Category Archives: Popular Culture

November 7, 2006

The Rise of a Networked-Economic Giant; or Everybody Wants to Go to Heaven, But Nobody Wants to Die

By omo

In Yochai Benkler’s book The Wealth of Networks, he explored the internet’s potential in transforming human society by comparing behavior of people living in advance economies between a industrial mode of information production and network mode of information production. In some ways it is a repackaging of the common, copyleftist argument about freedom–“free as in free speech, not free beer.” However, Benkler raises a contention that a networked, non-proprietary approach to creating valuable, marketable information can be just as good, if not superior to a classical, industrial mode of production of information. Benkler does this through both economic ally and in social and political terms. While his example of the open-source movement in the software industry is a common banner that copyleftists rally under, the generalized approach Benkler used to explain the situation can be applied across-the-board, to most, if not all, useful information that is produced today under an industrial mode of information production.

Taking a bottom-line, cynical approach, I ask: Is Google’s long-term strategy as a business entity to create a niche in the market and in the landscape of copyright law, a sustainable goal? While the public cannot be certain what goes on in Google’s board meetings, one can reasonably construe their recent actions, marketing strategies, and overall philosophy to suggest several things:

1. If one can fairly presume that Google is full of smart, intelligent managers, lawyers, and businesspeople, then their success thus far these past few years means a switching of gears that they are going to be in this business for the long haul. Google has not existed even for 10 years, and many years less in the eyes of the public (and investors). Given their position as a leader in the internet-related industries, they now have the wherewithal to take new kinds of risks and pioneer the future in this mostly uncharted area of business and law.

2. Jessica Litman’s Digital Copyright lays out a solid foundation and a rather cynical view of US copyright law. In part, she argues the current statutory regime is the direct result of many elaborate and complex negotiated-for bargains between the traditional players in the copyright industry. While Litman, Benkler, and many others warn the senselessness and unfairness of applying laws meant to enforce economic competition between businesses to everyday Joe and Jane, the fact that Google (and the majority of players in the higher level of abstraction of the internet market–to exclude telecom interests and ISPs from the picture) had no say during the late 1990s round of legislative negotiation, it leaves new players in new media little choice in dealing with laws that are designed keeps the old players in power. Indeed, this entire school of thought did not start to mature until years after the passage of the DMCA. (Perhaps talk about Yahoo here?)

3. Are Google’s lawsuits a form of impact litigation? No doubt, by bringing novel and new issues before courts, Google is trying to set laws in favor to itself. In fact, if Litman is right, the court may be the only real legal venue where Google can seek relief; and especially if the legislative process is as slow as Litman (and in the history of US copyright law) claims. But as a rule, outside the court room, lawsuits have deep and complex implications for businesses. One of the key implication is in the battle of mindshare. (Bruce Keller’s presentation about the ad-based model of Google and the comparison to TV and radio elicited in me a feel of irony in light of the big picture.) Google is viewed in the eyes of the public directly, and its good will with the public affects its earnings in a very direct way (as opposed to book publishers or the Author’s Guild, as examples of Google’s opponents). Thus, Google has a stake in swaying the law to embody a wider fair use, or more free use, in alignment of public interest. Google can paint its opponents in a light of how established players, lacking that judicial agility, fight to retain the way they do business against innovative technology. It is both a marketing ploy and a legal strategy.

4. This ties in with the perceived, Lessig-like argument about fair use. It is generally accepted that a business method relying on a legal interpretation of fair use is an extremely risky one. While that never stopped VHS and Betamax manufacturers, the full force of the copyleftist argument is that some of the new things we can do through new media seems to violate the section 106 bundle of rights, they shouldn’t. These uses should not even be “fair use,” but free, un-infringing use. However short of legislative changes, Google’s only alternative is to have a court declare that it is “fair use.” Once realized that these reforms are very pro-public and against the interests of the established, entrenched corporate interests in old media, the public will tend to rally towards Google, its free services, and its vision of a freer informational future.

5. The nature of a internet search engine cannot be reduced to the like of a yellow pages or any analogous argument someone may make in court as a biased counsel. The web itself has been transformed entirely by search engines; Google’s success alone is more than enough to testify to its significance. It can be fairly said that ultimately Google is a middleman in the balance of consumers, creators, and middlemen, but how will the courts appreciate the value Google adds to our economy today? How will the courts appreciate the value of YouTube? MySpace? Will it go the way of Grockster; or the VHS?

Conclusion: What does Google stand to lose if they do not press on at this time? This is the $64,000 question, but does sound business sense means anything in an industry that is fast-changing, dynamic, and highly developing? With high risk comes high rewards. The fact that Google is such a threat to traditional players in consumer media (and an ever-growing list of other traditional players), there are reasons to believe this is going to be the case only if Google breaks the ties of the legislative binds that hinders it as a corporation in competition with other economic entities interested in the same slice of the consumer pie. Why say yes to licensing when you can always say yes to licensing later? The cost of litigation plus even a poor settlement seems little when the entire future of the world’s information industry is in the balance. To call Google’s attorneys as “believers” is probably more fitting rather than calling them prophets, but that is exactly what is in the balance for them.

===

Yeah.

The above is a rough outline of what I plan to write in a week’s time into a short paper. (And forgive the random references that I make with no clear meaning as to what it refers to, just for my own sake.) The relevance to all things anime is small but it’s an answer to a question plaguing the content industry. The internet has long since been the worst kept secret to wealth in this information revolution. How do you make a buck? How do we work with fansubbing to make a buck?

Indeed, if what keeps fansubbing alive is the monetary barrier to bring a suit to a wide range of people all over the world, to sue potential customers of Kadokawa Shoten, Bandai, MediaFactory, King Record, and what have you…

1. Why hasn’t there been more concerted effort to bring “fansub groups” down?

2. Fansubbing has evolved. But where will this go next? To elaborate, since the days where we pipe text through a genlock to mail SVHS tapes in a SASE envelope to today where we can produce MTV-style parodies with Aegisub and put it on YouTube, things has changed. The legal liability and economic incentives changed. The use changed. The users changed. And it will continue to change. I find it disturbing that I have to make a distinction between fansubbing in various contexts.

3. What other relevant questions can we ask? What are all the stakes? Whose stakes are important? To whom?

What I would really apperciate are references and critiques if you can throw them my way. I’m still in mid-research, so to speak, so that sort of stuff can be very valuable for me. Pretty please?

8 comments | posted in English Language Modern Visual Fandom, Modern Visual Culture, Off Topic, Popular Culture, The Law

October 30, 2006

Election

By omo

Suiseiseki won Saimoe, as it seems to be news in these circles.

Moe?

But what’s in a title? In as much as people subconsciously resign that popularity tests, as these are, means just that and probably only that, we all want our favorites to win.

Or do we? In some ways I like Suiseiseki a lot, but she’s just another girl on the list of characters that are moe, that are widely-recognized, that drives memes, that needs a good PVC figure, that adores doujinshi that we see as dime-a-dozen. Like roses.

Yet somehow, way before her steamroller victory, I found that she’s the girl I’d rally behind, out of all the others. Of course, Saimoe operates with a set of artificial rules (as all good elections do), such as it has to be a new anime aired between certain time periods, it has to be well-nominated, votes have to fit strict formats, what have you. Three observations:

1. Purpose. What makes Saimoe different than a poll that you see in Newtype or something is not in what it sets out to do. Simply put, a big reason why I’m thinking about “vote for your favorite” contests is that watching Saimoe makes me want to participate in one too, one that is more accessible. Don’t you? It’s kind of fun: fun to talk about it, to think about it, to administer it, to argue it in the various discussions that spring up, and to see how the population come to terms in a democratic fashion. That’s why Newtype and others have it–it’s something to read, to pay attention to, to get the publication’s name out there, to get the readers involved. In the same way Saimoe unites the anime community somewhat, at least those communities feeds (in varying degrees–first hand, second hand, etc) from the happenings in the 2ch boards. It is, arguably, the heart of anime fandom on the internet after all. I’m not sure, so don’t cite this, but something like 25% of the votes in the final match were from outside of Japan. It’s a good reminder for everyone that anime is a global thing!

2. Purpose. Again. The difference, as to Saimoe versus other polls, is to cater to 2ch-ers. These people are obviously too hardcore for Newtype polls, which caters to a huge, mostly detached, domestic audience. They watch the latest shows, and would rather talk about them more because they’ve talked the old shows to death. And of course if Saimoe is to be a reoccurring event, we just can’t have the same bunch of characters running every year (even if it may not make any difference towards the outcome in an isolated, closed set of voters). And of course, they want to give people the freedom to let any character to have a chance, and these people know every character. Like Ms. Invisible from Magipoka. Or Nanoha’s stick.

3. What makes these polls fun is the participation. The voting alone is pretty boring. But the meta-talk. The fanart and other fanwork. The campaigning. It’s fun. It goes to point number two, too, in that it’s more fun to be able to talk about characters you care about, so having a huge base to pick from makes it much more fun to talk about, at least early on. Once the winners win and most others become losers in the later rounds, at least you’ve gathered enough history and the “politics” of voting can continue on revenge motifs, and consolidate your voter bloc to leverage. People can still have fun.

And that’s what’s it’s all about. I don’t see why people complain about people getting too serious about Saimoe. It’s part of the fun to be serious about it.

3 comments | posted in Modern Visual Culture, Popular Culture, Rozen Maiden

October 7, 2006

Megumi Hayashibara Is Paprika

By omo

So thanks to friends, news services, and the New York Film Festival, I got to see Paprika. Needless to say, this Satoshi Kon fan is pretty happy, being able to watch the film before it actually comes out. Plus it’s something interesting to blog and it doesn’t involve Kanon…

Paprika is a spice, as you know. A spicy name for a woman, perhaps. If you can imagine that Megumi Hayashibara was only so spicy to be paprika and not, say, jalapeño, then you’ve got the right image for Paprika, the character concept in the film. It’s not to say Hayashibara can’t crank it up, but that’s not her role in the film–a woman of every man’s dream. The woman of many faces is a underlying drive behind Satoshi Kon’s Millennium Actress, and Hayashibara does a wonderful job with it.

In fact, you can see the underlying drive of all Satoshi Kon’s previous works in Paprika. The one that’s utmost obvious is Paranoia Agent. It’s a bit of a spoiler, so you can skip this paragraph if you’d like, but the underlying story of Paprika is fully explained (or unexplained) in the same fashion that Paranoia Agent is explained (or unexplained). The framework is really the same, although Paprika does offer us a lot more. I think if you can grasp what happened in Paranoia Agent then you’ve at least got the mental wherewithal to grasp the story in Paprika.

But even if you were spoiled, no word is enough to treat you to what Madhouse has lined up for your eyes and ears. To get it out of the way, despite that he’s perpetually stuck in the 80s, Suzumu Hirasawa’s soundtrack in Paprika is by far the least grating and least obnoxious. It’s not overly powerful compared to some of his earlier works in Kon’s shows, and I also think it’s just better arranged here. I rather like it.

The visuals, well, is what you’d expect of a movie featuring psychedelic dream sequences merging with reality and a feature film budget. It’s weird at times, it’s scary at times, it’s awe-inspiring at times, and at times it makes you wonder why Paprika is naked and huge.

Then you remember, hey, Megumi Hayashibara, yo!

(Is she playing a tsundere? Satoshi Kon has the otaku by his balls! Watch out!)

As with all of Kon’s works, they are visually imaginative. And as with the typical tools and conventions of anime storytelling, clever exaggeration works wonder to bring laughter. I should say Paprika is not exactly a LOL film, but it’s got some comedic highlights. Kon’s gotta work in some of that linear-branched narrative best seen in Tokyo Godfathers, after all.

Perhaps the most charming aspect of the film itself is the homages. From Roman Holiday (Aka is a Paprika knockoff?) to Kon’s own films, Paprika is a dialogue between Satoshi Kon and his viewers. Since Paprika is a novel adaptation, I’m not sure how much of that voice carries across from him and how much of it carries across from the original author, Yasutaka Tsutsui. But either way the film is passionate about film-making itself.

That said, even for me not all things about Paprika is glowing. I think if you’re unfamiliar with Kon’s works, you’ll likely to be pretty lost upon first impression. I think if you don’t have a keen grasp of the otaku underpinning, you are not going to get all the jokes. Heck, if you’re not a minor film buff (or someone who’s been watching movie and of a certain age), you’ll not get all the references. In as much as the barrier, I think, is high, Paprika is not too hard to understand substantively. It just won’t make it so surreally pleasing as it can for the hardcore Kon fans.

One other bone I can pick with Paprika is its pacing. Admittedly most of Satoshi Kon’s devices are tense. If you’re a follower of progressive, postmodern rock, or an anthem electronica fan (and others), you might be familiar with the whole buildup-release pattern. Paprika has some of that, but it doesn’t really break so cleanly. Part of it has to do with the jokes, but part of it has to do with the audience being unable to catch up to the film. As an result, while its 90-minute was well-used, I think it did not have the right timing in some of the key scenes.

If I had to use one meaningless cliché movie reviewers use to describe Paprika then I’ll call Paprika a “tour de LOL.” This is a must watch for Satoshi Kon fans and admirers of his work. Sadly, I cannot guarantee your safety if that’s not the case–watch at your own peril. If you live near the Windy City you can catch it next week at the Chicago International Film Festival (Who also is hosting Tomino right as I enter these texts). Other than that, it’s due an early 2007 release in Japan and over in the US.

For my solace, at least Paprika is the kind of film that leaves a longing aftertaste upon a powerful first impression. Like a spicy dish. Or a bad pun.

4 comments | posted in Modern Visual Culture, Paprika, Popular Culture, Seiyuu, Idol, Pop

September 20, 2006

Anime Porn Is a Wild Goose Chase

By omo

This is probably a lesson I’m learning in constructing an audiovisual narrative. People who go to film school probably learn this as well. I say “probably” because, well, it’s kind of a thing that I just think up and talk about with random people on the internet.

[Just imagine how difficult it is to have a straight-faced discussion about the effect of inserting various explicit sex acts in a film or a TV series or an OAV series. It just doesn’t happen unless you get lucky with someone who can do it and is willing to do so.]

To cut to the chase: sex is just like anything else that happens in an audiovisual narrative. In that how the typical ero anime is terrible aside from the way one enjoys a B-movie or like any other kind of porn, it is constructed in such a way that it does what it sets out to achieve. However, when we’re talking about inserting a sex scene as a coda or conclusion to a relationship, it just seems to be a poor choice.

In some ways you have to be a bit of a psychologist. Sex in media is a divisive topic especially in the more prudish parts of the world, but even in audience groups who are less fidgety about it, explicit sex acts draw reactions from the audience on a per se basis. This reaction can be distracting, and it’s uncertain how it furthers the point of the story when it has already been resolved to that extent (think of a romance story that has nearly ended).

A good distraction can be a useful tool. REC, for example, does a wonderful job with that as a hook, and they didn’t even have to be explicit about it. Looking back at it, REC is a story about reliance of people, so having a sex act by itself was a good thematic stake that pegs one corner of the bigger context and frames the issue in a distinct way.

But that’s still kind of shameless. It’s a shock tactic. Is it really fair to say that sex or fanservice, when used per se, is of a “lower” use? It may distract some people from looking at the underlying narrative, but what if the show isn’t about that?

To look at the typical TEROGE, it’s a wild goose chase, and sex is the golden egg to get the player’s bodily organs pumped with blood? Yet do people lay acclaims to these TEROGE’s virtues through the geese? I mean, the characters within? Or the chase itself?

I suppose in Fate/Stay Night anime’s case, it was a wild dragon chase.

The point is this: if we abhor poorly and cheaply pandering fanservice and sex scenes, do we have a rational foundation to make our claims credible? Obviously it doesn’t make sense to complain about having sex scenes when we’re talking about a porn piece. But is it true in the inverse, that pornographic scenes are inappropriate in non-pornographic works? And I phrase this not in the artsy-fartsy context, but even in popular, mass media. We definitely can have implications of sex, and even actual depictions of sex acts when it is fairly or even critically relevant to the purpose of the show (Rahx, Eva, Berserk, just to name a few).

Do you like it? Do you hate it? Is this really, killing the goose to get the golden egg?

4 comments | posted in Bishoujo Gaming, Modern Visual Culture, Popular Culture, REC

September 16, 2006

To Rewatch, To Buy Blind: Herald for Kanon

By omo

She Kicks High

Just how often do we rewatch something, and just how much does “not knowing what happens next” drive us to certain consumer (or non-consumer) decisions? The more I think about this topic I realize two interesting notes. At first my answers to these questions merely fill out the presumed value of a bigger economics picture, but it seems that it can help answer some substantive questions as well. Like, what do well-received anime series have in common?

The questions about rewatching and why we watch/buy shows we have not seen are invariably linked, I think, because the same mechanics play in part to answer both questions. One way to look at it is a simple, common-sensical approach that a great show is worth re-watching. In some context this means you simply pull out that copy of Haibane Renmei to feed your melancholy soul on a snowing Saturday afternoon. Another context means I bought Cowboy Bebop to rewatch, partly, but also as something to have in my library so others can watch it too. At least in both instances we are making use of what people buy home videos for.

The reasons that drive us to pursuit new, unviewed material are different, it seems. Perhaps, and for many bloggers, it means to find out what is new, and to discover if this new anime is of any merit. As long as there are new anime coming out, they will naturally find its audience and people will watch new things. For some, they watch new things only because it’s “good” — on par of the old things that are “good.” (“Good” here meaning having one or more desirable attributes.) Many people decide new things to buy based on this standard. Sometimes some of us stumble upon new shows.

But the pattern that is underlined by both is a matrix between quality and sharing. To some, a pursuit for new is a qualitative matter: we hate cliffhangers and unanswered questions. To others, it’s to find more of the same: “good” shows, show with attributes we like. Also, in the process of blogging, or mapping it into the fan scene consensus, or simply talking about a show that interest you, it generates interest for that show. It brings people into awareness of its existence, and in turn, an interest to see it.

To that end, a “good” show that gets talked about all the time is de facto the show that will get watched the most. Evangelion comes to mind. A show that no one talks about, and is crap, will not get watched. I can probably name some names but that would do the really obscure and crappy show no justice.

That much is probably common sense, too. But what’s interesting now is how we could tweak the parameters of “Interest” (to denote what makes sharing likely) and “Quality” to explain some other things one sees. Like the popularity of Naruto or DBZ. Like why Kirameki Project is obscure. Like the importance of the first episode. Like the importance of sending out the “right” “vibe.” Like how to market your show to the right audience.

To me, after all this analysis, it seems to describe my anime watching habits pretty completely. The reason why I watch a lot of new TV fansubs is because “new” is a qualitative trait I look for in shows–being kept up as to what’s happening in the scene, what are the new developments. It’s also a preference towards art style, as I don’t particularly like certain styles of retro-looking animation.

What’s interesting is that shows themselves can create “Quality” elements. Watching the 16 episodes of Simoun, for example, creates a (very, very strong) desire to find out what the hell happens next. For some, the first 2 episodes of Fushigi Yuugi would have done the same, at a lesser degree. Or the first 2 episodes of Initial D. The “pilot” effect is strong when coupled with this sort of hook. Some people look for this kind of quality as a “good” thing, too. There are other responses which a work can solicit from us, that people desire. A very funny show naturally is qualified by its humor or jokes. It could even be a tongue-in-cheek sort of humor, but as a rule of thumb there aren’t too many people who can appreciate it to the extent as other more obvious traits.

There are also places where “Quality” and “Interest” overlaps. These elements, both qualitative and external to a show, are where the most excellent shows and franchises do well in. I suspect why Suzumiya Haruhi’s “perfect storm” rationale behind its massive popularity is a combination of hitting people with the right kind of qualitative traits (high production quality, good acting, suspension of belief, the right genre) and some not-so qualitative traits: such as capturing a very important, vocal segment of the fanbase; a wide approach instead of a narrow, element-based appeal; and having the right amount and right type of marketing (during a market lull to a degree).

On the “Interest” side of thing that tend to be external, we have obviously, the right kind of marketing. Samuel L. Jackson, for instance; or the name GAINAX. Shoujo is a good tag word in the North American market, as another example. Even having the right OP/ED song by the right kind of people makes a huge difference, but that might also be qualitative.

A strong fan interest kindles more fan interest. Hype begets hype. Suiseiseki is not a lonely doll but the banner of an army. VIPPERs. Dancing VIPPERs. SaiMoe. Animesuki forums. Anime conventions. Comiket. 2ch. And many others. All these are factors, “Interests” which leverage people into buying, watching, rewatching, or finding out about shows. It may be simple word-of-mouth. It could be hype. It could be just that a person sees for the first time images from a new show, and is interested.

Continue reading

5 comments | posted in Kanon, Kirameki Project, Modern Visual Culture, Popular Culture, Suzumiya Haruhi no Uuutsu