Ask John: Is Anime the Same as “Cartoons?”

Question:
This “Ask John” question was posted on the AnimeNation site once before, but a site update accidentally deleted it. This morning I drafted a new summarization of my take on this question.

Answer:
In order to distinguish between “cartoons” and “anime,” we must first define our terms of reference. According to Dictionary.com, which concurs with my desktop Rogets’ dictionary, a “cartoon” is formally defined as either a political satire or a drawing or animation depicting a humorous situation. “Anime,” is a distinct form of animation produced in Japan, created for a Japanese audience. These definitions are too vague and too far removed from common usage to be valuable, though. In consensus Western opinion, and in the context we want to discuss, cartoons are animation created for child and family audiences. Americans commonly think of cartoons as having bright colors, kinetic action, talking animals, slapstick comedy and exaggerated “cartoon” violence. “Cartoons” are a medium for children, and at best a thoughtless diversion. There are certainly exceptions to the stereotype, but these exceptions are rare, and usually include amateur animation created for artistic, rather than commercial reasons.

Like “cartoons,” anime is cel-animation that often employs kinetic action and hyperbolic violence, but while “cartoons” are marginalized to children’s & family entertainment, anime encompasses the entire range of viewers, from children to families to adults. Anime, while still a commercial product, expands the boundaries of traditional cel art animation through genres and styles that “cartoons” do not. As I’ve previously stated, even mainstream Western, “cartoons” including the Batman Animated Series break from convention by being mature oriented dramatic animation, but while a small handful of examples may set a precedent, they do not establish a genre. Anime has enough examples of animation programs in the genres of drama, romance, sports, slice-of-life realism, and pure “art,” made for commercial distribution, to establish a general character of anime broader than simply action & comedy.

While broad generalizations such as “anime deals with many genres in many ways while ‘cartoons’ are dominated by children’s programming” may be a valid distinction, it is still a distinction too vague to be taken as proof, in and of itself. The point of this thesis is not to prove anime “better” or more worthwhile than “cartoons,” but only to prove anime different and distinct from cartoons. To do that, the aforementioned generalization must be dissected further. The very word “anime” is a Japanese abbreviation of “animation,” distinct to the Japanese language. Just as the word “anime” is distinctly Japanese, the art form it represents is distinctly Japanese. Anime is commonly recognized by characters with wild hair and supernaturally large, round eyes, by giant robots and demonic tentacles, by girls with guns and fantastic, superhuman action. While all of these stereotypes may have some basis in fact, none of them alone is adequate to characterize anime. Perhaps the singular element of anime that makes it distinct from Western animation, and even Japanese animation productions created for export or by commission from non-Japanese sources, is its devotion to reality. Even the most fantastic anime adventures still place heavy emphasis on keeping their characters and characterizations true to life. Anime, when considered as an encapsulated medium, maintains a consistent literary suspension of disbelief that “cartoons” do not strive for. Simply put, “cartoons,” do not try to simulate reality or engender a sense of reality in the viewer while anime does. With rare exception, cartoons don’t try to convince the viewer of their “reality.” Even serous, dramatic “cartoons” such as Disney animation, still present their characters as characterized, emotive fictional beings. Anime strives, even at its most outrageous extremes of fantasy, strives to present itself as believable reality, not fiction. At its core, anime assumes the intelligence, wisdom and maturity of its viewers while “cartoons,” with rare exception, aim to be either totally child-like or at least remain partially unreal.

Even in serious, dramatic Western animation, for example, Mulan or The Prince of Egypt, the verisimilitude is interrupted by “cartoonish,” exaggerated characterizations which are included solely to interrupt the “realism” of the presentation- either to provide comic relief or to capture attention. There’s no question that anime also includes such hyperbolic, exaggerated characters, but these characters, in anime, are not characterized thusly purely for external reasons, but instead, as natural exhibitions of the characters’ personalities. Aisha Clan Clan of Outlaw Star, Cha-Cha of Akazukin Cha-Cha and C-ko Kotobuki of Project A-ko are all wildly exaggerated characters, but they never seem out of place or unreal because their wild, unbelievable characterizations are a natural extension of their characterizations- not an attempt on the part of the animators to intentionally create a distraction.

To summarize, anime has distinct characteristics exclusive to anime. Western and even Chinese and Korean animation may try to imitate anime, but no non-Japanese production has yet captured the essence of anime, which is its focus on believable, “human” characters & characterizations, situations and conflicts, even in the midst of unbelievable circumstances and characters that are not human. Simply put, “anime is anime,” and nothing that isn’t “anime” is “anime.” Thus, “cartoons” are not “anime” because cartoons do not share the same distinct features that distinguish anime. To say that everything that’s traditional cel animation is a cartoon is a gross and inaccurate generalization. To define “anime” and “cartoons,” one must consider their distinct elements and look deeper than their superficial similarities. It’s true that anime and cartoons both use hand-painted cel animation to tell a story, but, likewise, cajun bluegrass and a Strauss concerto both use a violin to make music. That doesn’t mean that both types of music are classical compositions.

I’ll admit that my opinion is biased and subjective, but I’ve tried to be as objective as possible in a composition written in a spontaneous 15 minute sitting. What do you think? If you’d like to share your opinion on this subject, visit the AnimeNation forum.