Ask John: Does Anime Have to be Japanese?
|
Question:
I happened to catch an article on The Escapist that asserts that anime isn’t about where it came from, but [is] more of a “style.” I think anime is unique not just because of where it comes from but also because it is a business targeted at a native audience. That audience is almost never world-wide. Imitating the “style” or plot tropes isn’t enough, in my opinion. Do you have any specific thoughts about the article?
Answer:
I have no right to dictate what anyone else should believe, and individuals who choose to reduce anime to merely a visual design aesthetic may do so. However, my own considered opinion is that anime is not merely a “style,” nor can anime be easily replicated. Anime developed in Japan and is a unique expression of distinctly Japanese ideosyncratic ideology, philosophy, and artistic sensibility. In other words, exactly what makes “anime” distinctly and exclusively Japanese animation is the ideas that underlie anime, not its superficial visual appearance. Certainly narrative approaches such as drama and comedy are universally recognized, but the particular sense of exactly what is “dramatic” or what is “funny” varies from culture to culture and country to country.
Would any American animator or animation studio originate an idea for an animated series that revolved a governmental conspiracy to de-evolve the human race into a single amorphous living entity with a collective consciousness in order to permanently eliminate psychological alienation? Would any American animation studio think of creating an animated series founded on the philosophical question of whether man-made objects can have a soul or whether an artificial object with a human consciousness is human? Would any American animation studio conceive of an animated series based on two brothers who lose part or all of their physical bodies after using black magic to try to resurrect their dead mother? Would any American animators independently think of an animated series starring a boy who plays “onigokko” against an “oni” alien for the fate of the world and wins by exposing the alien girl’s breasts? Would any American studio ever conceive of an animated series starring high-school girls who are actually anthropomorphized assault rifles? Would any American animator ever envision creating a first-person perspective animated documentary about field testing a military bipedal tank in a civil-war ravaged Middle Eastern country? Would any American animation studio ever consider animating four elementary school girls who sit in a bedroom and tease each other for twelve episodes? Would any American animator consider producing a two-season long animated historical drama about the life of a Victorian era British maid? Japanese anime has told all of these stories and countless other narratives that would be inconceivable for American commercial, professional animation because Japanese anime is based in a fundimentally different mindset than American animation.
American animator Monty Oum’s upcoming original animated series RWBY ably proves that American animators are capable of emulating and being inspired by Japanese animation, but American animators can’t write Japanese stories because they don’t think the way native Japanese writers think, don’t have the same experiences and perspectives that Japanese writers do. Conversely, Japanese animators can’t create authentic “American” cartoons because they don’t have intuitive personal familiarity with American psychology. A critic may argue that mainstream Japanese society uses the term “anime” to refer to any animation. But mainstream people ignorant of the nuances of anime using the term as a generic catch-all doesn’t make their use of the term correct. If the word “anime” does indeed refer to any animation, then Scooby Doo, Looney Toons, Snoopy Come Home, He-Man and the Masters of the Universe, Toy Story, and Shrek are all anime. Obviously such a broad, generic definition of “anime” is useless and even count-productive in practical English discussion.
As The Escapist’s observer Chris O’Brien states, certainly, the influence of anime, “Now stretches far outside the confines of the tiny island country in the Pacific from which it originates.” But inspiration does not change an artist’s cultural perspective. An American writer, director, and film crew in Hollywood may be able to create a film very comparable to a native Bollywood or French or Iranian movie. But if a native Indian, French, or Iranian writer, director, and crew had made the same movie in India, France, or Iran, the resulting film would be noticably different from the American interpretation. American animators certainly can create animation inspired by anime and very similar to anime, but the very reason we use the distinct term “anime” instead of just lumping all Japanese animation into the same category as American cartoons is because anime – animation conceived by a Japanese mindset – will always be culturally different from animation created within an American frame of influence, inspiration, reference and knowledge. Anime is not just big eyes, vividly colored hair, and “themes like family, friendship, fear, and death.” Any animation that incorporates stylized character design, big eyes, and “family, friendship, fear, and death” is not automatically anime because the nuances of interpersonal relationships, exactly what people fear and don’t fear, and the way people psychologically approach death are different between Americans and Japanese. When foreign artists whitewash and replace, or even simply fail to comprehensively and authentically evoke all of the cultural nuance intrinsic in anime, which includes the way teenage anime characters treat and speak to each other, the way community relationships work, the psychological sense of responsibility to abstract social standards, types of humor, and the unique artistic perspective behind narratives and literary tropes employed in anime that seem bizarre to Americans, like anthropomorphized assault rifles, train stations, countries, and soda cans; superheroes powered by teenage girls’ breast milk; vampires that produce too much blood instead of drinking it; and catgirls that shoot silly-string out of their eyeballs, what we get is “anime-style” or “anime-like,” but not genuine Japanese anime. Americans certainly can create something comparable to anime, but anime by definition is Japanese animation, and only Japanese creators can create Japanese animation. Any English language definition of “anime” that is not “Japanese animation” is a superficial and incorrect definition that cannot hold up to rational academic scrutiny.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Escapist’s article misses the point for sure.
For me, the differentiator is not so much the goofy premises of anime, but the way in which stories are told. Looking outside of anime/manga, Japanese cinema and even its traditional arts revolve around symbolism and iconography. The best of anime similarly take complex ideas and refine them into symbols, whether they are visual icons or emblematic characters, and build a visual/storytelling language through juxtaposition. Ghost in the Shell (1995 film) or, as recent examples, Bakemonogatari & Mawaru Penguindrum are exemplary of this essential trait.
Because 2D animation is fundamentally geared for abstraction & symbolism, it’s a natural extension of Japan’s artistic sensibilities. No other country displays so much passion or ambition for the medium. I agree with John in that anime is an expression of Japanese culture & its artistic mindset, and while it’s _not impossible_ for the west to make something very anime-esque, just duping the surface-level character designs and some anime tropes misses the point. The Maxx, Aeon Flux (the original) and Batman: The Animated Series (when at its most “film noir”) are the closest commercial things I’ve seen to anime from the west, because they recognize the storytelling power of abstraction & symbolism in 2D animation.
This may just be my own casual observation, but the abstraction is very deeply cultural, that may not necessarily exist in western aesthetics. Everything from the zen of the art and beauty to the fact that the language itself is very symbolic in nature helps to contribute to the overall concept and the decades of refinement of the art of animation.
Just like western cartoons have their own deep rooted legacy and history that’s planted in culture, so does anime, and that base line culture is not something that’s easily interchangeable. In fact, it’s not even that interchangeable with “similar” cultures like Korea and China. The type and quality of productions even from similar countries are vastly different, albeit more similar than the Western productions.
An easy comparison perhaps can be made to how remakes are made of overseas franchises into American cinema for American audiences. Things change because they are changed out of fear/necessity/culture to adapt to the new audience that wants to consume the same story. To watch the original of these is to indeed peek into a different culture and to see how things are interpreted differently. The same applies to anime. Everyone can make movies and animations, but only certain subsets can make things like bollywood movies, anime and other nuanced productions.
I wonder why the “What is anime?” question continues to be asked. Is it because people feel the need to call other animation they like anime?
If you’re an American, the first word you heard animation called was likely “cartoons.” Then you got introduced to “anime” Which is full of Japanese characters, words, culture, actors, etc.
I find it quite dismissive and ignorant of John to suggest that any American animator or animation studio wouldn’t or couldn’t have originated ideas for series as the ones he described. without doing some research. There are some ideas that I do admit would be unlikely for any American animator or animation studio to use. However, some ideas John listed existed before being used in anime. For example, I assume the first anime John refers to is Neon Genesis Evangelion. I would recommend looking up the novel “Childhood’s End” by Arthur C. Clarke. The next idea refers to the anime Ghost in the Shell. Go read the novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” by Philip K. Dick or watch Blade Runner. The point being is that these ideas, among many others, existed in some form or another before they were used in anime. This means that such ideas, stories, and narratives can be conceivable by the American or non-Japanese mindset. The rest of John’s entire answer to this question isn’t convincing and can be demonstrated to be flawed or inadequate.
@Tony
I don’t think he was saying that the themes and ideas present in GiTS or Eva cannot have been conceived by Americans in any way, shape, or form. He specifically mentioned American animators because if you think about how animation is marketed and percieved in the US, these ideas wouldn’t get any traction at all outside of a tiny niche. To Americans, cartoons are one of two things: Children’s entertainment or comedy. There’s no room for a cartoon with heavy themes like GiTS or Eva to gain any kind of a respectable foothold.
Besides, that line of reasoning only works for the shows like Ghost in the Shell or Evangelion, which have themes that are pretty universal. It doesn’t follow for a show like Upotte!!, the “anthropomorphized assault rifles” show John mentioned. Upotte!! and similar shows that base themselves around anthropomorphized objects (Akikan and Hetalia are other examples) seem to lie, at their core, in the Shinto belief that objects have souls. Japanese culture is simply more conducive to certain types of entertainment, and that uniqueness is what makes anime “anime.” There’s just no reasonable way American animators would ever make a cartoon like Upotte!!, or Joshiraku, or Strike Witches, or Martian Successor Nadesico, or Code Geass, or Clannad. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s not a value-judgment. American culture is just not conducive to that kind of animation.
That’s why we have anime.
@Timeenforceranubis
I mentioned in my first reply that there are ideas (I should have also mentioned stories, narratives, characters, etc.) that would be unlikely for any American/non-Japanese animator or animation studio to use. However, there are substantially more ideas, themes, stories, etc. found in anime that derive from or share similarities with works outside of anime and Japan. Saying specifically that American animators or non-Japanese animators couldn’t have conceived and utilize such material is incorrect. The performance in the market of such material has no bearing on what has been discussed here, that the material wouldn’t or couldn’t be conceived and produced. The perception of animation, particularly in America, doesn’t matter if the animation outside of that perception exists. Animation outside of that perception has been produced and is currently being produced. It may be more difficult to produce or lack ample financial incentive but it still occurs. Anthropomorphism exists in countless material outside of anime. I recommend you research American/non-Japanese animation that has been produced which shares similarities in ideas, characters, stories, narratives, etc with anime. Also, search for material outside of animation for the same reason. This would show the majority of ideas, characters, stories, narratives, etc. found in animation, specifically from Japan, aren’t exclusive to anime. This will demonstrate the majority of material found in anime can be produced outside of Japan. It would also bring into question how to define anime.
I absolutely have to assent that American animators are creative enough to conceive of ideas similar to the oddest of anime concepts. Tony, you are correct on that point. But we also have to face the existing reality that no American commercial animation studio has ever actually released mainstream commercial animation based on concepts as outré as anime uses frequently. Sure, American animators may think up an idea like anthropomorphized assault rifles, but that idea will never make it through production and end up on American television or on mainstream American DVD. In the world of anime, bizarre concepts like that do actually get produced, broadcast, and sold on nationwide commerical DVD.
The fundamental creative environment for commercial animation creation is different in America than it is in Japan, and that difference in environment results in noticeably different types of animation getting made. I’m not trying to suggest that American animators are less creative than Japanese animators. I am saying that American corporate culture gives American animators less flexibility to create wild & creative animation compared to their Japanese counterparts who do have the ability to create really unusual, expressionistic “anime” and still get it funded, broadcast, and distributed by major studios & distributors.
if that’s true well some American cartoons that emulate anime or try to be like it like avatar it has Japanese letters and may be not really anime but it felt like it however if what you say is true and Americans can’t create anime I think a different term should be used to differentiate shows like avatar boondocks from shows like invader zim and hey aronald stuff like avatar boondocks and others replicating anime and most of the time better then most anime them self’s avatar may be a kids show but zukp feels like and anime charter and it has the perfect blend of comedy deep story and action well still being suitable for all ages
I find anime is like the difference between jimmy neutron and avatar or boondocks (sorry I don’t keep up with American animation those are the only 2 I can think of) anime has -griping story’s that keep the viewer entrained -charters that are complex and have a sense of depth to them -plot’s that grip you and entertain you well having some adult themes -comedy that make’s you laugh well also being serious at the same time (unless it’s just a comedy anime then you only need comedy and good charters)
I feel those are what define anime not culture I feel like it’s more of the atmosphere of the show the themes along with the attachment you get to the charters some animes are utter garbage and are just there to show off tit’s even though they have hentai videos for that some have crappy main charters and suffer from horrible cliches but when anime is good it’s REALLY good and when and is mediocre it’s dull and usually suffers from cliches and horrible writing that they green light in order to fill a time slot when it’s above average it’s decent and below average it sucks and when it’s horrible it’s god afoul.
what I’m saying is Americans can pull off animation and story’s that feel like anime and when they do that it’s usually the really good kind of anime or the decent kind because any American animation that try’s to replicate anime or has a story that’s the same style usually is in the decent or really good category. (I hate saying american so much cuz I’m canadian and we’re always reffered to as America jr
oh I wasn’t finished accidentally posted I’m asking what would you call the western (much better phrase) animation that emulates the feel story and overall universe of anime since anime can’t be called anime unless it’s made in japan because of their culture (which I think is bull American writers can think of story’s that are more interesting and unique then some anime especially since anime mostly recycles charter types 90% of anime has unoriginal plots charters that follow bland stereotypes example: 90% of shounen anime has a super serious spiky haired anime guy who’s in high school and ends up having a bunch of girls chasing his dick and he’s to stupid to relies it or blows them off) even though anime has stereotypical charters they have great universes and ideas (slice of life comdeys don’t count I mean the kind that try’s to emulate real life) what I’m saying is *reads post again* oh I thought he said that Japanese are more creative because their Japanese well let me make one last statement if a pizza is made outside of itally (I heard they created pizzas) it’s still a pizza but if an anime is created outside japan it’s not an anime I think thays a little unfair
I’m having a difficult time reading what you’re saying, because there are no periods.
From what I can read, I think you need to look at John’s reply. What he’s saying is that America (Hollywood) is basically limited in what they can do creatively because of the expectations of of who the target audience for animation is.
If American animation was doing what Japanese animation was doing in terms of the stories they tell, would we have flocked to anime as much as we have? Part of why we are anime fans is because it offers something other than what we can get in America.
@ John
I’ve already stated that it can be difficult or unlikely for some ideas, concepts, stories, etc. to be produced. Animation outside of anime that can be considered bizarre, unconventional, or surreal has been commercially produced outside Japan including in America. For the most part, what you determine to be bizarre or unusual within anime isn’t exclusive to it. I think you need to define what distinguishes or determines your gravitation towards anime from other sources in order to justify your position. The argument(s) presented by you and others with similar viewpoints could be considered special pleading.
Oddly enough, I wrote an article on this topic regarding manga. If you would indulge me: http://www.pockybox.com/ran/mangaintolerance.html
I’m not sure what the confusion is here. The definition of “anime” here in America is “Japanese animation,” so no, Americans can’t produce anime because they aren’t Japanese. Just like “otaku” and “hentai” mean something slightly different between here and Japan, “anime” refers to animation of a specific country of origin. Now that we’re done splitting literary hairs, let’s look at the heart of the argument unfolding here.
John didn’t say it was impossible for Americans to produce animation similar in originality as the Japanese. If you look back through the history of American animation, there are a lot of weird concepts one can gesture to. The difference is, these productions TEND to be superficial, exploitive, a limited in narrative scope. While there are a number of shows that have meaning tucked away in them, this meaning is covered in a pleasant comedic candy coating. South Park, Family Guy, and the Boondocks all have something to say, but they’re comedies upfront, because that’s what Americans like.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with this. I love anime, with a 3000+ collection weighing my house down, protecting it from getting picked up by a tornado. I enjoy the visual design, the tone, and the narrative structure of all kinds of anime. But I’ll admit it takes a lot less effort to watch South Park, He-Man, or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles if I want my brain to check out. I place more meaning into anime because I respect the integrity of the artists who created it, and almost all anime is intricate to some extent, but sometimes I want to just watch the Turtles throw garbage cans at Shredder for a while.
So it’s not impossible for Americans to produce similar animation as the Japanese. I’ve seen some excellent American animation, but nothing that makes me mistake it for anime. I don’t see why this is a problem. While I appreciate the dedication and spirit, if American animators who try to emulate anime would worry less about emulating another culture’s work and focus on changing the attitude of their own culture’s perception of domestic animation with brilliant, distinctly American works, we wouldn’t be worrying about which animation style is superior.
John, myself, and thousands of other non-Japanese fans love anime for many reasons, whether they by the foreign nature of it, the narrative, art designs, or what have you. A lot of the more elite (read: crazed) fans can’t pinpoint an exact reason for their preferences. I’ll just gesture at the Uncanny Valley theory for pointing out our extreme discomfort with productions that ALMOST look like anime and conclude with that.
@PockyBox.com
I’m not sure if I feel like participating in this discussion anymore. After three responses, it seems like a waste of time since most of what I’ve discussed either gets ignored, misrepresented, or insufficiently responded to. If and when I find the time and inclination I’ll submit a proper and adequate response.
….. About as much as I can somewhat sympathize with you Tony, I’m going to have to be very frank with you on the subject.
While it would be great to know that animators can do stories of more intricate and well fleshed stories that are deeply planned and imagined, with more challenging themes and subject matter, here, in the West, in the culture provided, animation is not the first thing to come in an director’s/creator’s mind.
No, animators CAN and HAVE the potential to create well written and deep stories of a more mature level, regardless of nationality and whatnot.
The problem is the attitude and image that animation has. Again, Animation is not what comes to the mind of a creator here in the States or the West when it comes to stories like this. When it comes to mature stories and darker content, the medium of acting and filming comes to mind because it’s “more realistic” and “breaks the suspension of disbelief because of its illusion of being like reality”, which equals in this culture “more serious and believable”.
About as much as I can say that’s one of the most juvenile, backwards extreme perspective that people believe, and how Hollywood’s lost all credibility for me, with them still in the dregs because of what they push out on TV and on the silver screen, it’s still the ingrained majority perspective of what this society has in mind. Every medium does have its purpose and usage of course, and plenty of entertainment does shine better under filming and acting. To say that animation should be the overhyped desired medium, well, that’s just asinine.
It’s not impossible that animators abroad outside of Japan can create engaging and big stories. John’s said it best in this topic.
But I do have issue regarding your statement that gives me the impression that you think or hold some belief that Japan can only imitate outsiders, in regards to stories and art styles. I don’t know what you want from them, but don’t take it out on this place.
The fact that the culture that did start it up but refused to take care of it and even censored it are paying the consequences today doesn’t even bat a tear in the eye regarding this.
I realize I’m late to the party here and all, but why are you all implying western animation is incapable of creating ‘deep’ or ‘engaging’ stories? Have you guys even watched Waltz with Bashir or Persepolis? Western animation and American animation is not even close to being the same thing. And even with the ‘animation is for kids’-mentality of the U.S. you still have films like WALL-E, which both delivers an excellent narrative that works on many different levels and an important message.
Also, not even one mention of Oban Star-Racers? If there’s one animation that blurs the line between Japanese and ‘western’ animation it’s that one.
Anyway, the animators at early Toei fervently studied Preston Blair; Tezuka was hugely influenced by Disney; Pixar cites Ghibli as a major inspiration; and both Motorcity and Avatar draws from Gainax, Motorcity even makes direct references to FLCL. Bottom line is that no man is an island and everyone is influenced by everyone. Anime simply means ‘Japanese animation’ in the same way champagne means ‘sparkling wine from the Champagne region of France’. If we start changing or adding to these terms they lose all meaning and become useless.
I mean, if the Legend of Korra is anime, does that make Astro Boy an American cartoon?
@sjur
Nobody is saying or implying that western animation is incapable of creating “deep” or “engaging” stories. The operative concepts here, however, are frequency, commonness, and ubiquity. Yes, Western cartoons with “deep” and “engaging” stories do get made, but not as frequently as your average comedy or children’s animation, they’re not as common as children’s animation or comedy animation, and they do not achieve the level of ubiquity that anime like Evangelion or Madoka Magica, or even Strike Witches, achieve.
This is not a value judgment, and I think people are mistaking it for one. The culture surrounding animation in the West simply is not conducive to the success of cartoons that are neither for children nor primarily comedic. Artists will invariably make what they want to, regardless of the culture that surrounds them, but the culture is still an important factor. Something can’t just be declared negligible just because a few people think it’s negligible.
And, once again, the “deep” and “engaging” stories thing is just one facet of the difference in animation culture between the West and Japan. What about Upotte!!, which focuses on middle-school girls who represent military assault rifles from around the world? What about Haiyore! Nyaruko-san, which turns the Cthulu mythos into a rapid-fire comedy? What about Bakemonogatari, Strike Witches, and Alien Nine? Elfen Lied? Gunslinger Girl? Ben-To? Code Geass?
Yes at it’s most basic, “Anime” just means “animation from Japan,” but there’s something distinct about it and that’s why we use the term.
Here’s a question, to hopefully help make my point: When Code Lyoko was showing on Cartoon Network, how many people specifically referred to it as French animation?
Tony, I’ll try to keep it short to be polite to your time (and our time) and to keep it simple since I always get wordy.
John never claimed the American animators (nor did you give him the benefit of the doubt) that American animators are incapable of that sort of creative output of ideas.
He’s talking about market realities. Production realities where these animations basically don’t exist as completed products outside of Japan. He’s not talking about theoretical ideas that someone COULD do this or that nothing is stopping them because similar or identical ideas have been presented.
If you want to spin the argument to put Japan on the defense, imaginary Japan can complain how they too can go to the moon if they wanted. But guess who actually did? You can extend the argument further. Many Americans can talk about how “they’re more likely to go to outer space than most other people in other countries minus Russia”. Well guess who actually went to Outer space? Not you.
Who actually makes anime? Not you, and certainly not many, if any, Americans let alone non-Japanese. (Insert korean animator reference here 🙂 )
@sidjtd
I checked this discussion again out of curiosity to see if there was anything new. Unfortunately, in response to your comments I will have to repeat myself. You have ignored, misrepresented, and insufficiently responded to my arguments. Continue to tear down that straw man all you want. Until you adequately address my arguments I won’t waste my time posting an in-depth demonstration of my position.