Anime as Serious Business part 1: anime and the silver screen
First: my expansion of the point I raised with Gaguri, initially touched on during my second Kara no Kyoukai post. It stems from the time when I became an anime fan proper which, to get what follows after the jump into perspective, happened at a relatively late age when I was already a general film/TV nerd. Second: to clarify on my stance on this issue I dropped English language and literature in favour of a more science-orientated timetable post-GCSE, in the hope that it would improve my employment prospects. Long story short, it didn’t, which meant I abandoned my favourite subject to make a gamble that I regret to this day. Just so you know I’m not trying to be clever here, because I couldn’t even if I wanted to.
Just for the record I stole this pic from a blog called, appropriately enough, Serious Fucking Business, which is well worth a visit
So then, I’m an academic without being an intellectual, watching anime as a layman but one who likes a decent movie in addition to the typical box office blockbuster. I hope I’m not insulting your intelligence here in pointing out that the term ‘anime’ is merely an umbrella term for a set of artistic techniques (animation) and the geography (Japanese in origin); except my own set of standards and definitions need something a bit more specific than this to differentiate a certain type of anime from the rest. No, I don’t have higher education qualifications in this area, but I still want to talk taxonomy. Please hear me out, ‘kay?
This division I have in my head doesn’t run along the lines between the commercial mainstream stuff that sells more DVDs or makes it onto Western TV and cult faves among fans. There’s another difference that exists among a minority of titles: a quick count through my MAL list reveals that out of the 143 I’ve completed so far, this subset that for the sake of argument I’ll call ‘Cinematic Anime’ makes roughly 30 or so, including the Studio Ghiblis. Even though I have a preference for them they still make up less than a quarter of what I’ve watched.
My definition is a bit arbitrary I’ll admit, but it goes something like this: anime that is Serious Fucking Business and is more akin to a live-action film you might see at the cinema than most other anime. This definition is NOT the same thing as depth or art vs. entertainment but to summarise my selection process it’s a title that can be judged on the same terms as its live-action counterparts. I’m not saying these are in any way *better*; rather, they shouldn’t be judged on the same terms. The definition of anime outlined in my second paragraph is just too broad to make this distinction.
To photorealism…and beyond. <3
My list of favourite contemporary directors goes something like this: Guillermo del Toro, Takeshi Kitano, Richard Linklater, Chan-wook Park and Ridley Scott, assuming Linklater’s rotoscoping is a subset of live-action (an aside I’ll get to in a minute). When I think of directors of Cinematic Anime I’d reel off Satoshi Kon, Mamoru Oshii and Makoto Shinkai; they are to me not only directors who make ‘very good anime’ but directors who make ‘very good films’ that happen to be made in Japan using the medium of animation. Both lists here are names I admire because, simply put, they make movies that are consistently enjoyable and impressive both thematically and technically. A good movie to me is a good movie whether it’s live-action, animated or, in the case of Linklater’s rotoscoped efforts, a quirky mixture of the two.
I got onto this train of thought after getting an impression that the Kara no Kyoukai movies felt like live-action, or more specifically felt like they are drawn and written to be as close to a live-action style as possible. The likes of these plus Ghost in the Shell, 5cm Per Second and Only Yesterday have a heightened sense of realism: the backgrounds, buildings, weapons and vehicles are especially lifelike; dialogue flows in a more natural manner; lens flares and camera angles are simulated with what I presume is the intention of helping the viewer forget it’s animated and enjoy it simply as a movie.
There are I’m sure reasons why certain directors work in the medium of animation when what they are doing could look and feel similar if it were shot in real-life locations, with traditional live-action acting and equipment. In Perfect Blue’s case I believe the budget for an animated film was smaller; in sci-fi and fantasy movies sets and props may be so difficult/expensive to make ‘live’ they have to be done with CG; i.e. animated.
As cinematic Anime goes this is NOT what I had in mind
A simple litmus test I use for deciding whether an anime movie fits my criteria would be to imagine the film being taken to Cannes, Venice or, heaven forbid, the Oscars and running alongside the new live-action movies of the same year. In the current situation there’s a separate Best Animated Film Oscar, as though the judges can’t see past the fact that it has the painted appearance of cel animation; interestingly Waking Life garnered a number of awards in various events and publications for Best Film and Best Experimental Film but also received one Best Animated Film award. Just because the scenes are painted over to give a vaguely cel-rendered appearance, does that mean it’s animation?
Similarly A Scanner Darkly was described as “beautifully animated,” which is a nice thing to say but apart from details like the Scramble Suits it’s a rotoscoped live-action film, not an animated film per se. If you took a live-action Japanese film and rotoscoped it, would that make it an anime film? In which case I’ll be watching Baton with great interest because it’s a rotoscoped feature with two big names in Japanese live action film, Ryuhei Kitamura and Kunji Iwai, as director and producer respectively. Will it look and feel like an experimental live-action or an anime film? Will it deserve to be judged in that way?
I guess the reason why I feel so strongly about this is that most, but not all, anime is too different in terms of aesthetics, scripting and storytelling to be in the same area as live-action cinema; however, for the exceptions to these conventions it seems unfair to me that something as trivial as a painted colour palette or anime-style character designs somehow limits its appeal to just the anime fan when it’s made with a broader, or indeed different, audience in mind.
This is not the issue of its merit as ‘art’ (which Anime Diet covered very well shortly after this post’s first draft was completed); merely whether the fact that it’s animated should be a sticking point in appreciating it as film in a more general sense. Cinematic Anime for me isn’t necessarily more intellectual or innovative than any other anime but it still feels closer to live-action movies than other anime does, and perhaps it ought to be judged, and appreciated, accordingly.
Gotcha. I think the distinction is a useful one. I’ll try to use it as well.
I think you were wise in being ambiguous and vague about how you’d classify a “Cinematic anime”. I can see the type of anime you’re talking about but it’s one of those terms that doesn’t really have a strict set of requirements to be classified as such, just another case of “I know it when I see it”.
Here are some more random thoughts from me. You mentioned anime in relation to a set of artistic techniques. One could say that there are many possible artistry in making anime. There are cinematic techniques, i.e. the way Oshii uses deliberate silence, tense atmosphere, which can also work in live action format. Then I suppose there are animation techniques, which blogs like Anipages Daily specialise in. Ability to draw virtually anything you like ables you to come up with character designs, fictitious worlds, the way things move unlike in real world, are all things impossible in live-action, therefore would it be reasonable to label them as techniques only applied to animation and not cinema in general? In that case, perhaps “Cinematic anime” could refer to anime that pays more attention to these cinematic techniques, and what separates good from bad depends on their success. Just as there is no ‘cruel’ or ‘minor’ anime, but only anime with varying degrees of it, maybe there are only anime with varying degrees of attention cinematic techniques. And I suppose it might also be reasonable to mention the art of “writing” in anime as well, which in my observation tends to be anime’s weakest point.
oops forgot to include this. I liked how you mentioned Park Chan Wook and Satoshi Kon, as in Park’s Sympathy of Lady Vengeance has constant juxtaposition of ‘past’ and ‘present’ in zig zag fashion, while Kon does something similar in Millenium Actress in terms of ‘real story’ and ‘action setting’.
@Ghostlightning: it’s a bit of a vague and subjective distinction to make but if it’s useful to you, so much the better!
@gaguri: this is the problem with 1. my habit of drawing up really individual standards and 2. having no specialised higher education in that area to back it up. “I know it when I see it”…definitely. Still, I’m glad my points seem to have come across well enough. There are indeed some techniques that can work in live action and anime equally, so I suppose part of what I was trying to say was concerned with acknowledging anime movies that achieve this. As you say though, some things are more effective in the animated format and vice-versa. Sadly the writing in anime isn’t as impressive…perhaps because they concentrate too hard on the presentation alone? But yeah, Kon is an exception to this in that he writes with the same proficiency and confidence as his live action counterparts. We need more anime directors like that. ^_^
Haha…well, I don’t really think those 1 and 2 are problems, I do that all the time :D (we need no stinking education to talk about cartoons!) it’s better to be vaguely correct than precisely incorrect. Besides, just from this post it’s clear that you are pretty good at spotting details behind the screen and know more than average viewers about other films.
I think I’ve mentally been making that distinction for a while without quite putting the tag on it. I like the way you put that. For me, I don’t spend time comparing Satoshi Kon to someone like Hideaki Anno, rather I liken his stuff more to say David Cronenberg. Shinkai too — his pacing and framing are more cinematic. Really I think I have nothing to offer other than, uh… Yes. I agree :D
@gaguri:
I like that philosophy. A lot. ^_^
@otou-san: yeah, Kon does have an edgy Cronenberg vibe in the psychological side of things…plus I love his sense of humour! Anno is an interesting one – his direction in animation is superb but his live action efforts are, well, a bit odd actually. He seems to be one or two features away from making his masterpiece, as if he’s still getting comfortable with the change in format he’s working in.
Well said. I’ve been thinking the same thing without really giving it a concrete name, but really, it’s as gaguri said: rather than being a specific definition, it’s the kind of thing where you know it when you see it.
@ETERNAL: absolutely. I think the same principle applies to TV anime too, but my post for that got a bit delayed by other things…
Waltz with Bashir is another interesting animated film to consider. The main reason the director made it animated (it being a sort of semi non-fiction documentary) was simply freedom to do what he wanted without compromise. He found a relatively inexpensive way to realise his vision and this demonstrates why animation is so alluring to these accomplished film-makers (who could probably excel in any medium).
One of the big arguments against animation is the lack of humanity; the disconnect the audience supposedly feels because they aren’t looking at real people with their myriad of bodylanguage and the like. Waltz with Bashir kinda supports this, in my opinion. When it had the talky bits it was incredibly stilted and unemotive, but when it had the more abstract ‘arty’ scenes it was glorious. It didn’t help that the most moving, emotive part of the film is the very final scene which is a clip of live footage.
But don’t get me wrong – I don’t agree that animation inherently lacks humanity. It just takes a good director/writer (like the ones you’ve listed in your post) to engineer the medium to show us it.
Good work on noticing that many anime film-makers refer more to their live-action brethan than they do their TV cousins. Personally I think it has a lot to do with time-limitations and the narrative constructions that work within them, but it’s a much more complicated subject than that. One that definitely warrants more though.
@Hige: Waltz With Bashir sounds fascinating so I’ll add it to my ‘to watch’ list. I suppose animation’s strengths lie in different areas to live-action so it takes an outstanding film-maker to overcome the problems of animation (such as the portrayal of ‘humanity’ you mention) and place it on level terms.
Persopolis is on TV later tonight by the way, so I think I’ll be watching that too.
Oh my, I have been told to watch “Waltz with Bashir” about 10 times now, but the only opportunity that I had to see it would have cost me 8 euro back then. (This is usually the price I am willing to pay for a DVD, mind you.) At least, I will add it to my to-watch-list. :)