Anime and genre
Sun Oct 1 14:46:35 EDT 2006
On Oct 1, 2006, at 6:57 AM, J.sharp 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
> 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
> 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.
More information about the KineJapan