To a unexpected and pleasant surprise, Roger Ebert graciously tweeted my last article on visual composition. I received some wonderful feedback from some visitors, feedback that I can’t thank enough for. 

One response was particularly interesting and provided me with much food for thought: 

I enjoyed your analysis of stills from Fullmetal Alchemist and especially your sketches of how you would change the compositions so they would follow the 180º Rule and the Rule of Thirds.

However, I would not expect anime to necessarily follow either of these rules. Both are traditions of Western art history that were not widely followed by Japanese art prior to the 20th century. Film has Western origins, but Japanese films often apply Japanese aesthetics and cultural rules to still compositions.

In your first example, I believe a Japanese artist may have felt it necessary to show all three characters to cover the interactions between the group as a whole. Of course Ed is the main character, and he is nearest and takes up most of the picture plane. But the feelings of Ling and Lanfan in this scene are also important, as the feelings of an individual in Japanese society often change to reflect the attitude of the group as a whole. An Asian audience would be more focused on interactions *between* characters and the emotional temperature of the group as a whole than on just the protagonist or just the character currently speaking. This is not an *inferior* method of composition for not following Western rules, but a different one following a different set of rules.

-T.L. 

Before I can begin with my main points, a brief background is probably necessary:

If you Google my surname, you’d likely learn that I am Vietnamese; what some of you may not know is that I grew up in the States and that Vietnamese is my first language. I am fluent in English and can speak, read, and write conversational Vietnamese and Japanese, and am quite knowledgeable of Eastern and Western cultural distinctions and social norms. I strongly identify with my Eastern cultural roots and with the Western society which I was born into and grew up in. In short, I am very familiar with both Western and Eastern aesthetics. 

Background aside, I believe very strongly in considering differences in Western and Eastern cultural, social, political, historical, and narrative functions: I understand that these distinctions are necessary, given how the latter emphasizes the individual while the latter emphasizes the communal. Representations and depictions of particular subjects differ, and these differences are important in understanding the cultural distinctions which respectively make up the Eastern and Western hemispheres of thought. 

However, visual presentations are not bound by respective Western or Eastern conventions – the subject and its respective depiction are, but the visual compositions are not. We naturally intake information visually, so there are some basic rules on framing anything that are humanly universal. 

“Women diving for abalone” by Sangi Takamura, 1840s. 

The 180º and Thirds rules are not exclusively Western or an invention of the 20th century – visual presentation is strictly human, and to claim that a depiction that does not understand such fundamentals is actually “following different rules” illogically disclaims the movement of the human eye and how we focus on and intake visual information and displays. 

“Reading in a Bamboo Groove” by Tenshō Shūbun, 1446 AD. 

Many classical Japanese art works employed the thirds rule by simple visual cue: the human eye naturally looks for a focal point in any given frame, and this rule is a very basic outline for artists and critics to create and assess any work. Chinese, Korean, and other famous Asian art also employ this visual cue. How these focal points are utilized and where the subjects are placed creates a distinct ocular movement, resulting in a composition with a distinct visual dynamic. 

National Noh Theatre of Japan. 

Film is a medium. It may have created by Westerners, but the medium has its true origins in theatre: the first films were heavily composed with theatre conventions. With this in mind, anyone will agree that film has never been Western based – both Eastern and Western cultures have their respective theatrical aesthetics, their productions limited by the stage; and of course, the first films drew much from their respective theatre origins. 

That said, film conventions also arise from human visual comprehension: numerous film movements, directors and cinematographers, through trial and error and technological development, established visual aesthetics that are universally appealing to the human eye. 

七人の侍、"Seven Samurai" by Akira Kurosawa, 1954. 

Considered the Golden Age of Asian cinema, the 1950s had a great many Asian directors who not only maintained their cultural narrative roots but beautifully executed visual compositions that stem directly from Eastern art history – in fact, Japanese cinema was a main inspiration for the New Hollywood movement in the 1960s and ‘70s. Akira Kurosawa, one of the greatest Japanese directors of all time, distinctly employed the Thirds and 180º rules in all his films. 

乱、"Ran" by Akira Kurosawa, 1985. 

Framing anything is not about “following” rules: it’s about understanding them – their origins, their intentions, their effects – and knowing when to use or break the rules for any desired effect. There is no “inferiority” on subject or intention; there is, however, a distinct effect as to how one visually frames the subject, and how such a framing creates an effect that does or does not reflect the original intention. Visual composition rules are human-based and do not reside exclusively to either Eastern or Western aesthetics: these fundamentals are universal for us humans. 

Original panel from Fullmetal Alchemist by Hiromu Arakawa that was depicted here in episode 15 of the anime adaptation. 

Running back to my example on Fullmetal Alchemist, perhaps the storyboard artist wanted to incorporate both Ling and Lanfan’s emotions while establishing Ed as the main focus. Assuming that this was originally intended, Ling and Lanfan’s respective emotions can be framed much, much better. With a rudimentary planar composition, their emotional state – as inferred solely from the stills – is non-distinguishable, basic at best. You can easily incorporate both Ling and Lanfan but frame them differently to infer their same emotional states with differing visual effects. For instance: 

A Dutch angle indicates something unusual/uncertain is occurring. There is a degree of control which is lost when the establishing horizon is tilted. 

In this scribble, the horizon (green) is skewed at an angle (the “dutch”, represented by the red arrowed-line). There is an unusual emotive effect since the horizon is not at its natural planar position. Note that Ed is still the focus even though Lanfan is in frame and in the foreground. Ling is still Mr. Happy-go-lucky while Lanfan is still Ms. Happy-go-knifing, as she is in the controlling foreground and Ling is in the less dominant background. 

A Fish-eye lens creates a claustrophobic effect, filling out the frame with rounded ends – almost like trying to fit a circle inside a square. There is both a discomfort for the subjects depicted and the viewing audience.

 

Here, the horizon is a curvature. The camera is directly focused on Ed, but since the frame is curved as dictated by the curved horizon, there is facial and body distortion in conforming with the odd effect/framing. Everyone seems stuffed into frame, so there is a further discomfort emphasized by the situation. With this curvature, Lanfan’s kunai looks even more pressed up against Ed’s throat, highlighting her utmost seriousness in getting information from him. Ling is still the least claustrophobic in frame, again emphasizing his lightheartedness despite the tense (and claustrophobic, in this framing case) situation. 

The above examples and other types of shots, angles, and framing styles can easily be employed to the same scene and have vastly different effects/inferences for the viewer. 

Lastly, anime is a 20th century artistic establishment, a result of the film and animation media taking off. Anime is a style of animation, which in turn stems from the development of cinematic techniques – in short, anime origins trace back to the human aesthetics of visual presentation applied to moving pictures. Anime has never been exempt from these fundamentals, and it never will be: claiming that it “follows a different set of rules” is again a fallacy and ignores the cinematic origins of the medium. Some of the best anime masterfully employ the 180º and Thirds rules (among other human visual establishments) in creating distinctly anime stylizations and aesthetics universally appealing. Examples include: 

Cowboy Bebop, 1998. 

Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex 2nd Gig, 2004. 

Akira, 1988. 

Grave of the Fireflies, 1988. 

Samurai Champloo, 2004. 

What is distinct to either Eastern or Western aesthetics is the social-cultural depiction of a subject, and the historical significance behind such a depiction. For example, on the subject of mythical beings Western narratives maintain absolutes of good and evil while Eastern narratives maintain the unabsolutes of such entities. Classic examples of such distinctions would be Walt Disney’s “Sleeping Beauty” and Hayao Miyazaki’s “Princess Mononoke." 

The evil Malificent and the good Fairies in Disney’s "Sleeping Beauty,” 1959 .

The magnificent and terrifying boar god Okkoto and wolf god Moro in Miyazaki’s “Princess Mononoke,” 1997. 

Both subjects involve mythical entities, yet their depiction vastly differ: Disney’s classic story beholds an absolutely evil Malificent and absolutely good fairy godmothers; conversely, Miyazaki’s story beholds fearsome forrest gods in their elemental supreme, extraordinary and terrifying at the same time. Excellent essays that further explain these distinctions have been written by the prolific Viet Le, who’s articles you can find by clicking here (on Miyazaki’s distinctly Eastern narrative) and here (on the differences between Western and Eastern mythology and theology).

Neither narrative depiction is wrong – the narrative structures simply reflect historical and social-cultural differences between the established Eastern and Western hemispheres of thought. Both do, however, employ the same visual composition rules that adhere to human eye movement. 

Love 'em, hate 'em – however you feel, understanding these rules about visual composition is key. Once you do, you can use or break them – your choice. Regardless of who the audience is, we’re all human, and we all like our eye candy and ocular diabetes.