[innerSpaceman]

Well, having finished the novel ... I can state categorically ... that both batman and johnny soko are right for the character Howl.

Howl is a ladies' man, a lothario, a love-'em-and-leave-'em heartbreaker, and a sexified con man. If sexy means androgenous boy to the Japanese (and to Cadaverous Pallor), then that's what's required for the Nipponese version of Howl. But that would simply NOT work for American audiences, and so I believe the husky batman voice was appropriate for the dubbing.


Now that I've read the book, I have 10 times more admiration for the Ghibli movie ... which invented practically everything other than the basic characters, their basic situation, and a few of the events that take place inside the Castle.

The Ghibli version invents the war scenario ... which I found so hamfisted. But that's comfortably grounded compared to the Ugh factor of the novel when ....

Spoiler:

Sophie finds one of the Castle's rotating portals leads to modern-day Wales, where she discovers that Howl is a 20th-century Welshman who grew up among the reader's own society ... in one of the most painfully embarrasing scenes to read. Ugh.

Wow, Ghibli invented practically everything for their version of the story, including ...

Spoiler:

The Witch of the Waste being turned old and benevolent by the King's sorceress Suliman and then hanging out at Howl's Castle for the rest of the story; Sophie switching back and forth between her young and old selves in a series of clues about the uniquely movie-version nature of the spell; the entire age-of-steam backdrop for society; the entire war (which was suggested by one line in the book); the giant bird-thing alter-ego of Howl; the blob creatures of Sulimon and Witch of the Waste (also merely suggested by a minor event in the book); the dog Hine (based ever so loosely on a character in the book); the secret identity of the Scarecrow (who is NOT Sophie's friend in the book, and turns out to be not the Prince, but Wizard Suliman - who is a man in the book and has nothing to do with Sophie's visit to the palace, where she actually meets with the King himself); the very nature of the moving castle (simply a floating illusion of a featureless, black castle in the book); Sophie's trip to Howl's past to discover his I-Heart-Calcifer meeting; and Sophie and Howl's entire relationship (though they end up together on the final page, they are antagonistic to each other throughout the story.) Oh, and in the book - a lot more people are witches ... including Sophie herself!

So much more is either different in the movie or entirely made up that I'd hesitate to say the film was based on the book AT ALL. They kept the title, a few things that happen, and the names of most of the characters. That's it.

They didn't even keep all of the characters' names: Heheh, Howl's apprentice is 15-year-old Michael in the book vs. the 8 or 9 year-old "Markl" in the movie. I give the movie uber props just for inventing the name "Markl" !!

But, overwhelmingly, I prefer the movie version of the story. Not since Disney adapted Pinocchio has an unwieldy piece of children's literature been so vastly and (imo) successfully molded into an animated film.