Anime and genre

Lewis Cook lcoqc
Sun Oct 1 14:46:35 EDT 2006

On Oct 1, 2006, at 6:57 AM, wrote:

> I've always taken the view with Midnight Eye that if a film is feature
> length and released theatrically then it is a movie, regardless  
> whether its
> animated, shot on film or video. To regard live action film as  
> something
> intrinsically different (superior?) to animation really limits any
> discussion about the moving image. For me its like people saying  
> they don't
> watch silent films, or black and white films or subtitled films- or  
> films
> made after the 70s!

Since when does an argument that A differs from B necessarily imply a  
value judgement? I haven't seen any suggestions that anyone on this  
thread is arguing the 'superiority' of cinema over anime. Shouldn't  
the discussion be based on what has actually been written and posted  

> Alex's argument is absolutely nonsensical, as any  art historian  
> who studied
> the 20th century is hardly likely to dismiss photography just  
> because it is
> not painting.

If Alex had been arguing that photography is inferior to painting qua  
"art," then his analogy could only be taken to imply that live action  
film is artistically inferior to anime, and this is something which  
it very clearly does not imply. No more than it implies the contrary.  
Forgive me for saying so, but judging from the snips quoted above and  
from the rest of your post, it looks as though you haven't been  
reading this thread very attentively.

L Cook

More information about the KineJapan mailing list