Ask John: Is the Definition of Anime Too Limited?

Question:
I recently came across a comment in a forum claiming Rein the Conqueror wasn’t anime based solely on Peter Chung’s nationality. This got me thinking. I had no problem considering anime-style comics and animation produced in countries other than Japan “anime,” and it came as kind of a shock that other people don’t. With the release of the Animatrix and Tokyopop’s all American manga compilation, I feel anime has the potential to one day bridge cultures. But this person’s statement brings up a crucial point: what is anime? Generally, it’s defined as animation that originated in Japan, but such a confining title could stifle this revolution. Also, if children’s shows like Crayon Shin-chan are considered anime over in Japan, would Cartoon Network’s original animations also become “anime?” How can this art form possibly be defined without insulting someone, and what is anime, really?

Answer:
Since this response has the potential to be misconstrued, allow me to clarify up-front that what follows is a subjective, personal opinion intended to present an argument, but also encourage debate.

Here at AnimeNation, we subscribe to the simple theory that anime is the term for 2D style animation made primarily in Japan and intended primarily for Japanese viewers. By this definition, Alexander Senki (AKA: Reign the Conqueror) is anime because it meets both of the aforementioned criteria. Likewise, Crayon Shin-chan is anime because it is 2D animation made in Japan and intended mainly for Japanese viewers.

Especially among Western fans there’s a great deal of concern that a too limited definition of “anime” will exclude non-Japanese creators or, as you’ve argued, stifle artistic creativity. However, I personally believe that there’s simply no alternative available. Sadly, not everyone is born Japanese and not everyone is able to create “anime.” Certainly, French food prepared at a restaurant in Los Angeles is still French food, and a Toyota built in Michigan may still be called a Japanese car, but these examples are based in a different linguistic origin than the word “anime.” The American term “French food” refers to any food prepared in the style of French chefs. The American term “Japanese car” refers to any car from a manufacturer that originated in Japan. The word “anime,” however, is different because it is not an American term.

Critics argue that the word “anime” is used in Japan to refer to all animation regardless of national origin or stylistic character; therefore the word “anime” should also be used in America to refer to all Japanese style animation. This argument, however, is based upon a fatal fallacy. In fact, Japanese natives do not use the word “anime” to refer to all animation. It’s true that in Japan the word “anime” is sometimes used to denote American produced animation. But equally as often, Japanese natives, and especially Japanese employees of the animation industry, refer to American animation as “American anime” and Japanese anime as just “anime.” Japanese natives, especially Japanese industry professionals, do make distinctions between their native Japanese produced animation and foreign animation imported from South Korea or Europe or America.

Mainstream Japanese media and average Japanese citizens may refer to all animation as “anime,” but Japanese industry professionals often do not consider their work similar to Western animation. The argument is essentially this: mainstream Japanese citizens call both Tom & Jerry and Cowboy Bebop anime; therefore Americans should also call Tom & Jerry anime. Laid out as simply as this, it seems clear to me that the Japanese use of the word “anime” has no relation at all to the American definition of the word. The word “anime” simply does not mean the same thing in Japan that it does in America, and in Japan the word “anime” has different meanings depending on whether it’s used by the popular culture at large or by a singular representative of the anime industry.

Yes, the word “anime” is a confining and stifling title. However, there’s no reason why a confining and stifling title should have any negative effect on the world’s artistic community. The world is not fair. Under the present definition, Americans cannot produce anime. That doesn’t mean that Americans can’t produce animation that’s as good as, or better than anime. That doesn’t mean that Americans can’t produce “anime-style” animation. The Matrix movies are heavily influenced by Japanese animation and Chinese “wuxia” movies, but no one tries to argue that The Matrix is anime or is a Chinese martial arts fantasy movie. But certain fans do seem to feel obligated to make that exact argument if The Matrix is replaced with any example of American animation.

Not everything is anime. Not everything can be anime. Not everything should be anime. The word “anime” is just a term used to make a certain variety of Japanese film-making easier to identify and classify. There’s no intrinsic judgment of quality in the word “anime.” Just calling something “anime” doesn’t automatically make it good. Calling something “anime” just means that it’s animated, and it’s Japanese. What’s more insulting and stifling than limiting the definition of anime to only Japanese animation is trying to impose the classification “anime” on forms of art that may or may not actually warrant such a compartmentalization.