Forum - View topic

NEWS: Gedo Senki Panned by Online Critics

Yeah, Only Yesterday has a conservative message. But this doesn't make it a bad Ghibli movie, I think. Just consider for which audience the movie has been made (adult japanese), the time it has been produced (1991) and the time the story takes place (1966 <---> 1982). Those were simply other times. The eighties saw the rising of independent Office Ladies which was somehow a concern in japanese society. The seventies and early eighties had a boom for furusato, one's homeland in the country. Takahata made a mix out of both ideas. The conservative message behind the movie is less that Taeko should ditch her career and marry a farmer but more in the general preference of furusato life over city life. City life is connected with stress, no real goals in life, egoism and loose family ties, whereas furusato is in the realm of "japanese" nature as oasis, old folkcraft and strong family ties. The "native place" where japanese people implicitly belong and should return again. Taeko has found her place in furusato – even if it's not her real home-town (she never had one) – and lets go of city life with her (egoistic) inner child.

Also, I think we shouldn't pass judgement until the author gives an opinion.

Swissman wrote:

Yeah, Only Yesterday has a conservative message. But this doesn't make it a bad Ghibli movie, I think. Just consider for which audience the movie has been made (adult japanese), the time it has been produced (1991) and the time the story takes place (1966 <---> 1982). Those were simply other times. The eighties saw the rising of independent Office Ladies which was somehow a concern in japanese society. The seventies and early eighties had a boom for furusato, one's homeland in the country. Takahata made a mix out of both ideas. The conservative message behind the movie is less that Taeko should ditch her career and marry a farmer but more in the general preference of furusato life over city life. City life is connected with stress, no real goals in life, egoism and loose family ties, whereas furusato is in the realm of "japanese" nature as oasis, old folkcraft and strong family ties. The "native place" where japanese people implicitly belong and should return again. Taeko has found her place in furusato – even if it's not her real home-town (she never had one) – and lets go of city life with her (egoistic) inner child.

But, the end result was she ditched her career and married a farmer. If she had ditched her career and became a farmer, then it would be a different matter. She still would have had a furusato lifestyle and a career.

This is pretty laughable. Really, it's humorous to me that you people are fretting over Goro's little Earthsea movie being "bad" based off two unsubstantial digits on a Yahoo site. When did we start basing all strata of critical consensus on votes by some Yay-hoos on a Yahoo site? To me, this idea seems comparable to anyone here being crestfallen because 9 out of 10 pandas agree that The Movie II was nowhere near as well-crafted and eucalyptus-flavored as The Movie I. I mean, who actually cares what pandas think, besides other pandas? They might be cute, semi-intelligent, and huggable as all hell, but no one is going to call a panda to help him brainstorm for his next literary masterpiece.

Let's assume, though, for a minute, that these people's opinion's are actually worth dissecting. If what I can glean from the information provided by various sources is somewhat true, then most of those Yay-hoos seem to be having two complaints with Gedo Senki:

1. It deviates substantially from the book. In my honest and utterly stern opinion, this is probably the least tolerable "complaint" someone should actually have with any type of art or entertainment. If someone isn't prepared to accept a film based upon its own merits, instead of just judging it by its level of hereditary retrofitted-ness, then they should simply prep themselves beforehand for disappointment.

2. The movie doesn't have as much of the typical kid-friendly style and flair that Hayao's films are known for, which is obviously what they were expecting. Once again, we have another reason that precludes them from enjoyment due to prior expectations, rather than disliking the film for its inherent worth.

Now I don't know about any of you, but I protest on principle the maligning of a film based on either of the above reasons. And judging by the tremendous glut of one star reviews for Gedo Senki, I am even further distrustful of people who can't even demonstrate the mental proclivity to reward the movie for the technical animation quality that we all already know it has (based on its Ghibli heritage) by giving it at least two stars.

Finally, here's a link to what is most likely a far more reasonable impression of the film, and one that us English-speaking folk can actually assess because we can read it. (Thanks AnimeNation!)

http://jasongray.blogspot.com/2006/07/tales-from-earthsea-screening.html

How the hell can people like Only Yesterday? It's about a girl growing up. I personally don't give a shit if her family doesn't like Pineapple. I don't give a shit if she gets her period. I don't give a shit about her boring life. Ocean Waves was way better than it. I mean, the guy smacks the bitch. How can you not love it? Tales from Earthsea looks even more boring than Lord of the Rings. It's just people walking.

hikaru004 wrote:

Also, I think we shouldn't pass judgement until the author gives an opinion.

Why? I respect Le Guin, but we're all allowed to form our own opinions without waiting for her word on the subject. She may not say anything at all. She only spoke out against the Sci Fi Channel miniseries adaptation after the producers made claims that effectively put words in her mouth. http://www.ursulakleguin.com/Earthsea.html

[

But, the end result was she ditched her career and married a farmer. If she had ditched her career and became a farmer, then it would be a different matter. She still would have had a furusato lifestyle and a career.

It's not for children or teenagers at all, whatsoever. It's a film made for adults, and can only be appreciated fully by adults because it's about an experience that's very specific to adults.

It's a bit pretentious to think that only adults can be displeased with their life, or miss their childhood.

Only Yesterday may not be meant for teenagers, but that doesn't mean that it can't possibly be appreciated by someone who isn't an adult. Most teenagers probably wouldn't be able to connect with the characters and story very well, but most isn't all.

Akukaze wrote:

It's a bit pretentious to think that only adults can be displeased with their life, or miss their childhood. Only Yesterday may not be meant for teenagers, but that doesn't mean that it can't possibly be appreciated by someone who isn't an adult. Most teenagers probably wouldn't be able to connect with the characters and story very well, but most isn't all.

I think teenagers who talk about "missing their childhood" are probably being a little pretentious themselves.

Watch it again when you're in your mid-late 20's or early 30's and see if it means the same thing to you.

I think teenagers who talk about "missing their childhood" are probably being a little pretentious themselves.

Watch it again when you're in your mid-late 20's or early 30's and see if it means the same thing to you.

I'm totally behind Zac on his opinion on this movie. I don't think teenagers understand this movie! I can't really explain it to you, you don't have the experience to understand what I would say.