review: Howl's Moving Castle
Nov. 22nd, 2005 10:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timepiececlockSO.MUCH.LOVE.
Okay, I've never read the book. And no, it's not quite as fantastic as Spirited Away. But it's just as fantastical, and it's just as beautiful and just as charming and this time it's a love story... and shucks if I'm not a sucker for a visually beautiful love story filled with magic and demons and spells.
When Howl first showed up I thought "No wonder Sophie's freaked out, she's getting whisked into the sky by David Bowie. I'd be kinda freaked out too."
I was vastly amused by the entire hair-changing-naked-slime scene. The dialogue and that whole scene just struck me as really, really funny. Howl really came off as vain the whole movie through, but by the end his vanity and selishness had changed in my eyes to be like that of a child-- sometimes hurtful or irritating but not intentionally cruel, merely self-focused. Like his heart and mind were stuck as a child's. Even the ways he tried to please Sophie and show off for her were childish in a way: a pretty house, new clothes, an eternal field of flowers. [[Speaking of which, when that scene came up I couldn't help but reminisce for the scene in The Thief of Always by Clive Barker, where the boy wishes for a field of flowers and each flower to be a different color, and the old housekeeping woman looks on in awe. The context of that scene was actually quite a bit more malevolent in Barker's book than here, but I won't get into why because, frankly, that confrontation is pretty cool to read and I don't want to spoil it for anyone who might pick the book up someday. It's also got my favorite opening lines of any novel ever.]]
I really came off liking Howl's character by the end. I kind of wanted to smack him a few times, but I could also see why Sophie was in love with him. On top of being glamorous and magical, he had that childish whimsicalness that took joy in flamboyance and the pleasures of being, well, glamorous and magical. That easy happiness is rather engaging (though, again, something he had to grow out of in the end.) She was also taken in by the dark woobie side. It's a good thing she was, or his damn near bipolar personality would have driven her insane. "So dramatic" she called him, and he was.
Probably my favorite thing, though, was the way the movie showed his affection for her as being continuous, and he didn't fall in love with her despite her old woman looks, he simply fell in love with all of her, as an old woman and as a young woman. Because what are looks to a wizard? Everything around him was beauty created on a whim, he made himself beautiful and surrounded himself with such beauty in his things that he didn't require other people to be beautiful. Beauty was relative; beauty was easily falsified, and he knew that as much as anyone. While she was an old woman he didn't pine for her to be young, nor did he seem to even care as she constantly shifted back and forth. He had his less than physically beautiful side too, so why begrudge her hers?
I liked Howl's English voice, though it took a few lines to grow on me. I started watching it by slipping back and forth between the two audio tracks, but after about half an hour I settled on the English one because of my eternal love for anything with Billie Crystal in it. After that I got really attached to Howl's voice... it was very soft-spoken sexy the way Ashitaka's English [Billie Crudup] voice was in Princess Mononoke. EDIT: Just looked up his VA... CHRISTIAN BALE! I'd totally forgotten that, and spent the entire film trying to place it. Mmm... okay, now the character's an even sexier one. Just being peripherally attached to Christian Bale upps the sexiness a good 10 ten points.
What I didn't predict:
That the scarecrow was the prince. In hindsight, it should be obvious, and I knew he was something more (another piece of Howl's heart, like a Horcrux?), but not quite what. So I was surprised when he turned into the prince.
What I accurately predicted:
That Howl and Calcifer had to be reunited-- I guessed that about halfway. Although I didn't quite accurately guess the nature of the spell-- I thought his soul was split and Calicifer was Howl's heart. Turns out it was more of a Dragonheart deal-- Howl gave his heart to Calcifer in some kind of deal. That's one of the parts I didn't understand... Why give his heart to a demon? What did he get out of it? Magic? At the end it appears he has enough magic without Calcifer. Why were Calcifer and the other sparkly demons falling from the sky? Were the sparkly demons Sulimon's servants? That's what it looked like in the magic dream trap. And what did Calcifer get out of exchanging hearts with a magician's child?-- he seemed as much a prisoner as Howl. And yet, in the flashback, it looked like the exchange was a willing one.
Other things I didn't understand:
-The nature of Sophie's curse. The conditions were never accurately explained in the film, so I wasn't sure even at the end if she had completely rid herself of it. I expected it to fade away gradually, and it did weaken over, but it also seemed to reassert itself randomly depending on her moods. And it went away while she slept? It's was very unclear-- when we saw her character design change, were we the audience seeing the true Sophie while the characters still saw the old woman? Or did the characters see the spell flickering in and out as well? Did Howl see through the spell at any point, or some of the time, or the entire time? When he looked at her did he see an old woman or a young woman? Sophie seemed to see through the magic in the world around her (the henchman, for example) while others didn't, but are we to assume that Howl did as well?
-The whole plot thing with Sulimon's agression against Howl. At first I thought she was merely angry at an disobediant pupil, but it looked like she was also involved with the Calcifer thing and on both sides of the war??? By the end I was completely confused.
-What was up with the dog?
-The presence of the little boy and his relationship to Howl. I assume he was an apprentice, but it was never clarified, and I'd be surprised someone with such a bad history with their own teacher would take on an apprentice. Unless he decided on a whim one random Tuesday "Gee, wouldn't it be fun to have an apprentice?" and went out and found one... and afterward let him stick around because he didn't really know what to do with him.
-the nature of Howl and Calcifer's deterioration. At first it was implied that by fighting as a winged monster at night Howl became more and more like a winged monster himself-- harder each time to return to his true form, which is easily understood; it's a common fictional metaphor and very traditional for fairy tales and fantasy. Spend too much time behind a mask and the mask becomes real. But later in the movie Calcifer seemed to be saying that Howl's curse (the one shared with Calcifer) was the reason he was becoming a monster. That doesn't really make sense since it looked like he and Calcifer had been bound for many years. Why would it start to destroy him now? And why was it triggered during Sulimon's magic dream trap?
-The locational stuff with the hat shop and Sophie's spell and her mother. How could Howl's castle take over the hat shop? Didn't regular people live and work there?
...Basically giant entire sections of the plot confused me, and I never really felt I understood what was going on. Which is why I say it's not as good as Spirited Away.
However, NONE OF THAT BOTHERED ME WHILE WATCHING. Honestly! I barely even thought about it until afterward.
So I didn't really understand the whole thing with his ex-teacher. Did I care? No. I cared about his relationship with Sophie and Calcifer and all the MAGIC SPARKLY SHINY THINGS. Truely, Hayao Miyazaki movies can always be counted on to bring the MAGIC SPARKLY SHINY to the table. Even when the plot isn't as tight as I'd like, Miyazaki is so skilled at blending MAGIC SPARKLY SHINY with lovable characters that I care about and want to be safe, so that I don't care if I didn't really catch all the layers. It's fun to watch all the same.
I think I'll have to add this to my Miyazaki collection. I still need to pick up the DVD of Castle of Cagliostro too...
So I have a poll. I want to hook my 7 year old cousin on Miyazaki. Get 'em young, I say! And I've made a poll of the three movies that I'd like to show her. But frankly Miyazaki movies, while often meant for children, tend to have scarier imagery than movies for American kids of similar age groups. Like the witch in Spirited Away, or the bombs and monster!Howl in this film.
At least I think. It's really hard for me to judge because I don't have kids so I don't know how scary is scary, you know?
The U.S. rating is PG. But what does that mean?
So those of you with children or around children or who imagine you have a good idea about what children should watch...
[Poll #618509]
I figure it'll probably be screened by her parents first, but I'd like to save everyone the trouble of my giving a gift she's too young to watch, you know?
I didn't ask about Princess Mononoke because I remember pretty clearly that's rated PG-13. And I remember when I saw it in the theater some dad brought 4 girls that looked about 8 years old and they started freaking out when the demon was attacking the village in the beginning. ::shakes head:: That's a parent who will learn to actually read the rating next time and not assume that because it's animated and has the word "princess" in it that it'll be meant for children.
I decided I'm going to read the book. Any of the questions I have above-- if they can be answered by reading the book, then don't tell me. :D
EDIT: When it comes to the "how young?" question my judgement is further compromised by the fact that at 7 I was reading books other kids were reading at 9 and 10. At 10 I was reading Michael Chricton, which rates a good R for violent monster-induced deaths and swearing. I remember I was always able to read books of a more mature level than movies I was allowed to watch (mostly because my parents didn't really supervise my reading at all), but I think there is a difference between reading the words and seeing the visual imagery as a child. I might let a kid read Jurassic Park before I let them watch Poltergeist, though both have monsters and a high body count. I know my cousin is reading at a higher level than her peers, but I'm not sure what that means in terms of film she can watch.
Okay, I've never read the book. And no, it's not quite as fantastic as Spirited Away. But it's just as fantastical, and it's just as beautiful and just as charming and this time it's a love story... and shucks if I'm not a sucker for a visually beautiful love story filled with magic and demons and spells.
When Howl first showed up I thought "No wonder Sophie's freaked out, she's getting whisked into the sky by David Bowie. I'd be kinda freaked out too."
I was vastly amused by the entire hair-changing-naked-slime scene. The dialogue and that whole scene just struck me as really, really funny. Howl really came off as vain the whole movie through, but by the end his vanity and selishness had changed in my eyes to be like that of a child-- sometimes hurtful or irritating but not intentionally cruel, merely self-focused. Like his heart and mind were stuck as a child's. Even the ways he tried to please Sophie and show off for her were childish in a way: a pretty house, new clothes, an eternal field of flowers. [[Speaking of which, when that scene came up I couldn't help but reminisce for the scene in The Thief of Always by Clive Barker, where the boy wishes for a field of flowers and each flower to be a different color, and the old housekeeping woman looks on in awe. The context of that scene was actually quite a bit more malevolent in Barker's book than here, but I won't get into why because, frankly, that confrontation is pretty cool to read and I don't want to spoil it for anyone who might pick the book up someday. It's also got my favorite opening lines of any novel ever.]]
I really came off liking Howl's character by the end. I kind of wanted to smack him a few times, but I could also see why Sophie was in love with him. On top of being glamorous and magical, he had that childish whimsicalness that took joy in flamboyance and the pleasures of being, well, glamorous and magical. That easy happiness is rather engaging (though, again, something he had to grow out of in the end.) She was also taken in by the dark woobie side. It's a good thing she was, or his damn near bipolar personality would have driven her insane. "So dramatic" she called him, and he was.
Probably my favorite thing, though, was the way the movie showed his affection for her as being continuous, and he didn't fall in love with her despite her old woman looks, he simply fell in love with all of her, as an old woman and as a young woman. Because what are looks to a wizard? Everything around him was beauty created on a whim, he made himself beautiful and surrounded himself with such beauty in his things that he didn't require other people to be beautiful. Beauty was relative; beauty was easily falsified, and he knew that as much as anyone. While she was an old woman he didn't pine for her to be young, nor did he seem to even care as she constantly shifted back and forth. He had his less than physically beautiful side too, so why begrudge her hers?
I liked Howl's English voice, though it took a few lines to grow on me. I started watching it by slipping back and forth between the two audio tracks, but after about half an hour I settled on the English one because of my eternal love for anything with Billie Crystal in it. After that I got really attached to Howl's voice... it was very soft-spoken sexy the way Ashitaka's English [Billie Crudup] voice was in Princess Mononoke. EDIT: Just looked up his VA... CHRISTIAN BALE! I'd totally forgotten that, and spent the entire film trying to place it. Mmm... okay, now the character's an even sexier one. Just being peripherally attached to Christian Bale upps the sexiness a good 10 ten points.
What I didn't predict:
That the scarecrow was the prince. In hindsight, it should be obvious, and I knew he was something more (another piece of Howl's heart, like a Horcrux?), but not quite what. So I was surprised when he turned into the prince.
What I accurately predicted:
That Howl and Calcifer had to be reunited-- I guessed that about halfway. Although I didn't quite accurately guess the nature of the spell-- I thought his soul was split and Calicifer was Howl's heart. Turns out it was more of a Dragonheart deal-- Howl gave his heart to Calcifer in some kind of deal. That's one of the parts I didn't understand... Why give his heart to a demon? What did he get out of it? Magic? At the end it appears he has enough magic without Calcifer. Why were Calcifer and the other sparkly demons falling from the sky? Were the sparkly demons Sulimon's servants? That's what it looked like in the magic dream trap. And what did Calcifer get out of exchanging hearts with a magician's child?-- he seemed as much a prisoner as Howl. And yet, in the flashback, it looked like the exchange was a willing one.
Other things I didn't understand:
-The nature of Sophie's curse. The conditions were never accurately explained in the film, so I wasn't sure even at the end if she had completely rid herself of it. I expected it to fade away gradually, and it did weaken over, but it also seemed to reassert itself randomly depending on her moods. And it went away while she slept? It's was very unclear-- when we saw her character design change, were we the audience seeing the true Sophie while the characters still saw the old woman? Or did the characters see the spell flickering in and out as well? Did Howl see through the spell at any point, or some of the time, or the entire time? When he looked at her did he see an old woman or a young woman? Sophie seemed to see through the magic in the world around her (the henchman, for example) while others didn't, but are we to assume that Howl did as well?
-The whole plot thing with Sulimon's agression against Howl. At first I thought she was merely angry at an disobediant pupil, but it looked like she was also involved with the Calcifer thing and on both sides of the war??? By the end I was completely confused.
-What was up with the dog?
-The presence of the little boy and his relationship to Howl. I assume he was an apprentice, but it was never clarified, and I'd be surprised someone with such a bad history with their own teacher would take on an apprentice. Unless he decided on a whim one random Tuesday "Gee, wouldn't it be fun to have an apprentice?" and went out and found one... and afterward let him stick around because he didn't really know what to do with him.
-the nature of Howl and Calcifer's deterioration. At first it was implied that by fighting as a winged monster at night Howl became more and more like a winged monster himself-- harder each time to return to his true form, which is easily understood; it's a common fictional metaphor and very traditional for fairy tales and fantasy. Spend too much time behind a mask and the mask becomes real. But later in the movie Calcifer seemed to be saying that Howl's curse (the one shared with Calcifer) was the reason he was becoming a monster. That doesn't really make sense since it looked like he and Calcifer had been bound for many years. Why would it start to destroy him now? And why was it triggered during Sulimon's magic dream trap?
-The locational stuff with the hat shop and Sophie's spell and her mother. How could Howl's castle take over the hat shop? Didn't regular people live and work there?
...Basically giant entire sections of the plot confused me, and I never really felt I understood what was going on. Which is why I say it's not as good as Spirited Away.
However, NONE OF THAT BOTHERED ME WHILE WATCHING. Honestly! I barely even thought about it until afterward.
So I didn't really understand the whole thing with his ex-teacher. Did I care? No. I cared about his relationship with Sophie and Calcifer and all the MAGIC SPARKLY SHINY THINGS. Truely, Hayao Miyazaki movies can always be counted on to bring the MAGIC SPARKLY SHINY to the table. Even when the plot isn't as tight as I'd like, Miyazaki is so skilled at blending MAGIC SPARKLY SHINY with lovable characters that I care about and want to be safe, so that I don't care if I didn't really catch all the layers. It's fun to watch all the same.
I think I'll have to add this to my Miyazaki collection. I still need to pick up the DVD of Castle of Cagliostro too...
So I have a poll. I want to hook my 7 year old cousin on Miyazaki. Get 'em young, I say! And I've made a poll of the three movies that I'd like to show her. But frankly Miyazaki movies, while often meant for children, tend to have scarier imagery than movies for American kids of similar age groups. Like the witch in Spirited Away, or the bombs and monster!Howl in this film.
At least I think. It's really hard for me to judge because I don't have kids so I don't know how scary is scary, you know?
The U.S. rating is PG. But what does that mean?
So those of you with children or around children or who imagine you have a good idea about what children should watch...
[Poll #618509]
I figure it'll probably be screened by her parents first, but I'd like to save everyone the trouble of my giving a gift she's too young to watch, you know?
I didn't ask about Princess Mononoke because I remember pretty clearly that's rated PG-13. And I remember when I saw it in the theater some dad brought 4 girls that looked about 8 years old and they started freaking out when the demon was attacking the village in the beginning. ::shakes head:: That's a parent who will learn to actually read the rating next time and not assume that because it's animated and has the word "princess" in it that it'll be meant for children.
I decided I'm going to read the book. Any of the questions I have above-- if they can be answered by reading the book, then don't tell me. :D
EDIT: When it comes to the "how young?" question my judgement is further compromised by the fact that at 7 I was reading books other kids were reading at 9 and 10. At 10 I was reading Michael Chricton, which rates a good R for violent monster-induced deaths and swearing. I remember I was always able to read books of a more mature level than movies I was allowed to watch (mostly because my parents didn't really supervise my reading at all), but I think there is a difference between reading the words and seeing the visual imagery as a child. I might let a kid read Jurassic Park before I let them watch Poltergeist, though both have monsters and a high body count. I know my cousin is reading at a higher level than her peers, but I'm not sure what that means in terms of film she can watch.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-11-23 10:06 am (UTC)Dang, and the Suliman thing really had me confused. So the movie plot was that she STARTED the war to teach Howl a lesson? I didn't pick that up at all.
I'm not worried so much about violence, because I've watched an episode of Powerpuff girls and thought "daaayyyyymn that's violent for a kids show." What worries me is if it's actually SCARY-- the witch Yubaba can be quite scary, especially the scene with her hair flying around. And I'm not sure how a kid would react to the imagery of her parents becoming animals. And there's the large ravenous no-face.
I'm leaning toward yes on Spirited Away and no on Howl. I think besides the bomb/war violence there's a sexual suggestiveness to a few scenes (especially the one in the beginning with the soldiers, and Howl's running around in a towel, innocent though that may be) that would be better for someone 9-10 than 7. No, correction: I'd let my 7 year old watch it, but I wouldn't hold it against someone who wanted to wait another two years.
On the other hand, I love the theme in HMC of Sophie helping Howl save himself from becoming a monster, and her frank acceptance of him in all forms. I also love the reverse: respect and acceptance of her as an elderly woman. I love those values in Miyazaki films and I think they're great to show children.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-23 10:37 am (UTC)And I've gotta get to sleep like NOW, but on HMC vs. Spitited Away: I thought Spirited Away was much creepier. The war in Howl is never immediate, you don't see more than flames in the distance; but the demons at the bathhouse are RIGHT THERE and it's worse because you can't always tell whether there good or bad (or maybe "good or bad" doesn't apply at all). When I was I kid I found moral ambiguities like that really disturbing.
I think besides the bomb/war violence there's a sexual suggestiveness to a few scenes...
This is funny because Miyazaki once said in an interview that Chiharu's servitude at the bathhouse was a metaphor for child prostitution in Japan. Haha suggestive indeed. Of course this has no bearing on our discussion since there's no way a 7 year old will realize this.
I'd still show Spirited Away over Howl, just because Spirited Away is an easier movie to understand. (I just remembered what *I* was watching when I was seven: Fantastic Planet. Which is about slavery and genocide, and half the people are naked half the time. I'm a terrible person to listen to about these things.)
no subject
Date: 2005-11-23 10:46 am (UTC)Now that I think about it... what were my parents ON when they let me watch that movie at that age?
Maybe it was one of those times where you sit down to watch it together and don't realize until like half-way through what it's about.
One of the few movies I do remember being actively told not to watch was Showgirls. I think I was 11 at the time. I snuck it out from the movie cabinet and started to watch it one day on tape... and my dad came home and found it in the VCR. He was kind of bemused I think, though at the time I was scared of being yelled at. He told me I might as well finish it, but by then I was way too embarassed to finish watching it with him there so I just ran and went to go do something in my room.
late reply
Date: 2005-12-07 10:39 pm (UTC)Not only did I watch Fantastic Planet when I was seven, I watched it with my younger brother, who was either three or four. You know how at that age you can get hung up on ONE movie or ONE tv show or ONE book, and want see it over and over and over? My brother was obsessed with that movie. We'd watch it together at least once a week.
I remember being glad he'd picked Fantastic Planet and not something dumb, like Mighty Mouse (HATE HATE HATE). I didn't mind watching Fantastic Planet EVERY THREE DAYS like I might have something else. I liked it almost as much as he did. To this day I have fond memories of that movie.
(Story-wise, I understood that the big ones kept the little ones as pets, that there was an attempt at mass genocide, and then a revolt, and eventually some gunboat diplomacy. The meditation = sex part totally went over my head.)
I know exactly what my parents were on. My dad doesn't believe in age-appropriateness and my mom loves French animation, drug movies, and sci fi (the stylish kind of sci fi, not the plastic model kind). Her + Fantastic Planet = OTP. She probably thought we wouldn't understand enough to be traumatized.
My parents argued over whether I could watch Tank Girl. R rating, my first I think. My mom was against it not because it was violent, but because it was casually, cartoonishly violent. (Meanwhile I'd seen plenty of violent cartoons already.) She was right, sort of -- I was a little freaked out by it. I'm still not a big fan of cartoon violence in live action movies (although unlike Mom I don't mind it in video games).
What do you think bemused means? I ask because for years and years I thought it meant amused.
Re: late reply
Date: 2005-12-08 02:13 am (UTC)I think bemused means...causing one to muse? Not quite amusement, but something that makes you go "...huh." It's hard to describe. But I thought I had the right definition... ::looks it up::
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=bemused
Or... not so much I guess. Goddamn, that's like three fanfics at least that used the word wrong.
Re: late reply
Date: 2005-12-08 04:35 am (UTC)2) to cause to be engrossed in thought, is the way my dictionary puts the second definition. That would make you right.
Now I'm sorry I brought this up. It's always bothered me, though, because I arrive at this (wrong) idea of what bemuse meant after seeing it MANY, MANY TIMES in print, without ever realizing I was wrong. So I still don't have a handle on the word. (Lexigraphal baggage? Something like that.)