Tales From Earthsea

Can somebody please explain to me why the Japanese hated this one so much?

"Tales From Earthsea" is the latest* movie released by the legendary Japanese animation house, Studio Ghibli.  And it also is easily their most hated film yet.  It won Japan's Worst Movie of the Year award for 2006.  Goro Miyazaki, son of legendary "Japanese Walt Disney" Hayao Miyazaki, won Worst Director.  That's a seriously negative reaction right there.  Rotten Tomatoes gives this film a 39% approval, which is only but a few points lower than Obama's current standing in the daily political popularity contests.  Why?  I honestly don't see how this movie is massively worse than Studio Ghibli's usual work.

Going to see this movie today, I really had a very mixed feeling.  There was a lot going against this movie.  Miyazaki Jr. had never directed a movie ever before and seemed to only get his job through nepotism thanks to his illustrious father.  Then there was the negative reception.  Even the author of the fantasy novels which this movie is based on, Ursula K. LeGuin, didn't like the many changes from her original work.  Having never even heard of "Earthsea" before this movie, I can't really vouch from the film's faithfulness**.  I can say this, unlike the careless SciFi network, Goro Miyazaki seems to have legitimately wanted to please LeGuin with his work, though its now clear he didn't really succeed.  Fans of "Earthsea" probably won't like the changes made.  But despite the seemingly dark cloud surrounding the film, I still decided to go on an epic quest to go see it.  To my surprise, it was an excellent little movie, even brilliant at times.  I give it a very high recommendation.

So why all the hate?

Before I deal with that, I feel like detailing my epic journey to the theatre today.  "Tales From Earthsea" was given the most limited of limited releases - I think "Manos: the Hands of Fate" got a wider release in its day.  In all of New York City, "Earthsea" was playing in one theatre, just one.   And that one theatre was the only place for over 2000 miles where you could see it.  Well, last year I missed my chance to see "Ponyo" and had to wait until March for that one, so I won't make that mistake again.  I've been waiting four years to see this, I'm going to see it in theatres.  So I traveled to the Angelika Film Center on Houston Ave, and enjoyed the cartoon in a tiny underground auditorium.  Remember movie theatres from the Nineties?  No stadium seating, very little foot room, ten miles long.  I got to relive those days.  Plus the subway was just below, so occasionally moments in the movie were punctuated by mini-earthquakes as the M Train stormed below.  Great day...  Anyway, back to the review.

I think the main problem here is that people came in expected to see a Hayao film.  But "Tales From Earthsea" wasn't made by Hayao, it was made by Goro who I think has a very different kind of vision than his father.  The average Hayao film is filled with stunning natural imagery:  you can tell he's in love with the natural world.  From a simple forest to the mysteries of the deep sea, Hayao will show you God's creation, even if you were too distracted your entire life to ever appreciate it.  Goro, in contrast, seems to find quite a lot of inspiration from man-made work.  When he does nature, its brilliant (just see the poster above), at times even a match for his father, but he really shines when showing us the crumbling edifices of ancient towns and castles.  This movie is no slouch on the visual poetry, and all the critiques who found it to be "hollow" in comparison to Hayao's movies were being overly critical.  This movie is also quite a bit darker and more serious than most Hayao films.  There are no cute little magical critters running around, no cat-buses for example.  This world is a classic "sword and sorcery" fantasy epic, much more subdued and colder than the usual Ghibli affair.  If you find the visual tones of that kind of world mundane, then you truly are a spoiled viewer.  There is much more "Lord of the Rings" here than "Spirited Away" and there's nothing wrong with that.  Its different, but that's fine.

Now comes the plot summary part of the review, so if there are Earthsea fans reading, be sure to bitch your heads off in the comments about every inaccuracy you see.  "Tales From Earthsea" is actually just one tale despite the title:  that of Arren, an insane prince who murdered his father to steal the royal magic sword.  And Arren is our hero.  Funny that.  While wandering the wastes, he runs into the Archmage Sparrowhawk, the greatest wizard in the world.  You see, Arren's world, Earthsea, is - to borrow a Stephen King phrase, Moving On.  Crops are failing, magic is fading, and pestilence scourges the land.  Dragons are even descending from the heavens and fighting each other.  Arren must deal with his inner demons while helping Sparrowhawk uncover the sinister plot that threatens existence itself.  Epic journey then ensues.  It is ultimately just the classic fantasy plot formula:  hero, wizard mentor, evil wizard villain, save the world.  I don't really understand why critics called the plot "confusing" or "filled with loose ends", because it really isn't.  Its all very simple really.

Here's where it gets complicated, I'm afraid:  As a hero, Arren is a difficult character to grasp, and this is really one of the movie's greatest faults.  He kills his father, seems to have split-personality disorder, and may just be possessed by the Big Bad.  It isn't clear, and it becomes very hard for you to root for him.  He has "a good heart" but committed a horrible crime for no apparent reason.  There are scenes where you're actually afraid for the other characters when they're alone with Arren, because you never know what he might do.  However, even though the movie established that Arren is filled with unpredictable fits of rage, it never makes it clear what's causing it, or even if he's ever cured.  It doesn't even use this as much of a plot point.  Why did he murder his father?  You never know.  It isn't handled very well at all.  Eventually I found myself rooting for him, even though he could very well be taken as an evil little kid.  If only the patricide were cut from the script...  Its just one plot detail that has such a disastrous effect.  Maybe that was from the original book, I don't know.  But ultimately I think the story works if you put all this aside and simply let the characters have their simple battle against Evil.  If you can do that.

Patricide is a lot for an audience to forgive.  At least it wasn't matricide.

The other characters are all great.  Sparrowhawk has an excellent mentor quality that oozes Liam Neeson at his best.  The main villain, Cob (minus the corn), is downright chilling thanks to Willem Dafoe's voice acting.  His character design is basically just a standard RPG effeminate dark wizard, but the voice acing is so perfectly cold that you start to get chilly in your theatre seat.  The villain's henchman was played by Cheech Marin, who played the hyena Banzai from "The Lion King".  That was great right there, when you closed your eyes you could almost see him chancing Simba across the elephant graveyard.  Anything tangentially connected to "The Lion King" is a plus in my mind.  The other characters in the relatively small cast work well too.

Ultimately the final "moral" of the story is delivered I think much too strongly, but then again this is coming from a studio that beats its audience over the head with environmentalist messages every other movie.  I get it ,Hayao, don't litter!  Please stop hitting me!  I won't really spoil what the moral is, but it definitely could have been weaved into the story better.  It just kinda pops out of nowhere, but sorta explains that major mystery of why Arren killed his papa.  However, looking back I feel it works.  The major villain is exposed as being just a complete fool, child-like in his emotional immaturity.  There is a great metaphor for Arren's troubles in there someplace that wasn't translated onto the screen all that well.  But I'd hardly call it a deal-breaker.

Also the plot drags a bit towards the middle.  Goro seems to think that people find the simple charms of an agrarian life just as fascinating as he does.  Well, I don't.  It does give an insight into just why Earthsea is worth saving though, and offers a possible path for Arren's redemption.  So it does have a good place.

I know my review here is very uneven, but don't confuse my feelings as being lukewarm.  I really, really liked this movie.  As a matter of fact, at times during the film I was convinced that it was perhaps even one of Studio Ghibli's best.  The plot isn't bad, its just slightly muddled.  If you're asking for just a simple great fantasy epic, "Tales From Earthsea" will fit that bill.  If you're asking for beautiful animation, here you go.  I couldn't ask for more.  This movie was really good in the end, and is a good sign for Goro Miyazaki.  I'm expecting great things in his future career, just as long as doesn't let that Worst Director thing doesn't deter him.  Goro has real talent, and its on-sight here for you to see.  I really do hope he can move out of his father's shadow and show us something really amazing for his second movie.

And seriously controversial call here, but this is far from my least favorite movie directed by a Miyazaki.  That title belongs to "My Neighbor Totoro"***.

I better duck the oncoming wave of rotten fruit now, shouldn't I?

ツ

---------------------------------------------
* Well, actually second-latest, technically.  This movie was first released in 2006, but took a full four years to be released here in the US.  Man, I hate the licensing barrier between the US and Japan, its a pain in the ass.  Do you know why this movie took four years to cross the Pacific?  Because the SciFi Network of all people had the Earthsea license thanks to a really terrible and forgettable miniseries they made back God-Knows-When and was watched by maybe six people in total (the author's furious critique of the miniseries is worth reading at least, if only to show what a bunch of fuckheads SciFi is run by).  So thanks, SciFi, for holding onto that license until Disney had to pull it out of your cold dead hands for no reason.  If you can't be brilliant, make sure to get in the way of other people's brilliance, right?  SciFi, SyFy, or whatever the Hell you're calling yourselves now, you're all just awful.  Just awful.  Please, stop trying to movies, you just get in the way of other more talented people.

** In my experience its always better to see the movie before you read the book.  Adapting from literature is especially difficult in film, since film makes it far harder for you to "get inside" the character.  You're always going to have your own little idea of what the character looks like and no actor can ever replicate that.  I think its best to see a movie with no preconceived notions anyway.  But I will say this:  this movie has gotten my interest.  I may read LeGuin's great epic in the future thanks to Goro Miyazaki's adaptation here.  She wrote the excellent and disturbing short story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" (I'd sell my soul to make a story half as brilliant as that one) so I expect a very good fantasy story.

*** Yeah, I know "My Neighbor Totoro" is a beloved classic, but my God that movie is boring.  A family moves into a country house, the mom is sick, the girls are cute.  That's really it.  Miyazaki does as good of a job as possible to make this compelling, but this is not my kind of movie.  And for reasons that I don't need to repeat, I don't need to see little kids involved with serious illness, okay?  I got enough of that in my own life.  After awhile, I had to just fast-forward to the magical Totoro parts because I was falling asleep, man.  I'm sorry, but that movie draaaaaggggeedd.