In class, at home, I’m always railing on youngsters for complaining about sub-titles, or for watching English versions of Asian animations. This is correct of me, and I am righteous when I do so. Interestingly, I have never been quite as pure in my experience with this Japanese property, which I have most pointedly only seen in its compromised English edition.
Well, even Homer nods. Or, more like, so what? You gotta take a break once in a while. The thing is, this film is for babies, and they can’t read subtitles. I guess they can’t understand Dudley Moore’s narration either. The point is, sometimes you go for quality of experience over the nth-degree defense of scruple. What a dear thing movie is!
“Cute” is a terrible word, critically or intellectually speaking. It is so/too often a lazy abnegation of the effort required in order to make exact connections with the world, and with the objects and phenomena that exist within it. Movies aren’t cute! To say so is just plain dumb! “Cute” can only properly be applied to babies, or little animals.
Hey. Wait a minute …
When I was in graduate/film school, and a young dad of very young kids, I used to think about the often worldly, sometimes outlandish film milestones that I was being exposed to. I was comfortable with that exposure, and I still am. There was no lustful consuming here. (James, 4:3.) Rather, literacy! Further, several of us had a job reviewing current commercial releases, which was awfully helpful to for our infant family budgets. Quite right, all the way round, and I’m so glad.
Still, once in a while, after a rigourous session with some humdinger of a movie, I would feel the need to reestablish some semblance of sweetness and decency. So I’d gather the little ones, and put on something like this film. Ah …