Satoshi Kon.

Satoshi Kon. Somehow, without even really knowing it, I've now seen everything that he directed. Famed for his dark, humour, incredible visions and intricate stories, his death at age 46 robbed the movie world of a true creative force.

He created deeply detailed worlds, and told stories which blended fantasy with reality, and emphasised the importance of memory in forming opinions. There is also an overlap of some of the characters in the movies, which makes watching them as a coherent whole more interesting (for example, the group of gossiping housewives can be seen in both 'Paranoia Agent', and in 'Tokyo Godfathers,' and there are frequent shout-outs to previous works throughout his movies). Another recurring theme is the love of cinema itself, something obvious in the secondary story of Paprika, and throughout Millenium Actress.

The movies below are fast-paced, interesting, and well-designed and plotted, usually running to less than 90 minutes. The animation, particularly of people running, is a joy, as is the often incredible music. It's no surprise that he's also been very important to Hollywood too: 'Inception' is a more strait-laced version of 'Paprika', while 'Perfect Blue' is, despite what Darren Aranovsky says, a superior version of 'The Black Swan'- superior mainly because it doesn't have Natalie Portman in it.

  Here, I'll take you through the works I've seen, in the order I saw them, using the formula perfected in my Miyazaki movie reviews, a format which is still talked about in hushed awe to this very day. The only difference is that the star system is no longer in place, and instead the final review will be a short guide to how good it was (apparently this is classier than the star system). I'll also try to avoid spoilers, but no promises. Here goes:

Perfect Blue [1997]

This image is from a movie poster shop. I shudder to think who would want this poster leering down on them.  [source]

Plot in One Sentence: The lead singer from a creepy, sexy girl-band leaves to start an acting career, however, things don't go smoothly and she deals with a sense of creeping insanity, and also with stalkers, as reality and fantasy spiral out of control.

Thoughts: Really thrilling, mind-boggling, creepy and at times uncomfortable (the main stalker is a real creeper), and genuinely shocking. The poster above quotes a Hitchcock parallel, but it's more sexually violent than that, though it does have a 'woman in peril' theme in common. A really solid movie which could easily be used as proof that anime isn't for children, and can be used to convey images it would be impossible to use in a live action movie.

Rating: Not comfortable watching, but definitely worth it. Much better than Black Swan, which borrows heavily from this story. 

Paprika [2006]

A lot of things going on in this image [source]

Plot In One Sentence: A machine which can be used to intercept dreams is stolen, and the team behind its creation seeks to recover it, along with their virtual reality ally, the beautiful and enigmatic Paprika.

Thoughts: I had seen this a while before I saw Inception, which turned out to be a huge disappoitment because of it. The Satoshi Kon animation is at its fantastic best here, and that's coupled with the music, which included the theme tune, the most infuriating song ever. I was going to link to a video of it, but don't want to subject you to it unncessarily, oops, I've just reminded myself of it. Still, the story is, in a good way, insane, all of Kon's movies are proof that animation can bring to life things which would never be possible in a live action movie. Stunning animation, although the story peters out a little towards the end. 

Rating: Worth viewing, perhaps several times. 

Millenium Actress [2001]

For such a thoughtful, visually arresting movie, this is a really shitty movie poster.  [source]

Plot In One Sentence: An interviewer and his cameraman go to visit a now elderly actress, who is now reclusive but remains the sweetheart of the nation. She talks about her life and regrets, and about the key which the interviewer hands her, all the while weaving in and out of memories of her career and earlier life.

Thoughts: This is a reasonably straight-forward story by Satoshi standards, it also contains a lot of similar themes from his other works. For example, the sense of loss, the breakdown of family and keeping of resentment over many years, and also that of fanaticism. However, a good movie, and very sad. As well as the main story itself, which deals with lost love and yearning, the movie is also a celebration of the Golden Age of Japanese Cinema, with nodding homages to the works of Ozu, Kurosawa and Mizoguchi clearly visible. I understand that the character is based on Setsuko Hara, the one with the big face from many movies, including 'Late Spring,' which is itself a lovely, poignant movie. Looking online, I am happy to find that she is still alive. Awesome.

Rating: Probably better than Perfect Blue, and although the animation is magnificent, it is a less visually arresting movie than Paprika, but with a better story. Possibly Kon's 'best'?

Paranoia Agent [2004]

The stars of the show sleep in a giant question mark, while that pink thing just sits there, watching you. [source]

Plot In One Sentence: Tokyo is besieged by 'lil' slugger' a roller-blading kid, who whacks people who are in particular moments of stress. We find that all the characters attacked are related in one way or another before the thrilling climax. It turns out that that pink thing above, which is a 'hello Kitty' type icon in the story, plays an important role.

Thoughts: This is an anime show, and spanned, from memory, 12 episodes (Not from memory: 13 episodes). It Started really well, but dragged in the middle and then faded so badly in the middle that I didn't remember it until I looked it up. The first five or so episodes are really excellent, and there are wonderful diversions, such as a trio of people in a suicide pact, who may or may not be ghosts from the very beginning, but on the whole it dragged a little, and the climax was off.

Rating: Visually stunning and a great premise, but faded badly in the second half in particular, despite the great soundtrack.

Tokyo Godfathers [2003]

The three main characters, in all their hideously detailed glory. [source]

Plot In One Sentence: A trio of homelesspeople: a transgender, an alcoholic, and a runaway schoolgirl find a baby and try to return it to its parents on a wintry day, encountering trials, tribulations and their own pasts along the way. 

Thoughts: I left this until last because I had heard it was inferior to his other works. It certainly isn't as intelligent and mind-boggling (a phrase you can't help but use to describe his works) but it had great characterisation and a solid story in a way that, say, Paprika doesn't. The whole notion that the baby they find is a sign of good luck and innocence, and leads to a series of nearly impossible coincidences, didn't rankle me overly. However, it was sad, and it made me miss my family immensley. 

 Rating:  Really good, fascinating, and beautifully drawn, a more straight-forward work than the rest of his canon. 

In conclusion: I'm thinking of watching these in a back to back marathon, what a cool guy I am.

Best wishes everyone, I can't believe it's nearly September!*

*Spend half of my waking life at work, the rest either watching movies or sea-kayaking, so it's no surprise that life is passing me by!

Much love, Pascal

Home-School Kids: Losers.

I was on a train coming back from London. It was packed, and so I grabbed the first seat that I could find. Unfortunately for me, it was next to a family who were, from the conversation, home-schooling their kids. There was the mother, a short haired 'liberal' looking woman, the father, a plain looking guy in a short-sleeved shirt, and the two kids, both boys, one was about 9 with extremely long hair, and the other, a 5 or 6 year old. The first kid seemed shy and lonely, while the younger kid was the noisiest little fucker I've ever heard. Before I left to find a seat in another carriage, they were playing games like 'guess who' at a volume that must have killed people closer to them.

It's the parents fault when they have a brat like that, and they were selfish. Instead of letting the little shit repeat questions four or five times, they should have answered him. Instead of trying to compliment him for the shitty drawings he was doing, they should have told him to be quiet. Instead of encouraging him constantly to be creative (she was a neo-hippy wife, while the father was a silent stooge), they should have given him a book to read. At no point did they say 'there are other people on the train, so you need to stop shouting.' I was half a carriage away and I couldn't listen to music because he was shouting about Johnny English and Nacho Libre (seriously). If this had been in Australia or America they would have been told to shut up, but this was Britain so people endured. They also fed him sugar throughout the trip, so he was extra-boistrous. Again, it's the parents faults for encouraging him: at no point did they tell him to read a book, or draw on his own, everything he did was part of a game, and he was over-stimulated. Again, this is the parents fault.

It's also the parents fault that they are home-schooling their kids and they end up as either noisy or shy. So much of schooling is about social interaction, that kid would never be allowed to be so irritating if he was around other kids his own age, the older one would never have had that hair (well below shoulder-length) because he would get bullied. The fact that they were both complimented the whole way through the trip means that they aren't getting any discipline, which will lead them to be arrogant little shits. Also, how arrogant do you have to be to say, as a parent, 'no one else but I shall educate my children, so I will' - chances are those kids will end up as outcasts, or go on a killing spree. I'm glad I found a seat elsewhere, but I left hating the mother the most, then the annoying kid, then the prick of a father, and then felt sorry for the older kid. I hate them all.

P.S. Was on the train because I was coming back from London where I went to see the Olympics. Despite all of the flag-waving and nationalism it brought in the atmosphere was really good, and it was a blast.

Racism: some thoughts.

Hello all, a potentially controversial topic today, but I think that at heart I am a genuinely tolerant person - keep that in mind. I'm also smug.
 
I play 3-on-3 basketball for a team. There are four, sometimes five, of us tied into the team, and I am the only 'white' guy. A friend from the team is a very big, very black man who I won't name. For the record, he calls me whitey, and jokes about my cracker ass, inability to jump, and the fact that on a sunny day you can see my internal organs. Meanwhile I joke that he can't be seen in dark rooms and can't eat brownies because it would be cannibalism. It's classy stuff, but we're friends, and it's well-meaning. It's also not the only thing about each other that we mock, he mocks my pretention and laziness, I make fun of his addiction to videogames and sugar, as well as his height (6 foot 8!). To me, he's a friend first, a giant second, a black guy third.

We were out drinking and had a series of serious discussions. Eventually we breached the topic of race, and surprisingly, it led to quite an intelligent debate. We started off by mentioning that greek ahtlete who made a joke about the number of Africans on the Greek Olympic team. From what I understand, she said that with so many Africans there, the 'west nile' mosquitos would be having home-cooked food. West nile Virus is now common in Greece (apparently). She was sent home as a result of this joke. It's a terrible joke, not funny, but she didn't deserve to be sent home for that.  there are African people on the West Nile, why should an admittance of this be so controversial? Should we be sending athletes home for a bad-taste joke?

 I argue that it's controversial because any mention of black people is instantly regarded as 'racist.' This attitude, so commonly seen in twitter outrages, is racist in itself. Had she tweeted a joke about white people, or 'regular' Greeks, would it have caused a similar amount of fuss? No. This attitude is not only racist, but exteremly worrying, it is at very least, a sign of inequality. Surely 'regular' Greeks and 'African' Greeks have to be treated equally, and that should include being able to say a stupid joke about them without it necessarily being made into 'racism'. Surely for a multicultural society to thrive, there has to be some give or take? (I understand that West Nile Virus is dangerous, and deadly, and that may be part of the decision, but the race aspect was what we were discussing, so move on.)

This is a point that my friend made. Every once in a while, he says, someone (usually white) will jump into 'protect' him from harmless ribbing from a friend (see above for examples). He claims that this intervention is racism. I think he has a point. Although they are well-meaning, my friend argues, at the heart of the matter is the fact that these people think that black people are different and require protection from harmless abuse in a way that a 'whitey' wouldn't. Being mocked and joking with friends is something which everyone does. At heart is the thought that black people are so different that they can't handle gentle ribbing, and that they can't think of their own comebacks to get even. The end result is that people think that black people, in this case, my friend, needs special protection because he is different. That's racism, or at least unenlightened.

   He also notes that in cases where he was genuinely racially abused, these same people are to blame. He argues that British people tend to be inherently racist, I don't know about that, but the situation seems to be a lot more perillous than it should be. Britain has had generations to integrate, and it still seems fraught with tension. Certainly the situation is genereally perillous enough to prevent people from joking about the race of another, and that is a genuine obstacle to multiculturalism and tolerance.

  Please note that there is a huge difference between joking with your friends and genuine racist abuse. Either way, it's trouble, if you want equality, you have to treat everyone as equal, you must accept that every race is as flawed, as ugly, as pathetic as every other. You can't put some races on a pedestal in terms of protection, and you can't treate every comment as racist, as that is a racist attitude itself. As soon as we start segmenting certain people as 'off limits' for comedy, comments and even criticisims, then we are driving a barrier between us and a socially inclusive, cohesive country.

Other topics we discussed: why is it that lesbians are the only sexuality to constantly remind you of it? My friend thinks it's because a lot of them are fickle - His sister was an 'experimental' lesbian for a while, but is now engaged and pregnant - what we both agreed on is that we know lesbians who constantly mention their sexuality to everyone, and we both know different lesbians who have changed their names since coming out. Gays are proud, and remain proud, but I have never met one who has changed his name after coming out, and I used to live in Newtown, Australia. We both agreed that you get the feeling that lesbians need to keep doing this because they are either unsure of themselves, or thnk that everyone wants to hear. [N.B. I kind of agree with myself in the sober light of day, but I do need to write this a little better].

Hope everyone is well, thanks for reading.
 P

Addendum: as if to emphasise my point, a Swiss soccer player has been kicked out of his Olympics team for using twitter to calling the Korean opposition 'Mongoloids'. I think we can all agree that this is racial abuse. Why, oh why, do these idiots use twitter anyway? it's nothing but trouble.

King Kong: reviewed 70 years too late.

A great, spoiler-ific poster,  including a giant ape carrying a woman bigger than a plane [source]

A few thoughts today on the movie 'King Kong', in both its 1933 and 2005 guises. I was given / stole from a friend , a box set of King Kong movies. This included: two versions of the 1933 classic 'King Kong' (one is 'colorized'), as well as 'King Kong vs. Godzilla' and 'King Kong Escapes.' I watched the original King Kong movie the other day for the first time since I had chickenpox when I was aged 12 or 13. You know the story: director and crew go to island, capture a giant ape, who is or isn't in love with a woman. Ape is brought back to New york, where he kidnaps woman and climbs the empire state building before being shot down. It's a typical love story really. Incidentally, that should have been preceded with a spoiler warning. The 1933 version I watched is an extended version, which adds a few scenes cut for decency in the 1930s (Kong deliberately squashing a couple of people on his island, Kong dropping a woman to her death, Kong stripping Fay Wray and then sniffing his fingers (though in a non-lascivious manner).

This is the poster for 'King Kong Escapes,' which was made by a Japanese studio after they acquired the rights. This is what Japan gives you when you give it King Kong. [source]

  There have been remakes of the original: one in 1976 with Jeff Bridges, and the 2005 Peter Jackson version with Naomi Watts and Jack Black. The box set was released before the Peter Jackson remake was released, ostensibly to get people excited about a new, big-budget version of a classic. What actually happens is that you watch the original version, and then watch the 'bonus' trailer of the remake. If you're like me, you shrug your shoulders, remind yourself that you saw the 2005 version, and then move on to watch 'King Kong Escapes,' where Kong fights a giant robot version of himself. It's not even as good as you'd think. However, even that is still better than the remake, which I saw with extended family in the Christmas of 2005. Looking back on the trailer, you are just reminded what an unnecessary, overblown, unmemorable load of shit it was, especially as it cost an absolute fortune to make.

For example. [source]

For one, the original is an adventure movie. Jackson is consciously trying to 'better' it- bigger, stronger, more fights! more action! If the original King Kong fights a tyrannosaurus (and defeats it by breaking its jaw off),  Jackson's ape fights 3 t-rexs, and it just feels like overkill. Less is more if it's done well.. The original King Kong is a primal force of nature: he kills, he fights animals; the crew of sailors on the island are attacked by various creatures and die, and while all this is true of the remake, it feels more sanitised. This is probably because of the calming effect of CGI, which is so overused in the remake that it relegates everything into a special effect. This can be seen most clearly through the crew of sailors on the island, Jack Black running along like a dickhead while dinosaurs run on a greenscreen behind him. 

While on the island, Original Kong (Not a member of the Donkey Kong family) fights a couple of dinosaurs, and a pterodactyl. Meanwhile the men hunting him down goad a Brontosaurus into attacking them, and then for no reason kill a Stegosaurus. All of this is done through a clever use of animatronics, dolls, and other techniques of the time. Now it's cheesy and dated, but is still charming and still kind of scary at a primal level. This isn't the case with the 'photo-realistic' CGI of Jackson's nonsense. this was made in 2005 and already looks dated, and it certainly won't retain charm in 70 years time like the original. See here:

The last movie Jack Black was in as a serious character?

The monster itself is another point. The original King Kong is conveyed by a clever mix of giant puppets, animatronics, and some clever silhouetting. It isn't convincing in any way, but he is a powerful looking, primal beast. His fur twitches, because of the pressure from fingers used to move him between shots, resulting in a ripple as scenes go on. However, this luckily for the film-makers hints at muscle working under his fur, and, when he is stranded at the top of the Empire State Building, of wind. He is a well characterised giant gorilla. He doesn't stand up to today's realism, but he is certainly more charming than the CGI abomination that Jackson unleashed. The original King Kong is still enjoyable in 2012, it was made in 1933. Meanwhile I saw the remake only 7 years ago and had to be reminded by the trailer that Adrien Brody and Jamie Bell were in it, or that they had used pterodactyls as hang-gliders to escape from Kong's lair. Weak. 

Speaking of which, Jack Black is in it, the character of Denholm, the movie director. He impersonates Orson Welles and runs around for 3 hours (!). In the original, the character of Denholm, who is the mastermind of the Kong capture, and a director, continually rams home the notion that 'beauty' (Fay Wray) and 'Beast' (King Kong) are diametrically opposed. He mentions it on the boat, on the island, emphasises it to the press before Kong escapes. Finally, when he sees Kong's body, riddled with bullets, and having fallen 450 meters to the road, he ignores that and utters the immortal line 'it was beauty killed this beast.' He's wrong. but mankind did conquer nature. The theme of 'Beauty vs. Beast' is repeatedly mentioned in the original, and the finale suggests that beauty wins in the end, however, I think that had gunpowder and civilisation not been involved, Kong would have just humped and then eaten our screaming heroine.

A still from the original, as two giants fight to the death, and Fay Wray watches from a tree (top-left)

 Still, although the original is a classic, and a landmark in special effects, it's not without its flaws. The three main human characters, Fay Wray as actress Ann Darrow; a 1930s movie director called Denholm; and a handsome but charmless sailor: they aren't really up to much. It also takes a surprising amount of time before the monster appears, they're on the boat for what feels like an age for no real reason. Other than the special effects, which retain a primal power and charm, there are other bits that haven't aged quite so well: the casual sexism towards Fay Wray (who is still objectively attractive today); the needless killing of dinosaurs (they go out of their way to goad a brontosaurus when they are on a raft, when quietly going by it would have been easier) and, after killing a Stegosaurus with several point blank shots to the head, Denholm says 'that would be worth a bundle alive.'

Also, the 'native' tribe who live on Skull island aren't painted in a very good way. I say 'painted' as a metaphor for how they are depicted, though I can't rule out that they've not been black-faced. They're depicted as savage kidnappers willing to trade in women. It's also hard not to squirm at a bunch of grinning idiots who carry fire, throw spears and wear coconut bras. The wall which separates them from Kong's part of the island, we are told, was built when they had civilisation (but they've forgotten it) and a rifle shot is enough to send them scampering to their huts. Denholm says that 'gunpowder's not quite made its way here yet.' Essentially, they're primitive, spear-chucking buffoons: it's not exactly enlightened. Still, that's what you get when you make a movie in 1933, so perhaps I should just shut up? Also, the natives aren't exactly painted in a positive light in the remake, they're basically orks by other names, living in mud shacks, and with sharpened teeth. 

More realistic and expensive, but where's the charm? [source]

In terms of the characterisation of the Kong himself, the original also wins hands-down. He's an ape: violent and deadly, a primal force of nature and large enough to terrify and cause extreme damage. He kicks ass and doesn't care who knows it. He particularly hates train lines, which he goes out of his way to smash up when he is unleashed in the city. Fay Wray's character is at no point happy to see him, and spends all the time in his company screaming, or having fainted. However, you almost feel sorry for him. He was on an island, fighting dinosaurs, offered the odd woman by the villagers, before he is given Fay Wray, and before he can even investigate her, is gassed, tied up, shown to a fickle public and photographed. We are also told that they have 'beaten the spirit out of him' (a scene I would liked to have seen added, what weapons did they use?!). At the films conclusion, the most elemental force in nature is killed, far from his home where he is feared and worshipped, and murdered by human technology. 

Jackson's version, on the other hand, is less a killing machine, and places emphasis on the relationship between Naomi Watts and King Kong, almost making it a inter-species love story. Yes, Jackson's gorilla is fierce, and nuanced, and probably closer reflects the complicated behaviour of a genuine gorilla, but watch him slipping around on the ice, or happily watching Naomi Watts do backflips, and you'll want to kill yourself. Naomi Watts' character is also to blame, laughing and encouraging him, it's supposed to be a horror movie (of sorts) not a freakin' misunderstanding romance. 

Male interpretation: Silhouette use to show a giant ape climb a tower. Feminist interpretation: primitive creature taking innocent woman up phallic symbol before the ultimate sacrifice.

 The original is flawed, poorly acted, and the animatronics rely more on charm than on reality. Kong changes shape and size depending where he is, and it's also racist and sexist by today's standard (I didn't even mention the Chinese cook aboard the ship). Despite all this it's charming and pushed the special effects of the time to their limit. Plus, it has the good grace to be finished in an hour and a half, less than half of the remakes run time. That's why we refer to the original as a classic in cinema, and possibly as a precursor to every monster movie ever made. Meanwhile people now use the remake, 'The Lonely Bones,' and the end of 'Return of the King' to show that Jackson isn't a fan of succinct story telling.

5 Worst World Foods

I've eaten some shitty foods in my time. For the record, I live in the UK, which is famous for shitty food, but seems to have lifted its game a bunch in recent years. Anyone who says differently, try an Arbroath Smokey Pancake, and then shut up. The following are the worst foods I've eaten. I am well aware that eating in a couple of restaurants doesn't give a good indication of a culture, but what do you want me to do about it? These are, if not the worst, then the most disappointing, world cuisines I've tried:

5. Finnish

There was a Finnish restaurant in Sydney. It sold nothing but miserable dumplings and stew with gelatine in it. Why would you open a finnish restaurant if you a) can't cook, and b) even if you could, the food is plainly unsuited to a warm climate.

4. Korean

Cantonese food: good. Taiwanese food: good. Japanese food: Good. All around them they have good food (well, except for North Korea, which seems to have chosen missiles and malnutrition over anything else) so why is Korean food so bad? That scene in Oldboy where he eats a live octopus seems like a good choice over eating Congee and badly made bulgogi. I keep thinking that I must be ordering the wrong stuff, but I think it's just not a great world cuisine. Not awful, just disappointing, every single time I fall for it. [Note - the day after I write this, I went to a GREAT Korean restaurant, called Shilla in Edinburgh, and it was delicious - this renders the rest of the list useless].

3. Hungarian

Hungarians seem to absolutely not care about food, which is almost unique to Europe. The markets we went to there were completely uninspired, mouldy food being sold by people who didn't care. Desperate for fruit, I scoured high and low, only to find a tower of peaches, two metres high, all of which were mouldy. It was such a huge change from other markets I've seen, for example, in Split, Croatia, or anywhere in Italy, where fresh food and fun was to be had. The restaurants in Hungary were poor, the only exceptions being for food of other cultures. For example, Hungarian Chinese restaurant was surprisingly good, at least by comparison. Weird food, badly prepared, and expensive. A surprise entry.

2. Indonesian

 Indonesia is the 4th largest country in the world. I speak nearly fluent Indonesian because Australian Schools put a great emphasis on it (whereas I know almost no science or maths, and I karnt spell gud either). Meanwhile, this 250million people country is NEVER mentioned in European press apart from describing briefly the latest disaster occurring there. Certainly, for a country that size, it has made no contribution to world cuisine outside of nasi goreng and sambal olek. Every Indonesian restaurant I've been to has been disappointing, every time. I feel like good Indonesian food is out there, I just don't know how or where to get it. I'm not alone in that feeling either.

1. Chinese (Mainland)

 I am not squeamish. I've eaten scorpions, horse sashimi, anteater, snake and other things which most people wouldn't bother with. So it's not the fact that I don't like how chinese people treat animals (although I don't like that) - the problem is that Mandarin food seems to apply to a completely different pallet to my own. I wouldn't mind eating frog overies in batter, if it tasted nice. I would happily wolf down a 'king mushroom' a mushroom the size of a dinner plate but with the texture and flavour of a blood bogie, if it tasted nice. I suppose I would endorse shark fin soup if they actually ate the rest of the shark to go with it, and the soup wasn't just gelatinous shit. As it is, I just don't get it.

An Update

I'm heading oversaeas for benevolent reasons. I won't have the internet much, so will mainly spend a bit of time editing articles here (a lot weren't proofread at all), and hopefully occassional updates when I'm settled in. Also, I was getting a bit sick of creepy internet searches such as 'lemur zoophilia' and 'pippa middleton feet naked' showing up, day after day. I also appreciate the contact I've had, and am making an effort to get back to you, but again was sick of being called names by illiterates. For that reason also, I'll take some time off this. If you want to see a list of all articles I've done, please click here. If you've enjoyed reading this, let me know, and if you haven't, you will anyway.

Also, I had a discussion last night with a girl I had met about Chris Brown,that singer who is number 1 in the British album charts. I don't know why we were talking about it, it was probably on in the background. I don't like that kind of music (Shitty R&B), but she was defending him not only as a great artist (he's not), but as a great person (he's not). He's the guy who beat up Rihanna.

 I don't like Rihanna's music either, it's at best bland, boring pop designed by committee and forcefed to idiots, at worst it's ubiquitous shit (that song 'you make me feel like I'm the only girl in the world' was on in every shop, store, cafe, bar and club in the world for about 2 months, and was dreadful). I've also heard her interviewed, and she seems to be a wilfully stupid person, she made the T4 presenters who interviewed her look intelligent. However, she took a hell of a beating by this Chris Brown fella, and you can access the warrant for his arrest here, it's pretty gruesome. Before this, Brown was known as a wholesome teen-heart-throb type guy, and strangely, his vicious attack on a pretty idiot has allowed him to cultivate a 'domestic abusing gangsta' personality which has given him number 1 in the British charts. My advice, don't buy this shit, it's awful and made by awful people. Come on everyone, we should be doing better.

Anyway, thanks for reading, hopefully hear from you all soon,
Pascal.

In Praise of #9: Pom Poko

Spoilers kind of follow. See it first, then come back and read this. The list of the rest of the 'in Praise of Series' can be found here.

I made a fuss about not writing for a while, but someone spurred me into action. I was having an argument with a friend, and it turned personal and then bitter. We only made up in the last few days. As with most of my arguments, it was ridiculous The following review is basically the gist of my arguments which I used against her. The result is today's 'In Praise of,' which is Isao Takahata's 'Pom Poko,' an animated movie. My friend said that it was weird, and not very good, while I disagreed with a childish vehemence. Pom Poko follows the trials and exploits from the point of view of personified, cartoon Tanuki, a native Japanese raccoon-dog which enjoys a rich mythology in Japan. Takahata is one of the major figures of Studio Ghibli, reviews of movies by  Hayao Mayazaki can be found in these Two Links. Takahata himself is probably most famous for ' The Grave of the Fireflies' a harrowing tale following two starving children during the firebombing of Kobe at the end of WWII. Despite being animated, it has been singled out as one of the most powerful anti-war movies of all time, and is certainly one of the most harrowing animated movies I've seen. However, as good a movie as that is, Pom Poko is better. It's certainly more fun.

Real-life Tanuki. They're pretty cute, but I bet they're too crazy to keep as pets. [source]

As ever, a brief plot summary is difficult. We follow a group of Tanuki (Japanese Raccoon dogs), which are famous in Japanese mythology as mischievous, sentient tricksters who have the ability to shape-shift. They notice that the land where they live is being encroached upon by builders, and the various clans of Tanuki join together to try to prevent further human intervention, we follow their highs and lows over the next few years. We are told that they live in the area which became the Tama New town, on the outskirts of Tokyo, and which we know was built in the 1970s and 80s. As we are aware from the outset that their struggle will be in vain, it is a reflection of the characters and personalities of the Tanuki, and also their views on their opposition, humanity, with all its flaws.Once again, this synopsis not only misses the point of the movie, but also makes it seem utterly charmless: it isn't.

Tsurugame, the village elder, gives lessons on life to the youngsters.

As the Tanuki (or raccoons as the subtitles and dub both persist with) are dealing with an encroachment of their home by industrialisation and humans, one of the main themes of the movie is that of environmental concerns. However, this theme is not on quite such an epic scale as Miyazaki's 'Princess Mononoke' - the threat is more intimate: we see the Tanuki suffering, hungry, and struggling with the encroachment on their living space. It is not merely a movie about environmental concerns, as it offers a rich and complex fable which is at once fantastic and realistic (as far as it can be realistic to have talking raccoons). The Tanuki are  generally fun-loving, but are also flawed and far from benevolent; in the end the story isn't about a struggle between species, as a reflection that both are as flawed as each other, despite the Tanuki's indomitable spirit and character.

Tanuki in their 'excited' state, simply drawn and happy, and with prominent balls.

 However, this movie has been maligned by many in the west (including myself, I put it off for far too long). Why, you may ask? because of the movie's use of Tanuki scrotum. Japanese mythology has the Tanuki being able both shape-shift, and also to instantly increase the size of its scrotum. For example, one scene shows the aggressive Tanuki covering the windshield of a truck with his enlarged scrotum, causing it to crash. At the movie's climax, a group of militant Tanuki wage a kamikaze battle against the human police force, floating, kite-like with their scrotums before using their man-pouches as weapons in an ultimately futile and surprisingly touching scene. As it is an established part of the Tanuki mythology, and is used naturally for humour yet isn't overdone. It makes such an insignificant and vital part of the story that only the most narrow-minded people would worry that it ruins the entire movie.

This is a real life Tanuki Statue, note the bottle of booze in its hand, and its huge nuts. This image taken from Wikipedia: where you can't find any information you need, but big-testicled-raccoon-images are a dime a dozen. [source]

What it does help to show however, is that this kind of movie could NEVER be made in the West. It's animated, but deals with situations which adults would sympathise with, although it seems that Japanese children wouldn't be so timid as to be shocked by testicles as some American reviewers seem to be (the American dub merely refers to them as 'raccoon pouches,' and still every review you read makes ample mention of them. Aside from shape-shifting, hugely endowed raccoons, the movie is particularly Japanese- drawing heavily from Japanese mythology, history, and folklore, and I think that that should be applauded.

This is a popular image which inspires Gondo to use his nuts as weapons in the movie. This is taken from traditional Japanese art, where they would silhouette things (in this case a goldfish), and then on the next page subvert your guesses by drawing, for example, a Tanuki squashing a man with his balls. Insane, and awesome. [source]

The excellent animation work allows for scenes which would be impossible to pull off convincingly in a live-action movie, and at the same time makes it much more heart-warming and charming. Everyone I've talked to who likes this movie has used the word charming to describe it. It is, perhaps a little overlong, but it genuinely is charming enough to make you go along with it. The raccoons are animated in a number of ways, the first, as real-life raccoons, for when humans are around; secondly, in their preferred style, as rounded, cartoonish creatures, often with vests or other pieces of clothing; or finally, whenever their instincts take over, they appear as skinny, comically drawn beasts (influenced, I'm told, by a popular newspaper cartoon). Some of the Tanukis, and the majority of the ones we follow, can also use shape-shifting powers, and can become anything from inanimate objects and other animals to convincing humans. It's this shape-shifting which allows them to go into the city to gather food, information, and to plan tricks and attacks.

Shoukichi is among the first to learn how to shape-shift successfully.

What makes the movie though, is the juxtaposition of individual characters with that of the Tanuki community as a whole. Similarly, many scenes are at once funny and melancholy. It is at once the saddest and funniest movie you'll see. At some points, the jokes come so fast it's a struggle to keep up with them (particularly on subtitles), as well as this, there are copious sight jokes at many stages. However, the movie at times highlights sadness and melancholy; characters are killed, seriously injured, and suffer with hunger and depression as their homes and futures grow evermore into doubt. However, this seemingly bi-polar switch of moods doesn't seem unnatural or forced, rather it seems to reflect the lives of the Tanuki themselves, we really get a sense that we are following them through ups and downs.

'Realistically' drawn Tanuki gaze onto a construction site.

While we are aware that the Tanuki's struggle will be futile, their sheer spirit helps them to maintains a playful optimism and 'heart' even following setbacks. The juxtaposition of moods allows for some great scenes - the tensions of guerrilla attacks on construction trucks and workers is elevated by the tremendous party they have to celebrate (Tanuki's love to drink, as can be seen in the picture above). The tanuki start partying again because they can't help themselves from giggling when they are marking respectful silence for the humans who they have killed. The most emotionally impacting scenes show tanuki being killed by cars or trapped by humans, followed closely by romance and cubs, which not only suggests the changing of seasons and passing of time, but is a genuinely lovely, touching scene in its own right. We really get a sense that time is moving on, and it's both melancholy and wonderful.

Other great scenes include the shock on the faces of the male Tanuki when they realise that the carpet they are sitting on is actually the village patriarch's scrotum; this same patriarch in human-form cuddling a scared Tanuki who is struggling with shape-shifting while in town; the arrival of a Tanuki from a different area, who is equally worried about his loss of habitat, and the medley of learning how to shape-shift, then live as humans, and then, when the three masters of shape-shifting finally make their appearance, to use their skills to create enormous illusions, such as the 'no-face' attack, and culminating in the scene of the 'goblin parade,' which is excellent and will be referred to later. 

A nice scene, but no one seems to bat an eyelid at tired looking people hugging a raccoon dog.

What makes the movie come alive though, are the characters. The village elder, Tsurugame, is a sweet and benevolent leader, while his wife, Oroku, is more aggressive and intelligent. There is the aggressive Tanuki warrior chieftain in the red vest, named Gonta, who is crippled in a stampede caused when the Tanuki try to celebrate his victories against the humans.  He remains injured for an entire year, his frustration and isolation palpable, before his final, futile kamikaze attack, the desperate act of a species which doesn't like to be desperate. A couple of Tanuki leave Tama hills to try to locate master shape-shifters in other areas, they return years later, with three wonderful old characters, but their initial departure is a sad affair, as they walk into the distance and the rest of the community sing to them. It's an image which both acknowledges other Japanese movies and draws on it. Best of all, it leads to the introduction of these guys: 

The three shape-shift masters, in human form. They dress like an old neighbour of mine who had dementia.

As well as these characters, the moral heart of the movie is the resourceful Tanuki named Shoukichi, a young adult who wears light blue. His plans help to prevent further setbacks to the Tanuki, but he is reasonable enough to understand that their situation is beyond redemption, the conclusion of the movie shows him to be living a reluctant life as a human. However, before this, he and his girlfriend, and eventually 'wife' (I don't think Tanuki really get married), called Okiyo, embark on a surprisingly tender romance, in a series of scenes which convey a couple falling in love, time passing, and a new generation of cubs coming along, who are described by the anonymous narrator as 'charming.' They are, and the scenes of their love are in no way gratuitous or overdone, but perfectly pitched.

Super-cute, a lovely scene. N.B. I'm not one to use 'lovely' or 'cute' without reason.

  Both the music and the animation are excellent, even for  a Ghibli movie. The music follows traditional Japanese songs about the Tanuki with some updated lyrics to fit the story better, as well as newly composed, upbeat tunes. The animation is also worthy of note: the Tanuki in their 'realistic' form are terrific, and as chubby, vest-wearing characters are full of colour and spirit. The background animation is also second to none: a scene of kingfishers flying next to each other and landing on a tree signifies Spring perfectly, and captures the majesty and perfection of even real life could bring. Furthermore, progressive animation techniques, such as telling a part of the Tanuki's story through a mock retro gaming console, or the use of and a giant leaf being eaten by bug-sized diggers, help to add flesh to the story and keep invention in the animation.

NES style animation which helps spur the plot along.

After the arrival of the 3 old guys, the skills involved in illusions and shape-shiftings are increased, but their ultimate effect remains limited. Combining all the Tanuki's power, they undergo a huge illusion, creating a parade of goblins through Tokyo, watched by a huge crowd of people. This ghost parade has been criticised as going on too long (it is on for at least 8 minutes) but that is besides the point, it introduces us to dozens of Japanese mythological creatures, and is at once interesting and wonderful. It is a last, brilliant effort of the Tanuki to try to convince humans to halt their construction. Thinking it successful, they celebrate, but are met with tricksters themselves: the owner of a funfair and a shape-shifting fox (because that's also well-established as Japanese mythology) who take the credit for it. These scenes are also important for showing the loss of belief in traditional religion of the Japanese people - it is not only the Tanuki who are losing their culture and history. 

One of the million screenshots I could have got to illustrate the frenzy of the goblin parade.

Devastated by the lack of progress being made, and realising the inevitability of their fate, some tanuki go to fight to the death, and the rest, in a last moving act of defiance, stage one last grand illusion, temporarily transforming the urbanised land back into its pristine state to remind everyone (including themselves) of exactly what has been lost. The illusion is only lost when the excited Tanuki run to see their lost ancestors, leaving them in the middle of a modern, built-up area. This movie offsets highs with lows, and optimism is continually met with realism. The film ends on a bittersweet note, with some of the Tanukis partying heartily in what used to be their home, but is now a golf-course. offset with the realisation that life is stopping for them, tinged with frustration and depression, but not to be met with their indomitable spirit

Auto-hangliding Tanuki soaring into battle. A scene which is far more affecting than it should be (genuinely).

In conclusion, I wasn't expecting much when I first saw this, but I was blown away by how good it is.I can't wait to watch it again. It is charming, beautifully drawn, lovely, funny, scary, and suggests the passage of time and morality more than any ostensibly 'childrens movie' should. If any other movie mirrors the highs and lows of life more this, I would be surprised. While I admit that this review may have over-analised the movie, the overriding feeling is that it is funny, sad, and charming. It might be the best Ghibli movie, and is certainly a better movie than 'Grave of the fireflies' by the same director. While this isn't the first Japanese movie you should ever watch, if you're familiar with the quirks of Japanese culture and society, then get the fuck on it. You won't regret it. Also, if the presence of testicles is enough to persuade you away from a movie, don't watch this, but instead, please lighten up.

One of a dozen or so party scenes, this one from the very end of the movie.

Thanks, as always, for reading.

[A note on the dub: the American dub, which is available on the DVD I watched this on, is actually pretty fair, much better than most Ghibli English dubs ('Princess Mononoke' and 'Porco Rosso' are the best examples of a bad dub hindering a good movie). However, a large portion of the cast of the dub is familiar from Futurama - while it is nice to hear all the voices of Futurama as raccoons (particularly Morbo the news alien, as one of the old guys) it's still worth going for the subtitled version if you can, mainly because that doesn't shirk the testicles issue (it refers to them as 'raccoon pouches') instead. Still, it's worth a go, and you certainly can't say that about all Ghibli movies].

Ghanian Movie Posters

Yeah, yeah, I told you I wouldn't be back for a while, but I've got a bonanza of Ghanian movie posters. So, without further stalling, here they all are. Full marks if you know all of them.

Also seen here

In conclusion, Good God these are terrifying.