|
Author
|
Comment
|
AliceCEB
Registered User
(6/19/05 8:12 am)
|
Howl's Moving Castle
I saw Miyazaki's newest wonder last night: Howl's Moving Castle. Fabulous! Catch it wherever you may find it. The entire family went and we all loved it--from the eldest to the youngest. Besides, it features my all-time favorite voice, Lauren Bacall's.
I'm off to read the book.
Best,
Alice (who was not paid by anyone to post this :D )
|
DerekJ
Unregistered User
(6/19/05 10:51 am)
|
Re: Howl's Moving Castle
>>I'm off to read the book.<<
Good, since most of Diana Wynne-Jones' trademark fairytale spoof, her humorous depiction of Howl, and Potter-esque rampant "alternate worlds" plot were reportedly left by the wayside, so that Miyazaki could indulge his serious "A story about war" messaging...
Eiko Kadono's "Kiki's Delivery Service" survived having half of its book eviscerated for Miyazaki's improvisations, but HMC reportedly wasn't as lucky.
|
AliceCEB
Registered User
(6/19/05 1:51 pm)
|
Re: Howl's Moving Castle
Derek (sigh), see the movie before you trash it. The artwork is fabulous--no, breathtaking. Yes, there's a significant "war is senseless" element, but it's dwarfed by the characterization and another element that is almost non-existent in movies--a loving portrayal of aging. Miyasaki's portrayal of all the characters--good and evil--is done with grace and subtlety.
I have no doubt the movie takes large liberties with the book. As far as I'm concerned, that's irrelevant since he has created an entirely different piece of art in its own right that should be judged upon the merits of the art form. Within his art form, he is brilliant.
I'm looking forward to the book, not because I expect the same story, but because the essence of the movie was so fun and beautiful, I'm hoping that the book gives me that, too--not the same plot, and not even the exact same characters.
Best,
Alice
|
Veronica Schanoes
Registered User
(6/19/05 2:57 pm)
|
Re: Howl's Moving Castle
Lauren Bacall is in HMC? I had no idea! I love Bacall! Who does she voice?
|
DerekJ
Unregistered User
(6/19/05 7:25 pm)
|
Re: Howl's Moving Castle
>>I have no doubt the movie takes large liberties with the book.<<
Neither do I--To wit:
makeashorterlink.com/?R25561A4B
Fans have been watching Miyazaki since most in the mainstream have heard of him (by a good ten years), and know the good and bad points to expect when he makes a film--
And again, "Kiki" was an episodic story to begin with, and that movie's additions were right in spirit....But Wynne-Jones' books are either absolutely unfilmable or just too filmable (depending how much love and effort one wants to put into the reading), and there's nothing there in the affectionately-fractured-fairytale department that needs changing unless one were just plain trying too hard:
The changes here just don't make any SENSE--It's as if "Harry Potter" were stripped of the Quidditch match and turned into a touching drama on abused orphans...
(Oh, and Baby voices the Witch of the Waste, which is one of Disney's improvements, considering a transvestite actor voiced the original Japanese version.)
|
AliceCEB
Registered User
(6/19/05 8:48 pm)
|
Re: Howl's Moving Castle
Derek, we're going in circles. Obviously you feel a deep allegiance to the book, and view any change to it as sacrilege. I can both understand and respect that. But from my perspective, without any such allegiance, the movie stands well on its own. I won't rehash this argument again.
And Ms. Bacall is as wonderful as ever--I wish I could hear her more often!
Best,
Alice
|
kristiw
Unregistered User
(6/20/05 12:42 pm)
|
conflicted...
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, particularly the subtle way the art manipulated Sophie's apparent age. I don't think anyone could quibble with the beauty of the film, even if the messages it plays up aren't the same ones Jones did.
That said, I almost wish I hadn't read the book before I'd seen the movie, because I was distracted by the deviations. I think the film was more damaged by remaining loyal elements of the original story that just didn't make sense in Miyazaki's adaption (I don't want to give anything away, but the hair-dying scene and the scarecrow come to mind).
|
Connie
Unregistered User
(6/20/05 9:21 pm)
|
conflicted too...
The movie was gorgeous! No doubt about it. I really enjoyed it and would happily see it again. That being said,I did have some issues with the strong anti-war message. As much as I fervently agree with Miyazaki about war being bad, I thought it took away from the sweetness and fun of the original story. I felt like I was being preached at. It just came out rather didactic. It was a bit odd as I thought the rest of the story was told in a quite sophisticated manner.
That aside, I thought he did an excellent job. I did miss the parts where Sophie gets to visit Howl's home though. It was fun reading her reaction to our world and I was looking forward to seeing it on screen.
Oh well, you can't have everything.
Connie
|
Writerpatrick
Registered User
(6/21/05 10:22 am)
|
Re: conflicted too...
I think Miyazaki may be getting a little too preachy in his old age. What bothered me about Spirited Away is that he was critisizing the attitude of young girl. His anti-war theme is nothing new (a few of his films have it). He's done some great stuff, but he could be getting past his prime.
|
Crceres
Registered User
(7/5/05 9:11 pm)
|
Re: conflicted too...
I was informed by an anime-fan that Howl's Moving Castle was made before Spirited Away, and for whatever reason wasn't released---or re-released, maybe---until now. To me, that explains why some of the plot elements seemed more rough than in Spirited away. Of course, that may be a matter of the original book's plot, the transition to film, or my finicky opinion.
|
DerekJ
Unregistered User
(7/5/05 9:56 pm)
|
Re: conflicted too...
Nope--'Twas made after, although an earlier director toyed with some abandoned concepts during the end of "Spirited" production.
(And having finally seen it this week, I, despite my otherwise staunch Miyazaki defense, stand by my "Any resemblances are purely coincidental" opinion as stated--
I hadn't seen a director throw a book this far out the window since that Peter Pan thing two years ago...And that, friends, is no small achievement.)
|
deathcookie
Registered User
(7/8/05 11:10 am)
|
Re: conflicted too...
Just out of curiosity,
Are you talking about the Peter Pan movie that was supposed to be Peter Pan, not Hook or Finding Neverland? I haven't seen that one yet, and I'm curious what parts of it strayed from the book. It seemed in the previews that they made Wendy a more aggresive character than she's ever been portrayed, is that true in the actual movie?
Thanks,
Callie
|
kristiw
Unregistered User
(7/8/05 12:27 pm)
|
Peter Pan
If you're talking about the version with Jeremy Sumpter and Rachel Hurd-Wood, I'd say it was the best film adaption of the book I'd ever seen. Aside from being utterly beautiful, it gets at the darker sexual undertones very effectively. "As long as children are gay and innocent and heartless," indeed.
|
Helen J Pilinovsky
Registered User
(7/8/05 1:38 pm)
|
Re: Peter Pan
I second Kristi's points enthusiastically: I walked out of the theatre singing with glee, and I *very rarely* have that reaction to adaptations of my favorite books ...
|
Erica Carlson
Registered User
(7/8/05 4:45 pm)
|
Hear, hear
I found it delightful, too. For the reasons already mentioned. It's certainly worth seeing on video if you're even tentatively curious.
Erica
|
evil
little pixie
Registered User
(7/9/05 5:51 pm)
|
Re: Peter Pan
In the movie Wendy was more aggressive than in the book- she's actually the one Hook tempts with the offer of being a pirate, and she's not as eager to be a mother as in the book. But other than that and the way they portrayed the Darling family (the father was very different, and they invented an aunt to baby-sit the night the children flew away), I'd say the movie stuck pretty close to the book. I really enjoyed it, and I thought the way they did Wendy was great. I still recoginzed her from the book- they just made her more active (I almost said stronger, but then I remembered she was strong in the book too; just not in such an obvious way) and a bit more complex.
|
AliceCEB
Registered User
(7/9/05 7:53 pm)
|
Re: Peter Pan
I, too, loved the movie because I felt it preserved the spirit of the story where children are beautiful, selfish and so often heartless. It reminded me even more of the play, Peter and Wendy, than the book. Years ago, I saw a brilliant production of the play which combined puppets, live actors and a talented musical ensemble. That production reminded me of the complexity of the story and of the emotions involved--in a way that the movie did as well.
Best,
Alice
|
darklingthrush
Registered User
(7/13/05 8:36 am)
|
Returning to Howl
I'm afraid I haven't seen Peter Pan yet but I have seen Howl's Moving Castle and had read (more than a few times) Ms. Jones' excellent book.
I think to enjoy the film, HMC, I did have to compartmentalize it a little bit from what I enjoyed about the book. I'm glad they still had Howl overreacting about his hair because it is such a fun moment and a great characterization of Howl at that moment. I also particularly enjoyed how Miyazaki portrayed Sophie's curse. It was nice to see how in moments of passion, she would forget her age and become young again. It helped take away what would have been a great deal of dialogue to explain the curse at the end. I also liked how the physical presence of the castle. No it wasn't the way I pictured it. But I did love how Miyazaki made it seem impossible structurally. And the chicken legs, I was smiling in the theater as I thought of all those stories about Baba Yaga's hut.
I did enjoy it less for the same reasons that other's have stated. The very tacked on strong anti-war message. The movie was visually stunning but I felt that this drew away from the original book so greatly and of course was very didactic. And Howl never did seem like one to be didactic. The other changes I didn't even really mind: Michael/Markl's age, Suliman's dog, Suliman herself and even the changes in the Witch of the Waste. I did however miss the tie-in with Donne's poem. I went to the theater with two of my friends who teach college English. As we were leaving I was trying to explain some of the differences in hopes of getting them to pick up the book. My one friend seemed surprised that a YA book would have a poem at its heart.
|
Veronica Schanoes
Registered User
(7/17/05 11:08 pm)
|
Re: Returning to PP
Each to her own...
I hated that Peter Pan movie with a burning, betrayed passion. It was so beautiful, visually--it got the look of the thing so right, that I was amazed at how it could get some of the fundamental points so wrong. For one thing, they decided to make Peter and Wendy prepubescent instead of younger--I understand that they wanted to play up the sexual undertones that are definitely present in the novel, but it is also just as clearly stated that Peter still has all his milk teeth, which means he's, what, six years old at most? He is not 12, his voice is not about to change, no way.
Also, one of the guiding conceits of the book is that adults cannot fly. It doesn't matter how much fairy dust you sprinkle on them--Hook could have bathed in the stuff--grown-ups simply cannot fly. That's the point. That's why at the end, when Peter comes back for Wendy in that final, heart-rending scene and she's grown up, she says "Don't waste the fairy dust on me, Peter."
And I hated the white-washing of Mr. Darling. If he's going to be all simpy and well-meaning, there is no point in doubling him with Captain Hook, to my mind. It struck me while watching this that Hollywood can only conceive of terribly abusive parents, or saccharine-sweet parents. Mr. Darling was neither. He was a bully, and kind of a jerk, but he genuinely loved his children and tried to do his best. In that respect, I think the book was far more truthful than the movie. I don't really understand who Hollywood thinks it's fooling--kids know that parents can be jerks. They have to put up with it all the time.
Anyway....rant over...
|
DividedSelf
Registered User
(7/18/05 6:40 am)
|
Re: Returning to PP
> And I hated the white-washing of Mr. Darling. If he's going to be all simpy and well-meaning, there is no point in doubling him with Captain Hook, to my mind. It struck me while watching this that Hollywood can only conceive of terribly abusive parents, or saccharine-sweet parents.
To be honest I haven't read the book since the age of about 7, so I can't make a proper comparison. But isn't this splitting of a personality something that's characteristic of fairy tales precisely in order to make sense of ambivalence?
|
DerekJ
Unregistered User
(7/18/05 1:45 pm)
|
Re: Returning to PP
>>To be honest I haven't read the book since the age of about 7, so I can't make a proper comparison.<<
Ah.
>>But isn't this splitting of a personality something that's characteristic of fairy tales precisely in order to make sense of ambivalence?<<
Uh, believe the point we were both making was that, search every page under a magnifying glass, Hook don't fly, Wendy wasn't "tempted", and there t'weren't no "war" in Howl or Sophie's country.
(To its credit, HMC wasn't plagued with as many of what Roger Ebert refers to as "the Little Movie Glossary" as "Peter Pan in Title Only" was--
But for those with the ability to read a few posts back, the POINT was about how far a director can chuck a book out the window if, for whatever reason, he really, really tries...)
|
