In my opinion, many narrative accusers gave Makoto Shinkai an inappropriate score.
The reason is also very simple - the story is too weak, no matter how well it is drawn, it is also a PPT.
I've agreed with that for a long time. But after watching "The Garden of Words", I began to doubt: a director who is good at expressing emotions, must he embark on the mainstream path of storytelling?
Is it necessary?
Just like in the history of novels, novels that focus on stories are only one line. After leaving the classical era, the exploration of narrative style has crossed the boundary of "telling a good story". Writers have long been dissatisfied with seeking meaning in the plot, and they have begun to chase language itself, or return to emotions, and absurd logic or emotion has become the core element that drives the story.
The English fiction of the novel originally means fiction. It's just fiction. Some attach importance to storytelling in the time chain, some attach importance to the creation of situations in space, some attach importance to logic, and some attach importance to emotion, but each has its own advantages.
Do you have to be a master storyteller to write novels, make movies, and do animation?
I don't think it is necessary. Being able to tell stories is just easy to win more audiences, but it cannot be a reason to deny a person.
No matter whether it is a novel or a movie, it is more than a narrative. Picture-driven movies have their own artistic logic. If there is anything that dissatisfies me in Makoto Shinkai's "The Garden of Words", it is an ending that is too narrative, which ruins the environment created by the whole film.
Xin Haicheng is Xin Haicheng, there is no need to be another Miyazaki.
You can't tell stories, and you can still be a master.
View more about The Garden of Words reviews
