Ernest Schaal wrote:

> > This is a demonstration of how full of yourself and defensive you are, Ernest.
> > My first post on this thread was wondering if you were not underestimating
> > your so called beginning level of Japanese, or were just being modest, if you
> > were able to understand those movies you were referring to in this thread. If
> > you were able to understand those Japanese movies, you'd be doing a lot better
> > than Japanese who've studied English for years, yet still do not understand
> > English language entertainment.
>
> Actually the tone was snotty, along the lines of how dare I criticize
> Japanese cinema without being fluent. You may not have meant it to be
> snotty, but it was. You subsequent messages confirmed the snottiness.

No, Ernest, nothing addressed your "right" to judge (who said anything about
criticize?) Japanese cinema or its relation to your level of language ability. I
was criticizing Japanese language ability after years of study, also with no
reference to their "right" to judge foreign film.

> > And most importantly, I had not thought of subtitles, or you reading them.
>
> Then why didn't you say that earlier, rather than continue your tirade about
> how no one should comment on the arts unless one knew the language?

I said I had not thought of you using (English) subtitles. The only Japanese DVDs I
can recall with English subtitles are Zatoichi and Odoru Daisousasen (oh yeah,
Samurai Fiction and maybe Sakuya), though I always use Japanese subtitles for
foreign works, if it is in widescreen and does not interfere with the picture. I
use subtitles to informally check translations. The only snotty thing I said about
you and subtitles was that you are accepting their version of what is being said,
if you rely upon them. I then criticized Japanese subtitling of foreign film.

There is nothing I said about anyone's language ability and their "right" to
comment on movies. I said most Japanese do not have the language ability to
understand or talk about English language films [in English].

And again, when I say "understand", I am referring to dialogue, not ability to get
the director's intended message, if any. And my reference to language and culture
was culture in general (such as how it applies to social heirarchy, age or gender),
not the culture of, or contained in the movie itself.

> > How many times do I have to tell you I don't care if you are at some beginner
> > or intermediate level of Japanese? I don't know what my Japanese level is, nor
> > is it important.
>
> I don't care if you care if I am at some beginner or intermediate level of
> Japanese. I do care about your rudeness to me and others. Some poor guy
> starts this thread wanting to talk about Japanese cinema, and you pull your
> nonsense. I feel sorry for the guy, and I dislike your Kaz-like approach to
> usenet etiquette .

If any bad blood resulting from the above is due to misunderstanding my writing, I
am sorry.

> > I did not say Japanese cinema was not good if it were not made by certain
> > directors; I clearly stated I do NOT choose or note works (any genre) for
> > their directors.
>
> Apparently, your knowledge of cinema is almost non-existence, as is,
> according to your own comments, your knowledge of Japanese art, history, or
> literature. And yet you seem to imply that knowing the language is more
> important in film critique than actually seeing the film.

I didn't say that, that is what you persist in thinking I meant.

> > I did NOT say anime was good in general, as I told John, even I wouldn't watch
> > 80% of anime, and I have not been interested in seeing any released to video
> > after 2001 (except two or three of those big scale Miyazaki's works).
> > Therefore, I have no clue what all this "Cowboy Bebop" or "Trigun" craze is
> > about, and looking at the boxes on the shelves, I'm not interested in even
> > finding out.
>
> But you apparently hold it to a different standard. For "good" cinema of
> live action genre seems to be limited to the exception, but "good" anime is
> anything that people will pay money to see.

Neither did I say nor mean that. Do you recall me in some film related post earlier
saying that ability to make money did not reflect quality, otherwise the Lord of
the Rings series and Titanic would be the "best" movies ever made?

I do not hold anime to a different standard. It is you who hold anime to a
different standard when you look down upon it as a rule. Your view of anime or the
people who could possibly appreciate it is quite clear, and so far, not favorable.
You are persistent, yet doubt when I must then respond.

> >> The vehemence in which you try to protect anime from any criticism is like
> >> that of a mother tiger protecting her cubs. You slam the masters of Japanese
> >> film,
> >
> > Other than to say Kurosawa, or the star of Tora-san are dead, I did not slam
> > the masters. You, however, slam anime, as if you have never heard of such as
> > Tezuka, who is also dead.
>
> Go back on the thread and you will see a clear bias for your anime, made
> clear by your two different standards of quality.

There is no double standard for quality, nor for how much may be safely
disregarded. Indeed, look back.

> > Go ahead and criticize anime. I have on this thread. Porn's porn. Kiddy stuff
> > is kiddy stuff. It features too many young girls. Most stuff I wouldn't allow
> > my kids to watch, wouldn't show my mother, and maybe 80% and almost all new
> > stuff, I wouldn't care to watch myself.
>
> You have been defending it more than criticizing it, trying to spin the porn
> and kiddy stuff not reflecting anime as a whole.

Because it does not.

> > Your problem is you think it is limited to basically two types, and that it
> > appeals to basically two audiences. If there is a wider appeal, as with a
> > Miyazaki piece, it is only incidental.
>
> Your problem is trying to label anime as better than it is, merely because
> an exceptional director may make something that is good.
>
> Notice how the "wide appeal" is considered to be proof of the goodness of
> anime, while the "wide appeal" of other genres is not.

How wide is the appeal of other genres are you referring to, to compare it to the
appeal of animation internationally? How wide is the appeal of Japanese cinema in
their own country, to the appeal of animation or foreign film? While mere appeal or
financial success do not mean quality, if animated features are the largest
grossing films ever in Japan (I have not seen it adjusted to inflation, as may be
done in US rankings), what does that say about the state of modern cinema, or the
Japanese? [Insert your comment about lack of culture or childishness of viewers
here.] What do you say to professional film critics' years long lament about the
state of recent Japanese cinema (other than those few notable works and directors)
and its financial decline?

> >> without even seeing more than a few of the films (by your own
> >> admission), then object to my remarks that as a genre the anime tends to be
> >> on a par with American sitcoms (with my having seen plenty of both).
> >
> > How many films one sees is irrelevant to the fact that even you admit "good"
> > only "occasionally" comes from cinema. The argument of how good cinema is in
> > general, or how many are actually "good" is settled, if only you were not so
> > defensive about Japanese cinema.
>
> It has everything to do with being able to determine the good from the
> mediocre. That is like someone who never saw opera arguing that rap is
> better, or someone who never heard a rap song saying the opposite.

Making the argument may seem ridiculous to you, but the facts remain. Even
 professional critics have not been kind to modern Japanese cinema, but for the
work of a few directors, including recently recognized ones such as Kitano and
Shimizu.

> > When did you say anime was on a par with American sitcoms? Are American
> > sitcoms also mostly porn and kiddy fare which appeal to otaku and children?
> > That is not fair, either. Married With Children was the last sitcom I can
> > recall following, and I would not do so now as an adult, nor would I let my
> > family watch it now.
>
> Actually, I didn't say that anime was on a par with American sitcoms. I said
> the better anime was one a par with good American sitcoms. There are plenty
> of poor sitcoms and poor anime.

Fine.

And movies? You keep bashing me over the head over not being critical of anime, but
I don't hear you critical of movies. Do you really believe Japanese cinema is in
general, so beyond your criticism? If the proportion of "good" Japanese movies is
comparable to the proportion of "good" French movies, what does that mean of the
remainder? Does not "good" mean poor? And how many is that, anyway?

> >> I can only explain the vehemence and irrationality of your arguments to a
> >> personal stake in the discussion, like it being you chief source of
> >> amusement (i.e., your being an otaku).
> >
> > Wrong on both points. I have not had an interest in anime since my kids were
> > born, and haven't bought any since 1995. I have rented about 270 videos since
> > late October to take advantage of the 100 yen campaigns at local stores. About
> > 80% of that was Hollywood movies, mostly action, less than a handful of other
> > foreign films, and the remainder being good Japanese movies (except Love
> > Story), and the entire series of animated Heidi and Dog of Flanders for my
> > kids, who watch one to three episodes per day. My kids were not interested in
> > Masked Rider or Ultra Seven which I saw as a child, or Sailor Moon or Cutey
> > Honey.
>
> Then why the ridiculous defense as an alternative to mainstream cinema?

Because anime is another form of entertainment (and a form of culture), as are the
Internet, video games, music, comics, books, conversation lessons, karaoke, hostess
bars, or even using one's cell phone. I do not call anime "THE alternative", which
is another misunderstanding of yours. Collecting stamps and walking one's dog are
alternatives to watching movies or animation. Geez.

MAKING anime is a viable alternative to MAKING expensive, time consuming, or
technically difficult movies, and a popular anime or character may enjoy greater
recognition or even financial success than a (relatively) unknown live performer in
a new movie. How many times do I have to say it? Not that Titanic or LOTR are
great, but such live action films will not be made by Japanese in Japan (except
perhaps period drama) in the near future.

> > If you are referring to time, naturally, most of my time is on the computer. I
> > am not at sites featuring anime or women, either. Most of my time is spent
> > reading news and magazines, or searching Goo for a car or motorcycle to bring
> > home. Last night after posting, I was up till about 5 am reading about circus
> > freaks, particularly conjoined twins and the recent births and surgeries of
> > "two headed" children.
>
> Frankly, I don't care how you amuse yourself, since you have already
> admitted a general lack of knowledge of the topic at hand.

Level of knowledge is irrelevant to the facts, as you have shown regarding Japanese
animation. Even hypothetically seeing every anime available to you in California
has not better informed you, nor can I believe even over decades of viewing, that
you could have seen most Japanese movies on the shelf, if you demand only informed
comment. At best, you have seen all that is subtitled, all that has been released
in the US, or what you can understand in Japanese (not the hero shows or porn),
correct? Is that a better general representation of Japanese cinema, than is
representative of anime for English speaking viewers in the US, which is indeed
heavy on the porn, science fiction, or questionable portrayals of women?

> So the test of "goodness" is commerciality? Does that mean Morning Musume is
> today's divas?

No. I said that in a recent post before Rashomon or anime came up when I brought up
LOTR and Titanic. Nor is a mere large audience indicative of quality.

But a sizable segment of the population should be able to recognize quality, as in
the way Japanese consumer products have been internationally recognized and
successful over time, even if the local population continues to harbor resentment
over WWII, or how more South Korean or Chinese consumer products such as
electronics are becoming more successful, despite not being well known before; and
should be able to appreciate quality, even if they are not as cultured as you might
demand them to be.

> Or is the test "recognition value"? Colonel Sanders seems to have
> exceptional recognition value, as does the girl in front of Fujiya
> restaurants. Does that mean, they deserve Oscars?

BTW, I do not believe animation should receive awards simply because they are
animation. But IF and when animation (or CG) is capable of beating out live action
film for awards such as best photography, best actor, best director, best film, or
best foreign film, because critics actually believe so, that says something.

> > I did not say anime is "the alternative" to watching movies. My alternative to
> > watching movies or using the Internet is reading popular books of the action
> > thriller genre.
> >
> > The reason I need to be so repetitive is because you will not accept my one
> > paragraph post that there is more to anime than porn or kiddy fare, and John
> > keeps going on about influences on US culture, as if those aspects of US
> > culture did not exist before and needed help from Japanese.
>
> I wouldn't have pointed out your obvious weaknesses in logic and in
> credibility if you had not been so offensive throughout the discussion. More
> and more, you are becoming the twin of Kaz.

You still do not hear how negative you are being about anime (you have stopped
flogging on people in general who like anything about it), nor are you willing to
admit it.

And you still don't want to tell me about which decent (they don't even have to be
"good") Japanese movies to get for my wife which do not include those cliches which
make up the vast majority of what is available locally, or on what basis the
quality of Japanese cinema is comparable to French cinema. Indeed, you claim to be
so knowlegable (or about what would be required to be knowlegable), but I have read
nothing so far about Japanese film from you than your one liners, or you harping on
another poster's one word reactions. Come on, Ernest, just how many movies of the
total, do YOU believe are "good"? If you do are so offended by my figure of 15-20%,
why can't you give me a figure? Do you not know? Are you not qualified to comment?
You do not read others' or professional opinions? You expect me to watch every
damned movie to decide for myself? What is it?

It is 12:53 am, and Seven Samurai just now ended. I still say it is too long, the
way Lord of the Rings is too long, particularly Return of the King (I bought the US
extended version). Yes, it offends fans or purists, but I can see why a
professional would choose to edit. My wife went to bed at about 9:30 without even a
glance at the TV beyond the three minute opening credits. I doubt she is going to
watch Yojimbo or Ring, either.