Of course homage is a form of marginalization as it sacrifices a bit of autonomy for the sake of reference. I can’t disagree with anything else you’ve said, excellent lines of inquiry drawn here. I suppose with the rich stew of disparate elements, the Japanese setting can feel a bit shoehorned in. And the authoritarian angle is the film’s biggest source of what controversy it does flirt with. I think the film will launch some great conversations about who gets to tell what stories, but for now, I think it’s very much the product of a clear human voice, which I think filmgoers should be prioritizing over the corporate sanitized shlock populated the box office. I love that the oracle’s ‘powers’ stem from the ability to understand tv. And the authoritarian government springing from an unlikely place. These are somewhat alarming, coming from such a docile source as Anderson (or Coppola or Schwartzman).

Or it’s just THE INTERNET trying to start trouble again ???

I don’t know if homage can be considered marginalization at all, and the movie is full of great homages all the way through. To me what’s troubling is that it’s kind of a noire film with displaced characters who are outsiders because they can’t be understood by society, the entire double-language structure makes this point, and then shows how love can bridge this gap between species and displace hatred. The exclusion of the Japanese dog breeds which would be present in a film set in Japan demonstrates that the analogy being made is primary to the creators of the film. However, the use of Japan as the actual place and people for the hateful society is distasteful in that the film goes on to show that the japanese are cartoonishly evil and in the end a concentration camp is established where the american-voiced heroes will be gassed. (Given the plot that a disease was propagated and spread by the government, why have they suddenly changed from a bio-weapon approach to a method most famously used in the holocaust if not to allude to World War II?) This is a colorful marvellously animated movie with a plot simple enough to make a great board-game, it will appeal to children (the human protagonist is a 12 year old boy) what are they going to make of what they’re shown here about the Japanese people? This movie is a fantastic accomplishment, I hope it wins the oscar for best animated feature, but it’s unclear WHY it was necessary that something designed with complete freedom had to take this specific form.

It doesn’t stamp Japanese people as others it fetishizes mid 20th century Japanese cinema which is a significantly less detrimental marginalization.

Asian-Americans clearly are better judges of racism as there is no race bias against being Japanese if you live in Japan. Whatever racial background is the majority in a culture is going to have reduced sensitivity to it because it doesn’t effect them, perhaps to the extent they believe it doesn’t effect others or even exist. The problem with the film’s perspective is that it’s as if it’s catering to the view of a typical american audience in 1965, which may be sort of worldview Anderson is sentimentally attached to. Needless to say, the difference between an all-american and a japanese person is not the same difference as between a human being and a dog, and the general structure of the movie does put that stamp of “otherness” and possibly inhumanity on the japanese.