 |
|
 cbertsch | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Skylar finally finished the book Goblet of Fire this morning. And that meant that she could watch the whole film -- she'd gotten a head start Thursday -- which she did, repeatedly, throughout the day. She loves it. And I do too, actually. I'd heard mixed reviews, but would rank it just a notch below my favorite of the four Harry Potter films, The Prisoner of Azkaban, which benefits from a tidier plot. The no-longer-children who play Harry, Ron and Hermione are becoming more accomplished actors as the series goes on, which compensates for the fact that more content has to be left out of the films as the books get longer. The moment that I was sure Skylar would love, when Hermione appears at the Yule Ball, was well done and touching. And there was enough Cho is the picture to please the Bean, who has a bit of a fixation on Asianness. The tasks were all rendered well, deviating from the book where cinematically prudent. And the graveyard scene, while falling short of J.K. Rowling's prose, was still good viewing. Here's the problem, though. As I was going through our copy of The Order of the Phoenix just now, translating my tape flags into notes written down on the inside cover, it hit me that one of the film's omissions is pretty troubling. The fact that the entire house elf sub-plot is omitted -- presumably for the sake of "economy" -- makes it impossible for a viewer who hasn't read the book to perceive the degree to which it invites considerations of race and class. The thing that impresses me most about the series is the way that Rowling has managed to make the world less black-and-white with each book, revealing the extent to which the wizarding world has made itself vulnerable to attack through longstanding practices of discrimination. The Goblet of Fire is crucial to that trajectory, laying the groundwork for the nearly unremitting darkness of The Order of the Phoenix. Without the house elf subplot in the former, though, the latter promises to be missing a key ingredient. Understanding the perfidy of Dolores Umbridge requires grasping the relationship between the Ministry of Magic's prejudiced leadership and the customs that make its decisions seem reasonable. Tags: daughter, film
Current Location: 85704
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dude ... you gotta put that "up to speed" guilt underground. The only thing I have on you with regards to popular culture is that I've lived through an extra coupla decades, and I've had that extra time to collect more anecdotes. I suppose it also doesn't hurt that I'm a dilettante who can devote his life to pop culture :-). But really ... if you can take part in a discussion of which Antonioni movie is best, while still posting about how much you love Bloc Party, you've got me beat!
One area where I really am lacking, though, is stuff intended for younger kids. I was too selfish as a father ... I rarely participated with Neal and Sara in things that were "for kids," because I didn't want to be bored, so instead of taking them to a G-rated movie, we'd go see Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and instead of exposing them to classical music when they were tykes, we forced them to listen to the Ramones. So I'm pretty sure Harry Potter books are good ... too many people I respect love them, including, ironically, one of my own kids! I read so little fiction, though, I'd be deluding myself if I thought I'd get around to reading those books. I haven't even read Tolkien, yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I love Harry Potter - I've read all of the books and seen all of the movies. The thing nobody seems to have mentioned, and which struck me immediately, is the sections of The Order of the Phoenix that describe Voldemort's family history - the plot, if not the prose, is pure Faulkner. I can't wait for a generation of English majors who exclaim, "Wow, it's just like J.K. Rowling," after their first reading of Absalom, Absalom! One more way J.K. Rowling shows us that you can, in fact, do good in the world while becoming unreasonably wealthy.
-- Mark S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know, I would have agreed with you on the actors for the first few movies, but I think all three principals have improved. The one who plays Harry is definitely the weekest and Emma Watson the strongest. She was actually close to the right age when she played in the first four films, being the youngest of the three.
As for your fiction T.A., I don't want to be mean or anything, but I think it's sort of stupid when people judge books written for one purpose by standards borrowed from books written for another, different purpose. Rowling isn't trying to write intricate postmodern fiction or crisp, Hemingway-esque prose. She's trying to write books that captivate children and grown-ups alike and make some important points about what matters in the world along the way.
But if it helps, the current director of the Creative Writing program, who is surely a more distinguished author than your fiction T.A., thinks the Harry Potter series is great for what it is. And, frankly, I'll take her word for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PREVIOUS
