Kubo discussion

OK, so this was brought up in the movies thread but it warrants more spoiler-ish discussion. I took the kids to see it yesterday (sold out show, which was shocking...mostly adults, which was not shocking) and it's visually incredible, etc. and it actually tops Laika's previous work on a technical level although I still think Coraline is the best thing they are likely to ever accomplish. The skeleton part was just amazing, as was the boat scene with the Garden of Eyes and all that. If Nintendo is considering a Legend of Zelda film, they should consider Kubo and the Two Strings to be Laika's demo reel for it.

I've not stopped thinking about the film since the credits rolled (and make sure you do stay to see the lovely little "this shit is mostly real" behind the scenes vignette). But it isn't because the story or its underpinnings were particularly profound...but because I don't know if I've ever seen a film that was more confused, murky and conflicting in its messages. HUGE, very adult concepts were developed and then thrown away. A softball "stories are real important because they tell us who they are and make us live on when we are gone" line runs through it that will register with the kids. But it's also very much about death, memory and abuse. Maybe? I don't know, it's so sloppily written that it's hard to tell what the intent was. It almost feels like the screenwriters built up this pretty impressive-sounding series of mock-profundities and tried to string (ha) them together. But the results are just a mess.

For example, everything to do about the family. It's not pleasingly, alluringly vague or compellingly ambiguous. It's just unformed. I'm sure that big fans of this film will ask me "what do you want, them to spoon-feed you everything?" But are they gods, stars, spirits, royalty? A simple story basis like that that establishes what the fuck is going on would have done wonders for this otherwise great film. I found myself the whole time thinking "wow, this is really beautiful, but it is completely empty." Because there is no sense of foundation to what is described in the film.

But there again, it opens up with a head injury and amnesia. And there's the suggestion that Kubo's mother has been making all of this up anyway. Which sort of leads to the point of this post.

When I show my kids something that I think is a little above their cognition, I like to ask them what happened. So I asked them what happened in this story. River said that when the village got attacked, Kubo died and went into another dimension where his mother and father were a monkey and a bug. That kind of blew my mind that he interpreted it that way and it made me wonder if he was _right_, and that was why none of it actually held together. And then at the end, we see Kubo with his mother and father...and they are not spirits. They are very clearly together, suggesting that Kubo has passed into the spirit world upon completing his quest, which is actually to redeem the soul of the abusive grandfather.

But the conclusion of that quest is so ridiculously unsatisfying and false...so if the Moon King was this awful dude, is really a redemption if we just make him forget that he was a bad guy and convince him that he was nice all the time? So we could have wiped Hitler's memory and told him that he was a kindly old painter and that would have been cool? Don't get me wrong, I like "victory not vengeance" endings (Princess Mononoke has the best one EVER, where the villain basically says "shit y'all, I was really wrong") but this registered again, as hollow.

And then there's this thing where maybe all of it is made up by Kubo's mom- she manifests things in her sleep. But there again, a curiosity door is opened and then quickly shut...and I can't help but wonder if the writers did clumsily ambiguous stuff like that to make this all seem, you know, real deep man.

Why was Hanzo both a little origami figure AND the beetle? That makes no freaking sense at all. How could he die, anyway? Was he already dead?

When it comes down to it, this film actually didn't manage to meet the bare minimum for EXPOSITION...which is WEIRD, because...I don't know if I've ever said that about a film. The film isn't nearly high-minded, sophisticated or mature enough to pull off surrealist non- sequitur, and if you are going to pull that off you've got to have a deep sense of semiotic reason for it to work...and it can't be this coy "we're not telling you" crap. You have to have a basis. Like the origami unicorn in Blade Runner, and Deckard closing the door with Rachel at the end. That's how you pull off the "untold story". Not by simply throwing out a bunch of barely realized story beats and amorphous background details.

Very frustrating film...there is so much that is great about it, but the quite frankly terrible writing will likely be given a pass because it at least seems like, you know, really profound...and everybody likes that skeleton.

I definitely agree (as I alluded to before), but as usual you've described it a lot better. It's almost as if there were five different amazing stories going on, but none of them gelled together and paid off. Still a great experience, just for the sheer whirlwind of it. It's almost like Adventures of Baron Munchausen in terms of wonder and imagery, but not nearly as cohesive.

And my girls and I all said the same thing about the "tell him he was good" resolution... it's kind of a nice idea in theory, but would that really work for people to accept in reality?

The best thing about this movie is that it puts Laika into the game in a bigger way, and with a style that is more approachable. I'm hopeful that their next film can be as dazzling, but more coherent. They were really close with accomplishing something amazing and transcendent here, but yeah, it falls short of the best of Pixar or Disney.

Great write up, I'm mad I didn't write my review yesterday. I was going to draw a parallel between Zelda as well. It felt Zelda like many times, questing and boss fights.

I'm glad I stayed after the credits. During Skeleton scene I'm thinking, ''it's amazing how this thing just FEELS huge, slow movement and such''. Then I watch the credits and I'm blown away. Talk about not cutting corners.

I haven't asked Emily about the movie cuz I'm scared she'll realize the parents are dead. She asked in the closing scene, ''where did Da insect and monkey go?'' I tried explaining that the ghost images of the parents were them but realized I'm going to a dark place.

What an insanely weird cameo by Takei too

I just asked Emily about the movie:

BB: Emily, did you like the movie yesterday?
Em: not really
BB: What was it about?
Em: Nothing, it was about nothing.

I'm very confused about how I feel about the movie. I don't think it's a kids movie at all. I think in the end it was an amazing movie that I couldn't love

My grandmother had big-time dementia, and my father has been diagnosed with it (he's still with us for the most part, for now). My wife died three years ago after a long illness... I had no idea really what this movie was going to be about going in, but as it started to develop I was thinking whoa, this is going to be hugely meaningful for me. It is touching on some very specific threads that connect with my life and the people I love and have lost. It should have had me and my girls fucking blubbering in terms of personal resonance. And I was always expecting it to.

But then it just seemed to jerk itself around, and by the end I was wondering what the deal was with the eyeball and the grandfather and the sisters and the lamps on the water and uhhhhhhhh. All of the things individually have some hint of meaning and importance, but seemed just strung together loosely. I kept thinking, well, I probably need to see it again, because I must have missed something that connected it all, or maybe I was too caught up in the visuals. I do intend to see it again on DVD, but I'm giving myself a pass as far as missing anything crucial. I suppose I got it all, but it just didn't make a whole lot of sense.

As Barnes said, huge concepts were introduced but then thrown away. I like that they aimed high for something that was potentially very poignant, conceptually. But in terms of the story, they shot too many lofty arrows at once and missed the target with most of them.

Unfortunately, the kind of films that Laika wants to make may foreclose on them getting into the game in a bigger way. $60 million budgets that return $12 million openings for weird, slightly macabre animated dark fantasies that aren't really for kids don't really raise your stock at the studios. Plus, there are zero fat-bottomed disco-dancing animals, no voices provided by currently popular comedians, no "brassy black lady" character, and no Happy Meal tie-ins. Look at the trailers shown before it in contrast to the movie itself...although, we got A Monster Calls before our screening, which looks amazing and more on par with a Laika film.

Coraline was just their best work all around (barring what they did on Corpse Bride), I absolutely love that film and I think that I have seen it 150 times thanks to my kids. It really nails down what I think Laika wants to be doing- almost kid's horror films, in a way. There is so much that is just brilliant in that film, nothing more so than the Other Mother. Of course, most of that is coming from Neil Gaiman, who should work with Laika more often. Imagine a Sandman film done by Laika. Good god.

But none of the other Laika films I find myself just loving like that. Paranorman was cool, it was fun, and there again it was kind of a kid's horror film. Boxtrolls somehow manages to out-grotesque Rango- my wife actively hates it. I don't know if I've ever seen a more repellent "kid's" film, but it has some really great stuff in it. Kubo should have been a total knockout, but I feel like they just tripped up on covering that more serious, adult subject matter.

But I love that they tried! They totally swung for the fences, and more than that, they were aiming to pierce quite a bit deeper than even a better Pixar film might. They were totally gunning for something very resonant, spiritual and impactful...but whoever wrote it just did not have the chops to get to that. Which takes me back to Gaiman. They had great source material, and leveraged it to make something really special.

So for the next one, I kind of hope they do something from a book or another source (oh god, let it be Legend of Zelda). They are obviously a bunch of very gifted, very talented folks that have a real passion for doing a kind of big scale, hand-crafted animation that simply does not exist anymore outside of what they are doing. But I'm worried that in order to continue doing that, they are going to have to deliver something that is more accessible and universal. Probably something with obese animals wiggling their butts to the Bee Gees or something.

There was a big group of nerd teens in my showing, they went nuts at the end- cheering, clapping, etc. Which is nice, I can see being 14-15 years old and being completely blown away by this picture. But 40 year old me has seen hundreds and hundreds of hours of visually stunning, artful, wildly imaginative images and scenes from thousands of movies. I need something underneath that to call it great- and when the film can't even provide a coherent story, there's a problem with it.

The other weird thing is that many people are saying that Kubo made them cry in places. I don't know what's with me lately but every single movie has been making my eyes water, but Kubo didn't. Not even close. I did fall asleep briefly near the beginning tho.

I just saw Kubo last night and I thought it was an amazing mythic fantasy that tackled the concept of the uncaring eternal god and showed why that was inferior to a life with music, memory, and love. I'm really at a loss trying to see what details you feel needed to be in the movie. The story felt very complete to me, very satisfying, a bit like the 80s Clash of the Titans in its mythological resonance.