From: bn981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ryan Mathews)
Subject: Re: Oh no!  American vs. Japanese animation
Reply-To: bn981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ryan Mathews)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 05:02:17 GMT


In a previous article, steyn@cs.rochester.edu (Gavin Steyn) says:

>  Second, other than the "goofy" part, most anime falls under your
>definition of immature.  The BGC characters and plots are pretty
>silly, and the DP even more so.

I wouldn't call BGC or DP "silly" by a long shot!  Dancing around like a
goofball, silly noises, slapstick humor, *that's* what I think of when
I hear the word silly, and WFRR? was full of all of that.  You're 
apparently using "silly" to mean anything that isn't all gawdawful serious.

I'd rather not argue about WFRR? anymore.  I don't want to look like I'm
condemning it.  I've seen it at least three times, and I love it!  But,
although the animation is great and the film is filled with plenty of laughs
and spectacle, I don't think it's an example of a superior *plot*.

>If you want serious, anime (with certain notable exceptions like _Grave of
>the Firefly_) is just not the place to go.

Words again.  What do you mean by "serious"?  (What do I mean for that
matter? :-) )  IN A WAY, BGC is "serious" in that its characters are deeper
than the 1 or 2 dimensional characters we get on American TV.  (Granted,
that doesn't always hold up for all 8 chapters.  :-) )  It's "serious" in
that it takes its universe seriously.  Events accumulate, without the need
to return to the status quo at the end of every episode.

There are many ways to be serious, but as I fumble around, trying to define
the word, the best I can come up with is that the anime has to take *itself*
seriously.  That can mean trying to be funny in original ways, rather that
resorting to tired one-liners.  It can mean trying to do a better job of
animation, or to work around the limitations of the animation, as I thought
KIMAGURE ORANGE ROAD did.  It can mean lots of things.  It's pretty vague.
I just sort of get the idea that not a lot of care goes into much of American
anime.

Note that all of Disney is "serious" by the above.  That is why I will never
argue that Disney is "bad".  I just don't care for the types of stories they
do and wish they would do something different.

>>How do I explain the difference between the stylization in anime and that
>>in THE SIMPSONS, BEBE'S KIDS, HAMMERMAN, BEETLEJUICE, and so on, where the
>>characters don't even look vaguely human?
>
>You don't.  You're used to seeing anime-type stylization, since it's
>similar to the stylization Disney uses.  The Simpsons, for example,
>are stylized in a different direction, but they're no less recognizbly
>human.  

With all due respect, get real.  You're saying there's no difference
between anime stylization (enlarge the eyes, deemphasize the nose, shrink
the mouth, perfect the muscle structure), and THE SIMPSONS (draw the eyes
as humongous circles sitting on top of the face, draw the hair as either
a zig-zag line or a three-foot-tall pompadour)?  Anime tends to glorify
the human form.  All the men are handsome, all the women beautiful, all
the children above average.  THE SIMPSONS ridicules the human form.  It's
called "caricature" and it's used in most if not all animated comedies over
here.  Say what you like about its effectiveness, but you can't possibly
tell me there's no difference!

>The problem is not with the plots you want; the problem is claiming
>that they're only in anime.  Most anime plots wouldn't go over the
>hea of a 12-year old, and you can find anthropomorphic animation that
>has plots that are deeper than you average 18-20 year old is going
>to plumb in one watching (e.g. _The Last Unicorn_, or _Watership Down_).

Sure, you can find them.  Far and few between.  And although anime
wouldn't go over the head of a 12-year-old, most American animation
tends to be aimed quite a bit lower than that.  Most 12-year-old boys
I've known are a least starting to fidget at the thought of sitting
through a Disney film: "That stuff's for kids!"

BTW, when I said "You ain't gonna find [those plots] on this continent",
I was referring to the present.  Everyone keeps bringing up old stuff.
Yes, there are a few American animated gems out there, but they are
too few and most of them too old for me to believe that animation over
here is actually evolving at all.

			---------- Ryan Mathews
-- 
Email: bn981@cleveland.freenet.edu      DISCLAIMER:  Any resemblence of this
Snailmail: 786 High Street              article to rational thought is
           Bedford, OH 44146            purely coincidental.