After the catastrophic events of September 10th 2001, no one could have predicted how it would shape the political climate of the 21st century. From George W. Bush’s rhetoric of freedom, to the Patriots Act (which allowed the government to spy on the public), to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a climate of militarism and authoritarianism was created that had little concern for its victims.
Each of Miyazaki’s on-the-face-of-it children’s films carry profound fundamentals - Ponyo and the climate crisis, Spirited Away and Capitalism to name a few - but his political triumph is Howl’s Moving Castle. Miyazaki himself stated how conflicted he felt about America’s 2003 invasion of the Middle East when accepting an award for Spirited Away, Howl’s Moving Castle was produced in the aftermath. The director recalled having a lot of rage about the war, pursued mostly for reasons of politics, racism and wealth. Howl’s Moving Castle was an artistic declaration of opposition to armed conflict and a depiction of those who are victims of it.
I have had a different appreciation of the film at different ages throughout my life. When young, I was mesmerised by the animation, the vibrant colours, fun characters and music, but was unable to understand the plot. As I got older (and continued to love Hayao Miyazaki’s work if not more than when I was younger) I watched this movie with a new perspective, finally able to grasp the bleakness of what the movie is actually about.
Howl’s Moving Castle is adapted from the 1986 novel by Diane Wynne Jones, and it is seemingly a fantasy story. The film follows Sophie, a young humble hat maker who has fallen victim to a curse that renders her old. In despair, she flees her home in search of a cure. Upon her wonders, she finds a nominative ‘castle’ - a steampunk construction of unusually assembled bolts and metals, settled on thin legs.
Typical of Miyazaki’s films, there is an expressed fondness for less technological times, reminding the viewer of the importance of being connected to nature. The castle in which much of the film is set is an unusual balance of futuristic and natural matter - a walking machine, half alive and half built. The castle, staged as a character in its own right, represents a blending of nature and technology; a healthy harmony rather than a full rejection of either.
Once inside the castle, Sophie meets a mix of unusual characters including a fire demon Calcifer and his owner, the narcissistic wizard Howl. Howl is a childish wizard, whose talents demand responsibilities that he refuses to accept, and thus spends his life running from them. It is at this point the film diverges from the book, Miyazaki expands on Jones’ allusions to war and makes them central to the plot. While the film was a moral message about the Iraq War specifically, the film is equally concerned with war more generally. The film keeps its fantastical imagery rather than depicting the Middle East, its setting is lush with greenery. One of the most striking images in the film is a beautiful field of flowers dominated by unattractive futuristic battleships, symbolising imperialism as a destroyer of peace.
There are some explicit references to the Iraq War, though. The film’s antagonist, Madame Suliman (a witch who serves the King, and a key architect of the war), has henchmen who are mysteriously black and globular as though they had emerged from an Iraqi oil field. She is consumed by violence to a degree that it has no purpose; she is at war for the sake of war. Miyazaki intended to expose war as a fickle act, pursued by leaders with superficial desires and barely an understanding of their actions. The hero, Howl, lives in a state of despair that there is no alternative to war, swept up in violence he cannot stop, he represents humanity and citizens affected by war.
Miyazaki uses vagueness to portray the politics of war with an easily missed bit of dialogue that informs us that the prince had been kidnapped, and that that was the justification for war. This withholding of the cause of war was purposeful to allow for greater exploration of its effects on civilians, as so frequently the reason for war feels inexplicably far from home. The viewer is told that the Royal Palace is protected by bombs that ‘just fall on neighbouring towns’, meaning that the political manoeuvring of the elite used the public as collateral damage. The use of citizens as collateral discredits any moral or practical justification of war.
The film concludes when the conflict is ended in a manner of flippancy and arbitrariness which highlights this theme of futility and pointlessness. The missing prince turns out to have been cursed into a somewhat living scarecrow, who had been assisting Sophie on her quest. When restored to human form, he promises to return home and put an end to the war. Madame Suliman agrees. And seemingly, the war is over. Madame Suliman states, “A happy ending”, but the viewer is left wondering, for whom? Sophie’s town is a burning waste; untold demolition has been wrought.
If this war can be ended so quickly, we should conclude that another could be started just as easily. This is perhaps Miyazaki’s point. War in Howl’s Moving Castle is quick to flare, vicious and unfounded. Its victims are not ‘enemies of freedom’, in the words of President George W. Bush, but innocent civilians. Typically, films concerning war have an element of glamorisation, even anti-war films. However, Miyazaki avoids this through a lack of justification and focusing on the consequences, we see wars' impact on civilisation and little of its glory.
Not only is the film anti-war, Howl’s Moving Castle contains a powerful message about feminism and age. Sophie straddles the line between old and young, and when she presents as elderly, her actions are heroic. You rarely see an old woman save the day in a movie, but the characters of Howl’s Moving Castle wield skills typically thought of as bland, as tools that can change the world.
Miyazaki cited that Howl’s Moving Castle was the favourite of his works and that, “I wanted to convey the message that life is worth living, and I don’t think that’s changed”. Miyazaki said that he expected it to be received poorly in America, due to the country’s war-mongering and greed. On the contrary, it was nominated for an Oscar - perhaps they didn’t get it.
Sadly, the film’s message seems to have been disregarded in America, with the country still happily spreading conflict and pursuing monetary gain over the well-being of others. With the United States pushing ever closer to destruction, and the current war that Russia has abetted upon Ukraine it is times like these that we should take heed from Miyazaki’s Howl’s Moving Castle.
This is one of my favourite films !!!