Weathering With You, or The Portrait of the Artist as a Questionable Storyteller

On the way back from the movie theater, I googled Weathering With You to get to the Wikipedia page, a page I'd been avoiding until I saw it. The first result I saw above my desired destination was the headline for a review that read "Weathering With You is as light as a cloud." If I had opened the link, which I didn't, I'm sure I would have found the author praising the movie for being pleasant and breezy, like a spoonful of sugar... or this song:

You are my sunshine, my only sunshine
You make me happy when skies are gray
Please don't take my sunshine away...

In no way is that sentiment true.

Not only are the characters weighed down by hard luck and loss, and the narrative by its searing desire to say something profound, but the movie and Makoto Shinkai, himself, are caught underneath the pop culture behemoth that is Your Name. The latter film was always going to be referenced. Its artistic and storytelling brilliance and its widespread commercial success were too big to ignore. The hope was that Shinkai would tell the story he wanted to tell and sweep the audiences off their feet with his unrivaled animation quality and talent (the animators at ComixWave deserve a lot of credit here, certainly more than this parenthesis). 

That, unfortunately, did not happen. The film cannot be separated from Your Name in terms of its structure and Shinkai's conspicuous attempts to make the film breezier by trying to create a roguish set of main characters who try to work outside the system. He is not a natural crowd-pleaser and it shows.

What I cannot and will not criticize, however, are the film's artistic qualities. Tokyo feels so pulsatingly alive, captured in a way even a live-action movie could not equal. Shinkai and his animators continue to up the ante on the rest of the industry. The attention to detail is breathtaking, leaving us with a visual masterpiece. The fireworks scene...just wow.

Ah, if only the story was even a few notches below this, we're talking about another all-time classic, but it wasn't. The story and the characters left much to be desired. The former, in many ways, is a slight adjustment to the ingredients that made Your Name so successful: boy meets girl with younger outspoken sibling, rural vs. urban, a supernatural connection, romance, death, reversal, and, yes, boob jokes. Structurally, the plot is a little more streamlined, but the framework is essentially the same.

The boob jokes may have worked in Your Name because they weren't a crass way to appeal to adolescent sexuality. Here, they fall in line with one of anime's worst instincts, the cynical belief that teenage boys are the primary audience and will only watch if the female characters are objectified. This is where Miyazaki, Takahata, and Studio Ghibli in general, along with Mamoru Hosoda, differ from the crowd. You'd think Shinkai would know better.

Puzzling me the most is the rationale behind the characters. I don't understand why they have to be the people they are, especially the main character, Hodaka. His status as a runaway who fled his more parochial hometown because it was "suffocating" does nothing for the story.

What we are left with is a true technical and artistic marvel matched with a mediocre story. Sadness.

The Jungle Book Review - Misleading but Good

Sometimes, even Disney can get carried away. They chose to call their newest spin on The Jungle Book a "live action" film. That implies real actors, real settings, and real animals being involved in the production process. Everything listed there, except for the actor (Neel Sethi) playing Mowgli, is far from anything we would see in a natural location. The movie is built around animated figures, who might possess the movement patterns of their actual counterparts, which look like they should be featured in a Disney Animation production.

Now, imagine a scenario where an entertainment kingpin hasn't misled you into believing the movie depicted real-life action. After that, eliminate any notions of the movie seriously addressing the environmental and endangered species issues present in our society. Yes, the setting is supposed to be in nature, but still cut out those political expectations. If you can do this, then you will find The Jungle Book remake to be a competently carried-out and entertaining film.

Sorry folks, this isn't a live action film. But, hey, it's still good!

At the risk of being obvious, perhaps, let us say the creative minds who turned out the picture were successful because they didn't deviate too much from the original animated feature. That starts with the writing. Justin Marks's screenplay is light, tight, and hits all of the right notes. There's essentially no self-gratuitous fat, a trap filmmakers all too often fall into.

Jon Favreau's capable direction was also definitely a positive. He doesn't veer off on tangents and chose to keep just enough of the 1967 version's music, especially the "Bare Necessities," which is one of the main reasons why it remains an endearing and indelible piece of animated cinema. Although Favreau makes it clear throughout that this isn't a musical, the music keeps the film tied to its lighter roots.

Let the cat fight commence!

Where this version sets itself apart is in the tone. While obviously upbeat at various points, the majority of the movie is shrouded in darkness and danger. That seems to fit right in with the story's central point - a hunt. Shere Khan, the ruthless (British) tiger, is hell-bent on killing the "man-cub" Mowgli. That hunt is always in the background. Also, the natural world is not kind to the lone human character. It's always fighting him and making life difficult for him. This lends a cynical edge to the generally heartwarming Disney story.

Another aspect that cannot be overlooked is the voice cast. Almost every actor plays their role to perfection. Idris Elba gives Shere Khan the brutal British bite that George Sanders did before him and Ben Kingsley's Bagheera is the epitome of a sagely panther. Bill Murray is perfect for the "Bare Necessities" spouting Baloo, who happens to be a shade more opportunist in this version than the original. Not to be overlooked are Lupita Nyong'o as Raksha the wolf who raises Mowgli, Christopher Walken as the large monkey King Louie, and Scarlett Johansson, who gives Kaa a seductive element.

Tell me, does that look real?

For those of you who know the story, there's no need for a summary. For those of you who don't, there won't be any spoilers here.

What should be mentioned, however, is that this film seems to be less about humanity's relationship to nature or the environment and more about religion. The metaphors appear to point upward (if you will) rather than around us. Mowgli can be seen as a messianic figure who unites individuals from a multitude of backgrounds. Also, since the elephants seem to be the powerful, omniscient creator figures, Mowgli's ability to gain their trust and get close to them like no one else can would add greater weight to the messiah view.

Anyway, here's the final word. 2016's Jungle Book is definitely worth seeing.