From: wbarnes@sura.net (Bill Barnes)
Subject: Re: Anime, and He May Not
Organization: SURAnet, College Park, MD, USA, NA, Earth, Milky Way
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 04:42:58 GMT

In article <BuDJ6E.3H0@CAM.ORG> emru@CAM.ORG (Emru Townsend) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.215758.22693@sura.net> wbarnes@sura.net (Bill Barnes) writes:
>>Again, what Marc says is true of any media.  Why he singles out anime
>>in this regard seems odd.  He freely admits that mediocrity is inherent
>>in every form of expression, yet feels it is somehow easier to spot in
>>anime than other forms.  I don't find it very difficult to see mediocrity
>>in print, music, TV, movies, State of the Union addresses, etc.  Is
>>Marc somehow blinded to the mediocrity of these forms, or is his insight
>>in anime merely especially keen?
>Whoops - accidentally deleted the original reference.  In any case, I
>think I can safely say Marc singled out anime because that's what I asked
>him to write about.  That what he says is also true about other media
>doesn't excuse anime.

OK, let me rephrase that - Marc acknowledges that mediocrity exists in
all media.  However, the way he talks about the mediocrity in anime
makes it sound like that it is more prevalent, apparent, rampant,
common, whatver in anime than in other media, which I don't believe is
true - or at least not as significantly as he makes it sound.

>>I personally feel that Bluth, Bakshi, and to some extent Disney are highly
>>overrated.  In my opinion these three men suffer much the same problems
>>Marc bemoans anime for having - all flash and substance - yet earn his
>>approval.  Marc spoke of cheap stereotypes and recycled story ideas,
>>something all three of these animators were guilty of, yet he turns a
>>blind eye so he may focus on anime's flaws.  Perhaps the fact the dialog
>>is in English or that these men can often afford flashier animation than
>>anime can has biased his view.  Perhaps.
>I kinda disagree on some points here.  The people/studios he mentions are
>all exceptional at character animation.

I would dispute claiming that Bakshi is a good character animator, mostly
because he usually rotoscopes it, which I think is cheating in that regard
8-].

>They're mostly very good
>storytellers.  The recycled storylines in Warner shorts (Elmer goes after
>Bugs, Daffy tries to get Elmer to shoot Bugs, etc.) are reworked each time
>with enough of a spin that they don't really get tired.

That's debatable as well.  As much as I enjoyed the Warner shorts myself, they
seemed fairly predictable in their zaniness.  They weren't boring, but after
a while I had a hard time telling one Elmer vs. Bugs cartoon from another...
Suffice it to say I usually watched the Warner shorts for the sight gags.

>But there's way too
>much anime (IMHO) which can be easily pigeonholed by using the same old
>storyline, with different faces and voices.

I agree the number is greater, but I think the ratio of good to bad
anime is about the same as good to bad American animation.  For every
Warner short we have to live with GI Joe or He-Man or the Smurfs, which
can all be pigeonholed into the "stupid" genre.  8-}

>Marc's also seen most of his anime dubbed or subbed, or with a great deal
>of information thrown at him before, during and after viewing.

Ummm...so?  Did that have any relevance?

>>Marc complains about the character animation in anime, and here I will
>>agree that it does posess all the nuances and subtleties that the
>>better American animation does, namely Disney.  However, there are
>>subtles nuances present in anime, nice touches that are largely forgotten
>>in American animation.  And this ignores the vast amount of mediocre to
>>substandard animation in America.  Marc is unfairly comparing the best
>>the US has to the mediocre and worst of anime.
>BEBE'S KIDS - definitely not Disney - had better character animation than
>most anime, simply in that each character's attitude was expressed in the
>way they moved.  And, much as I hate to say it, most of even my favorite
>anime rely solely on facial expressions or poses to convey moods, not
>actual motion.

Alright, fair enough - I will agree that the Japanese are not as good at
using motion to convey characterization as most American animation can.
However, as with all animation, how well they do it is dependent upon
how much money they get for the animation - a movie will be better than an
OAV which is better than a TV show (usually).  I think any of the big movies
- like Wings of Honneamise, Akira, or any of the major Miyazakis - compare
pretty favorably in the character animation department.

>>Marc further damages his credibility with lines like:
>>>Linna would like to be a nightclub singer, but she can't sing.
[Deleted part of my article]
>Whoops.  That should be "dancer", no?  Some kind of performer.  I think
>I might be to blame for that one...

All right, up against the wall, hands behind your back, somebody get the
blindfold on him, do you smoke?

>>It's pure fantasy.  So is Dumbo, Pinnochio, Fantasia, Beauty and the
>>Beast, The Little Mermaid, and every other Disney movie in existence
>>(which will use as the epitome of American animation).  They're just
>>fantasies of a lighter, happier kind.  The fact BGC has a science
>>fiction setting and exudes of air of attempting to be realistic does
>>not make it any more or less fanciful than the average Disney movie -
>>it just makes it different.  As to whether or not the fantasy "works" -
>>whether you can suspend your notions of reality and be entertained -
>>is a different matter altogether and, despite the efforts of many self-
>>proclaimed experts to claim otherwise, entirely subjective.
>True.  But when you're grounding your work more or less in reality, then
>you can't get away with as much.  If BGC is aiming to be more realistic,
>then it has more work to do if it wants to maintain suspension of
>disbelief.

Maybe it's just me, but after seeing the scene in the first OAV with the
metal absorbing Boomer, I figured that clinched the fact that the "realism"
in BGC was more or less a facade, stuck in there to make the show cooler.

>>I had hoped Marc would be more open-minded that that.  I was disappointed.
>>But hope springs eternal, and until someone actually does do an objective
>>analysis, I will continue to gorge my mind on images of battlin' babes,
>>evil multi-national corporations, and maybe the occasional anime that
>>is worth of the appellation "art."
>If I could find a more objective person, I'd ask them to write the article.
>After years of trying, Marc's the best I've got :)

Ugh.  I certainly won't claim to be open-minded, but if Marc's the best
you can find...well, he neither panned all anime nor mindlessly praised
it, so there's hope for him.  I just wished he'd talked some more about
the positive aspects of anime in his "even-handed" article, that's all...
-- 
Bill "Whassamatter?!  Can't you take a joke?!" Barnes   wbarnes@sura.net
Disclaimer:  The author apologizes for any thought-provoking material he may
	     have accidentally included and promises not to do it again.
Datclaimer:  My employers wouldn't WANT to share some of my opinions.