I watched this movie after watching MHK's documentary about Mamoru Hosoda. Mamoru Hosoda is a very serious person. Looking at each of his works, he can feel that he is not a genius, but a diligent director. It is never easy, but forging ahead. It takes constant review and revision to grind out a work. Is the type I admire. Many people think that the early stage of the film is okay, and the middle part starts to crumble. I also have this feeling. Specifically, it is a problem of strong logic, poor expression, and excessive externalization of inner strength. Some people mentioned that they can't accept that Ichiro Hirohiko, who can transform into a whale at the end, is only a small supporting role in the early stage, how can he become the final big boss. And when the boss is destroying the street while tracking the male protagonist, how can the male protagonist sit leisurely in the subway and listen to the female protagonist's confession, and how does the female protagonist stand up and start preaching to the boss. It's inappropriate, but the point is not how threatening the boss is and the logic of reality. He could not be said to be an entity at all, and even the way his power was expressed was so unreal. The fundamental question is the purpose of shaping Ichirohiko. Earlier in the novel "Moby Dick", the heroine said, "The protagonist is ready to take revenge on the hateful whale who took his single leg, but is the protagonist actually fighting against himself? That is to say, the whale is a reflection of himself. The mirror." So what the director really wanted to express was not the confrontation between Jiuta and Ichirohiko, but the confrontation between the protagonist Jiuta and his inner darkness. But Jiu Tai's inner darkness originated from being abandoned by his father when he was a child, and the meaning of beluga is revenge. The internal reasons of the two are different and cannot be returned to the logic. The audience does not think that the protagonist is fighting against himself, and that the beluga is inexplicable. (Moreover, the monsters with entities and the magical factor of human externalized demons seem to be the product of two worlds.) The female protagonist's preaching echoes, or repeats, the previous paragraph of comforting the male protagonist in the parking lot, and the effect is indeed Not so good. The idealistic approach to story reconciliation by turning Xiong Che into a sword is a bit far-fetched. After watching the documentary, I guess it was because the director wanted to express what his deceased father meant to him. In addition, everyone thinks that the ending of the protagonist returning to the real world and never drawing his sword is ridiculous. But the ending is like this because the monster world created by Mamoru Hosoda is just a metaphor, not reality, in his opinion. The protagonist doesn't care about the monster world, he cares about the perfection of himself. So the audience thinks all kinds of unreasonable, because the director has another idea. Storytellers are always prone to fall into such a situation: they find it very ingenious to connect all kinds of wonderful elements, unable to detect the confusion of logic, and unable to guess what the audience cares about. into your own scriptures However, due to the lack of explanation in the story, the expression goes astray. Thinking from the creator's point of view, I have also fallen into all kinds of pits during creation, so it is understandable. Storytelling requires continuous improvement.
View more about The Boy and the Beast reviews
