, and family. That's why he became the monster known as the No-Life King, a bitter accuser against God. For Anderson, deliverance was about himself. Nothing more because he's only a human, nothing less because that's the true face of his dignity. And therein we see another irony: Had Anderson won the fight, he'd truly become the new Alucard instead. Anderson had every reason to say Amen first, for he won the war by losing the battle. Alucard won the battle but lost the war, that's why he could only answer Amen to Anderson's final moment.
So did Anderson go to heaven? It's very hard to say. The vision he saw could easily be the truth of his inner world, the inner world of an upright man whose life as a priest would have turned out differently had reality be not so... well, Agnostic.
As for Alucard, he became a winner by his own right as well. The ending revealed a clean break from his damning past. By only retaining Schrödinger, whether it's due to self-will, the inability to do so, or both, Alucard managed to retrieve that one thing he craved the most: Not deliverance but the very dignity he believed to have lost after abandoning his humanity.
Before John ends this epic post, here's another song truly sung by hell itself.
Paradise found and lost
Where will our prayers go?
Jerusalem in sight and far
When shall we see our God?
Blood, death, and screams
Why do we cry?
Faith, mercy, and a curse
Must we be monsters?
Eternity and an arrogant laugh
Where is the hell our souls shall go?
~Kuok Minghui
No comments:
Post a Comment