I rented Princess Mononoke the other day...

[Amano Ginji]

Princess Mononoke is an awesome movie.
I recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen it.



:D

[serenitymoon]

Yeah, it was pretty good, but it's been awhile since I saw it about 1 1/2 years ago. From what I remember, the plot was good and the animation was decent too. What I remember most was the little wood sprites (I beleive that was what they were). I thought it was funny that they were so cute but they freaked alot of those people out. Anyway, it was good, if you liked that you should check out "Spirited Away" if you haven't already.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

It baffles me how people could say Princess Mononoke was "muddled" and "confusing" when the Lord of the Rings movies use the very same narrative techniques and fantasy ideas. Yet people "get" those movies. :rolleyes:

[serenitymoon]

Originally posted by Leaping Larry Jojo
It baffles me how people could say Princess Mononoke was "muddled" and "confusing" when the Lord of the Rings movies use the very same narrative techniques and fantasy ideas. Yet people "get" those movies. :rolleyes:

It's that LOTR is an domestic film, whereas Princess Mononoke is is foreign and moreover, Japanese anime... not mainstream USA material. It's a general misconception (by some people I know who are biased to anime) that anything foreign is hard to understand. Anyway, it's their loss... :rolleyes:

[Proteus3]

Princess Mononoke is a good movie, but I felt it was one of the weaker Miyazaki movies. By trying to capture the epic feel, I felt that Miyazaki sacrificed much of the heart that was in his other films.

[RogueMartian]

I loved princess mononoke. I must have watched it a hundred times. Its the best animated movie I've ever seen. I know that a lot of people don't like it, everyone is different though, so I don't criticize.

Lord of the Rings is liked and understood better for several reasons. First of all its based on books that many of the viewers have already read and discussed. Those books are about 50 years old, there's not much about the story that can be said that hasn't already been said. And the final reason is that its live action. Whether we like it or not, we live in a country where live action is understood more than animation. Any animation beyond a musical comedy tends to confuse the masses.

[Matsuo]

For some reason I end up watching Mononoke Hime everytime I have Chinese. Which is about 4-5 times a week...

[Zero Angel]

Originally posted by RogueMartian
I know that a lot of people don't like it, everyone is different though, so I don't criticize.


uh, im sorry. who are these people? and what do they like?

i cant understand why a person wouldnt like the film unless they dont like a whole lot of other material. granted, the movie is a little preachy in the whole nature vs. mankind sort of way but it was a well crafted, very thought out film. this is probably the most watched anime movie i have ever seen (the first year i owned it i watched it damn near every other day).

while i dont think it is as good as some other Miyazaki films, i think it is probably one of the best animated films ever.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Originally posted by Zero Angel
uh, im sorry. who are these people? and what do they like?

i cant understand why a person wouldnt like the film unless they dont like a whole lot of other material. granted, the movie is a little preachy in the whole nature vs. mankind sort of way but it was a well crafted, very thought out film. this is probably the most watched anime movie i have ever seen (the first year i owned it i watched it damn near every other day).

while i dont think it is as good as some other Miyazaki films, i think it is probably one of the best animated films ever.

I thought it wasn't much more preachy than any other fantasy story. Read some fantasy novels--they often contain ecological themes. The whole concept of woodland elves revolve around environmentalist ideals. Heck, even that subplot in the Two Towers with the images of burnt trees and forests and the trees getting mad--in some ways, that's even more blunt than the images Princess Mononoke offered. Yet I don't hear people accusing Two Towers of trying to impart any kind of message. They just say, "Oh, that's just how the story goes." Yes! And same with Mononoke!

It's not like Mononoke says, "Please, PLEASE don't cut down the trees! Look at this poor, poor, forest and animals! It's helpless against mankind!" I mean, it's not like nature's Gods were portrayed in a flattering manner in the film either.

It's true that Mononoke is accused of being preachy because, well, Miyazaki is a preachy guy. But the movie, taken by itself, isn't much more heavy handed than any Dragonlance or R.A. Salvator novel dealing with forests and woodland elves.

I'm not saying people HAVE to like it--I can see Mononoke has flaws, (A****aka being a rather uncharismatic character, San one-dimensional...) but I just think Mononoke has been slagged for all the wrong reasons.

[Zero Angel]

Originally posted by Leaping Larry Jojo
I'm not saying people HAVE to like it--I can see Mononoke has flaws, (A****aka being a rather uncharismatic character, San one-dimensional...) but I just think Mononoke has been slagged for all the wrong reasons.

i understand what you were getting at with the responce and i feel that maybe i wasnt clear.

yes alot of fantasy stuff has its preachyness to a certain degree about the enviroment...though i think the reasons you were going for were reaching to conclusions.

i mean think about it, the end result for the whole movie in Mononoke Hime was San was opened up to the possibilities of living in harmony with humans, Lady Yaboshi (one of Miyazaki's best antagonist characters) says that Iron Town is to be rebuilt properly this time, and Ashi-taka (only way not to have his name edited) is the go between moderator from his own village which lived with nature instead of encroching on it. im sorry that is blatant, alot more blatant then the Ents getting pissed off because of their buddies getting ripped down.

[andrael]

Originally posted by Zero Angel
i mean think about it, the end result for the whole movie in Mononoke Hime was San was opened up to the possibilities of living in harmony with humans, Lady Yaboshi (one of Miyazaki's best antagonist characters) says that Iron Town is to be rebuilt properly this time, and Ashi-taka (only way not to have his name edited) is the go between moderator from his own village which lived with nature instead of encroching on it. im sorry that is blatant, alot more blatant then the Ents getting pissed off because of their buddies getting ripped down.

Um, how do you figure? Both Princess Mononoke and the Two Towers movie have themes revolving around the conflict between nature and industry. The difference is that Mononoke presents the two as being simply two opposing sides, both with good and bad points; neither is decisively better than the other. In Two Towers, the corrupt wizard Saruman is said to have "a mind of gears and metal", and walks around his fortress talking about how "the old world will burn in the fires of industry", etc. etc. The Ents, as well as Elves and other creatures close to nature are clearly good, while Saruman and his servants are clearly bad. How is this less blatant, less preachy, than Mononoke?

[Sandro]

I thought the movie was okay. It wasn't the best I've ever seen but it wasn't the worst either.

[Outside Angel]

In Two Towers, the corrupt wizard Saruman is said to have "a mind of gears and metal", and walks around his fortress talking about how "the old world will burn in the fires of industry", etc. etc. The Ents, as well as Elves and other creatures close to nature are clearly good, while Saruman and his servants are clearly bad. How is this less blatant, less preachy, than Mononoke?

Yes! I'm not crazy! I'm not the only one who thought that was one big environmentalist trip. In Mononoke, neither side is presented as "evil". While Lady Yaboshi is the antagonist, all the good things she's done for the inhabitants of Iron Town are also portrayed, like the prostitutes she took in, or the lepers. So we're presented with both sides of the argument, that, while industry does often harm nature, it can also better the lives of many people. And, while it does seem to lean a little more towards nature's side, it's nothing compared to how black-and-white the conflict is painted in the Two Towers. Nature good, industry bad, and that's the end of the story. Both are "preachy", but I think Mononoke does it better, and more fairly. Besides that, it's an absolutely wonderful film, and I'd highly recommend it to any anime fan, or really to any movie fan, considering the dub cast (Billy Bob Thorton, Gillian Anderson, ect.) And, on that subject, did anyone else feel Mr. Thorton's voice seemed a bit out of place with the character? I mean, he's got a great voice, but it just didn't seem to fit in my mind.

[Epyon999]

I would buy Princess Mononoke, buy I'm poor at the moment.
:( :( :(

[Mynd Hed]

Yeah, a lot of people complain about the dub, I thought it was just fine except for Thornton personally. The translation did deviate from the more faithful subtitle translation at places, but not enough to make me yell and scream about it. (-: Thornton did seem very much out of place, but his character doesn't really have a whole lot of dialogue so it was forgivable as far as I'm concerned.

[Ssedrey]

All of the above being very interesting arguments and certainly accurate interpretations in their own way, but I find it odd that we haven't looked at the other possible interpretation of the film. One showing the pointlessness of war. Let's take a step back from the clear conflict of industry versus nature and see instead as two factions at each others throats for their own reasons. I mean, you'll note that the movie shows the positives and negatives of both perspectives and illustrates how neither side can see the other's point of view which was causes this whole conflict. Also note, how Ashi-taka says he's there to see with eyes unclouded. Which leads me to believe he's there to see from both points of view of opposing factions with the same ability to reason, instead of there to decide which is right in the struggle of industry versus nature. And in the end, because of their inability to see each other's point of view, they paid a heavy price. However, at the very end, when all is said and done, the movie leaves us on a more hopeful note with each side now able to see their error, and while they may never forget what took place, they can now keep history from repeating itself by compromise. Hence, the rebuilding of things which can be seen metaphorically right down to the the very last seconds of the movie.

Now, I know not everyone shares this point of view, but since we're discussing the movie, I figured I might as well state what I got out of it anyways.

[RogueMartian]

Outside Angel said it perfectly. The most intelligent shows i've ever seen don't have "EVIL" villains, they have conflict resulting from two sides opposing views. Its something people really should appreciate now with the whole clash of east and west thing occuring in the middle east now, but i digress. With this clash there is the obvious secondary theme of the futility of the conflict. Humans and nature can live in peace if they are both willing to give a little. But tragedy is involved when bo

Lady Iboshi doesn't want to destroy nature because its in her evil nature, like the villains in captain planet(talk about a preachy show as long as we're on the topic). She wants to dig for iron to give men and women jobs, and help the sick lepirs. She wants the blood of the forest spirit to cure the lepirs. And she wants San to rejoin humanity.

I'm not sure I agree with Seedray on his interpretation of the ending. It kinda seems that nature will overall lose the battle. Humans will rebuild their town, it will be better, bigger, etc. But the forest will never be the same. The gods of the forest are all dead and without their protection the forest will simply be usurped entirely by the humans in the future. There will be no more conflict, not because of compromise, but because one side was completely annhilated.

[Ben]

I agree. Ashitaka is no moderator, nor have San and Eboshi (not Iboshi or Yaboshi... yikes people) come to any sort of terms with one another. San says, "I can never forgive the humans," and Eboshi says, "We're going to rebuild Irontown." The conflict will definitely continue.

Mononoke has, from a Western perspective, a very nontraditional ending. Once you accept that there is no conversion and reconciliation at the end (as you would expect in a Judeo-Christian narrative), the themes of the film begin to fall into place.

The story focuses on finding a way to live in the midst of conflict. I believe Miyazaki's mouthpiece in the film is the leper at the end of the introduction to Eboshi's secret room. His speech is the speech in which he gives away the theme he's trying to express. "Life is suffering. It is hard. The world is cursed, people are cursed, but still we wish to live..."

I don't have time to go into a detailed proof here, but I think if you go over the film again in your head you'll see that this theme is everpresent.

[Lord Trunks]

This was the first Anime Movie I ever saw in a movie theatre... I thought it was great, and every time it's on the Action Channel I will try to watch it

[Ssedrey]

point taken. perhaps my interpretation of the end is a little off. Granted, I did not forget the lines of rebuilding iron town and San's inability to forgive humanity, but rather I was focusing upon the statement that the forest spirit was not truly dead as well as the appearance of the kodama at the very end. I interpreted that as nature's way of saying that it would rebuild itself as well. Which, of course supports Twage's theory which I think you'll find by reading over my original post more carefully, completely agrees with it. True enough, after thinking about how I stated the ending, that much was probably incorrect and poorly worded to boot. However, what saddens me, is that because of that one small misinterpretation we've lost complete focus of the meat of what I stated previously. The meat of which is completely supported by what you have stated.

[Ben]

Originally posted by Ssedrey
However, what saddens me, is that because of that one small misinterpretation we've lost complete focus of the meat of what I stated previously. The meat of which is completely supported by what you have stated.

If your argument is that Mononoke shows the "horrors of war" in order to urge the audience to prevent conflict in the future, then I don't agree. The point I was making is, the film expresses that there will always be war and conflict, but the best approach is to see all points of view as fairly as you can and do your best to live a good life.

Let's take, as an example of the "horrors of war" theme as I understand you mean it, Gundam Wing. In this show a pacifist leader is able to convince the world to give up war (and everyone she can't convince is, paradoxically, killed). It is implied that one single person, if charismatic enough, can change others for the better.

In Mononoke, Ashitaka (look Ma! no censorship!) is never able to ultimately change anyone's mind. Eboshi and San both retain the perspectives they had at the beginning of the film. I believe Miyazaki means to highlight the fact that the only person you can be responsible for is yourself. The only identity, the only thoughts you have direct control over, are your own. Maybe others will follow you, but you can't count on it and ultimately it doesn't matter that much as long as you live a righteous life.

So I believe Mononoke has the exact opposite of the typical "horrors of war" theme but one that is ultimately more effective, since it skips ego-pleasing notions of changing the world and focuses on the harder (because it is more feasible) and more important task: changing oneself.

If I've misinterpreted you again, please reply.

[Ssedrey]

Originally posted by Twage
If your argument is that Mononoke shows the "horrors of war" in order to urge the audience to prevent conflict in the future, then I don't agree.

Good because I don't agree either. When I said horrors of war, in no way did I say that it was to "urge the audience to prevent conflict in the future". The idea that that was the point I was making could be drawn from my misinterpretation of the ending. Which I have stated was wrong.



The point I was making is, the film expresses that there will always be war and conflict, but the best approach is to see all points of view as fairly as you can and do your best to live a good life.

Fantastically put. That's exactly what I was trying to state. I suppose I must not have worded it correctly to be misunderstood so much. That's a much more understandable way of putting it. I guess that in my post I was focusing on moving the conversation away from the theme being "man against nature" and not enough on how I worded what I believed the theme to be. At least, in that regard, I have succeeded.