UlasanAnime.com – This article delves into the concept of an “Anime Ghetto” in America, exploring how certain perceptions and industry practices can isolate and limit the appreciation of anime, drawing parallels with works like Kuragehime and Tatami Galaxy.
The author posits that how individuals react to a piece of media significantly shapes their perception of it. This “mirror-transparency” is crucial in media reviews, and the author finds it difficult to take reviews from sites like ANN or Fandompost seriously unless one aligns with their specific viewpoints. While acknowledging the technical expertise of some reviewers, like Chris B., the author notes a lack of technical analysis in many current anime reviews.
A significant problem highlighted is the derivative nature of much of today’s anime. When a series like Fate/Zero is viewed, the perception isn’t that it’s pandering, but rather that it’s supposed to be pandering. The author uses the analogy of a Twilight-themed lunch box being reviewed by someone unfamiliar with Twilight; they might find it good or bad, but they miss the point of its intended audience and marketing. This is exacerbated when reviewers are unaware of the pandering aspect or fail to assign it appropriate value. This is seen as a failure to grasp the context, akin to reviewing a product for its intended audience as if one were a hardcore collector.
This leads to what the author calls the “ghettofication of anime.” This refers to the fragmented nature of the late-night TV anime audience, often perceived as a silo that mainstream audiences avoid. The author criticizes sites like ANN for seemingly avoiding this type of evaluation, comparing it to absurd scenarios like Steve Jobs ranting about charities or Roger Ebert about video games. Such reviews, the author argues, undermine ANN’s credibility.
The author also touches upon Kara no Kyoukai, suggesting it too panders, but questions whether a bridge has been built between the dedicated otaku community and the growing number of individuals becoming more receptive to anime.
Addressing the “1% versus 99%” dynamic, the author refutes the notion that “anime is a privilege, not a right.” This is framed not as a have-versus-have-not issue, but as a matter of artistic proliferation and industry viability. The author criticizes the “I paid for it, so…” mentality, which they believe leads to two major problems: media piracy due to artificial barriers to entry, and the unnecessary ghettofication of the industry. This can result in a talent drain and a race to the bottom in production costs because the industry continues to pander to those willing to pay the most, losing mainstream relevance. The author suggests that for the industry to thrive, anime needs to become more affordable and accessible, benefiting both fans and the industry itself, and society at large.
However, the author acknowledges the difficulty in achieving this. The current financing model for anime in Japan, with its high production costs and small safety nets for flops, makes risk-taking challenging. The author questions why the proliferation of works like Kuragehime should depend solely on home video sales, proposing that the focus should be on solving the root issues rather than rehashing old problems.
Drawing a parallel with Star Trek (TOS), which, despite not being bought extensively on home video, became a cultural phenomenon and inspired a generation of scientists and engineers, the author suggests that anime could aim for a similar impact. This would involve flushing out the “good stuff” from the “ghettos” and releasing it to the masses, reconciling the 1% of fans being catered to with the 99% who may not even want to engage with that segment.
As a bonus point, the author finds Colony Drop problematic for reinforcing this ghettofication, though they acknowledge that CD does point out the existence of such a ghetto, albeit not explicitly. The author hopes this is offset by CD’s recognition of the issue.
You might also be interested in : Guilty Glances
