Ask John: Are Foreign Co-Productions & Works With Foreign Staff Actual Anime?

Question:
Tekkon Kinkreet has made headlines as of recent as director Michael Arias is reportedly one of the first non-Japanese/westerner to direct a major anime film production. As an animation enthusiast, I enjoy the quality and thoughtful production of just about any animation regardless of the born ethnicity of its director, but for some reason or another, I’m slightly torn on this issue. I’m a devout anime fan, but the notion of Japanese animation often brings up images of a Japanese development and production team directed by a Japanese individual to create a film for the explicit purpose of seeking a Japanese audience (I believe that this is very similar to Mamoru Oshii’s perspective, from what I recall reading at one point in time). Arias has opened the door for many eager (and of course, qualified) animation enthusiasts to pursue their dream of producing an animated production overseas. But at the same time, I still hold dearly to the notion of Japanese animation as something distinct, almost pure: a piece of Japanese culture, untouched by the west. I’m curious to know how you see the matter — as a businessman and as an anime fan.

Answer:
You’ve posed a very provocative question which, I can foretell, well inspire a variety of opposing responses. It’s also a question that must be answered delicately to avoid the stigma of narrow-mindedness or worse, racism. I’ll do my best to provide a concrete answer gracefully.

Countless times I’ve butted up against the theory that “anime” is merely an abbreviation for “animation,” therefore there should be no class distinction between Toshio Maeda’s erotic horror Urotsukidoji and Disney’s classic Bambi because both are examples of animation. But I can’t logically reconcile Disney movies being classified as “anime.” That may be a personal shortcoming. I’ve also encountered the sentiment that “anime” is a genre term used to identify any animation which exhibits the stereotypical characteristics of Japanese animation, namely bright colors, stylized character design, large round eyes, exaggerated visual cues, and so on. This definition would qualify Korean works like Wonderful Days and Yeu Woo Bi, and American animation such as Teen Titans as “anime.” But if visual design is the only determining factor for classification of “anime,” unconventional Japanese productions like Dead Leaves, Fuujin Monogatari, Angel’s Egg, and Dragon’s Heaven would be excluded as “anime.”

I’m of the school that believes that anime is animation which originates from, is imbued with, and exhibits natural Japanese cultural, artistic influence. In practical terms, that principle implies that animation which only superficially resembles Japanese animation, and animation physically produced in Japan but not exemplary of Japanese creative design is not anime. So Korean and American animation in the style of anime is not technically anime, nor are American commissioned works like The Last Unicorn and Thundercats. However, the definition of anime as literally Japanese animation may allow for the inclusion of Japanese produced works helmed by non-Japanese artists, or works that originated in Japan and exhibit Japanese nuances, sensibilities, and values despite being produced outside of Japan.

The Tekkon Kinkreet movie may be directed by American animator Michael Arias, but Arias lived in Japan for roughly ten years prior to his work on the movie, so the argument may be made that Tekkon Kinkreet was directed by an American with a naturalized Japanese consciousness – a thoroughly natural familiarity with Japanese sensibilities which transferred into the film. Tekkon Kinkreet may be the first major Japanese studio production helmed by a non-Japanese director yet created with a Japanese mindset and intended primarily for a Japanese audience, but in a sense it’s not technically the first anime movie directed by a foreigner. The short 1998 animated film 1001 Nights, a musical adaptation of Yoshitaka Amano’s illustrated interpretation of the epic Arabian Nights, is widely thought of as an anime film although it was fully animated in America, Canada, and England. Apart from being based on illustrations by Japanese artist Yoshitaka Amano, there’s nothing technically Japanese about the 1001 Nights animated movie. But the film remains available only on Japanese DVD, and more importantly, it genuinely and convincingly feels like a Japanese work. The spirit of Yoshitaka Amano’s Japanese art and perspective are so evident and pervasive in 1001 Nights that excluding it from classification as “anime” seems wrong.

In effect, I’m not suggesting that a Japanese animated work must be a racially pure production. In fact, anime hasn’t been exclusively Japanese produced since the early 1960s. Japanese studios commonly sub-contract work to animation studios in Korea and other Asian Pacific countries. I’m also not insisting that anime must be helmed by exclusively Japanese artists in order to qualify for recognition as “anime.” As Studio 4C has opened its doors to an American director and Studio Ghibli has formally announced plans to follow suit by seeking out foreign animators to work with, the strict definition of anime as animation produced by Japanese artists is quickly becoming outdated and inaccurate. I’m not suggesting that the qualities that critics and viewers expect of and associate with anime should change. As I’ve always thought, anime is Japanese animation. But while I’ve previously thought of Japanese animation as strictly animation produced in Japan, by Japanese artists, the evolution of the anime industry itself is necessitating a slight change of philosophy to define anime as animation that exhibits uncompromised Japanese artisanship. In practical terms, an animated work that originated from the mind of a Japanese artist and exhibits unfettered Japanese creativity, sensibility, and attitude may be called “anime” regardless of the ethnicity of its artists. In a sense, even though it was directed by an American, Tekkon Kinkreet is still Japanese animation because it came from Japan and exemplifies the artistry of Japanese animation. Likewise, 1001 Nights may be considered an anime film despite being animated outside of Japan because it originated in Japanese art and exemplifies the characteristics of Japanese art. However, works like Wonderful Days and Teen Titans that bear only a superficial resemblance to Japanese art should remain classified as “anime inspired” or “anime influenced.”

I’m aware that this distinction may seem arbitrary or self-serving. I admit that it’s a personal definition that readers aren’t obliged to accept or adopt. But I think that it’s a reasonable and necessary distinction that can effectively address the evolution of the anime art form while remaining precise enough to facilitate critical and analytical discussion. This definition, self-serving it may be, is precise enough to maintain a relatively strict delineation of what is and isn’t anime, and also acknowledges the increasing globalization of Japanese animation. The five letter word “anime” may seem small to define the entire realm of Japanese animation and exclude works that merely imitate Japanese animation (it’s only three letters in katakana!), but I don’t think that there’s a current need for a new term to distinguish Japanese animation directed by non-Japanese directors, or Japanese animation not produced in Japan. Furthermore, retaining “anime” as a single defining term for Japanese animation opens the door of possibility for talented foreign animators who are able to completely absorb and mold the techniques, qualities, and nuances of Japanese animation without redefining or altering them.