More comments on Howl's Moving Castle

My friend Arcadia recently posted her own response to Miyazaki's Howl's Moving Castle, and as she has read the Wynne Jones novel already, she was able to discuss where the film departed from the novel. While she liked the way the film visualized parts of the book, she comments on what mystifyied her in the film version, certain inconsistences in the storytelling. The response can be read here, but there are many spoilers, so beware.

After reading Arcadia's thoughts, I realized that my own idea that the characterizations are due mostly to the novel was naïve. The film is definitely a Miyazaki story, just one based on the world Wynne Jones created. But not having (yet) read the book, the inconsistencies that Arcadia mentions don't seem like inconsistencies to me--rather, certain actions/decisions inflect the characters in a particular way or help move the plot along visually or heighten the tension in a particular scene. Besides, no interesting story ever seems to tie everything together in a way that's completely rational to me. I believe her comments on the film's discrepancies have the book prominently in mind, with her understanding of story based on the book and consequently producing particular expectations of the film. Because of this, I am glad that I didn't read the book beforehand; I may not have been as enchanted as I was while watching the film.

Also (spoiler to follow) I want to make a note on the ending: Arcadia doesn't like it, and I admit that I was rather surprised by it as well, especially when Sophie's kiss releases the Scarecrow's curse, returning him to his human form as a prince of the enemy realm who then vows to sue for peace and an end to the war. But I thought it was hilarious--I laughed out loud at this part--and purposefully over-the-top, i.e., the film is making fun of the genre of romance with its happily-ever-afters even as the film reaffirms its emotional investment in the lives and prospects of the characters. There is also something interesting, for me, in the relationship between the anti-war politics and the romance, and I think the (perhaps too subtle) irony of the ending suggests a desire not to portray war in a simplistic, romanticized way, even as there is an admission that the film may have ended up doing so. Is this reading too much into the ending, or reading Miyazaki too generously? Is this a different kind of naïveté? Ah well. I love Miyazaki.

But all that said, I enjoyed Arcadia's comments; they make me think more deeply and critically about the film and the story it tells, which brings me to a different level of appreciation for the film.