Tales from Earthsea

Watching Tales from Earthsea, I felt like I had been dropped off in the middle of a book series with no real context as to what was going on. I enjoyed the beautiful animation and ended up finding interest in the story and characters, but at the end of the film I still felt like I was missing something. Studio Ghibli probably should have set this one up better.

Eh, let's just call Tales from Earthsea a case of growing pains for Goro Miyazaki. 

It's not a bad movie. It's just unremarkable in every way. It doesn't have the creativity, emotional depth, or beauty of Spirited Away, the visual wonder of Howl's Moving Castle, the scope of adventure of Castle in the Sky, the lovable characters of Kiki's Delivery Service, or the sheer delight and fun of Ponyo. 

If I had to choose a defining feature for Earthsea, I honestly don't know what it would be. The music is fine, but nothing extraordinary. The character designs and artwork are dangerously close to generic, the story lacks tension and feels almost inconsequential, and the writing is bland. Where's the heart? Where's the humor, the passion, or something that would draw me into the narrative?

I found myself not caring much about what was happening, and more concerned with how much time was left until the movie was over, than anything else. My  expectations for Studio Ghibli are far too high to embrace a movie like this that barely scrapes above mediocrity, and from what I've heard from fans of the Earthsea literature, this isn't the adaptation they were hoping for, either.

Films experiencing production hell are rarely as good as they might have been, no matter how good the director is (c.f. Gangs of New York and AI) and this one is no exception.

Taken on its own terms, Tales of Earthsea is a competent, if not breathtaking, start for Miyazaki junior, and bears comparison to the lesser Gibli canon without scaling the heights of its major work. It is unfair to compare it to My Cousin Totoro, Spirited Away or Graveyard of the Fireflies; but it is also a shame for the fans of Earthsea. They didn't get a top director at the top of his game.

The principal problem with the film is that it doesn't seem to know what to do with the books it is based on. Are they source material to be pillaged? Are they stories to be adapted? Are they concepts to be explored? In the end Miyazaki opts for a mix: the narrative structure is broadly based on the third novel (The Farthest Shore), with a significant sub-plots from both the first (The Wizard of Earthsea) and the fourth (Tehanu). Into the mix he throws some recognisable manga/anime formulae (the arch-enemy; the ronin henchmen; the violence) which cut across the major themes explored by the novels and alluded to by the film.

If this all sounds like a disaster, it isn't exactly. The plot functions: evil wizard, through pride, upsets the balance of Earthsea forcing archmage, Sparrowhawk, in the company of a young prince, to do battle to restore the balance, destroy the evil and face down their own demons. Had Miyazaki been more ruthless all would probably have been well – for anime fans anyway. But there are too many blind alleys, lose ends and needless distractions – all nods to the books - which make the first half of the film in particular feel like a second rate brass band meandering painfully around a Brassed Off version of Adagio for Strings. The narcotic Hazia, for example, which dominates the beginning of the third story, is introduced early in the film and then simply abandoned. Later, Tenar's back-story fades into nothingness leaving the audience with a forcible impression of a producer impatiently looking at his watch. The whole effect is not homage, but distraction – and a film that it is at least 40minutes longer than it needed to be.

Ursula LeGuin, who wrote the Earthsea novels, had suggested to (Hayao) Miyazaki that he create new story for Ged, uncluttered by her previous stories, set in the many years between the first two books. This would have made for a less ponderous film.

Regarding the technical side of animation; it appears the younger Miyazaki was aiming for the dreamlike quality of animation so characteristic of his father's work. Again, he has some partial success in this regard, although it is undeniably more clunky than other Gibli titles. But a lot can be forgiven for his reliance on hand-drawn animation, and there are some moments of real beauty – windblown grasses, rocks on the seashore and chill sunsets. This, along with some strong characters and a much tighter second half, make Tales from Earthsea watchable film, if a slightly underwhelming one. But better than Disney. 6/10

I like both Studio Ghibli films and Ursula LeGuin's 'Earthsea' books, but this film did little for me. While the backgrounds and 'set pieces' were striking, as expected in anime from this studio, the realisation of the characters left a lot to be desired, especially Ged who was bland and Cob, who was oddly androgynous. I also found the voices used in the English version either dull (Timothy Dalton's generic 'gentle English lord') or silly (Cheech Marin's hodgepodge of accents). The biggest weakness, however, was the story, which was just boring - by the time things began to happen, I'd stopped caring and was just waiting for the film to end. Pity: LeGuin's 'Earthsea' series could make a fantasy epic to rival the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy or the 'Harry Potter' series, but so far, all we have is a second-rate anime and an awful made-for-TV 'sword and sorcery' romp.

I am a great fan of the LeGuin books, and when I learned that Studio Ghibli was going to be involved in making of the film I eagerly looked forward to its release. I hoped it would make up for the awful SciFi Channel-aired film. The good news in this outing is, there is genuine respect for the source material, even if it is not done genuine honor.

The plot of the film is an amalgamation of elements of several of the Earthsea books, creating a new villain and having characters interact that indeed barely met in the books. While I could not help but feel disappointed by these changes, the film is still visually enjoyable to behold. It does not compare as favorably to Howl's Moving Castle, a story drastically altered from its own source material that still manages to stand on its own as a story.

I could not help but think, as I watched the character Arren develop, why? Why, when there is such wonderful source material, that his introduction came across so muddled and poorly reasoned. I viewed the film with someone who had never read the books, and she really enjoyed it. Despite the film's shortcomings, you generally care for the cast by the end.