So here's a fun fact, Howl's Moving Castle was the first
ever Studio Ghibli film I watched, just under a decade ago when a friend of
mine recommended it to me and said it was her favourite film by the company. Unfortunately,
I ended up really disliking the film, I found it to be very strange, very
unfocused and rather vague. Of course a lot of that comes down to Hayao
Miyazaki's style as a storyteller and it being one that I just wasn't used to,
now here we are many years later where I've seen the majority of his work and
have come to love that style, so I was curious to see how my feelings on the
film would have changed in that time. Frankly speaking I... still don't like
it, but for very different reasons from before.
Truthfully speaking I do appreciate the film a lot more than
I used to, but that comes down to appreciating Miyzaki's style as a whole, his
films are never ones to focus on narrative or arcs or world building, but
instead prefer to focus on the emotions of the characters and having you
understand that rather than the world around them. It's well noted that
Miyazaki storyboards his films before writing them, emphasising a more
storybook layout of storytelling, highlighting the visuals and feelings rather
than a plot. Watching a Miyazaki film is like floating in a calm river, it can
be incredibly soothing and beautiful if you just let yourself get swept away in
the environment. The issue here is that this idea is not original Miyzaki’s,
but was based on the book of the same name by author Diana Wynne Jones, and
while I have not read the book, I can very much get the sense that it did have
a much bigger focus on world building, establishing rules and creating a
structured narrative, and this comes to clash with Miyazaki who doesn’t focus
on these things, there are no rules to how a world works for him, they just do
and you go along for the ride.
This isn’t to say Miyazaki doesn’t tackle issues such as war
or morally grey characters before, it’s just always been on his terms and he gets
to say as much as he wants to on the subject matter, and I get the sense that
he’s trying to be faithful to the plot of the original and it’s a concept that
certainly allows for his usual sense of creative flair and style, the two just
don’t match on a blueprint level. Miyazaki is always about visuals and
atmosphere, two things that you don’t get from a book, and isn’t guaranteed to
blend well. I get the sense that if Miyazaki had chosen to be less faithful
then this could have made a stronger piece, as it is I found myself constantly
getting confused by the rules of magic or the political motivations behind this
war or how people seem to fall in and out of love and change sides constantly
because…it happened in the book?
I acknowledge most of this criticism is in speculation but
honestly if I’m wrong then that just makes it look worse for the film having
only half-committed to something when they never needed to. Claiming it’s
issues are due to the film trying to be faithful to book is me giving it the
benefit of the doubt and trying to lessen the blame by saying it’s clunky
because it chose accuracy as a crucial component.
As I stated none of these are problems I had with my original
viewing, nor were the positives things I acknowledged at the time, frankly my
dislike of this film and love for other Ghibli films held me to the belief that
everyone’s first Ghibli film is going to be one of their least favourite and
for the most part I still hold to that. However, I look back on my initial problems
with the film being elements such as the main character Sophie being a blank
slate who exists just to be a self-insert fantasy for girls to place themselves
into because they find Howl attractive. Which is still technically a true statement
but is also not a valid criticism of the film? Well, technically speaking it
is, Sophie being a blank slate makes her a dull protagonist and also a rather inconsistent
one as she has far more personality as an old woman than she does a young one that
they feel like two completely different characters (While also changing accents
for some reason). Her being a self-insert fantasy is the part that’s not a
problem, I only viewed it as one because it wasn’t a fantasy character meant
for me, despite the fact many of my favourite characters are my favourites for
the very same reason.
I find this relevant personally because context is everything
to a film and looking back on a film I haven’t seen in many years and what I found
to be valid criticisms then versus now I find interesting and honestly slightly
proud of to see myself grow and better myself as a critic of films, finding
more to appreciate in a film that I once wrote off as terrible while also
looking for more legitimate issues rather than “This isn’t made for me so it’s
bad”. Mind you I was just a highly opinionated teenager at the time, like most
have been, it’s just always interesting to see how things change and makes me
curious on how I will view this film another decade from now and how I will be
different from then and how I view films will be. Opinions are fluid, context
matters and situations change, there’s no point dying on a hill or permanently
writing off a film because you have no idea what will matter, but I find myself
moving in the right direction and I hope I continue to do so in the future.
-Danny
No comments:
Post a Comment