Houli_B_Back t1_jdru3d6 wrote

Really great.

It’s hard to do New Weird and ambiguous well, without coming off as purposefully obscure for the sake of obscure.

But I never got that feeling watching it.

I also like the fact they totally lifted a horror set piece from a Gene Wolfe book. Lol.


Houli_B_Back t1_j9bkpit wrote

I mean, if we’re using EEAAO as a comparison, I think the revolutionary use of VR tech Spielberg utilized to film something like Ready Player One a few years ago, to me, would be just as “groundbreaking.”

I guess it’s the use of the word “groundbreaking” I’m finding confusing.

You’re use of the word seems predicated on him winning an award. I mean, looking at just the Academy Awards, in the last ten years he has four Best Picture nominations, and two Best Director nominations, and he just got another one in both categories for Fabelman’s.

He’s currently sitting at number four for the most nominations of all time in the Director’s category.

Does he actually have to win another award to be considered “groundbreaking?”


Houli_B_Back t1_j6fmk53 wrote

I actually really like the ending.

Personally, I think a clean, modern Hollywood type ending would do a disservice to the film, and not be in tone with what it’s already established; for an animated film it has a surprisingly nuanced take on people, the natural world, war, and society- there’s very few goody-goodies or outright villains.

For me, the more ambiguous ending is in line with this. San doesn’t return to humanity. Ashitaka doesn’t return to his tribe. Eboshi is maimed and reevaluates the direction the people of Iron Town are headed in. But they all come to a mutual understanding, and there’s a hint of a brighter future with the kodama appearing at the end.

It’s short and to the point, kind of like a classic, old Hollywood ending; and I like the fact it doesn’t overstay it’s welcome like a lot of modern films.


Houli_B_Back t1_j68pytn wrote

For me, the guy’s just a genre bender, and not much else.

He just takes an established formula, and flips it on its head.

Which is a cool trick on a technical level, but for me, doesn’t amount to much in the long run. Because outside of the structural change, I don’t think there’s much to his films. The characterizations and writing isn’t particularly deep or relatable, and though he bends genre, he usually returns to status quo by a film’s conclusion, so any subversion doesn’t seem as brave as it could be, and any social commentary he provides feels so blatant and of the moment it has the subtlety of a sledgehammer to the head.

He plays with genre, but for me, he still feels locked within the confines of genre.