Behind The Nihon Review

It’s an ongoing struggle to maintain the recognition that an enjoyable anime and a “good” anime aren’t always synonymous.  We can think of a line that allows us to categorize and distinguish between anime that are trying to be artistic or meaningful and anime that are mainly intended as shallow entertainment.  Like everything else in life, the line is seriously blurred, with possibly the majority of anime sitting somewhere in the middle between “meaningful” and “trivial entertainment” and a title’s position on this spectrum depends on a lot of things, such as how much meaning one is willing to extract out of something like Wagaya no Oinari-sama.  But there are the titles that are obviously made with artistic merit at the forefront of intention… some succeed admirally, like Mushishi, some others are hampered by inconsistent execution, like Gakuen Utopia Manabi Straight.  There’s little controversy to such titles: if you’re open to that sort of thing, you’ll fall head over heals for something like Natsume Yuujinchou.  But hours upon hours of the intellectual stimulation provided by Kino’s Journey or the ambigious symbolism, begging for interpretation, of Haibane Renmei does not a healthy anime diet make.  Variety is the key, and sometimes we need to indulge in the mindlessness of a Code Geass or a Nogizaka Haruka no Himitsu just as frequently as we’re given an opportunity to reflect on something as meaningful as Clannad… (LOL? Did I not pick a good example there?)

And while there’s often not much controversy to titles at the “meaningful/insightful/artistic” end of the intention spectrum, there’s always a lot of controversy about the worth of what’s at the “entertainment” end.  And the reason is simple: everyone has different genre tropes they prefer.  Entertainment anime are generally defined by a lack of ambition.  They’re safe titles: we know what to expect when we go in, hence why we watch them.  That leaves them open to criticism, and the criticism generally comes from those who aren’t susceptible to the particular genre conventions.  Don’t like a plethora of girls doing cute things to try to impress a male lead whose quality and quantity of personality rivals a tube of liquid paper?  It’s no surprise you don’t like Rosario + Vampire.  Not into giant mecha piloted by moody teenagers blowing each other (dig the double entendre) through space?  Then you probably won’t get much out of Gundam Wing.  The criticisms are fair enough: I think there’s a sound reason for not rating a highly enjoyable genre piece as highly as something that doesn’t excite the same set of visceral emotions… but provokes a deeper, more profound reaction.

Not that I’m advocating that a highly enjoyable genre piece is better than a mild, yet polished and “deep” piece of art.  Like all things artistic, just what is “better” is a personal opinion, which is why, even among critics of similar taste and sensibility, reactions resemble a bell curve rather than a delta function.  What I’m trying to justify is why I usually try to reserve the higher ratings for genre breakers, anime that are more ambition or anime that are aiming to have a more profound and lasting impact than just the basic “ZOMG” or “EPIC LULZ”.  But I’m also saying that, just because I don’t rate Gift ~Eternal Rainbow~ as highly as 5 Centimeters Per Second, doesn’t mean I can’t see the entertainment value of the former.

So why do I give one genre piece like Lamune a much higher rating than another genre piece like Rental Magica?  For sure, personal preference is a big part of it.  Objectivitiy is a lofty ideal that is unattainable for anyone who calls themself a “fan” (and unthinkable for anyone who doesn’t).  No one is truly “objective” and ratings will inevitably be influenced by one’s own personal preferences.  But a good reviewer, I think, acknowledges the good points and bad points that any anime has (except maybe royal crown, who will ardently tell you that Code-E has no good points), weigh each of them up, and try to come up with a fair rating based on their own personal value system.  It’ll always be controversial, particularly for bad reviews.  For someone like me, who puts a high value on an anime trying something new, I usually won’t reserve a high rating for an anime that does something we’ve seen a million times before but with polished execution.  Unless, of course, it happens to push all my buttons.  Then I might give it a slightly higher rating, but still not quite as high as a genuine convention defier, like The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya. (LOL again? What, isn’t this a good example either?)

And then, some anime just suck.  Lack of ambition is one thing, but jokes that aren’t funny? Action that’s yawn-inducing?  Drama that’s clumsy and awkward? Fanservice that isn’t titilating? That’s not entertaining. (Of those, fanservice is the most vulnerable since it has a tendency to get old very quickly.) Again, there’s no objective standard by which to judge this type of thing, and I guess more often than not, it’s simply just a case of something not pressing one’s buttons.  The reaction a reviewer has to a given anime arguably can’t be helped: the challenge for a good reviewer is to explain it. Whether it’s the duty of a reviewer to explain it in a way that still makes the title in question appealing for those who are inclined to whatever it offers… is a question that’s open to debate.  I think that’s a really interesting question, but one that I won’t answer since just now I’m no authority on the subject and don’t really have an answer off-hand.  I do want to know what people think about this, though, it’s the sort of thing that gives us impetus to improve our own reviews (something that I always want to try and do).

Nonetheless, in most cases, anime that are both ambitious and attempt to be profound, and succeed at invoking emotions and/or thinking that goes beyond the basic and visceral, are the ones that I feel deserve to be held in the highest esteem.  Anime that are just as ambitious, but are flawed by inconsistent execution or a misguided philosophy (and this includes a concept or theme that I may not necessarily agree with) should be commended for their ambition, but ultimately judged by what they manage to invoke and/or how well they absorb their audience in spite of their flaws.  Genre pieces… well, by then it just depends on personal preference, but I think there’s an argument that we, as reviewers, can possibly attempt to service that such anime do make an appeal (fairly blatant in most cases, notwithstanding) to a certain set of preferences.  But again, some genre pieces just plain suck and I can’t see the harm in panning a title accordingly.

And inevitably, in an article with so many generalizations, there are exceptions to everything I’ve posted.  And I intend to write a few more of these articles on the “art and philosophy of reviewing” in the future, since I think it is an interesting topic to explore.