I generally distrust the very idea of film adaptation of fairy tales and believe that it is necessary to shoot either exactly according to the text, or not to shoot at all. It’s kind of like a translator’s job – if he starts talking away from himself, then he’s a pest and you don’t have to deal with him. Someone will argue that the director is different and can interfere with the idea of the work, but then what is the idea? If you don’t like the story as it is, if you think you can create something better, do it. Miyazaki became such a new storyteller and gained worldwide recognition. But it is obvious that not everyone has such talent, hence a cohort of liking writers. Half-authors. They want fame and money, but like Kirkorov live remakes.
- There are a lot of kringe scenes in the cartoon. The cow pushes, but can’t squeeze out the milk – it looks really miserable. The boy treats her like a friend, but still sells her easily. Why? The kid is whipped with a broom - the scene is uncomfortable for the viewer, not even in the content itself, and this is shown in such a way that causes not compassion, but painful shame.
- The salesman looks like he's a notorious crook and just robbed the kid. But in the end, the beans are really magical. So why did the character act like an obvious villain?
- Of all the days he could have been in a cloudy city, he was there just before a fateful wedding that only he could have disrupted. A one-in-a-million coincidence. But it was possible to logically reduce events if the beans sent mice to the ground just in the hope of salvation.
- Mice do not talk or even squeak, but carry abracadabra, and this causes another wave of shame for watching.
- If the princess is not enchanted at night, why don't the mice just wake her up?
- In the Japanese original, the boy, who is 10-12 years old, is voiced by an adult man, and in songs he has a hoarse bass.
- Why can a dog sing but not talk?
- There are a couple of good tracks, but most of them are just trash. In addition, they were unsuccessfully selected for the scenes. For example, the characters run away from danger, but play "la-la-la." That's not how it's done.
The final fight with the giant is made in the most infamous traditions of Tom and Jerry or even Cuckoo and Coyote. Is that supposed to be funny? Just a garbage scene that can be cut whole without loss of content.
- Why is Jack sure he won't see the princess again? She's from the magic kingdom. At the very least, they have transport clouds. He wants to find it himself.
- The fate of the boy and mother is unclear. Did he not gild her with the plunder in the treasury? Why are they still living in poverty in the end? Did the royal guard ask what kind of stem that stood out to the sky?
However, there is one scene in the cartoon that alone knocks him out of existence. It may seem strange, but the growth scene of the bean stem is the BEST scene of the cartoon and in general one of the best scenes in animation, given not to some characters, but to a spontaneous natural phenomenon. I’m not kidding, the authors gave a clean 2 minutes to the plant and put such strength, such inspiring energy, such creative power into it. That's amazing.
The image of an odd princess high is also memorable.
And back to the original thesis. This cartoon is not a film adaptation of one fairy tale, but a compilation of several. In addition to the main "Jack and the Beanstalk", there is also an allusion to "Hansel and Gretel" (the witch wants to fatten the boy), and the enchanted palace manger is already from "Beauty and the Beast". The mistreatment of a witch with his son is a classic story about an evil stepmother from many fairy tales. Such crossover plots are sufficient excuse for plagiarism, if you understand my point. This is a kind of parody right – it cannot exist without taking someone else’s plot as a basis. So the mix of fairy tales gets the right to life simply on the promise that it can still take place as a work. Did you succeed? Barely. As a child, I got pleasure from the cartoon, but it is difficult for adults to watch it, and it causes mainly a desire to understand what the authors did. That's what you read.