Harry Potter and the Blogging Poptagonist

With the release of the final Harry Potter film, I decided to watch all of the films in order so I could see the finale on the big screen. I have never read any of the books, and the only film I have seen before is the Prisoner of Azkaban, which I saw years ago at a drive in (so I was definitely NOT wasted in someone's car when I saw it, why would you even think that?!) So I am critiquing these as films, not as stories, or as novels. As I understand it, the novels are better, which I can definitely see. Novels are long, and by their nature are filled with extraneous stories and characters which can serve solely as metaphor, and that's okay. With film, you cannot throw in every whimsical location and character, you have to make it tight and succinct. The films (trying to please readers, I'm sure) seem to pick somewhat random parts of the book to show and omit (other than the important parts) instead of taking a step away from the source material and saying "Okay, how do we transcribe this into a film". So, to die-hard Harry Potter fans, I am writing this as a layman. The everyday man. The common consumer. The pop culture everyman. The... Poptagonist. Of course I have opinions to blog about, and will give them my regular 1-10 rating (1 being Elizabethtown and 10 being The Fall). I might get a little spoiler-y, but I'll warn ahead of time. Also, I'm not going to summarize the stories, that's what wikipedia is for (and there is way more in the stories than I want to blog about), so I'll just be hitting on the high points and low points. I call it Bitching and Praising.

Look at them, then and now! My how they've grown! As children, they're so unassuming and charming, and D-Rad looks like he's about to pee his pants. And now, all coked up and egomaniacal. I kid, I kid. I just assume kids who grow up famous are all Drew Barrymore.

A couple of notes before I begin:

-I will omit speaking about the many MANY Quidditch matches because they are all completely superfluous and uninteresting. I guess it's supposed to be a metaphor for the story, and being special, or chosen. Whatever, it's repetative, and could/should have been cut from all but maybe two of the films. It's an example of one of the things that the films would have been stronger without, I can't speak for the novels.

-Draco Malfoy is trite, and tiresome. For no reason, Harry and Draco's stupid, obvious kid fights is given some level of importance in every film, and it never gets interesting. Draco is slightly interesting towards the end of the series, but isn't ever developed as a character (which is surprising considering how much time he is given in the stories) is mostly just flat and static. Draco and Harry's fights are even more repetitive and boring than the Quidditch matches.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone 3

Cute whatever. I would have probably been into it as a kid (and would have begged for a Hagrid plush toy!) The story is little more than introducing the world which is elaborate, indeed, but there's only so many Hobble-Wobblepots and Petunia-Patsy's-Potion's type names I can stand. The whole thing is just so cutsey. They lay the groundwork for the whole story (which is simplistic) and other than that is mostly distractions. Also, Emma Watson is like nails on a chalkboard as Hermione.

SPOILER

The Villain has a Siamese-Twin-Like Voldemort thing growing out of his head, which is kind of creepy and perhaps the most interesting part of the film.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets 3.5

Cute whatever. Almost the same as the previous film, slightly better because of the character of Moaning Myrtle and there's a monster. I think the first two movies are mostly skip-able, just read the plots on Wikipedia and jump in at Year 3.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban 5

When I first saw this movie, I hated it. Seeing it in context... I kinda like it, but I think it just feels good to leave behind the Chris Columbus era of Potter behind. Michael Gambon replaces the old Dumbledore, and brings a new feel of eccentricity to the character making him more interesting dynamic. Hermione is less annoying without Columbus directing her. Also, this film is much darker in tone, which makes the whole wizarding world less nauseating. It just feels like a series of Red-Herrings (werewolves, time travel, hippogriffs) with more tiny bits of the overall plot sprinkled onto the audience. Oh, plus Dobby the house elf is another one of those things that completely unnecessary, but is given as much importance as any other sub-plot. The plot wears thin after a while, and basically runs like this:

SPOILER!

"Watch out Harry, this guy broke out of prison and is totally gonna kill you.... Yup, he's definitely gonna kill you. What're you gonna do about this guy trying to kill you, huh? Hey, your professor's a werewolf. But he's a nice werewolf. And that guy who was going to kill you, he's nice too. But we gotta have a bad guy... Who is it? The pet rat."

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire 6

Enter Edward Cullen. Yes, I was unaware that Robert Pattison is in this film... And I remain indifferent to his appearance, he's okay in it. This film centers around the Tri-Wizard Tournamant, in which three different wizarding schools (and apparently England is the only place where they have co-ed wizarding schools, how progressive) all come together to have minors compete in several dangerous challenges. Having the tournament actually serves very well as a plot through which the subplots are explored. Whereas the other films all feel haphazardly spliced together with random scenes, characters and metaphors, this film has more of a central thread running through it. The charm of the series on a whole is that, it does run through 8 films, while still maintaining momentum with the same basic story, but too many of the films (when taken individually) don't have a strong central story, and rely on snippets of the whole, and eccentric glimpses of the wizarding world to usher you to the end. This film is also the first time we see any kind of romance, or more specifically, teenage angst when they all have to find dates to a formal dance.  I loathe angst, and find romance for its own sake unnecessary, but after three films of jolly giants, and whomping willows, a little frivolous drama is actually both grounding and a breath of fresh air!

SPOILERS!

This is also the first time we see a student killed, and the first appearance of Ralph Finnes as Voldemort, which is symbolic in that we understand the time for childhood innocence is over, and that Harry has some nose-less demons to face. Finnes as Voldemort is one of the beacons of light in the films. He is very sly and cunning, as any villain should be, but he also subtly grows as a character throughout the films. In this film, he is mostly in one scene, he is wild and evil in the wake of his rebirth. Also, before I saw any of the films, I heard several people arguing that the series is a metaphor for Jesus... However, I find it interesting that Voldemort experiences a resurrection before Harry....

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix 7

This one is pretty exciting. I like the underground defense against Voldemort that is more present. There's the older generation of the Order of the Phoenix, and we also see Harry and his friends (adding three other students to Harry's already established band of himself and his two buddies) establishing themselves as a budding generation of the Order of the Phoenix. This film also features more of the politics of the Wizarding world, and as teenage angst was a surprisingly refreshing theme in Goblet, well, go figure, politics are actually kind of interesting in this film! The Wizarding world is run by the Ministry of Magic, which is depicted as being very corrupt, paranoid and power hungry. Dolores Umbridge, a corrupt politician who becomes a teacher at Hogwarts to try and keep Harry and Dumbledore in line, because the Ministry thinks Dumbledore and Harry are lying about Voldemorts return and are using that as a smokescreen to try and overthrow them. So it's interesting that they focus so much on the fact that Voldemort is trying to overthrow the Ministry, which should be good, but even without Voldemort's direct influence, the Ministry is already corrupt with an askew moral compass. Umbridge is one of the strongest elements of all the characters. She isn't fleshed out much, but she makes a great character designed to undermine Dumbledore, and brings a level of delightful evil that we haven't seen before.

They do lose points for never explaining who sends the ghostly Dementors to attack Harry (which is the inciting incident for the rest of the film!) I had to read the wikipedia entry to figure this one out.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince 6.5

Things start to get seriously dark in this film. The Wizarding world can no longer deny that Voldemort has returned and everybody is walking on eggshells. They introduce Jim Broadbent as an ex-Hogwarts professor named Horace Slughorn who knows a terrible secret about Voldemort. Broadbent is really great in this role, I wish he was introduced earlier. The character and his portrayal of him fit in perfectly with the eccentric world of Harry Potter. I was also really disappointed that the Order of the Phoenix seems nonexistant in this film! They make such a big deal about them in the previous story, and they have no impact on this film, and, even Harry's new buddies, Luna and Neville (who seem like they will become the new generation of the Order too) are hardly in it. They make a big deal in Order of the Phoenix about how Neville's parents were tortured by a Death Eater (the name of Voldemort's soldiers), thus drawing a very distinct connection between Harry and Neville. I figured he'd be part of the crew in this one, but he's hardly in it! Where's Neville!?!? I must admit, I just really like Neville Longbottom, I don't know if it's his wonderfully unfortunate name, or his innocent, dopey and super British face, or maybe it's just the fact that he's kinda the nerdiest character (if wizards could be seen as nerdy, but methinks not).  This film is also when the characters begin coupling, which is so subtle it might as well not even be there, and it feels so forced. After you've been friends with someone for 5 or 6 years, I feel it's rare to THEN decide that you are in love and want to be a couple. I just can't really care about Harry's relationship with Jinny, or Ron and Hermione's relationship because it feels like they are still only friends. Also, while this film is good and memorable, it seems like very little actually happens in it. What does happen is important, but it's slow in the reveal. Which is okay if done well, but it kinda falls back to the crutches of the earlier books that feel like a lot of filler, with just little bits of plot.

SPOILERS!

Through Slughorn Harry and Dumbledore learn that Voldemort is using what's called a Horcrux to store pieces of his soul in order to stay alive. These Horcruxes can be anything, a ring, a locket, a table, a protagonist (duh), and Dumbledore and Harry set out to find them. This search for a locket horcrux is what leads to one of the most memorable scenes in which Dumbledore summons up a crazy firestorm to fight off cadavers that are attacking them, and then drinks a whole bunch of poison in order to get the Horcrux! Until now we haven't seen Dumbledore display much power, but we hear so much about it. It's nice seeing him be a total badass. Of course, it's right before he is killed by Severus Snape (oh, also, he's the half-blood Prince, whose old school book Harry uses and finds several new and dark spells and stuff which hardly have anything to do with the plot itself), which really pushes Harry into the front of the campaign against Voldemort. Unfortunately this film features Draco Malfoy, who, as I said earlier, is mostly a flat character. They garnish a little bit of sympathy for him, as he says he's basically forced into being evil, which would be interesting if it were elaborated upon... But it's not (at least not in the film).

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1- 6

The filmmakers were in a bit of a sticky situation with the final book. They could have either made one super epic long film, or stretched it a little thin to make two separate movies. Of course two box office weekends is better than one so that's what they did. And as a result, the first part feels a little long for what little happens. To me, having Ron and Harry get into a fight, have Ron leave, only to return about 20 minutes later, just feels like filler.  They hesitate to cut out any little charming tid-bit, or sub-plot because they want to please the die-hard fans, but as a result, the stories come across as disjointed when translated into film. But the feel of this film is drastically different, as Harry decides to pursue the horcruxes instead of returning to Hogwarts. The film opens with a very intense and grave message that the Ministry of Magic has fallen to Voldemort. And it really is intense, and you feel that the world is suddenly different from everything we have seen before. Harry and his friends are on the run from the forces of Voldemort, and where the previous films all have a certain degree of comfort in elements like Dumbledore, Hogwarts and the Order of the Phoenix, but suddenly, we find Harry, Ron and Hermione on their own, without anything to protect them but themselves. You really are suddenly confronted with a bleak image that highlights how much these characters, and the world they know have changed. I particularly find Hermione to be a great character at this point. Harry is a strong character, but not particularly fresh in the way of hero characters. Ron I find to be a third wheel in the group, he mostly seems to be there just to make arbitrary tension. But I love that Hermione is such a strong young woman, she's smarter than both Ron and Harry, and seems to be more skilled than both of them as well (skill and sheer power seem to both contribute to a wizard's power). She always sticks by Harry's side, and doesn't let Ron's stupid drama interfere with things she knows are more important. But honestly, after seeing this film, I was so underwhelmed, I almost wanted to wait until the final film was out on DVD to see it.... It just felt like they were doing a lot of dawdling, and weren't going to tie everything up. But, oh boy, am I glad I was proven wrong, the final film on the big screen was pretty amazing.

SPOILERS (But not important ones)

Take Dobby the house elf, he appears as a tortured soul whom Harry selflessly (and cleverly) saves in Year 3, then is completely out of the story until he suddenly appears out of nowhere to save them at the end of this film, only to promptly get killed. They have a sad funeral (at the beginning of Part 2), which just feels completely irrelevant considering we never saw any kind of memorial for Dumbledore, who we actually saw as a very complex character and are genuinely sad when he dies. Dobby is a perfect example of something that could have been cut completely from the films, and they wouldn't lose anything. In the Wizard world, there's millions of contrived ways to save Harry at the end of Deathly Hallows Part 1. I understand that when Harry saves Dobby it shows his genuine compassion extending to people considered underlings, who even (against their will) tried to hurt Harry. But throughout the films, there are so many examples of Harry's eagerness to help others, we don't need Dobby. However, I could see many readers of the books be upset had he not been included.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2- 8

Honestly, I did not expect the story to end this well. I almost don't want to say too much about the plot. But I will say that I literally cheered in the theater when the Quidditch field gets burned down! I have to give credit to both the filmmakers and J.K. Rowling, the writer of the novels. There is so much introduced throughout the 6 previous stories, that I really did expect them to just leave a lot unfinished, but they do a really good job of tying everything together in the end. The end isn't really unexpected, there's self-sacrifice, there's death, there's a realization on some people's parts that they've played on the wrong side, and the realization that some characters were not on the side that they seem to have been on, but it all plays out very well. The final battle of the series is really impressive and fun, they know they have to go for an explosive ending. The only other part of the film that I actually shouted at was when they make you think Neville Longbottom is dead (only for a second), I literally cried out:

 

"NEVILLE" (pictured here, all bloody and beaten up! poor Neville!)

He's actually fine (Eddie Cullen, or in the HP world, Edwin Cullenbother is the only student who dies, in Goblet of Fire), and ends up being vital to the completion of the story (I always liked Neville and wanted to see more of him throughout the series). The most impressive part of the film is Ralph Finnes portrayal of Voldemort. In the other films, he is mostly hidden, and only seen in small snippets, and seems so other-worldly it's hard to see him as human at all. But in this film, we really see what he is about and it takes the story to another level. Voldemort and his regime are much like Nazi's, purists, who don't want to fight their own kind, but will if they have to. Finnes portrays him as both subtle and over the top, a man who is evil because of his beliefs, and the power he has to make those beliefs reality. The other stand-out aspect of the story that I really appreciated was the realization that Dumbledore wasn't the ever-loving, all-caring grandfather figure Harry thinks he is. He's manipulative, and focused on his own goals (which may or may not match up with the goals of other protagonists), and believes the ends justify the means. I like that in the end he is more morally complicated than Harry himself. Of course Severus Snape is interesting, and Alan Rickman was born to play the role, but his plot line almost left me with more questions than answers like:

SPOILERS

The whole point of the 6th year is that he's a half-blood meaning he is only half wizard. Though non-wizards (called muggles) seem to have just as much of an aptitude for magic as wizards, Harry's mother, and Hermione, are both great witches, with no with blood. So, I'm left wondering.... What difference does it make anyway? But, Voldemort is rigidly against teaching muggle-bloods magic, and yet, he accepts Severus into the Death Eaters long before he kills Dumbledore. And I understand Snape had to ally with Voldemort in order to protect Hogwarts (also, not explained in the films, had to read wikipedia to get this) and to deliver the message that Harry is the final horcrux at JUST THE RIGHT MOMENT, even though Harry, the audience, and anybody with any amount of intuition already knows. I just don't see why Snape had to play bad. If he had stayed good, he could have told Harry the message, and all would be the same. It just seems like Snape meant to be tragic hero, but I don't quite understand why things had to transpire the way they did.

Everything you've heard about this movie is true, this final movie really is a great payoff for all of the other films.

Considering the series on a whole, I must say it is fun to contemplate, and because of the sheer volume of the story one can keep coming up with subtext and meaning. Of course there's obvious themes, love is powerful, self-sacrifice, the importance of human connection and friendship. People claim that it is a metaphor for Jesus, which just seems like a desperate attempt to take common themes that have naturally embedded themselves into any storyteller in the Western hemisphere, and attribute them to the bible. Sure, it's kind of there, but only if that's what you're looking for. But what found I to be one of the most interesting themes is that violence and hate only serve to breed more violence and hate. And that ultimate good only shines in the face of ultimate evil. Harry's destiny is only filled with greatness and power because of Voldemort's lust for power. Voldemort's own greed and violence leads to his own undoing. I must say, I have never really thought much about having kids, but if I did, I would definitely read them the books. It's something I don't think I would ever do alone, just because there is always an endless list of books I want to read, it's hard to commit to seven! So, anybody need a night-time reader for their kids?! I can do voices!

Also, I decided that if there was a dog version of Harry Potter, there would be a half-Pomeranian half-pug teacher (pugeranian) named Professor Fluffenchubs. Just imagine that for a second, with the wizard hat and everything. Haha, that Professor is crazy.... Okay, just had a Brian Fellows moment.

Celebrate the coming of fall with "The Fall"

"The Fall" is a film by director Tarsem Singh, a labor of love, that was mostly financed by Tarsem himself in order to maintain creative control. The film stars Lee Pace as Roy, a Hollywood stuntman who is temporarily paralyzed after an accident on set, and Catinca Untaru as Alexandria, a young immigrant girl who broke her arm working in an orange grove. The story focuses on the relationship between Alexandria and Roy, who befriend each other in the hospital as Roy spins an epic fantasy which the audience sees through Alexandria's imagination.

There are several nuances to the production that make it unique in the contemporary pop culture climate of 3-D Michael Bay and family-friendly CGI.  While filming the hospital scenes, Tarsem and Pace convinced the cast and crew (including young Untaru) that he was actually a parapalegic. As Roy tells the story, Alexandria steps in with questions and comments, which are Untaru's genuine reactions to the lines Pace is delivering. First, Tarsem filmed the scenes at the hospital, letting Untaru interject her own thoughts about the fantasy. Instead of rigidly sticking to his script, Tarsem accepts Untaru's whimsical interjections, and incorporates them into the script. Allowing a child who has never acted before dictate his film shows great adaptivity and confidence in his own work, and it certainly pays off as we feel the innocence and imagination she brings to the film.

Another nuance to the production is the locations, none of which are computer animated! The fantasy sequences are full of locations so beautiful, it is hard to believe they all really exist, but they do. The film was shot in 20 different countries, using the most ornate and striking natural and manmade structures you could possibly imagine.

The Fall is an important film because you will never see a film like this ever again. The cost of production, moving from one country to the next over the course of four years, was more than any studio would be willing to front. And the main actors (including Untaru who seems to not have had a strong understanding of a separation between the real world and the world of the film) were active in developing the story, all of which helps set The Fall apart from most big budget films.

 I recently decided to watch The Fall with the sound off, and playing my own music to it (a'la Dark Side of the Rainbow). The plot is relatively simple, and is easy to be conveyed without dialogue, allowing the viewer to mediate on the beautiful imagery, almost recreating a experience of watching early silent expressionist films like "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" or "Metropolis". Watching the film with a different soundtrack, making it like a silent film, gives a heightened sense to an already intense visual experience.

The beautiful scenery and cartoon-like behavior in the fantasy are attributed to Alexandria's imagination. We know this by certain hints Tarsem places in the film. Like "The Wizard of Oz" all of the characters Alexandria visualizes in the fantasy, are also characters in the real world.  One of the heroes of the fantasy is an "Indian" (it takes place in the 1920's, so it's a broader term), whom Roy says lives in a wigwam, making it evident that he means a Native American. Alexandria, however, knows an Asian Indian man she works with in the fields, and he fills the role of the Indian in the fantasy. His "wigwam" is a beautiful and ornate Asian palace. Little nuances like this make the fantasy fleshed because we know where it is all coming from.

One of the criticisms I have heard of the film is that the fantasy sequences look like nothing more than talking fashion models. Which is true, the costumes, the lighting and the scenery look like a fashion spread designed by Bjork. And some of the acting is questionable, but Tarsem is aware of this doll-like acting, and uses it along with more naturalistic acting when in the real world. The fantasy is Alexandria's vision, and she is so young she doesn't yet understand the complex dramatics of an adult, she understands the simplicity of cartoons. This isn't the Wizard of Oz or Alice in Wonderland where a character ends up in this place. It is known that the fantasy is just a fantasy, and what we are seeing is just a story. 

Even with the simplicity of the myth Roy tells, the film thoroughly holds up in the storyline about Roy and Alexandria in the hospital. Their relationship is very human, it is endearing, yet tarnished and most importantly it is unique. A man with a little girl in his bed and the curtains drawn could have been a very different, much creepier film. But their relationship feels so genuine in its simplicity and innocence. Until Roy begins to use Alexandria, pressuring her to steal morphine. It is unclear wether or not Roy always had this motive in befriending her but it doesn't matter. We see him lying to her and want to suppress the fact that he is using her because what she sees is so beautiful. But we cannot deny that, while he is a great storyteller and seems endearing, Roy is using a child to feed his drug addiction.

One problem that I can see with the film is that there are basically only two characters, Roy and Alexandria. Most of the other characters serve a fundamental purpose in the real world (they are nurses, delivery men, insurance reps for the injuries), but are only the focal point of a few scenes. In the fantasy all of the characters are extentions of Roy and Alexandria, the two creators of the world. But those two characters are very rich and genuine. Roy, the man Alexandria looks up to, is deeply flawed, and takes advantage of her. But because of the perspective of the film we feel like we are seeing things for the first time through Alexandria's youthful eyes. She explores optical illusions and questions reality in subtle ways that even she might not understand.

It seems like these days every film that has potential to be great, ends up falling back on common, formulaic crutches. And what is more formulaic than the "love interest"? Protagonist and the "love interest" have a Tony and Maria moment, there's some basic conflict that they must overcome, and you have an easy subplot. The Fall has a love interest, but in this fantasy, after the love interest has proclaimed her love for the protagonist, then betrayed him, then professed her love again, the protagonist tosses her aside, in favor of his fatherly love for Alexandria. Of course this is all coming from the heartbroken Roy whose fiancee has left him for the leading man. Still, in The Fall, romance is little more than a distraction from the real goal. Which is appropriate, since that's how they are so often used in film.

When all is said and done, it is an upbeat film. But it is not afraid to journey to dark places. Roy loses his girlfriend making him rely on addiction and Alexandria is a poor immigrant girl who cannot go to school and must spend her days working in an orange grove. Though these aspects of their characters are not explored in great depth, they are very present in the real world. And that darkness is mirrored in the fantasy. Feeling shame and regret about using Alexandria, Roy ends the fantasy by handing victory to the villain because he is an unworthy hero. As he surrenders to a hypothetical beating, he simultaneously drinks from a flask and bawls at Alexandria's bedside after his thieving has come to light. The film is so innocent that it had to have a happy ending, but the darkness of reality is so present that they must first drag your emotions through the mud.

All of this is presented in the budding era of silent film. I am a sucker for self-referencial art, but only if it is done well and it has a statment to make. The film begins with a black and white sequence of Roy's on set accident. The scene silently rolls on in slow motion to no noise other than Beethoven. "The Fall" concludes with Roy, Alexandria and other patients at the hospital watching the film, a short Lone Ranger type western, followed by a montage of different silent film clips. During the montage, a voice over from Alexandria speaks about all of these new films she is seeing. The montage is funny slapstick and stunts, but it is a stark contrast to the lush and colorful world she had imagined in the fantasy. I can't help but feel like it is a requiem for endless childhood imagination, which in a modern day is tapered with endless media saturation.