panapp

I’m taking advantage of the publication of another review of this film to set the record straight in this review of mine from 2009, that is, 17 years ago.
Short correction: I had watched it in its Italian edition and didn’t understand a thing, which negatively affected the way I wrote the review.
Long correction: I still generally agree with myself and what I wrote in 2009, but I must take back—and take back with great joy—all my statements about “the narrative [that] lacks clarity” and about the jumpy or non-linear screenplay, as well as my entire comment from March 24th, in which I wrote “here we are at a level of simplicity where only the purely visual side stands out: the screenplay, objectively, is full of holes.” No. The Italian edition gives this impression. Seen in Japanese, it’s a wonder for young and old alike, it’s marvelously easy to understand, and it comes across as a celebration of life, no ifs or buts, just like in the scene of the tsunami survivors who are overjoyed precisely because they survived.
Elsewhere on the web, I’ve already spoken for years in very positive terms about this film, and I’m taking this opportunity to do the same here on DeBaser, where this old opinion of mine about Miyazaki’s storytelling still remains—an opinion that I now strongly reject. Sorry for the delay, but better late than never. breve: lunga: visivo:

Mah, ok.
I have a few clarifications and corrections for the reviewer.
1) “Snubbed […] rejected by critics who are too snobbish […] downgraded,” but by whom? Give me a name. A serious name, mind you, not a general-interest magazine or some random YouTuber or people picked from the comments on some blog.
2) As for the “centrality of the female figure” as a reference to Japanese culture, we could discuss it, but not the “ambiguity of the sea”: that’s a trait common to all folklore and cultures around the world, from the ancient Mediterranean peoples up to Schubert’s Lieder "Meeresstille" and beyond.
3) It’s not technically a fairy tale, which is a narrative genre with specific characteristics; it’s a fantasy.
4) 170,000 animators??? One hundred seventy thousand people??? Did you realize what you were writing as you wrote it? The film’s frames, yes, those are 170,653, based on 150,084 drawings by animators, distributed over 1,139 editing cuts (so 1,140 shots, still or moving). As for the animators, there were only a few dozen, not hundreds of thousands, and the end credits just list everyone who contributed to the film in any way, from the director to the catering staff, and even adding up everyone together, it’s definitely not thousands.
5) The port town that inspired Miyazaki is called Tomono’ura, with two “o”s.
6) Speaking of Tezuka, one probably thinks of comics first, I’d say, since from 1946 to 1989 he produced almost 700 titles compared to about a hundred animated works (many of which, moreover, were adaptations of his work but without his involvement, or were produced posthumously).
7) Again: who, exactly, refers to this film as a “basic work” or talks of “childishness”? Again: a serious name.
8) "Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea" is the eleventh highest-grossing film globally, and twelfth (tenth, if counting only animated films) at the domestic box office in the history of Japanese cinema: would that be considered a failure? Ten years after the release of the film, Ponyo’s music was still playing in the fish departments of Japanese supermarkets—what are we even talking about? "Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea" is the fourth highest-grossing film in Miyazaki’s career (out of a total of 12 films), and if the director immediately dedicated himself to his next film, it was for artistic reasons, not commercial ones—and for the record, "The Wind Rises" made less than "Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea," both in Japan and worldwide. In Italy, the film grossed nearly €800,000 during its initial theatrical run and another €100,000 in subsequent re-releases (one of which took place in 2023), so it definitely wasn’t a massive flop. It’s true it could have been a much greater success, but Studio Ghibli films in Italy have a long and troubled history of ineffective distributors, incomprehensible versions, and other issues that have hindered their recognition; when a Studio Ghibli film is handled well here, it’s very successful indeed, as proven by "The Boy and the Heron," which in 2024 almost reached 7 million euros, becoming the highest-grossing Japanese film ever—animated or not—in Italian cinemas.
Writing inaccurate reviews, and thus failing to adequately highlight the film’s qualities, is one of the reasons why Miyazaki and animation cinema in general still suffer from artistic stigma in the West. credo: Ancora: nuovo: giapponese:

I admit that I didn't even know they still existed. You've made me curious.

Actually much inferior to the other films in the John Wick saga, which I love, but I also save this one from oblivion thanks to Ana de Armas whom I love love love and who makes me overlook any flaw (and in fact I managed to get through even that mess called "Blonde" only thanks to her).

Seen only once years ago. It shocked me—the shot of the finger tracing the X in the air still haunts my nightmares. I'm even afraid to press the "X" key on this keyboard, and I don't want to make that motion with my finger. I never want to watch it again.

Absolute masterpiece of a film, rather a textbook-like review: it's very informative for those who have just finished watching the film for the first time and want to know more, sure, but it doesn't say anything that hasn't already been written or isn't already known to fans. I would have preferred at least a bit of analysis. scolastica:

Lovely film, the more I watch it, the more I like it and every time it strikes me.

Ah ok, thanks for the update.

"What perhaps caused 'Castle in the Sky' not to become as beloved and quoted by fans as other films (don’t dare touch 'Mononoke', but this film is fair game) is the perception that it is seen as a more childish film and, in any case, a transitional piece between two memorable works, the aforementioned Nausicaa and the subsequent Totoro (1988)": but what are you talking about? With what sources? Is it “seen as a more childish film” by whom exactly, Facebook users or people on the street? 'Castle in the Sky' is in no way less famous or loved; indeed, it is certainly in Miyazaki's top 5 for both commercial and critical success (here’s the ranking according to a Japanese survey from 2013: みんなのランキング In the garden of the Ghibli Museum, among all possible Miyazaki memorabilia, there is the robot from Laputa, and this is not a coincidence.

As for the issue of references, 'Castle in the Sky' comes from a noble literary lineage that traces its roots back to Jules Verne and continued beyond Miyazaki. Here’s an excellent in-depth article on the matter: World Masterpiece Theater – Appendice 4: l’influenza di Jules Verne sugli anime – Dimensione Fumetto

In short, 'Castle in the Sky' is one of the peak expressions of the director's poetic vision: the author of this review likely thinks so too, but approaches the discussion defensively as if needing to rehabilitate a despised or forgotten film, which it is not.

Poor Kylie.