(L) The Sky Crawlers

[lubczyk]

Originally Posted by sa547

Well, I'm looking forward to try see this flick because there's Kikuchi and Kuriyama doing VA roles but...



Yeah, judging from some Japanese films usually being shown on the late-night WOWOW slots (by experience of many nights till dawn), are art-house, made for an intelligentsia audience, who like very deep philosophical themes and read websites like The Midnight Eye, try to keep awake while watching (maybe not once but three times), ponder and analyze the problems of war, violence and conflict, and Sky Crawlers fits right in as well.

In short, this flick will require me a huge mug of coffee.

If you want intelligent, Read War and Peace, not watch this. Don't try to pass off a couple instances of probable symbolizes and a pacifist message as intelligent. Just because one can commit their thoughts to audio, text or film does not make it intelligent.

Intelligent and philosophical are two things the Sky Crawlers is not.

Spoiler for My Thoughts:

This film's praises make the same mistake as Hollywood does - Just because a movie has a message does not make it intelligent. This movie is not intelligent. It just states it's message of "War is bad and is endless" without any critical analysis to back it up. It's nothing more than an assertion.

For this movie to be an intelligent message about war, it would have to way the various avenues besides the clear biases of "War is bad and therefore endless." It doesn't examine the motives of both sides fighting. It doesn't examine any other possible avenues. It doesn't examine diplomacy. It doesn't examine the consequences of losing or winning of any of the sides. It doesn't examine the history behind the conflict. It's message is the means to an end. That's not how life works and absolutely not how intelligent media does either.

The questions about the Kildren the movie asks are not resolved or explored in any meaningful way. The central idea of "War is Bad and therefore endless" is not questioned and therefore it cannot not be critically analyzed or argued. Besides, the characters still fight besides making these assertions so it legitimizes their arguments even more. If War is so bad and endless, why do they focus and glorify the fighting? "War is bad and therefore endless" message is nothing more than a punchline to appeal tot he Japanese psyche while they are merely watching a simplistic action/drama movie.

[sa547]

Originally Posted by lubczyk

If you want intelligent, Read War and Peace, not watch this. Don't try to pass off a couple instances of probable symbolizes and a pacifist message as intelligent.

Intelligent and philosophical are two things the Sky Crawlers is not.

So, this movie isn't for me, right? Okay, dropped.

[Shiroth]

Originally Posted by sa547

So, this movie isn't for me, right? Okay, dropped.

Eh? Don't say you won't watch it just because of something someone said. Give it a watch and make up your own opinion on if you like it or not.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by lubczyk

If you want intelligent, Read War and Peace, not watch this. Don't try to pass off a couple instances of probable symbolizes and a pacifist message as intelligent. Just because one can commit their thoughts to audio, text or film does not make it intelligent.

Intelligent and philosophical are two things the Sky Crawlers is not.

Spoiler for My Thoughts:

This film's praises make the same mistake as Hollywood does - Just because a movie has a message does not make it intelligent. This movie is not intelligent. It just states it's message of "War is bad and is endless" without any critical analysis to back it up. It's nothing more than an assertion.

For this movie to be an intelligent message about war, it would have to way the various avenues besides the clear biases of "War is bad and therefore endless." It doesn't examine the motives of both sides fighting. It doesn't examine any other possible avenues. It doesn't examine diplomacy. It doesn't examine the consequences of losing or winning of any of the sides. It doesn't examine the history behind the conflict. It's message is the means to an end. That's not how life works and absolutely not how intelligent media does either.

The questions about the Kildren the movie asks are not resolved or explored in any meaningful way. The central idea of "War is Bad and therefore endless" is not questioned and therefore it cannot not be critically analyzed or argued. Besides, the characters still fight besides making these assertions so it legitimizes their arguments even more. If War is so bad and endless, why do they focus and glorify the fighting? "War is bad and therefore endless" message is nothing more than a punchline to appeal tot he Japanese psyche while they are merely watching a simplistic action/drama movie.

Well, again, if "war and peace" is all you saw in this movie, then the limitation is as much yours as the movie's. In my very first post in this thread after watching it, I've already described The Sky Crawlers as a whodunit — a mystery based on sci-fi concepts (the original novelist is known for being a detective-fiction writer) — rather than as a "war movie" or an "action film".

To me, the central idea is about Suito Kusanagi, rather than about the war itself. The war provided a backdrop for a series of character studies leading to an inevitable conclusion. If it's philosophy per se you're looking for, then this movie will of course disappoint — Oshii had been very tame about applying philosophy to this movie as compared to, say, Ghost in the Shell. That's why, all along, I've been describing The Sky Crawlers as his most accessible film to date — it's accessible because of its relative lack of moralising, which Oshii is usually fond of.

The "war" in this movie is peripheral. That you see it as the central theme suggests that you've entirely missed its point, so it's no wonder that you dislike it. You wanted a different movie which you didn't get, so whose fault is that? False advertising, perhaps.

[lubczyk]

Originally Posted by sa547

So, this movie isn't for me, right? Okay, dropped.

Watch it if you want to. It's okay, very laid-back type of show. Just don't expect the next epiphany on the meaning of life or whatnot. Think of it as merely entertainment and not a message.

[lubczyk]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Well, again, if "war and peace" is all you saw in this movie, then the limitation is as much yours as the movie's. In my very first post in this thread after watching it, I've already described The Sky Crawlers as a whodunit — a mystery based on sci-fi concepts (the original novelist is known for being a detective-fiction writer) — rather than as a "war movie" or an "action film".

To me, the central idea is about Suito Kusanagi, rather than about the war itself. The war provided a backdrop for a series of character studies leading to an inevitable conclusion. If it's philosophy per se you're looking for, then this movie will of course disappoint — Oshii had been very tame about applying philosophy to this movie as compared to, say, Ghost in the Shell. That's why, all along, I've been describing The Sky Crawlers as his most accessible film to date — it's accessible because of its relative lack of moralising, which Oshii is usually fond of.

The "war" in this movie is peripheral. That you see it as the central theme suggests that you've entirely missed its point, so it's no wonder that you dislike it. You wanted a different movie which you didn't get, so whose fault is that? False advertising, perhaps.

What is the central message of the movie besides "War is horrible?" Please, I must have missed it. It feels like a type of movie that is praised for it's pacifist message even if that message is only skin-deep and superficial.

[gaguri]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

When it comes to anime, movies or TV programmes, it's very hard to make a show that is both intelligent and entertaining. Usually, most go for the latter: It's easier to entertain people than it is to make them think. That's the exact same problem Oshii suffers as a film-maker. He makes intelligent, but extremely boring, movies. So, yes, I don't blame anyone for hating The Sky Crawlers for being a tedious show, because it is. It expects too much of its audience and it proves that, in the end, it's hard for a leopard to change its spots: Oshii remains very much a self-indulgent storyteller.

I think some people are forgetting that Oshii's movies, Ghost in the Shell (1, 2), Twilight Q and Angel's Egg for examples, can be boring for many but for others immersive and absorbing not because of the pretentious 'intellectual' content, but because of their aesthetics. It seems utterly stupid (personally) to highly rate something you found boring, let alone extremely boring.

<---haven't watched Sky Crawlers yet

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by lubczyk

What is the central message of the movie besides "War is horrible?" Please, I must have missed it. It feels like a type of movie that is praised for it's pacifist message even if that message is only skin-deep and superficial.

I've already explained what I think it's about here.

Of course, you're welcome to disagree entirely and think that I'm a load of bollocks. That's what differences in creative opinion are all about, and I don't mind having a robust debate over interpretations. I'd merely like to point out that seeing The Sky Crawlers as nothing more than a "war-is-hell" movie will of course lead one to judge it a failure, for the very same reasons you've pointed out.

Expecting The Sky Crawlers to be a war movie is not very different from expecting Ghost in the Shell to be a manual on advanced cybernetics (which was what Masamune Shirow originally intended it to be, but Oshii happily went ahead and reinterpreted it to suit his own inflated ego).

The Sky Crawlers might be philosophical, but its message is more about existential angst — Oshii's favourite theme — rather than "war and peace".

[lubczyk]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

I've already explained what I think it's about here.

Of course, you're welcome to disagree entirely and think that I'm a load of bollocks. That's what differences in creative opinion are all about, and I don't mind having a robust debate over interpretations. I'd merely like to point out that seeing The Sky Crawlers as nothing more than a "war-is-hell" movie will of course lead one to judge it a failure, for the very same reasons you've pointed out.

Expecting The Sky Crawlers to be a war movie is not very different from expecting Ghost in the Shell to be a manual on advanced cybernetics (which was what Masamune Shirow originally intended it to be, but Oshii happily went ahead and reinterpreted it to suit his own inflated ego).

The Sky Crawlers might be philosophical, but its message is more about existential angst — Oshii's favourite theme — rather than "war and peace".

Oh that!!! I found those topics to be merely window dressing since they don't seem to contribute to the plot at all. They're never discussed and do not make an appearance behind sudden exposition. The Kildren could be war orphans or robots or aliens and the plot wouldn't change at all.

You're making up your own depth since the show doesn't have any at it's core. It's "you" who is thinking a show has substance when it does not. You're doing the emoting yourself since the direction can't be arsed to do it himself in his own film. "Angst" is not a substantive subject with real backstory and real consequences that this movie does not have.

It's like people think that adding cybernetics and clones and a war setting and angst wil make the show deep. They don't, since they're merely window dressing and inconsequential.

[TinyRedLeaf]

^ That's fair enough. gaguri said he doesn't understand how something can be both aesthetically pleasing yet boring at the same time — well, Oshii proves it's possible. He consistently produces movies that look deep to some, but smell like shit to others.

So, what can I say? It's all in the eyes of the beholder. Arthouse films work the way they do because they require their audience to derive their own conclusions. What conclusions they are able to deduce in turn depends heavily on what personal experiences they can draw upon.

That's why its an incredibly self-indulgent process. High-brow "art" assumes too much from its viewers. It's like looking at a postmodern painting, filled with seemingly random splashes of ink and paint — that look like the work of a chimpanzee — and calling it art, when to most other people, it's overglorified crap.

Either way, your opinion is as valid as mine.

[monir]

Originally Posted by sa547

So, this movie isn't for me, right? Okay, dropped.

lol... at least make your own mind rather than relying on any opinions and then form your own. Otherwise they will scam you with pyramid skims. The movie is definitely not about war. "War" is merely a by product. Notice how war is enclosed in quotation mark.

P.S. Good attempt TinyRedLeaf! I also got the same message as you that the movie is anything but, "war is evil." Besides, it's always an utter waste of time at trying to convince anyone about anything just because two individual can reach to two sets of entirely different conclusion based on one set of premise. I liked it. You liked it. Lubczyk hated it. Life goes on!

[gaguri]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

^ That's fair enough. gaguri said he doesn't understand how something can be both aesthetically pleasing yet boring at the same time — well, Oshii proves it's possible. He consistently produces movies that look deep to some, but smell like shit to others.

I am well aware of how one work can appeal differently to others. What I don't understand is (more like I don't approve of), as I've said before, how someone can find anime boring and still rate it highly just because it seems intelligent. You claimed that Oshii makes intelligent yet extremely boring movies, and my opposing opinion is that he makes pseudo-intelligent-bordering-on-pretentious yet immersive and absorbing movies.

[lubczyk]

Originally Posted by gaguri

I am well aware of how one work can appeal differently to others. What I don't understand is (more like I don't approve of), as I've said before, how someone can find anime boring and still rate it highly just because it seems intelligent. You claimed that Oshii makes intelligent yet extremely boring movies, and my opposing opinion is that he makes pseudo-intelligent-bordering-on-pretentious yet immersive and absorbing movies.

I can agree with that. Aesthetically pleasing yet boring. Yeah that's a good trade-off I guess.

[lubczyk]

One thing that really bugged me about the movie was even though it was passing off WW2 set piece vibes with the propeller planes and war scenarios and people speaking English and Polish it had at the same time computers, real-time color news castes and tactical displays along with night vision. It's like the director wanted to make make a WW2 set piece but couldn't be arsed to do some in-depth research on the WW2 era.

Whatever plot holes or inconsistencies were possible in the WW2 vibe going on would just be explained away with genetics, color tv, computers or other technologies. Basically the director or writer wanted their cake and eat it too without putting any actual thought into making the setting stand out. All the uniforms, planes, flags and cities of both sides were some indistinguishable mishmash of German, English and other European armies of the WW2 era.

It didn't feel surreal, it felt lazy.

[wao]

Well, I finally watched it - yeah, I actually gave it a miss while it was screening here but it got 'pushed in front of me' quite literally - and well...

It could've been much worse?

Spoiler for I don't think there's any spoilers but I dunno what I'm writing so:

I think it's fairly obvious the film will only speak to some people. But does the movie stand on its own merits or simply appeal to a pre-existing, uncommon emotion? Oshii apparently wanted to make this for the disillusioned, blanked-out, empty youth of modern times, and I get the impression the film is far more interesting if you watch it with a particular mindset, while in a particular mood...

I got this clear impression throughout the film that he was trying to say "this is you, viewer" as opposed to letting the characters speak for themselves. He was trying to lulling you into their way of life, not to convince you of their problem, but to convince of your presumed one... I guess this is a silly way of saying everything felt too much like a vehicle to me. I didn't think the film was all that heavy-handed; I personally really like the 'conclusion' of the film, but at the same time I have my doubts as to whether Oshii succeeded with what he supposedly intended.

I'm making a very broad guess as to the audience he hoped to make an impression on, but I suspect if you told them something so obviously directed right at them they wouldn't want to take it seriously. Like when people tell them to do something they're less likely to take action than if they saw someone else, someone not clearly intended as a symbol of themselves, being told to do so.

This probably sounds contradictory since they tried so hard to make the characters feel like an "other", alienating them right down to the way they look, but to people who generally do feel that way I think it feels more like a "Hey you! Yes, you over there with the blank stare!" and while the feeling of "jesus kuraisuto, they're talking about me" might work for some people... not for the ones he's looking for. IMHO.

Personally... I knew I shouldn't have such expectations of an Oshii film but I wanted to really get into their situation more - I find looking outside of one's self as opposed to downward spirals of introspection more useful now... I guess in this regard it reminded me a lot of the way the plot of the film went, almost there but painfully not so, until of course the very end (I'd probably have a lower opinion of the movie if it weren't for the post-credits bit; at the same time the fact that he self-indulgently put it THERE is kind of...) I definitely felt something towards Kusanagi, perhaps because she was so blatantly portrayed; I couldn't help it.

But if they were going to make it an anime this long I wish they made it less of an allegory and more of a story. I think they could've afforded not to generalize society and it's role that much - and if Oshii didn't want that to distract from the main story he could've made it shorter... This might be an entirely stupid idea but what if Sky Crawlers was alternatively adapted into a series of shorts?

As for the technical side I thought it was fairly ho-hum, the animation could've been used to greater effect IMO (but I confess, I did... like the hug scenes.) It's refreshing that they didn't go for a very heavily effects-layered look with lots of tiny shadows and unsettling stuff like that bit from Innocence where Batou gets that girl out from the pod thing (kimochiwarui really does it justice IMO) but the 3D bits did feel rather meh to me after all. Probably personal bias speaking here, but visually it did nothing.
Also I think they did a good job with getting the ambience of the base across, but I found the cloud/sky scenes not to be to my liking - I guess I like more grand and romantic depictions of clouds (NOT Makoto Shinkai style fyi) and the ones here didn't quite give the impression of endless, dreary repetitive days. I might feel differently upon a rewatch though.
The soundtrack was better than average, definitely heightened the impact of some scenes but didn't stick in my head the way it did with say, TokiKake's (but that was a different beast anyway)

I will readily agree with lubcyzk about the inaccuracies though - I normally don't even notice these things, but the use of a 1940s setting felt so outdated, as in it felt like a prediction of the future from the past. Live TV feeds out in the boondocks and such advanced-looking display graphics but propeller planes? I can sort of understand why they won't make it a visually Japanese place but come on, why the half-hearted attempt at a fake WW2? Why not just make it some sort of neutral thing... It feels similarly odd when Western shows misappropriate Eastern cultures and well... meh :/
EDIT: Not to mention the whole idea of being able to 'copy' similar people like that within such a short period and genetically do things to them. You could say the war is just there for show so it doesn't matter if they use old planes... but unless this was North Korea or something that's just not how technology evolves. It's used as nothing more than a prop which makes it the same as so many anime that Oshii might like to think he's done better than.

One thing I really was impressed by was the sounds. I haven't looked it up much, all I noticed was they used two foreign people for Sound Design; I was surprised by the number of people working on the effects... but from the beginning I liked how the sounds weren't merely serviceable as they often are, but evocative. The sounds Yuuichi made when he stepped onto the wooden floor of his living quarters and the 'outsideness' heard on boring days when he opened his window really resonated with me.


Now if you don't mind I'm going to go watch the hug scenes again.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by wao

Spoiler for sound direction:

One thing I really was impressed by was the sounds. I haven't looked it up much, all I noticed was they used two foreign people for Sound Design; I was surprised by the number of people working on the effects... but from the beginning I liked how the sounds weren't merely serviceable as they often are, but evocative. The sounds Yuuichi made when he stepped onto the wooden floor of his living quarters and the 'outsideness' heard on boring days when he opened his window really resonated with me.

I'm glad that I'm not the only one to notice the superb sound direction in this movie. From what I recall, Production I.G contracted engineers from Industrial Light & Magic to produce the sounds, from the terrifying roar of The Teacher's Skyly fighter to the creaking steps of the base's dormitory.

Listening to the sounds on PC or a home-entertainment system doesn't do quite enough justice to the movie's aural ambience. If you had watched it in a cinema, the high-quality sound production would have been far more noticeable, trust me.

Originally Posted by wao

Spoiler for the soundtrack:

The soundtrack was better than average, definitely heightened the impact of some scenes but didn't stick in my head the way it did with say, TokiKake's (but that was a different beast anyway).

When I first heard it, it reminded me instantly of Seirei no Moribito's soundtrack. Kenji Kawaii seemed, at first, to have rehashed many of the same themes from that OST. But the more I listened to The Sky Crawler's soundtrack, the more it grew on me — and it became only the second anime soundtrack I fell in love with even before I had watched the programme (the first being Haibane Renmei's). I had become so immersed in the music that it actually affected my ability to enjoy The Sky Crawlers during my first viewing, because I had already imagined how the scenes would fit the tunes.

I especially loved the jazz track, Sail Away, which played during Kannami's first meeting with Fuuki (the social escort). Other evocative tracks include Adler Tag (which played during the massive air raid) and Blue Fish (Orgel) (the haunting harpischord-and-chimes track).

Finally, whenever I listen to the movie's main theme, I'm reminded of my favourite poem, W.B. Yeat's An Irish Airman Foresees His Death. The movie's main theme evokes a sense of wide-open space hiding an undercurrent of impending doom, reminiscent of that poem's dominant image: "A lonely impulse of delight/ Drove to this tumult in the clouds"

Originally Posted by wao

Spoiler for 3D animation:

As for the technical side I thought it was fairly ho-hum, the animation could've been used to greater effect IMO (but I confess, I did... like the hug scenes.) It's refreshing that they didn't go for a very heavily effects-layered look with lots of tiny shadows and unsettling stuff like that bit from Innocence where Batou gets that girl out from the pod thing (kimochiwarui really does it justice IMO) but the 3D bits did feel rather meh to me after all. Probably personal bias speaking here, but visually it did nothing.

For my part, I liked the 3D animation, which I felt melded quite well with the 2D animation. Maybe it's because I like warplanes in general, and WWII propeller fighter planes in particular, so I greatly enjoyed the details made possible with computer animation.

Originally Posted by wao

Spoiler for story setting:

I will readily agree with lubcyzk about the inaccuracies though - I normally don't even notice these things, but the use of a 1940s setting felt so outdated, as in it felt like a prediction of the future from the past. Live TV feeds out in the boondocks and such advanced-looking display graphics but propeller planes? I can sort of understand why they won't make it a visually Japanese place but come on, why the half-hearted attempt at a fake WW2? Why not just make it some sort of neutral thing... It feels similarly odd when Western shows misappropriate Eastern cultures and well... meh :/

And I'm surprised that viewers take issue with the re-imagined WWII setting. It didn't occur to me that Oshii was striving to recreate an authentic version of real WWII planes, but I can respect the reservations of history buffs who dislike his interpretation of that era's technology.

As for why the world of The Sky Crawlers uses propeller fighters instead of, say, modern-day jet figthers more congruent with the supposed existence of highly advanced communications and biological technology, I presume it's an aesthetic choice. The era — and romance — of aerial dogfighting reached its apogee in WWII, particularly during the now famous Battle of Britain, where Churchill's celebrated Few went up against the Luftwaffe juggernaut.

In contrast, the art of dogfighting is pretty much dead in today's air combat, where advanced avionics make it possible for a fighter pilot to shoot down enemies with long-ranged missiles even before he could see them. It's all very scientific and efficient, but such combat makes for very boring reality TV.

So, if a couple of hypercorporations are engaged in the business of producing entertaining reality-TV based on aerial warfare, it doesn't take a great leap of logic to see why they would choose to base the war around late WWII-era fighter planes. And who's to say that the world of The Sky Crawlers is actually set in the real-world 1940s? For all we know, time has "stopped" for this world since its equivalent of our 1940s. Since then, its technology might have progressed while its society stayed static. If you think about it, that would be in keeping with the movie's theme.

And I'm sure most people know by now that the Battle of Britain was the same inspiration for Star Wars' Battle of Yavin, featuring heroic X-Wing fighters (the Royal Air Force) versus evil Tie fighters (the Luftwaffe). If Star Wars fans don't complain about space-age fighters lacking correspondingly advanced avionics (why were pilots even necessary, for that matter; couldn't they have used droids instead?), I don't see why people complain about comparable anachronisms in The Sky Crawlers. But then, to each his own. I can't argue against personal opinion, certainly.

Originally Posted by lubczyk

One thing that really bugged me about the movie was even though it was passing off WW2 set piece vibes with the propeller planes and war scenarios and people speaking English and Polish it had at the same time computers, real-time color news castes and tactical displays along with night vision. It's like the director wanted to make make a WW2 set piece but couldn't be arsed to do some in-depth research on the WW2 era.

And it doesn't take a lot of personal research to find out that the planes in The Sky Crawlers are based on real-world airplanes. The Teacher's Skyly is loosely based on the Focke-Wulf Ta 152, while Kannami's Sanka figther is spun off from the Kyushu J7W1 Shinden. Both the real-world airplanes were designed to be high-altitude interceptors against bombers such as the B29 Superfortress and, by extension, one can imagine the Skyly and Sanka fighters fulfilling similar tactical roles.

Contrary to the claim of lack of in-depth research, the animators imagined how an technically advanced society might have improved on these propeller designs to create even more powerful fighters, and the results were the Skyly and Sanka fighters. Notice, for example, how both fighters make use of counter-spinning duo propellers to eliminate torque pull, the same way a helicopter would.

What's the point of making a movie if you can't make your characters and props look cool (if unrealistic)?

So, I don't know what you're looking for, actually. Hyper realism in a work of fiction? Then we might as well watch a WWII documentary.

=========

Finally, to end on a lighter note, I found these promotional skits long ago and I thought I'd share them now:

[Shiroth]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

When I first heard it, it reminded me instantly of Seirei no Moribito's soundtrack. Kenji Kawaii seemed, at first, to have rehashed many of the same themes from that OST.

For me, Kawai's work for Sky Crawlers is like both Seirei no Moribito and GiTS scores together as one. That's was my instant thought after hearing the main theme, and one that grew as i progressed with the movie, hearing each piece.

Either way, another masterwork by Kawai.

[Same_Shark]

I have one question!

Spoiler for Dialogue:

Was there a reason for the random English?

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Same_Shark

I have one question!

Spoiler for Dialogue:

Was there a reason for the random English?

In a word: No.

It's used only in radio chatter.

[Same_Shark]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

In a word: No.

It's used only in radio chatter.

Ah I see. It kinda reminded me of Stranger with it's random Mandarin.