The Book Post: Covers that suck

In any case, I feel slightly vindicated by this new cover from HarperCollins (which sucks by the way) as it proves my theory that the tiny little blob of the moving castle on this cover is a homage to the Miyazaki design from the movie. As I indulge further in more theorizing, the chicken feet castle from the film clearly has its roots not in Jones' description (since the book version of the castle lacks any form of limb-like appendages) but in a rather terrifying folk story personality from Russia; a witch known as Baba Yaga, and whose house has a pair of bird-feet to move around about. Her preferred method of transportation however, seems to be a flying mortar and pestle (if I did not remember wrongly). Goodness knows why Miyazaki modelled the castle on this, but nevermind...

What I really wanted to do was point out how the covers of Diana Wynne Jones' books seem to be getting from bad to worse. It's no wonder if children nowadays don't read her books. The same can be said for the Penguin covers of the Artemis Fowl series, which can be succinctly surmised as they think it is snazzy but is really ugly.

The Film that Might Have Been

And so, in an alternate dimension, an altenate me might have been watching the Mamoru Hosoda version of Howl's Moving Castle had he stayed on with Ghibli for the length of the project. It looks to me like it would have been a more faithful adaptation of the book and looking at the storyboards, I can't help but wish that he had completed the project.

The picture above is actually a scene that existed in the book, though of course there are slight differences. The one below that shows the Witch of the Waste is also closer to the way her physical appearance appeared in the book. The man (I suspect he's Gaston) obviously can't be Howl. If you've watched the Miyazaki version or read the book you'll know what I mean.

What do you all think?

credits for images: http://www.pelleas.net/aniBBS/viewtopic.php?t=400&sid=0b4150aa477a9687252ab4d3e0f2369f

Your 'if' is the only peacemaker, much virtue in 'if'. - As You Like It

Now that my arduous three weeks of revision and exams are over, I am so looking to using my brain for happier things. Cheers for the holidays!

The Book Post: House of Many Ways preview

image: http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/w/diana-wynne-jones/house-of-many-ways.htm

Hohoho. The sequel to Howl's Moving Castle.
I'd actually heard about this late last year, but didn't want to be too happy till the news was official. And you can't get any more official when the cover's out.

The book will be released in May/June 2008, which is...really soon! I hadn't expected it to be so fast, since the news was still pretty much the kind of "I heard so and so say so" sort of rumour. At any rate, I just want to blabber on about the cover for a bit.

Firstly, I was hoping for a more exciting cover. Or something with curly font, and this cover, with its straightforward vertical lines and realist style just doesn't do for a author who has had a habit of breaking stuffy societal conventions. Secondly, just because she is British, and her characters speak with (I can imagine) a crisp upper-class-ish accent (Chrestomanci) doesn't mean they would like that apalling Victorian era yellow wallpaper print on the bottom half of the cover. In other words, this cover is boring, even if I have to admit that this gradual melting of wallpaper prints into multiple doors is a rather nice concept.

On the other hand, I see what might be an homage to Miyazaki and the animators at Studio Ghibli. If you squint at the top right corner of the cover, you'll see this castle-shaped blot that looks suspiciously like the ramshackle thing Howl puts together in Hauru no Ugoko Shiro, right down to the turrety things rising out of the mist, and which seems to echo the opening scene of the film.

The great thing is, obviously, there is another DWJ book out to read really soon. I can't really be bothered about the cover (yeah right) so long as there is something inside to read, though a nice cover that does justice to the book contents really helps too. Of course, i can't say what the content of this book would be like, but I'm crossing my fingers that it'll be good...

In other news, fans of Mamoru Oshii, long time rival and some time collaborator with Hayao Miyazaki would be pleased to know if you haven't already known, that his new film, Sky Crawlers is due to be released some time this year.

Hauru no Ugoko Shiro (It's Japanese, not gibberish)

Yesterday, I watched Howl's Moving Castle. My DVD player is nuts - yesterday, the disc worked perfectly, even though we decided to skip the beginning, because we had watched it at least 5 times without getting any further due to that mysterious error in the sound.

Surprisingly, I enjoyed the show far more than I did the first time watching it, which is rather strange. I really loved Spirited Away, and the film never fails to amaze, despite mine watching it several times already. The funny thing is when you watch a film and find it nicer and nicer with each watching; watching a well cherished film and lovin' it over and over again is well...nothing new.

Perhaps, one reason for this change is that watching the show from the comfort of my own home makes each scene funnier, more real and closer simply because I'm much more willing to laugh at it. It's true - I blame that horrid cinema for totally ruining my movie experience. It doesn't help if the cinema was cold, draughty and too empty, or that the sweepers were standing right next to you before the show had ended properly or that your sister kept shushing you throughout the show dampened the entire affair.
I might have to explain that last reason - since Howl's Moving Castle (the movie) is based on a book of the same title, I found myself automatically comparing novel and film, mostly directed at my sister's benefit. You see how wrong I was.

As you can also see (or might have noticed by now), there are no big capital lettered words shouting "spoiler!" or "read with caution" that usually accompany my movie reviews. That is of course because this isn't a review of the film in the first place. Go watch the show. It's fantastic; I can honestly say that I enjoyed it. Oh by the way...it doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense. My theory is that to appreciate this film, you'll just have to accept what's given you. Which if I may add, is a lot - everything about it is just right, right down to the perplexing bits.

Note: This would have been a proper review, but my brain has fled in terror after having to review the film in Chinese for someone who still has holiday homework. It was shitty I can tell you. Can you imagine reducing one of your favourite films to broken Chinese? Ugh.

A second Note: My brain has just decided to compromise. The film can thus be described as whimsical, sweet, dark, entirely for romantics at heart (or heartless ;) ) and really...it's quite funny too. Not ha-ha funny, but still funny.