Let's try a catchier opening line: this movie approached the characters and plot almost existentially (and yes, like borrowing the ideas of existentialism).
This is clearly one of my favorites from Studio Ghibli. Perhaps I have a bad way of judging things, or I'm just seeing things differently from how most people see them, because I do not think this movie has any execution flaw. Yes, yes, I like Goro's father's works, but not all of them. As for Goro's,I don't remember Earthsea much, but I remember other studio ghibli films pretty well.
From my perspective, what makes studio ghibli's films stand out is their superb execution. Their films have down to earth stories and characters and some magical fantasy elements here and there, which makes things more enjoyable. However, I do not think what makes Totoro good is the setting and the naivety, or innocence if you prefer. I will ignore the animation and music and just talk about the plot and characters because I have no complaints on the quality of the studio's animation and sound. Since the plot and characters are nothing special and mostly kids, it's the way that the stories are told that, for me, determines the quality of most of their movies.
Let's see, what's wrong with this movie's execution again? Boys and Girls, please enlighten me on why it's poorly executed (if you know what you are talking about that is). Yes, yes, it's boring and not compelling enough. What else? The characters and setting aren't interesting enough for you?
Sorry to break it to you, but this movie isn't meant to be magical or emotional. If it moves you, it only means you are more sensitive than most people. If it doesn't move you, no worries, it doesn't have to move you because it's not intended to.
However, having a “nothing special” setting, theme, characters, and plot, there is still a way to reach somewhere. After all, what is fulfillment? The more extravagant things you have, the less fulfilling their after effects are. Every magic will wear off, and every kind of innocence will turn into naivety one day. I don't mind if you want to at least capture that one frame of innocence and magic on film, but this movie isn't intended to do that. Fulfillment is reached through subtraction, not addition. This movie scraped things to a bare minimum. When you reach the minimum point of having things and people simply existing, without trying to be anything or being labeled to be anything, you'll have found an existential starting place to reach somewhere. Similarly, this movie's intention is, the characters and plot have no need to be something. They are what they are by simply existing, and people are meaningful in themselves by being who they are. The movie stayed true to its intentions pretty well,
I know, I skipped on the whole reasoning on why this movie is flawlessly executed. But I guess by having this existential approach, it really cannot be wrongfully executed unless the characters or the plot tries to be anything it is not. If this is not a satisfactory explanation, then if you can tell me where it's badly executed without changing the intention behind this movie, then I'll consider my belief unsound. It'll be really hard though, because existentialists can argue their ways around things pretty well.
I like this movie for what it is. I see how it's intended, so I have no complaints on how it's played out.
Deep inside, I even believe Goro's work is beginning to surpass his father's.
