Lawrence of Arabia

In celebration of the film’s 55^th anniversary, I will be looking at one of my all time favorite films, “Lawrence of Arabia,” released in 1962. What a bold, crazy work of genius it was to make this film or even think that it could be made. In the words 55 years later of one of its stars, Omar Shairf: “If you are the main with the money and somebody comes to you and says he wants to make a film that’s four hours long, with no stars, and no women, and no love story, and not much action either, and he wants to spend a huge amount of money to go film it in the desert, what would you say?” The desire to make this movie was based, above all, on imagination. Roger Ebert said in his review, “The story of "Lawrence" is not founded on violent battle scenes or cheap melodrama, but on David Lean's ability to imagine what it would look like to see a speck appear on the horizon of the desert and slowly grow into a human being.” He had to know how that would feel; before he could convince himself that what he was working on had the potential of being successful.

Ebert said, “There is a moment in the film when the hero, a British eccentric named T.E. Lawrence, has survived a suicidal trek across the desert and is within reach of shelter and water, and he turns around and goes back to find a friend who has fallen behind.” This part builds up to the part where the sparkling heat of the desert unwillingly surrenders the spot that becomes a man – a shot that is held for a long time before we can begin to see the tiny shadow. On television, this shot doesn’t work at all – nothing can be seen. Ebert noted, “In a movie theater, looking at the stark clarity of a 70mm print, we lean forward and strain to bring a detail out of the waves of heat, and for a moment we experience some of the actual vastness of the desert and its unforgiving harshness.”

By being able to imagine that part, the filmmakers were able to see why the movie would work. “Lawrence of Arabia” is not a basic biography or an adventure movie – although it includes both aspects – but a movie that uses the desert as a part for the splendor of a determined, unusual man. Ebert said, “Although it is true that Lawrence was instrumental in enlisting the desert tribes on the British side in the 1914-17 campaign against the Turks, the movie suggests that he acted less out of patriotism than out of a need to reject conventional British society and identify with the wildness of the Arabs.”

T.E. Lawrence must be the weirdest hero to actually be the focus of a movie. To play him, Lean casted one of the weirdest actors in recent movie history, the late Peter O’Toole, an awkward, almost clumsy man with a sculptured face and a speaking way that hesitates between entertainment and disrespect. O’Toole’s work was a serious one.

Ebert noted, “Although it was widely believed that Lawrence was a homosexual, a multimillion-dollar epic filmed in 1962 could not possibly be frank about that.” However, Lean and his writer, Robert Bolt, didn’t simply dove in and rewrite Lawrence into a basic action hero.

Using O’Toole’s strange speech and manner as their tool, they made a character who combined charisma and insanity, who was so different from straight military heroes that he could inspire the Arabs to follow him in that crazy march across the desert. There is a part in the movie when O’Toole, dressed in the loose white robes of a desert sheik, does a victory dance on top of a captured Turkish train and almost looks like he’s posing for fashion photos. Ebert said, “This is a curious scene because it seems to flaunt gay stereotypes, and yet none of the other characters in the movie seem to notice, nor do they take much notice of the two young desert urchins Lawrence takes under his protection.”

Ebert continued, “What Lean, Bolt and O'Toole create is a sexually and socially unconventional man who is simply presented as what he is, without labels or comment. Could such a man rally the splintered desert tribes and win a war against the Turks?” Lawrence did. However, he did it partly with mirrors, the movie suggests. One of the main characters is an American journalist, played by Arthur Kennedy, obviously inspired by Lowell Thomas, who single-handedly traded the Lawrence myth to the English-language press. The journalist admits he is looking for a hero to write about. Lawrence is happy to play that part. Ebert said, “And only role-playing would have done the job; an ordinary military hero would have been too small-scale for this canvas.”

For a movie that runs 216 minutes, plus intermission, “Lawrence of Arabia” is not crowded with plot details. Ebert said, “It is a spare movie in clean, uncluttered lines, and there is never a moment when we're in doubt about the logistical details of the various campaigns.”

Lawrence is able to bring together different desert classes, the movie argues, because (1) he is obviously a foreigner that he cannot even understand, let alone take sides with, the various ancient challenges, and (2) because he is able to show the Arabs that it is in their own selfishness to join the war against the Turks. Along the way he makes friends with certain desert leaders as Sherif Ali (Omar Sharif), Prince Feisal (Alec Guinness) and Auda Abu Tayi (Anthony Quinn), both by winning their respect and by engaging to their logic. Ebert noted, “The dialogue in these scenes is not complex, and sometimes Bolt makes it so spare it sounds like poetry.”

Ebert continued, “I've noticed that when people remember "Lawrence of Arabia," they don't talk about the plot.” They get a certain look in their vision, as if they are remembering the whole experience and have never really been able to say in anyway. Ebert said, “Although it seems to be a traditional narrative film - like "The Bridge on the River Kwai," which Lean made just before it, or "Doctor Zhivago," which he made just after - it actually has more in common with such essentially visual epics as Kubrick's "2001" or Eisenstein's "Alexander Nevsky."” It is sight and experience, and its ideas are about things you can see or feel, not things you can say. Much of its likeness is based on the fact that it does not have a complex story with a lot of dialogue. We remember the quiet, empty routes, the sun rising across the desert, the difficult lines drawn by the wind in the sand.

Although it won the Academy Award as the year’s best picture in 1962, “Lawrence of Arabia” would have been a lost memory if it had not been for the two film restorers, Robert A. Harris and Jim Painten. Ebert noted, “They discovered the original negative in Columbia's vaults inside crushed and rusting film cans, and they also discovered about 35 minutes of footage that had been trimmed by distributors from Lean's final cut.” To see it in a movie theater is to appreciate the detail of F.A. Young’s desert cinematography – accomplished despite unbearable heat and the blowing sand, which worked its way into every camera. “Lawrence of Arabia” was one of the last films to be photographed in 70mm (as opposed to being expanded up to 70 from a 35mm negative). It is a great experience to see it today as Lean wanted it in 1962 – and also an awesome one, to see how the motion picture company is losing the vision to make epic films like this and staying for safe narrative formulas instead.

I would stop here, but people probably didn’t know that they made a “made-for-television” sequel in 1992, “A Dangerous Man: Lawrence After Arabia.” T.E. Lawrence, one of the century’s most vague heroes, is taken down the performance path once again.

The subtitle on-purpose repeats the acclaimed David Lean film that, much to the grief of T.E. experts, had Peter O’Toole playing a rather showy, almost sword-wielding Lawrence, pretentiously given to deep thoughts. Picking up where that film ended, “A Dangerous Man” is more genuine and, making things undeniably difficult for non-experts, almost as difficult as the man himself.

The first scene, set in London in Royal Albert Hall in 1919, sees the American journalist Lowell Thomas, played by Adam Henderson, gripping his expensive audience with his touring lecture, shown with silent film, “With Allenby in Palestine and Lawrence in Arabia.” Lawrence himself, played with memorable detail by Ralph Fiennes, floats in shadows, simultaneously delighted with and shocked by the public worship. John J. O’Connor said in his review, “The ambivalence of his nature, of his very soul, is established in a stroke.”

The scene flashbacks a year, to the resolution that ended World War I, a situation that saw Lawrence join with the Emir Faisal, played by Siddig el Fadil, prince of the Hashemites, to extract Damascus from the Turks. Lawrence now goes out to get for the Arabs the independence and self-determination actually promised earlier by the British Government. He wants Faisal to be King of Syria.

Now that the War is over, the winners slip back easily enough to their own selfishness. The British want control of the Persian Gulf. The French insist on having Syria. O’Connor said, “At the heart of the power plays, of course, then as now, is the region's abundant oil supply.” The new fights against the world leaders will be seen at the Paris Peace Conference. O’Connor said, “Proffering Lawrence as a visionary, however personally confused, "A Dangerous Man" is a pointed what-might-have-been exercise.”

Obviously, the more you know about the time and the problems, the more you will appreciate this delightfully good film. Partially prepared or, at the very least, seriously close attention will be really rewarded. With David Puttnam, former boss of Columbia Pictures, and Brenda Reid as executive producers, the production is really amazing in its rich detail.

O’Connor said, “Tim Rose Price's screenplay, which evolved from a Clive Irving story, skillfully meshes world events with Lawrence's private world.” The direction by Christopher Menaul extracts any number of great performances, not least among the assumed bad guys: Bernard Lloyd as British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, Arnold Diamond as French Premier Georges Clemenceau, Denis Quilley as Lord Curzon and Nicholas Jones as Lord Dyson, a really nasty guy with pompous attitude.

O’Connor said, “But the core tension of the film is maintained by the always mysterious Lawrence, at times shy and reserved, then commanding, usually shrewd, a touch slippery and undeniably brilliant. Even as he senses that he is failing the Arab cause, he finds a perverse satisfaction in his celebrity. The long-debated question of his sexual orientation is not definitively settled, but the assumption here is that he was either homosexual or asexual (there is a passing hint of his established taste for flagellation). In one scene, he explicitly rejects a woman's advances, explaining that "I cannot respond to you, madam, as you wish."”

Lawrence’s most complete relationship is with Faisal, who he treats with something coming complete love. O’Connor said, “If not explicitly sexual, the situation between the two -- in 1918, Lawrence was 30, the Emir 33 -- is depicted as being extraordinarily sensual.” Both Fiennes and el Fadil, who was born in Sudan, are amazing, riding a flood of constant changing emotions, often without saying a word.

Lawrence’s story has proved firm. O’Connor noted, “In this country there is even a Lawrence monthly newsletter called "T. E. Notes," started in 1990 and published in Honesdale, Pa. The aficionados are evidently insatiable.” A good part of the reason can be noticed in “A Dangerous Man.”

I highly recommend everyone go out and see these two movies. “Lawrence of Arabia” can be found with no problem, but “A Dangerous Man: Lawrence After Arabia” might be difficult to find. My advice is to look it up and see where you can find it, but I definitely say don’t skip the chance to see these movies. I give them a high recommendation.

Stay tuned Monday for the continuation of “Studio Ghibli Month.”

My Neighbors the Yamadas

Writer/director Isao Takahata’s 1999 film, “My Neighbors the Yamadas,” definitely separates itself from the other highly-acclaimed, well-received animated films from Studio Ghibli. DVD Dizzy stated in their review, “I have yet to encounter a Ghibli picture as distant from the rest of the canon both visually and thematically, but Yamadas proves change can be a good thing, for it winds up being every bit as effective as an endearing domestic comedy as the more dramatic and fantastical works directed by Hayao Miyazaki.”

DVD Dizzy goes on to say, “Spirits, sprites, shape-shifters, fuzzy hybrid creatures, and strong shojo-esque female protagonists are the types of characters that often occupy Studio Ghibli films, but you won't find any of those in Yamadas.” The small main cast of five is mainly of the main group, an “average” Japanese family level to mistakes and flaws. Otherwise, the Yamadas are an extremely human race whose failings make them more obvious and identifiable for most of the viewers going through the same modern day troubles.

The patriarch of the Yamada family is Takashi, voiced by the great Jim Belushi, a diligent middle-aged office worker who is easily annoyed when he’s home. Home is where you’ll most likely find the matriarch of the family, Matsuko, voiced by Molly “Superstar” Shannon, whose schedule seems complete with avoided errands to the point where she only has time to cook the same thing every night or fool somebody into taking over the cooking job. DVD Dizzy said, “Despite their toll-taking schedules, Takashi and Matsuko manage to find plenty of time to put one another out or engage in some routine spousal bickering.” Letting Matsuko know when she makes a mistake is the family’s grandmother Sige, voiced by Tress MacNeille, as DVD Dizzy describes “an adage-dispensing and opinionated older woman.” The last of the family are two children, teenager Noboru (Daryl Sabara), who is at the age where girls are starting to make him uncomfortable and he wants his parents to be cooler, and the small but loud baby of the family, Nonoko (Liliana Mumy).

“My Neighbors the Yamadas” does not give a traditional story a lot as more of an inside look at the suburban family’s life through a conveniently arranged collection of often funny vignettes. The first of maybe two most important events that transpires in the film is when the family goes out to the mall and in panic when Nonoko is left behind. While she is able to take care of herself among all of the shoppers, the rest of the Yamadas blame each other and hilariously fear the worst. The other most important parts come in the second half of the film and is where Grandma Yamada stands up to some dangerous motorcycle-racing street thugs. DVD Dizzy said, “If the proceedings get a little too silly here (and I'd say that they do), you're nonetheless hooked to this point and willing to give the film some leeway.” Despite that both of these stores are allowed to be shown to think before finding the solution, they are simply two of the film’s many short stories. DVD Dizzy said, “Each provides an anecdote that would amuse friends in retelling but couldn't possibly as gratifying as actually experiencing it firsthand. While viewers aren't literally partaking in the Yamadas' quirky adventures, the effect is uncannily close, for the characters and situations are highly relatable and are certain to remind you of someone or sometime.”

DVD Dizzy goes on to say, “In appearance, the production intentionally resembles a recurring newspaper comic, straying not far from the source of its adaptation, Hisaichi Ishii's long-running 4-panel strip Tonari no Yamada-kun. The alluring minimalist visual style takes little time to get used to and garners growing appreciation as one "visits" with the Yamadas. The film's look starkly contrasts from the typical (and often fairly realistic) Studio Ghibli animation, as well as more free-wheeling but code-adherent artwork found in niche Japanese anime television product.” Amazingly, the film’s apparently watercolor effects were all realized with the use of computers, something that illustrates just how high the “computer animation” standard’s potential is.

The Yamadas have strangely small visual pupils (with the exception of Nonoko), unclear and watery outlines, and clearly flat but forceful movements. Background artwork is thin. The usually domestic settings can be made with simply a handful of lines. If location drawings go in and out of focus, it is because they are rarely of high importance and forever remain obedient to the personalities up front. “My Neighbors the Yamadas” is filled with suggestible and imaginative imagery, from the bobsled run that becomes Mr. and Mrs. Yamada’s wedding cake to the jungle cruise which gives birth to their Noboru (hatched from a giant peach). Even less strange scenery is shown in a forceful way. One shows Takashi’s different emotions when snow begins to just, nicely fall and the rest of the family is fine to watch winter action stuff on TV.

DVD Dizzy said, “The unique blend of nontraditional plot and pictures gives Yamadas an air that's a cross between Charles Schulz's Peanuts and television's interminable "The Simpsons." Such a comparison references two entities which produce widely pleasing states of minds for their audiences, and if Yamadas doesn't create quite such a timeless brand, it is forgiven on account of its far shorter lifespan of just 104 minutes for those unacquainted with Ishii's forerunning comic strip.” Those 104 minutes are constantly enjoyable throughout large and small moments alike (relative terms, since the constantly on an individual family), giving plenty of time for funny behavioral patterns created in the interaction among the five family members. DVD Dizzy said, “Like both of the aforementioned media texts, Takahata's film is not content to settle for providing laughs.” It goes to tell everyone a lot of insights on parenting and marriage. This mix of humor and poignancy works because it feels natural. DVD Dizzy said, “Yamadas always maintains an encouragingly reverent and upbeat attitude towards family life, never scoffing at the hardships but rather gently coercing audiences to smile at themselves and the painfully quick tempers displayed towards loved ones.” The movie does end up feeling like one of those friends you have that knows the problems you’re going through as common to everyone else and not really something to get worked up over.

Despite that the foreign names and individual characteristics of the Yamadas may be hard for Western audiences to oversee; the group dynamic is very clear, immediate and satisfying. DVD Dizzy said, “The pack's everyday triumphs and troubles are undoubtedly universal, with the film's depiction of familial life in modern day Japan perfectly accessible to those experiencing similarly commonplace phenomena in traditional four-member or larger families the United States. With little modification of Takahata's insightful script and an aptly-cast group of English-speaking actors, Yamadas excels as a consistently entertaining journal of delightfully dysfunctional but caring relatives. From such an atmosphere indubitably arises on-the-mark comedic observations, of such scenarios where momentary individual weaknesses can overshadow loyalties to one's offspring, spouse, or parent.”

At the end of the day, you may not like the idea of watching family fights that comes across like someone just put the camera on record in someone’s house. DVD Dizzy said, “My Neighbors the Yamadas unabashedly revels in depicting marriage struggles and the fears and woes that being a family entails in this age.” At the same time, the look of suburban life it shows are almost interminably funny, good-natured and successfully aware. There are no superpowers, no huge battles, and the only animal appearances are by a passing bird and the Yamadas’ dog Pochie. This may not be the type of film which fans of Ghibli animation expect or want, but this unique victory ends up being one of the studio’s films most likely to engage, vibrate and joy, especially among Western audiences open-minded enough to see domestic life isn’t so different on the other side of the world.

Like I stated yesterday, this is probably the weirdest film that Studio Ghibli made. Not because of the topic they picked, but how everything was shown, seeing how relatable of an area they touched on. That doesn’t mean this film is bad, by no means anywhere close. It’s just one of those films that may not be in anyone’s ballpark. Go ahead and check it out, because I do think it’s one of the good Studio Ghibli films, just not one of their best. It’s another “slice-of-life” film that is actually nice for everyone to see because you could relate to what goes on in the Yamadas life.

Alright everyone, the wait is finally over. Next Monday I will be looking at my absolute favorite in the “Studio Ghibli” movies. I think everyone might be able to guess what it is, since a lot of people seem to say the same one when asked what their favorite film by Studio Ghibli is. If you are not able to guess the film I’m talking about, then just stay tuned for the next installment in “Studio Ghibli Month.”

Princess Mononoke

When someone talks about the directorial works of Hayao Miyazako, three films often come to people’s minds, the cute and harmless “My Neighbor Totoro,” the Academy Award-winning “Spirited Away” and “Princess Mononoke,” released in 1997, an over two hour long fantasy adventure without a real antagonist, along with an environmental message, on top of an anti-war film and also is a masterpiece.

The film is about a warrior named Ashitaka, who saves his village from a demon who has been consumed by a giant boar God, Nargo, but also gets cursed in the process. After being banished, Ashitaka goes on his powerful red elk to try to find the Great Forest Spirit who controls life who can release him of this curse. As he tries to find the Spirit, he is stuck in a controversy between the people of Iron Town, a mining town that has guns who had terrible lives until they built where parts of the forest once were, the animal Gods who lived there first but got weaker by day and the main person Princess Mononoke (Skyler Queen noted, “a symbolic mocking nickname meaning monster or spirit”) actually named San who was raised by the Wolf God, Moro, who represents a joining of worlds whether she is for it or against it.

Queen said, “There are many characters in the film that want the Great Forest Spirit for their own reasons and even if they don’t the other character’s motivations tend to be entangled with the characters that are off looking for the Great Forest Spirit anyway. The motivations become clear from character standpoints but there is no true person who is completely wrong in this story so that, as well as the fact that there are so many characters and plotlines to keep track of it, may be harder to process for some than others.” When Lady Eboshi, the matriarch of Iron Town asks Ashitaka what he would like, his response his, “to see with eyes unclouded by hate.” That is one necessary message in this film. Queen noted, “Yes, there is an environmental message in the film about how we need to be better to the animals and earth around us but Miyazaki’s well-documented pacifism is clear in this feature.” We are supposed to learn not to hate any other human or animal. We are all selfish and vacuous, but we all have our reasons why, to start off. Life will only be easier once we learn not to hate. One of the miracles, among so much in Miyazaki’s creation, however, is telling that type of message in a convincing, entertaining way and not sounding preachy while telling it.

Queen is right when he said, “If you expect cute animals and magic in this film because of Miyazaki’s lighter fare you may be a tad surprised by the kind of story this is, including the violence included such as decapitation and arms being severed however don’t be too afraid as this film does feature quite a bit of magic involved too, such as the Kodama spirits that signify the health of the forest, the Forest spirit’s Nightwalker transformation and Ashitaka’s elk, Yakul (or Yakkuru in the Japanese version).”

The American Dub of the film has a script written by author, Neil Gaiman, and voice actors of 90s Hollywood actors Gillian Anderson, Billy Crudup, Claire Danes, Minnie Driver, Jada Pinkett Smith and Billy Bob Thornton. Queen credited, “Most of the actors give these parts all they have in them and work very well despite the obvious constraints they are working against dubbing the film rather than creating a character from scratch.” Make sure to listen closely for “Futurama” and “Adventure Time’s” own John DiMaggio in an early role as the rough bodyguard Gonza and the always amazing Keith David as the opening narrator and blind boar God, Okkoto.

The film runs 2 hours and 15 minutes; something that Miyazaki himself admits in one of the extras is very long. Queen noted, “The length however long for animation has since become more or less the norm for feature-length run times in the past 20 years. Even if that change in culture hadn’t happened the experience breezes by you in what feels like an instant.”

As I had stated yesterday, this is my second favorite Ghibli movie. This was probably the fourth Ghibli movie that I saw, and I absolutely fell in love with it. It’s much different from the other Ghibli movies; I can assure you that, in the sense that it’s a war film of humans against Gods with the severing of limbs. Never before had I ever imagined an anime movie being capable of pulling this off. This gets a high recommendation from me because I loved this movie, as it is one of my favorites. The animation, the characters, the world, the messages, everything in this movie is just perfect. If this is anyone's favorite Studio Ghibli movie, I hear you and more power to you because I love this movie a lot as well. Don’t read this review, go and watch it if you haven’t because you’re missing out on an amazing movie that combines so many traits in it.

Now that we have talked about that, check in tomorrow where I review another “slice-of-life” film, that is also, quite possibly, the weirdest movie released by the company, in “Studio Ghibli Month.”

Whisper of the Heart

“Whisper of the Heart” was released in Japan in 1995. It’s not the studio’s most admired film, but is a noteworthy part of the company however, for areas like being one of the few Ghibli films not directed by Miyazaki. Instead, Yoshifumi Kondo, once Miyazaki’s assistant and presumably successor, is in charge. (This was Kondo’s first and only film he directed, since he passed away a few years afterwards). Miyazaki may not be the one in charge, nor is the story his at all (credit goes also to Aoi Hiragi, author of the manga that the movie is based on), but his marks is all over the film. He was the film’s producer and made the screenplay and storyboards.

The story is about Shizuku, a middle school student who only is interested in school. When she’s not worried about her high school entrance exams (remember, this is the Japanese education system) or trying to be a songwriter, she loves to read fantasy novels at fast speed. Aaron Wallace said in his review, “It's the latter activity that introduces a series of events that lead her to re-evaluate her self-worth and life goals in light of those first two hobbies.”

While looking through her most recent library rentals, Shizuku sees that a frequent reader with the last name of Amasawa has checked out each book she has been reading herself. Interested, she tries to find out who this mysterious person could be but is soon distracted when she follows a curious cat riding on the bus without an owner. This takes her to a boutique shop where the owner, Mr. Nishi, a kind, older man who has so many antiques for Shizuku, among them being a statue of a cat named The Baron. There’s so much story behind The Baron and several other antiques in the store, stories that make possible Shizuku’s searching for a talent when she is encouraged by Mr. Nishi and his grandson, Seiji, who notices both Shizuku’s picture and her fury.

Wallace said, “Whisper of the Heart embraces its contemporary setting, something that Walt Disney's classics rarely did.” Twenty two years later, it hasn’t aged, but if it will age is a question. (The constant singing of John Denver’s classic Country Roads, Take Me Home does seem a little strange, but not inappropriate). Sometimes a bit awkward in its pacing, the story spends a lot of time on romance and maybe not enough on the mysteries that make the earlier scenes of the film so interesting. The end result to the romantic storyline definitely feels abrupt to say the least. Wallace said, “Still, none of those drawbacks spoil the end result, and stirring poignancy doesn't seem to be the goal.” One exciting scene is where The Baron and Shizuku’s imagination (supposedly directed by Miyazaki) leaves the viewer wanting more of those fantastical moments, but the engaging story stays likable, if not immediately lovable.

The English voice cast includes so many celebrities, TV stars: David Gallagher from “7^th Heaven,” Ashley Tisdale, Courtney Thorne-Smith, Martin Spanjers and Jean Smart are in the main supporting cast and all do a great job. As the main protagonist, Brittany Snow is a little dull, along with her character sometimes. Cary Elwes comes back briefly to voice The Baron, after having done the same character in “The Cat Returns,” a spin-off of “Whisper of the Heart.” The best voice actor in here, hands down, is Harold Gould. He brings warmth and energy to Mr. Nishi, whose role in the movie is the mentor and sage, which is so needed.

Wallace ended his review by saying, “My first impression of Studio Ghibli has been a favorable one. Whisper of the Heart isn't a perfect or life-changing movie, but it's entirely likable despite a few shortcomings. It flirts with the wonderment that I gather to be Miyazaki's hallmark, but is mostly reserved in that regard. This leads me to think that newcomers like myself might want to try out another Ghibli flick first, but then, Whisper made a fine introduction for me.”

I will say that this is a good movie that everyone should check out. It’s another one of those feel good, slice-of-life romances that is actually very sentimental and sweet for people to check out. I liked the characters, the story and, as always, the animation, especially in the imagination segment with Shizuku and The Baron. Just sit tight to know what I thought of “The Cat Returns,” because we will get to that one soon enough. Don’t skip this one if you want to watch the “Studio Ghibli” films.

Now I’m really excited for tomorrow because I will be looking at another one of my absolute favorites that was made by this company. It’s actually my second favorite. Just stay tuned to find out tomorrow in my continuation of “Studio Ghibli Month.”

Pom Poko

Isao Takahata’s “Pom Poko,” released in 1994, raised eyebrows in the USA, both for its constant shocking images and for Japan’s choice to submit the movie as its entry for the Oscar for foreign language film. (Charles Solomon said in his review, “More than one Academy member sniffed at the idea of a “cartoon” being considered for such a prestigious award back then.”)

Solomon noted, “Pom Poko—the sound a well-filled belly makes when it’s patted—reportedly was inspired by a remark Hayao Miyazaki made to Takahata about what became of the animals who had lived on the site of a new development.”

In 1967, the Tama Hills, a rural area west of Tokyo, was made into the bedroom community of “New Tama” to give housing for more than 300,000 people. This giant project caused danger with the tanuki (technically Japanese raccoon dogs, although the English version calls them raccoons) who had lived in the area for centuries. Small farms gave them with places to live and plenty of rodents, frogs, windfall fruit and, once in a while, stolen human meals. These essential needs are gone as bulldozers level hills, fill streams and chop down trees. The destroyed area can no longer help the animal population. When the tanuki meet, they decide to defend against the human violations, but their leadership is divided: short-tempered Gonta (Clancy Brown), older Seizaemon (J.K. Simmons), honest wise-woman Oroku (Tress MacNeille), and young, smart Shoukichi (Jonathan Taylor Thomas) give different ways to solve the issue.

Solomon noted, “In Japanese folk tales, tanuki are shape-shifters, capable of transforming themselves into almost anything. But they’re folkloric equivalent of party dudes, too interesting in eating, drinking and dancing to be as dangerous or threatening as foxes (kitsune), the other great shape-shifters, often are.”

Impatient and angry, Gonta begins an operation of damage that destroys equipment and kills three workers. Solomon said, “Shoukichi devises a more subtle strategy, creating ghost-illusions that draw on old folk stories to scare off more superstitious workers.” However, as Oroku humbly notes, there looks like there is an unlimited supply of humans wanting to destroy the Tama Hills.

With the help of transformation masters from other islands, the tanuki decide to concentrate everything into scaring the residents of New Tama away with “Operation Specter,” a giant pageant of yokai (Solomon said, “creatures that haunt Japanese folklore; the word has been translated as “ghosts,” “spirits” and “monsters”). This glorious fantasy sequence is simultaneously scary and funny, drawing on the great woodblock prints of the 18th and 19th century, including a gargantuan skeleton lifted from a celebrated Kuniyoshi. (Western viewers saw some of the same monsters in Shuhei Morita’s Oscar-nominated short Possessions.)”

However, the parade entertains the residents more than it scares them. For it to be worse, the owner of a nearby amusement park says he staged the pageant as a publicity stunt. After the pageant fails, Gonta makes an all-out attack and is killed in the war. The remaining tanuki could move, but any good area already has a resident tribe of tanuki. Solomon said, “They could live at the fringes of human society and forage garbage.” Or they could transfigure themselves permanently and live as humans (Solomon noted, “maintaining a human form requires a lot of energy: it may be the reason for the spike in sales of sports drinks”). However, the fearful, driven lives of urban Japanese don’t ask to the relaxed, pleasure-loving tanuki.

As good of a movie it is, this is one of the weirdest entries in “Studio Ghibli” history. The reason why I say that is because how in your face it has the “save the earth” message. Also, the “pouches,” as they are called in the English dub version, is actually the raccoons’ privates, which is very disturbing. Definitely see this one if you would like, but just be cautious when you see it.

Check in tomorrow where I look at another good film in “Studio Ghibli Month.”

Porco Rosso

In 1992, Walt Disney Pictures released “Newsies,” “The Mighty Ducks,” “The Muppet Christmas Carol” and one of their biggest animated films ever, “Aladdin.” Simultaneously, Studio Ghilbi, a company that few Americans had heard of, released their sixth animated movie, “Porco Rosso.” The studio already had giant achievements with films like “My Neighbor Totoro” and “Kiki’s Delivery Service” and director Hayao Miyazaki was being called the Japanese Walt Disney.

Like many Studio Ghibli films, “Porco Rosso” takes place in Europe. Marco Rousolini, voiced by Michael Keaton, was a World War I fighter pilot that became a bounty hunter after the war. A curse left him with a pig face and he went by the name Porco Rosso (Italian for Red Pig). His journeys have him fighting against air pirates and he soon finds out that the fascist Italian government has told the pirates to track him.

Alex Reif said in his review, “Porco Rosso started out as a short film for Japan Airlines that would be based on a short Manga that Hayao Miyazaki wrote in 1989 called The Age of the Flying Boat. When it was expanded into a feature, Japan Airlines remained a sponsor and even played it on flights before it opened in theaters.” It was the number one film in Japan in 1992, beating Disney’s “Beauty and the Beast,” which was released in Japan in September of that same year.

Disney got the American distribution rights to “Porco Rosso” in 1996, but didn’t release it until 2005 when Studio Ghibli was famous in America thanks to critics giving praises to “Spirited Away” and “Howl’s Moving Castle.” Disney’s English dub has an all star voice cast that includes Michael Keaton as Porco Rosso, the great Cary Elwes, Kimberly Williams-Paisley, Susan Egan, David Ogden Stiers and Brad Garrett. John Lasseter looked over the English language dub for quality control. He is good friends with Miyazaki and is a big fan of Studio Ghibli films.

“Porco Rosso” is an excellent addition to any Studio Ghibli fan’s movie shelf. Reif ended his review by saying, “This Blu-Ray release is far superior to the previous DVD release. It’s not one of my favorite Ghibli films, but I still enjoy it every time.”

I can safely say that this is one of my absolute favorite Ghibli films. I just love the flight sequences, the story, the voice cast, the characters and the animation. On top of that, this might quite possibly be Studio Ghibli's funniest film. It is very entertaining as everyone, especially Keaton, has very funny lines. This is one of the best films that Studio Ghibli ever made. Understandably, this is both of my siblings’ favorite Studio Ghibli film. More power to anyone who says that this is their favorite Studio Ghibli film because I completely understand and get it. I love it to, and I can assure you, it’s in my top five favorite Studio Ghibli films. Definitely check this one out if you haven’t.

Look out tomorrow when we look at one of the weirdest films in “Studio Ghibli Month.”

Only Yesterday

Friendly and somewhat magical, “Only Yesterday” is a 1991 classic of Japanese animation, made 66 years ago but never before released in the USA. To see it now is to understand behind why it was delayed and why the wait has been really worth it.

Definitely, “Only Yesterday’s” history couldn’t be more amazing. Its director, Isao Takahata, is one of Japan’s great animators, most recently making 2013’s Oscar-nominated “The Tale of Princess Kaguya.”

In 1985, Takahata came on board to Japan’s fantasy animation master Hayao Miyazaki to co-find the famous Studio Ghibli. Kenneth Turan said in his review, “Both men share a preference for intrepid girls as protagonists but, in this film at least, Takahata finds the emotional complications of the everyday more alluring than any fantasy world.”

The story of a young woman who moves back and forth between childhood memories and the problems of her current life, “Only Yesterday” is a realistic, personal story made worldwide in a subtle way.

Despite that it might have shocked American audiences back in 1991, when Disney’s significantly more inspiring “Beauty and the Beast” was on top, “Only Yesterday’s” skill to find the beauty and charm in everyday experience could well hit people today.

Turan noted, “Screening in subtitled and dubbed versions, "Only Yesterday" is based on a Japanese graphic novel and, especially in its childhood scenes, has very much the flavor of remembered experience.” It starts in Tokyo in 1982, where a 27-year-old office worker is about to go on vacation. No, she tells her supervisor, she’s not going abroad; she’s going to spend time on a farm in the country.

Her name is Taeko, voiced by Daisy Ridly. Turan said, “Unmarried and having just turned down a suitor, she feels a bit at loose ends and has always wished she lived in the country.”

Taeko makes plans to visit the farm of her brother-in-law’s family (Matt Yank King, Sumalee Montano, Tara Strong and Nika Futterman) where she’s worked before, this time to pick safflowers, plants whose colorful red petals are traditionally used to make rouge.

Because calling for the countryside connects Taeko with her childhood, first thinking about the trip and then actually riding on the train to her location cause memories of what life was like when she was a 10-year-old fifth grader to come back. Alison Fernandez voices Taeko at age 10.

The youngest person in her family that includes a serious father (Matt Yank King), a worried mother (Grey Griffin), two older sisters (Laura Bailey and Ashley Eckstein) and a distant grandmother (Mona Marshall), Taeko has all types of memories of her childhood, from the first pineapple the family tried (they can’t figure out how to eat it) to a slanting fight with a sister over a popular enamel purse.

What causes more serious emotions come back at school, where Taeko has to deal with boys who insistently bully the girls about menstruation as well as her first serious, almost quiet crush on a popular, baseball-playing classmate, voiced by Gianella Thielmann.

Turan said, “When the two manage to successfully exchange a few words, Taeko's emotions soar and the film, which has more of a watercolor look in these sequences than in the more vivid present day, wonderfully captures that feeling by showing her literally floating on air.”

Frustrated as well as loved by these memories (“It’s like traveling with a 10-year-old” she complains to herself) the adult Taeko, with a job she neither loves nor hates, starts to worry if she has been true to her more adventurous younger self.

Complicating these memories is the appearance of a handsome young organic farmer named Toshio, voiced by Dev Patel, whose enthusiasm for his work acts as a boost. “It’s fascinating to raise living things,” he tells her. “If you take care of them, they’ll do the best for us.” Turan said, “He also shrewdly observes that when city people say they love nature, they are invariably talking about landscapes that have been created by man.”

A film with a mind of its own, “Only Yesterday” makes time to go into detail about the history and harvesting of safflower plants, but mostly it talks about Taeko’s emotions as she tries to make peace between her childhood and her current problem.

Turan said, “Considered a landmark in Japanese animation for the realism of its drama, "Only Yesterday's" emphasis on the rhythms and events of the everyday means its style takes a bit of getting used to.” However, once you go with the film’s flow, it has you for the runtime.

This is a slice-of-life film, and is a very good one. If you haven’t seen it and you like slice-of-life films, then go ahead and watch it. It’s not one of my favorites, but I think it’s still really good for everyone to watch and is a film that will keep you interested from first minute from last. Then again, it probably showcases problems that certain people have where they try to come to terms with what happened with their childhood and not have it affect their adult life. I like that it shows that, as I know people who go through it, like myself. Granted, it’s good to talk to some third party to get help come to terms with it, like I have, and it will make things easier. That’s what Taeko does when she makes a connection with Toshio. Also, it gives a good lesson on farming and how we need to love and save the Earth for all the natural resources it provides. Don’t skip this one.

Look out next Monday where we look at another one of my absolute favorites in “Studio Ghibli Month.”