Anime and genre

[Mark Nornes]

The answer is, of course, "it depends."

It depends on the scale of the production, its industrial context and  
moment in history, the genre, the personalities of all the staff  
members, etc. etc. etc. etc.

That said, I have to say I found the 6 hour + documentary on the  
making of Mononokehime fascinating for one thing: through the  
ridiculously thick description of the production process, you're left  
with the strong impression that those images (combined with their  
movement) are construed from Miyazaki's prodigious imagination,  
channeled through his aching arm and inscribed on paper, and then  
sent through the Ghibli factory. But the main thing is the remarkable  
similarity between the image he jots down at his desk and what we  
see. I'd love to see someone take this idea and run with it.

Markus







On Oct 2, 2006, at 12:42 PM, tetsuwan at comcast.net wrote:

> >I think that what Miyazaki does in order to receive credit as  
> "director" is substantially different from what Mizoguchi did to  
> receive credit as >"director".
>
> Okay, I've heard this and similar, but what is the argument? Live  
> action directors work with a cinematographer, actors interpret  
> lines, editors make decisions, studio heads and producers have  
> input. The animator has voice actors, character and background  
> artists with input, etc. They both work from storyboards and a  
> script. They both have studios and producers.
>
> What did I miss?
> --
> Mark
> http://dorknation.wordpress.com
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: Alexander Jacoby <a_p_jacoby at yahoo.co.uk>
> Jasper is quite right to say that I'm not personally very  
> interested in animation. But that has nothing to do with the point  
> I made here, which is that I perceive photography and painting as  
> different media, a comment which implied no value judgement. I'm  
> not particularly interested in symphonic music either, but that  
> doesn't mean that I dismiss the aesthetic achievements of  
> Beethoven, Mahler, Bruckner, et al - just that I don't choose to  
> devote as much time to them as I do to great movies, books and  
> paintings.
>
> An art historian might, as Jasper says, examine twentieth century  
> visual arts and discuss both painting and photography. Or he/she  
> might write a book about the Renaissance and discuss both painting  
> and sculpture. Nevertheless, one would not feel that a book about  
> "Renaissance painting" specifically was necessarily lacking  
> something - the author  might have just chosen to narrow the field.  
> Conversely, one could widen one's field and focus on Renaissance  
> arts as a whole - ie including literature, music, etc. All these  
> choices would be defensible, because painting and sculpture, or  
> painting and photography, like animation and live-action film, are  
> related but distinct media - one might want to discuss them  
> together or separately, according to context.
>
>