Mischief Managed

Roald Dahl once said that if you're going to write a villain, you may as well make them the most ruthless, poisonous and unchangeable of evils.  Your heroic characters, on the other hand, should be the very essence of goodness.  When I first read Harry Potter and the Philosopher's (Sorcerer's) Stone, it was reminiscent of a Roald Dahl story.  The British undertones, the sparkling wit, and the introduction to some one-dimensionally good and villainous characters.

Dahl's stories were short and simple; they involved good people, bad people and the rewards and punishments delivered respectively.  Because Dahl, at least in his children's books, wrote such short linear tales, character development was often amiss.  No one actually learned anything.  You were either good to begin with and rewarded for it.  Or evil to begin with and punished for it.  Chock it up to Dahl's unpleasant experiences growing up in a boarding school.

Throughout J.K. Rowling's tale of Harry Potter and pals, we are introduced to characters that begin as such but become something altogether very different and unique.  Over 7 novels and 8 films, what began as a seemingly black and white tale of good and evil blossomed into a magical allegory of ideas and concepts part of and intrinsic to, but not fully only, good and evil.  When you finish the series and reread the books, you notice things that were completely hidden before.  Hints and foreshadowing, shades of meaning, clever nuances that were very easy to miss the first time through.  These tidbits of ostensibly extraneous information or confusing subplot lines, the moments when you wondered, "What DOES this have to do with anything, Rowling!?" are always purposely and masterfully revealed at the right time.  Every allusion is intended, either as a catalyst, a wink, or, at the very least, humour.  Once you know Rowling has a penchant for Monty Python, certain things begin to fall into place.

It's easy to fall in love with the characters of the Potterverse.  Even the despicable ones whom you absolutely love to hate!  Because they are all so good at what they do.  Rowling is good at what she does.  She planned this world and this epic from the very beginning of it all.

The films, however, were not.  And that's not entirely production's fault.  While Rowling was conferred with, she did not have complete and final say.  Not to mention that we were already into Order of the Phoenix, the 5th movie, when the 7th and final book was released.  Nuances are tricky to come by when you don't exactly know the ending to the story.

Let me preface what I am about to speak of by saying that I fully understand the need for and the right of film adaptations to be different from the original books they are based on.  I completely get that a direct page to screen transfer would be impossibly boring and far too difficult; especially when the book in question is 759 pages.  I am one of those rare individuals who recognizes and respects a film adaptation as a separate entity from the book and can enjoy both and either in their own right.  Think of the book as supplemental material for the film's main idea.

Last night, I finally went to see the final installment of the Harry Potter film series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2.  I enjoyed it.  I was pleasantly surprised by quite a few moments.  Disappointed with others.  This did not ruin my good time, just left me wanting.  Not because I'm some ridiculous fangirl who expects my imaginings to be made reality and definitely not because I have any quarrel with a director's need to rush a solid story to fit inside 2 hours and 10 minutes.  My goodness, it must be done!  If only, so that I don't need to squirm during rising action because I dared to drink a glass of water before arriving.

I will attempt to discuss my faults and fancies, as follows, with storyline and character development for The Deathly Hallows.  Not, I repeat NOT, with whether or not a specifically enjoyable canon scene or character was incorrectly manipulated or left out entirely.  Although I may include a small list of grievances.  Just for kicks.  I mean, this is the end, right?

Emendo:  The Thing They Got Right!

Snape - Never mention to me the horrifyingly anticlimactic Half-Blood Prince reveal in the 6th film.  Deplorable.  Utterly without emotion and just. . .no.  However, Deathly Hallows Part 2 redeemed our bat-like professor in more ways than one.  I especially enjoyed the Snape-shaped hole in the glass.  Thank you for that one, Rowling!

Snape has always been one of my favorite Potter characters.  I always knew, right from the start, that this man had a chip on his shoulder for sure. . .but he wasn't evil.  I didn't know why yet.  But I knew it had to be a terribly good reason.  It was either Snape is good. . .good in parentheses maybe. . .or that this was merely a cautionary subplot in which Dumbledore is displayed as a human being who could make mistakes.  However, I dismissed the latter because Dumbledore was not made out to be some naive, optimistic, ever-trusting fellow.  He heavily mistrusted Tom Riddle, even as a child.  So I knew that Dumbledore trusted Snape for a very real and considerable reason.

In the movie, Harry receives Snape's memories through his tears rather than through those odd wispy steam trails. . .so what?  Was that canon?  No.  Was the scene effective?  Absolutely!  I completely loved the added line of "You have your mother's eyes."  My heart just broke into a thousand pieces.  Way to take a line that has been uttered since the beginning and give it new meaning.  Excellent.

All this time, Alan Rickman's portrayal of Snape has been, in a way, comedic.  He's an imposing and nasty man but his careful demeanor and slow, deliberate speech was easy to imitate and mock.  Snape's memories are some of his best acting in these movies and actually serve to make his other scenes more believable.  Here is a man whom we get to see as real.  For a change.  We discover that, not only is Rickman playing the part of Snape but, Snape is acting the part of lording it over Harry and his friends as recompense for the way Harry's father treated him.  He is playing the role of authoritarian.  Finally, he has power that he can use to his advantage!

Within Snape's memories, the charade is broken.  We see him feeling.  Suffering.  Legitimately angry and with no holds barred.  It is beautiful to watch.  Most people, when they cry on film, scrunch up their face. . .try to squeeze some tears out.  Real pain makes it so that you can hardly breathe.  Rickman exemplified this so well.  We get to see true vulnerability.  Much of the time, we do not get to see this because Snape is constantly wearing a mask.  A mask of shame, regret and, especially important, of camouflage.  Really, behind the dark and blustery demeanor, Snape is a broken and hapless boy in wizard's clothing.

Of all of the storylines, I thought that this one would get swallowed up.  I am so glad that it wasn't.  Snape is not one-dimensional.  Not even 2-dimensional as we go back and forth, trying to decide:  Death Eater or Order?  He is not evil.  He is not good.  He is a man with, as Sirius Black would say, both light and dark inside of him.  And we find that love, the very power that Dumbledore is always going on about, is the one thing that convinced Snape to change his allegiance, ultimately resulting in aiding the downfall of Voldemort.

Oppugno:  Thing They Missed That They Shouldn't Have!

Dumbledore - If I had watched the last two movies without having read the books, I would be thoroughly confused about all this wand and horcrux crap.  I wouldn't have known who Gregorovitch was.  Or Grindelwald.  I wouldn't have any idea what the deal is with Albus and Aberforth?  Who is Ariana and how did she die?

What's worse is that they approach these subjects but never quite reach an explanation that's worth anybody's time.  We miss out on quite a bit of Dumbledore's back story.  Which I find to be incredibly important to the main storyline.  And I was doubly peeved because, from what was shared in Part 1, I thought we were going to get the rest of the story.

We never really do find out why Dumbledore didn't just tell Harry everything.  Especially considering we find out that he KNEW he was going to die!  There should be no excuse for his not using every moment he had left with Harry to prepare him.  Not prepare him to die, of course, as that would come as quite a shock and may have ruined his well-laid plans but at least prepare him for the journey preceding that moment!

King's Cross would have been a perfect time to quickly bring some of these unanswered questions to light.  How easy it would have been for Harry to simply ask, "Why, Professor?  Why didn't you tell me all this from the beginning?" so that Dumbledore could reply, "Harry, I was a fool.  More than once.  I allowed the prospect of power and the greater good to destroy my family.  I never wanted to see you make the same mistakes.  And all along, I should have known you were the better man.  I should have trusted you."

Easy as that!  It would have taken barely a minute or two.  No, we did not need the entire background of Dumbledore and his family - how his sister, Ariana, was caught doing magic by 3 young muggle boys who attacked her; how his father went after and killed these muggles and was sent to Azkaban; how Ariana never recovered and was kept hidden because of her instability and danger to others; how his mother was killed by Ariana in one of those unstable and dangerous accidents; how Ariana was accidentally killed in a confusing altercation between Albus, Aberforth and Grindelwald; how Grindelwald, the very dark wizard he defeated later in life had, until then, been Albus's best friend!

While that's all very interesting to read and would have been just as interesting to watch in a movie called Dumbledore and the Deathly Hallows, I understand the need to condense.  We learned that Dumbledore lived in Godric's Hollow.  We learned that he had a somewhat sordid past.  And we learned that he cared for Harry enough to keep him in the dark about various epiphanies.

What we additionally needed was to understand what that aforementioned sordid past was about.  That, at some time in Dumbledore's history, he was impulsive and power-hungry.  This is why he never took the position as Minister of Magic.  He knew he could not be trusted with that kind of power.  This is why he did not trust Harry with all of the truth.  He already knew the dangers posed by the desire and sacrifice for power and what that can do to a young and impressionable mind.  This is why he did not want Harry to have the resurrection stone until his last moments.  He already knew what Harry saw in the Mirror of Erised; he knew what harry would want to use it for under very different circumstances.

We needed to see that Dumbledore, as well as Snape, was not evil and was not good.  He had a part to play on both sides of that coin.  We would see how the power of love leads men just as the love of power does the same.

Nitpicks

Mirror Shard - Nowhere, in the movies, does Sirius give Harry that mirror (as he did in the books) and at no time is it ever explained why he has it.  When we discover that Aberforth got the other one from Mundungus, it feels merely like an afterthought.

No house elves - One of my favorite little quirks of Hermione's is her passion for equality and her fierce fight for the freedom of house elves, even as they deny her the opportunity to help them.  While I LOVED the Ron/Hermione kiss in the movie (comedic and romantic) it was quite wonderful in the book when Ron, in the midst of the battle of Hogwarts, piped up with, "Hang on a moment!  We've forgotten someone!  The house elves, they'll all be down in the kitchen, won't they?"  Ron's sudden switch from his usual obliviousness to awareness is brilliant.  I suppose they show this in the movie when Ron repeats something he remembered Hermione had said in the past and she is pleasantly surprised.

Wormtail (Peter Pettigrew) is not Killed

Though this omitted scene makes sense because it was never set up in a previous film, I still wish Pettigrew would have been defeated.  I've always wondered why, with his wormy and cowardly ways, he was a member of the Gryffindor house.  He must have, at some point, had the capacity to be brave and make a difficult but correct choice.  When he hesitates as he is confronted by Harry and friends in the Malfoy mansion dungeon, it costs him his life at his own hand.  Literally.  That hesitation is probably the first decent thing he's ever done and makes him finally deserving of his place in the Gryffindor alma mater.

Griphook and the Sword of Gryffindor

Warwick Davis was delightfully creepy and sinister as Griphook the Goblin.  That guy is truly a great actor!  My gripe is that he referred to the sword as the Sword of Gryffindor when, in reality (read:  the books) he would never have called it by a name that implies it belongs to anyone other than the makers of the steel:  The Goblins.  I suppose it wasn't necessary to go into detail about why Griphook wanted the sword.  It's obviously already regarded as a great and important historical treasure as well as being immeasurably powerful.  Fair enough.  Still. . .I would have liked to see a bit of Bill warning Harry about the goblin's understanding of value and property.

No Phineas Nigellus - When the trio are in Grimmauld Place, there is a portrait of the former Hogwarts headmaster which has a direct link to another portrait in the headmaster's office at the school.  Hermione takes this portrait with them when they depart from #12 and into the many forests and swamps and glades, whathaveyou where they make their temporary hideouts.  Phineas was a Slytherin headmaster and Hermione does not trust him.  She keeps him hidden in her bag with a blindfold over his eyes.

However, when they arrive in the Forest of Dean where Harry sees the doe patronus which he follows to the hidden sword of Gryffindor in the frozen lake. . .we wonder how that doe appeared and who cast it?  While we find out later that the doe patronus belongs to Snape. . .this still leaves a question unanswered.  How was Snape able to find them through all of their protective enchantments and why is the sword at the bottom of a dangerous frozen lake?  Never go swimming alone, Harry!  Don't they teach you anything at Hogwarts?

In the book, Phineas may have a blindfold on but he HEARS Hermione tell Harry where they are so that Phineas can then inform Snape.  Snape arrives, places the sword in the lake under what we find out later to be Dumbledore's instructions and calls Harry to it using his unfamiliar patronus.

Number 1 - There's no way Snape could have just appeared to Harry and given him the sword because Harry would not have hesitated to strike him down.  Harry has no reason to trust Snape.
Number 2 - The sword must be won in valor and must be deserved; not given or placed somewhere haphazardly.

My gripe is only that it was never explained in the movie how Snape found them.

Voldemort Trace - The reason why death eaters and snatchers keep showing up, even when the trio enact their protective enchantments, is because there is a spell that put a trace on Voldemort's name.  Anyone using the name instead of saying You-Know-Who instantly reveals their whereabouts.  In the movie, I'm not sure how they know.  It's never explained for the diner scene but, I assume, with the snatchers, it is because Hermione left her scarf tied around a tree in case Ron returned.  Not sure what this would do for Ron other than let him know that's where they WERE??  At any rate, the lead snatcher is seen wearing Hermione's scarf when they are all later caught.

Fred & Percy - One of the biggest subplots and a major theme of the book is Voldemort's ability to create fissures in families; to separate and manipulate and destroy.  Mainly because he does not take stock in relationships or love or any of that nonsense.  This is very evident in Percy's abandonment of the Weasley family for his position at the Ministry.  When Percy wises up and returns in the battle of Hogwarts, it is touching and, as always with the twins, humourous and loving.  Almost immediately, we lose Fred.  Instead of this climactic family reunion and subsequent loss, we get a sudden unexplained Percy appearance (if you were even paying attention) and a dead Fred on a stretcher.







Effective Non-Canon Additions

Luna & Neville - YAY!  That's all I can say.  *dee*

Harry Says Goodbye - Instead of hiding under the Invisibility Cloak, he faces Ron & Hermione before heading off to his death.  Something I think he should have done in the book.  I don't remember now if he couldn't find them (because they were still in the Chamber of Secrets looking for basalisk fangs) or if he opted out of having to defend his decision to them.  Although, they did omit the scene where he speaks to Neville about killing the snake

Drawing Out the Killing of Nagini - Even though I had to pee like the frikkin dickens at this point, I very much enjoyed that the trio tried to kill the snake several times with the ultimate conqueror coming out in the form of never-does-anything-right Neville Longbottom with the sword of Gryffindor.  All this happening while Harry fought Voldemort alone.  Loved it!  Very good back and forth action.

The Tale of the Three Brothers - This animated scene is in the first half of Deathly Hallows.  While the story is canon and is an awesome fairy tale (I do own a copy of The Tales of Beedle the Bard) I just wanted to make mention of the brilliant idea to animate it and have it narrated by Hermione.  Just.  Plain.  Cool.

McGonagall - I was sad when my favorite Order of the Phoenix scene between Umbridge and McGonagall was condensed into a disappointing hallway quibble in which Minerva steps down.  So, I was super tickled  when she pronounced, after piertotum locomotor, that she had always wanted to try that spell.

Harry & Hermione Dance - This is in the first half of the Deathly Hallows movie.  Lots of people found this scene to be odd and strangely in favor of shipping the two.  However, I found it to be the very opposite.  It was a quick and simple way of showing that their relationship was one of deep, platonic love.  The scene was highly unromantic.  It was a friend attempting to do the best he could to cheer up another friend within unusual circumstances.  And, if anyone noticed, Hermione stopped smiling as soon as it was over and walked away, just as unhappy as she was before.


Harry Snapping the Elder Wand - "You wonderful boy.  You brave, brave man."

While I did not appreciate the lady to my upper right who, after the scene went to black before the 19 years later scene, loudly proclaimed that it should have just ended there (this is not your living room) I very much enjoyed myself and I'm happy to report that I cheered and teared up at all the right parts.  Here's to waiting for the thousand dollar wizard's chest 16 DVD collection of extras and extended scenes.

Nox

A Rant in Retrospect

Do you know why I have a blog?  It's because, while I don't mind lending my handprint to the millions of others who have useless and superficial websites both personal and professional, I don't find the need to constantly express my opinion in a public forum for validation.  Plus, I find my blog to be quite innocuous, comparatively, and I'm not sure people could handle the absence of a dozen porn ads or someone arguing about a Michael Bay movie.

Most of the time, I use this blog as a journal, reflecting on pleasant memories or things I find interesting.  From time to time, however, I will lash out in what I believe to always be a well-stated and to-the-point complaint.  One that I hope many might agree with.  So, it's not to complain for complaining's sake.  It's never something I can fix simply by making any kind of stand or, God forbid, starting an online petition that will only serve to clog the internet's throat with more pointless garbage.  It's usually something that:


A.  Happens to exist.

B.  I don't like.

C.  There's absolutely nothing I can do about.

Commence Well-Stated and To-the-Point Complaint:

I'm not one for critics.  I enjoy a good judgment call here and there.  In fact, I'm about to make several.  Where would we be without some standard guide or set of rules for everything in the known universe?  Most of the time, I rely on my own schema of understanding, experience and know-how to decide on what products, books, movies, restaurants, tv shows, department stores to participate in patronizing.  Yet there are those rare moments when I am in unfamiliar territory and might need to entrust part of my decision on someone else.

When I go in search of reviews for any of the aforementioned items, I'm looking for several things.  Most websites, I've noticed, have built wonderful hold-my-hand forms for reviewers to fill out.  Instead of presuming that a human being knows how to write a review (which will eventually become the purpose for this blog entry) they include points of interest to guide you along your way.  They ask your age range, your occupation, your location, your frequency of purchasing similar products or from a similar company.  They ask for both the pros and the cons of the product and often, they include a chart or survey for the most common questions or concerns such as, "Does this boot stretch to accommodate wide calves?" or "Do these jeans run large or small?"


This blog should serve as a review of reviews.  But. . .not really because I'm pretty sure I'll be breaking a few of the "Review Rules" along the way.  It is a "Rant Review" and is only permitted because it is tucked away in the recesses of the interwebs and should not be appearing on any informational sites where people are looking for the answer to their most pressing of questions.  Will I like this product?

What a review IS:

1.  Know your product!  If there are directions, read them.  Oh and also. . .follow them!  A negative review due to your own negligence is both unfair and a waste of a researcher's time.  Know what a product is supposed to do, when it is supposed to have done it, and what those results should look like.

2.  How long have you been using it?  Use common sense (I know. . .it's super hard) and know ahead of time how long a product must be in use before you see results.

3.  What about benefit of the doubt?  Every one has a bad day.  If you decide to hit up a new restaurant and nothing goes your way - don't write them off like it's the end of the world and you've been personally offended.  Jumping the gun by impulsively dragging someone's name through the muck is incredibly cruel.  Reviews are not meant to be cruel, they are fair and meant to. . .

4.  Make comparisons.  Most company's review forms these days will not allow you to include another product or company by name.  Bad for business.  Do what the commercials do!  Make a comment about a "leading brand."  Just be sure to make it known that a comparison was made and whether the product in question was better, the same or worse.

5.  Be concise.  Nobody cares if you bought it for your daughter and she loves it because her friends think it looks cute!  Your personal story has no relevance to what the product might do for me.  If it was a pair of rain boots, tell me if your daughter used them in the rain and if they held up or leaked.  Tell me if they looked the same or different from the provided photo.  Tell me if they fit true to size.

6.  Use correct grammar.  This is not some informal gab-session with your gal pals.  You are participating on a professional website and someone's livelihood may depend on your contribution.  Take it a little bit seriously.  Spell check.  Use complete sentences, punctuation, the whole 9 yards.  Or at least 7 yards.  If you want to be taken seriously, this is just a prerequisite.  If English is not your first language. . .you'll probably do better than most.

7.  Read the other reviews!  Someone might have noted the same complaint or praise you are about to offer.  See what other people are saying about the product and either concur or rebuff in your own review.  And back it up!  While a review is part personal opinion, you are also being depended upon to include facts about a real-life product.

8.  What about that personal opinion?  When you venture into reviews of media and entertainment, things can start to get really ugly.  Reception to art is extremely subjective.  We're not talking about a physical "does this fit a wide foot" or "how long are these pants and can I cuff them" item.  We're talking about something emotional and based on personal experience and taste.

When reviewing for movies, tv shows, books, and music. . .one must tread lightly and yet, hardly anyone does.  Because such things evoke an emotional and visceral reaction, one's review is sure to be tainted by bias.  Yes, there is a specific formula for something to be good; if, by good, we mean it follows the rules!

If I were to ask you what the formula is for a book or a movie, I would hope that years and years of grade school would constitute an answer that combines words like plot, characters, protagonists and antagonists, voice and dialogue, rising and falling action, climax.

However, if I were to ask you what makes a book or movie good, I might get very different answers.  You might mention an actor's or author's name.  Or maybe a specific scene that made you laugh until you cried.  Perhaps you enjoy loud noises, explosions and bright colors.  Or you enjoy learning a lesson; seeing a mirror of reality or a society you can sympathize with.  Some movies, books or music might just hold sentimental value because it reminds you of a specific time in your life.

The value of entertainment is completely arbitrary.  Huge blockbusters make millions of dollars and yet they are often predictable, the very essence of what many movie snobs say is death to film.  Indie Sundance films often get little recognition except from a small elite who are afraid to say they didn't like it.  Don't even get me started on some of these supposed genius gems.

In conclusion, when reviewing something as both important and unimportant as entertainment, your best bet is to refer to Number 1 of this list.  Know your product!  What is its intention?  Is it obvious that it's supposed to be predictable?  Is it meant to be tongue-in-cheek?  Is it a parody?  A satire?  Is it intended to be an homage or copycat?  Be cautious when reviewing art.  Your review should NEVER be just what you thought.  It should be directly connected to what was intended by the artist.  Otherwise, you just look like a jackass.

/End of Tangent

What a review is NOT:

1.  A description of what a product or company's intentions are.  I can read the back jacket of a book.  Trailers already give me the tagline and plot of a movie.  I can go to a company's website and read their mission statement or product guarantees.  Your job is to let me know how they measured up to their advertising.

2.  A detailed summary of a film, book, or television program.  Biggest.  Gripe.  Ever.  Do not exhaust a reader's patience with a huge unbroken, solid block of text, describing to me what the film, book, or tv show was about.  This is supposed to be a review, not a retelling for your book club.

3.  An excuse to show the world how intelligent you are because you took a year of film, culinary, or English Lit. and now know a few buzz words.  If you want to show off because you're tops. . .do it!  But you better know your business.  Because, especially if it's a forum, you will get called out on it.  Or you'll just look like an insufferable know-it-all who is more interested in technicality than enjoyment or satisfaction.

4.  Forgetting a character's name or other pertinent information.  I have actually seen this.  No joke:  I once read a review for a tanning lotion that claimed there was a specific chemical in the lotion that she had read was dangerous.  But she couldn't remember what it was.  You are writing this review online, correct?  Which means you have an entire wealth, a cornucopia even. . .one might say a plethora. . .of facts about whatever you are reviewing at your fingertips.  Use it!  Do not expect your reader to have to do this on their own.  This is why they came to your review.

5.  Going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.  I mentioned in the "do's" that you should be concise.  I really mean it.  Pick and choose your battles.  What do you definitely want to include and what is just repetition?  So you ate at a bad restaurant, had intolerable service & the bathrooms were gross.  I don't need to hear every single detail about why it was bad, intolerable or gross.  Give me a couple examples and get out!  If you're looking to make mad bank on your excruciating experience, get a publisher.

If you follow these rules, chances are that the time and effort you put into your review will actually be beneficial for a reader/researcher.  You might save someone from themselves.  If you don't follow these rules, at the very least. . .be really, really, really funny about it.

Point Yes Point

This past Sunday, Adam and I trekked out on an adventure to Point No Point Beach & Lighthouse.  It was a gorgeous day, perfect for exfoliating feet in the sand and dipping toes in freezing cold Pacific Northwest ocean water.

We checked out the lighthouse first, meeting up with this old construction lawyer guy who gave us a short tour.  And I mean short.  I think the whole building was only 500 sq. ft.  And he told us that, at one time, there were 54 guys bunking in there.  How appropriate that I'm watching Full House right now!

There were some super old black and white photos of a guy with a perpetual parrot on his shoulder.  Turns out his name is Cary and he was a lighthouse attendant back in the early 1900's.  Without even knowing his story, I'm already pretty sure his wife hated that parrot.

Apparently, there's this old legend that the lighthouse lens is cracked because it was hit by lightning.  Even the wikipedia page claims this story.  While lightning did strike the lighthouse, that's not the real history behind the cracked lens.

Man, old stuff is cool.

After checking out the lighthouse, we just wandered the beach.  Squishing the sand between our toes and happening upon some rad structures; made of sand, driftwood, seaweed, rocks.

 Someone was inspired by Mr. Twain.

I thought this log peeking up looked like an eel!

Yay for spontaneous adventures!!