Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows pt. 1 – A Review and Reflection
November 22, 2010
I promise to include only one spoiler in this review, and I’ll include it right in the beginning – *Spoiler Alert*- the book is still better than the movie. Frankly, that’s saying something, because I loved this movie. While I’m being frank, allow me also to say that I was nonplussed with many elements of the J.K. Rowling’s seventh and final installment of the Potter saga the first time I read it – which should add a little extra chutzpah to my claim that the book is still better. Those constitute a whole lot of unqualified claims, so allow me to elaborate for a moment.
First, when I received the book, I received it at my home at the earliest possible moment that Amazon could get it there. For days leading up to the release, I did not go out and buy it. I did not watch the television. I did not listen to the radio. I surfed the web as if I genuinely appreciated the present danger of the perverts that lurk on the internet. Perverts that had already been going to all varieties of places, public and private, doing their dead best to leak key plot points that they had stolen. I was cloistered in my home pacing the floors, waiting for the UPS truck. When the book finally arrived, I barely restrained myself from kissing the delivery man. He gave me a wary look that revealed he had already narrowly dodged one too many exuberant outbursts for the day. I brought the box to the kitchen table, and tore into the package greedily. I tossed the bubble wrap to my sons as a kind of consolation toy, a weak apology for the fact that daddy would not be interacting with anyone for twenty-four hours.
I started reading at 5:00 pm on the Saturday after release, and seven hours later my eyes ached and I had to go to bed. I woke up Sunday morning and groaned at the day ahead of me: church and a pot-luck luncheon where I would have to interact with friends that had bought the book at release thirty-six hours earlier. I feel guilty now, but had no shame then – I read through the sermon, I read while standing in the foyer “greeting” parishioners. I made my wife drive, and I read in the car. After approximately thirteen hours of reading, I finished the book. I will say that next to frantic Greek expositions and theological responses to journal articles, I have never read as voraciously, as determinedly. It held my attention, and I ached to know what would happen. No movie has ever had such an impact on me. However, one thought, more than any other, ran through my head the entire time I was reading: “We’re camping in the forest again? Seriously?”
This is a great place to transition to the movie, because this is the kind of pacing issue that the movie handles much better than the book. The movie opens on an ominous note, the Minister of Magic is assuring the wizarding world that everything is under control. What ensues, the movie captures better than the book did (at least, what I remember of the book in my paranoia driven, frantic reading of the text); there is an obvious homage being paid to the horrors that befell those on the wrong end of ethnic cleansing in places like Russia and Germany in the twentieth century. The movie uses props, leaflets and propaganda, which are eerily similar to those of Russian provenance, proclaiming the dangers of life with “Muggles” and “Mudbloods.”
In fact, next to the pacing of the lonely foray into camping (and make no mistake, there is still a lull in the middle of the movie for this element) I was most impressed with the movie for bringing new elements into focus. J.K. Rowling has not received enough acclaim for her clear messages of human rights and social justice. I have been frustrated with the movies up until TDH part 1, because they seemed to ignore completely the fact that Harry is battling against an ideology of racial supremacy as much as he is battling against “dark” magic. However, there is gold to be mined in the visual extravaganza that modern movies can produce – and there is no better candidate than the fantasy genre for such displays. The film is beautiful, like the others, but instead of an action packed, adventure ride, you get a film full of emotional tension. The film produces a genuine sense of dread; in fact, I felt that some of the flashy, action sequences interrupted the story being told.
The movie stumbles a little with its focus on the three friends. Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson perform amiably (actually, one of the movies’ most touching scenes has Radcliffe acting opposite a CGI puppet), but the absence of the supporting cast is felt. Still, Emma Watson performs the hell out of her role as Hermione. There is a particularly gut wrenching scene where Bellatrix is torturing Hermione in the Malfoy mansion that left me squirming in my seat. Once the know-it-all, Watson’s Hermione is light years more mature than Harry and Ron, which makes the romance between Ron and Hermione endearing instead of tiresome. The performances capture a genuine, and deep love between all three friends.
Finally, Dobby the elf steals the movie. I was sitting in the theater watching Dobby stare the Malfoys down and proclaim that he was a free elf, rescuing his friends, thinking “it’s about time we see this theme in the movies.” For those that have seen the movie or read the book, you know what happens next. It was absolutely “the moment” in the film, when he proclaimed that he was with his friends and was finally a happy, free elf. I cried. I “misted up,” reading the book – but the scene is done so well that I absolutely cried in the theater. Though, I did not cry for Dobby as much as I cried for what his sacrifice represented, and I was relieved to finally see the real value of Rowling’s literature played out on the big screen.
(A Polemical) Review of the Prince Caspian Movie
January 11, 2009
Here’s a secret: I never read the Narnia books as a kid. Or at least if I did I don’t remember it. The first Lewis book I read was Mere Christianity which started me down the slippery slope of critical thinking. What I did do was read ‘em through when I was about 19 or 20, and I admit to falling in love. Since then I take them up once a year and read through the series. I cannot wait to read them to my daughter Amelie and my child on the way (we don’t know if it’s a he or she). To me they are magical books. I cannot describe the kind of mystical sense of emotion which wells up in me when I read the “Creation Story” of Narnia (which we all know is meant to be taken literally). Anyway, just like everyone else I eagerly anticipated the release of the movies. I know that Lewis did not want movies to be made of them (anyone recall the BBC movies?), but I figured if they’re being made I might as well hope.
I know some who did not like the first one. I actually thought that it was remarkably similar to the book, for a movie. I am well aware that a movie cannot capture all of a book, but it can be loyal. At least one of the reasons that Lord of the Rings did so well was because of their veirce love of the books and loyalty to Tolkien.
Those who know, know that Prince Caspian is one of the “lesser” of the books, but I still like it.
But the movie? Watching this movie was like watching watching someone talk about micro-brewed beer who has drunk 
Miller Lite their whole life. This is my tearing-apart of this stupid movie, and thank God it is the last one that Andrew Adamson (the director) is doing. In fact thank God that Walden Media has decided to part ways with Disney, who obviously are hell bent on being stupid and controlling.
One thing that this review is not, is a complaint that the movie isn’t “Jesus’y” enough. I don’t think that Narnia is heaven, and Aslan is Jesus; though obviously the parallels are there (I’ll admit to thinking about Jesus when I think about Aslan, but we’re all for “authorial intent” on this blog); Lewis has explicitly rejected such a strict metaphorical interpretation and so do I.
First, the one good thing: The river-god is awesome
There, that’s out of the way. Now to the polemic.
A) One of the most obvious foibles is the “romance” between Caspian and Susan. Obviously this is not in the book. Neither does it add any dimension to the movie. Their affection is short lived and unconsumated (lame kiss at the end excluded). According to AndrewA, he felt that Lewis portrayed women poorly in the books and so he wanted to make Susan independent and strong. Now, I married a strong and independent woman, and I do not believe in continuing age old sexist boxes; but I think that Lewis created Susan as Susan, not as an archetypal woman. The reality is that Lucy is the hero in every book that she is in. Lucy is the first to “see” Aslan in Prince Caspian, she is the first into Narnia, she is the firery fun young lady in Horse and His Boy (who fights in a battle!), she is adventurous in Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Given this, it is odd to me that AndrewA feels the need to transform Susan into something she is not when we already have Lucy.
The ironic part is that he simply perpetuates derogatory stereotypes in his attempt to break them! In a rather inexplicable moment, the first glance at Caspian puts Susan in a headspin. Throughout the movie she has a juvinile crush on him, which seems to be to bring her to the level of a teenage girl (which is what she is!) swooning for the Football captain. Toward the end of the film, where in defience of help from Caspian, she and Lucy ride off to get to Aslan, Susan jumps off of her horse to take on the soldiers following her. Sending Lucy off, she bravely stands her ground and begins to fire arrows at the soldiers. But in the end, she is knocked down AND SAVED BY CASPIAN! How is being “rescued” by the boy breaking anti-women stereotypes? You got me on that one.
B) Having Caspian be hostile to Narnians rather than overjoyed that all the stories were real. This only serves to distance Caspian from those who are to be his subjects. Though obviously Nikabrick sees no reason to have a “Son of Adam” on the throne, the overwhelming response of Narnians in the book is one of joy that finally someone is going to take a stand for them; they would be glad to call Caspian king.
C) Why is Peter such a jerk? In the books, Peter is not only humble and unconcerned with his own place, but he does not see himself as returning to a throne, but as aiding Caspian and Narnia. This is tied into -
D) The scene where all the Narnians are brutally slaughtered in the castle courtyard. Not only does it add a dimension so dark that I am not sure I would want my daughter seeing it until she is like 13, but for what? To establish that Peter is a self-interested and petty jerk? What inadvertantly happens is that we see the incredible courage and fidelity of the Narnians, but that could have been done elsewhere.
E) The addition of a dialogue between Jadis and Caspian almost works, but when she enchants Peter, it went too far. If Peter had had a chance in the books he would have been more than ready to slice her to pieces. This ends up being yet again the attempt of AndrewA to turn Peter into a completely different character than in the book.
F) The problems of Theodicy constantly added, to where almost nobody was even excited to see Aslan! Now, yes, in the book there are those who do not believe in Aslan, or if they do they are saddened that he has not acted as he did the in the stories of old, and even those who feel neglected by him; BUT, for the vast majority, those sorts of questions fade to nothingness when Aslan arrives. This cannot in my mind be underestimated because it seems to be to be a very important aspect to the books. The old rhyme went:
“Wrongs will be right, when Aslan shows his might,
At the sound of his roar, sorrows will be no more,
When he bares his teeth, winter meets its death, and
When he shakes his mane, we shall have spring again“
When he arrives, Narnians dance joyfully around his feet, fawning in unquestioning love and adoration. He comes on the scene with Bachus, Silenus, and wildly dancing women with overflowing wine. This was missing completely from the movie and I think it seals the darkness that the movie communicates. There is indeed a darkness and a sense of hopelessness as the book comes to a climax, but, unlike the movie there is unrestrained joy upon his coming.
Anyone who knows some of the Greek mythology behind Bachus and Silenus know that they are wild and, even, (gasp) debauterous. This is tempered but not undone in the book, and it seems the sort of thing which seals the relationship between Aslan and Narnia in the books. The Creator and Sustainer of Narnia (again, not trying to be metaphorical) has arrived, and he has brought wine! So rejoice! This includes the trek of Aslan’s party as they walk through and liberate so many of the Telmarines. The child being beaten is saved, the tired teacher is restored, the sick are healed! This is what is supposed to happen when Aslan comes, and this movie completely misses it.
All of this leads me to think that it is Adamsons own struggle with Lewis’s thoughts that got projected onto the screen. He wanted to correct (what seemed to him to be) Lewis’s sexism, and his hopeful naiveity; but he only was able to project his own darkness onto the story. Perhaps this could make for a good sermon?
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
