@Fergoose said:

I don't look to be led by the hand through a story but this was fairly rudderless and incoherent compared to Miyazaki's previous efforts. I knew little of any characters motivations and, as such, had no connection to them as the film drifted in its second half. If anyone has any insight into the above that might help me savour a second viewing I'm all ears.

I'll take a crack at a few of em...

@Fergoose said:

• why the Witch of the Waste appears to become senile, but then has a moment of clarity about the spy

This definitely stood out to me too. But if you've ever known a person with dementia/senility/Alzheimers you've probably noticed how sometimes out of the blue they'll have a moment of total clarity, then back to incoherence.

Miyazaki has gone on record saying one of the main themes he wanted to convey was respect & understanding for older people (hence the groundbreaking idea of having a "granny" as the main protagonist). If it's true that he gave this a lot of thought, then I'm sure he wanted to portray senility in realistic terms for the audience... not just a babbling idiot but a human being who has some moments of lucidity worth listening to.

@Fergoose said:

• why a spying dog is tolerate in the castle

Definitely a bizarre move, but we can't accuse Sophie of being inconsistent. Her character has a pattern of forgiving and showing charity to even her worst enemies like the Witch of the Waste. So this is a recurring theme of the movie that we should learn to forgive and trust our enemies because (at least in this case) it leads to peace & redemption.

@Fergoose said:

• why Sophie takes Calcifer out of the castle despite his warnings (only to then instruct him to rebuild it)

You got me there lmao. wtaf

@Fergoose said:

• pretty much everything about the boy Michael

I read on wikipedia that the original Michael in the book has a much deeper backstory, was considerably younger, and had his own romantic subplot with a deleted character. I guess at 2 hrs long, the film was already packed with things going on and there wasn't time to do more, so they purposely left Michael's character a mystery.

@Fergoose said:

• why Madam Suliman wanted to trap Howl (and use him for the war effort?) at the same time as wanting the "foolish war" to end.

This is a really interesting point which I'm sure the movie meant us to question. Why did Madam Suliman, the main villian of the story, suddenly admit failure so easily? If we back up a bit, I think it's even implied that Madam Suliman was the one who started the war in the first place. There's that short dialogue about how the bombs never seem to fall on the palace while demolishing the villages... "funny how magic works", to which she nudge-nudgingly agrees. This is capped by the ending revelation/implication that she was the witch who turned the neighboring prince into a scarecrow, sparking the entire war. To me that was one of the most interesting statements the movie was making about war, its political causes & selfish reasons.

When she's called out at the end--by her own dog showing her the neighboring prince returning to his homeland to call off the war--I think that's the moment she realized the party's over. At that point she had no leg left to stand on.

Here's the part that's up for interpretation. When she says it's time for the foolish war to end, was she being genuinely remorseful? Or was she being sarcastic, playing the politician, flipping sides to pacifist now that the tides had turned? I'm tempted to say the latter. She made that remark with tongue firmly in cheek... HOWEVER if we take into account the rest of the story, about how everyone, even the worst witches, demons and monsters, have a change of heart and find redemption... my guess is that Miyazaki really wanted us to feel like Madame Suliman had realized her own folly and was gracefully admitting defeat.