To wit, here is how I would rank the books. And when I say "rank" in this instance, I'm not necessarily making a judgement on quality; this is based on the probability I will reread the book. NB I will reread all the books.
1. Order of the Phoenix
2. Prisoner of Azkaban
3. Deathly Hallows
4. Half-Blood Prince
5. Chamber of Secrets
6. Philosopher's Stone
7. Goblet of Fire
Showing posts with label this post is about harry potter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label this post is about harry potter. Show all posts
Wednesday
Monday
Ranked.
This post is still about Harry Potter.
Officially, then, this is how I would rank the Harry Potter films, top to bottom:
1. Prisoner of Azkaban
2. Order of the Phoenix
3. Deathly Hallows
4. Goblet of Fire
5. Philosopher's Stone
6. Chamber of Secrets
7. Half-Blood Prince
Discuss. But mostly corroborate my findings or gtfo. I kid. But really.
Officially, then, this is how I would rank the Harry Potter films, top to bottom:
1. Prisoner of Azkaban
2. Order of the Phoenix
3. Deathly Hallows
4. Goblet of Fire
5. Philosopher's Stone
6. Chamber of Secrets
7. Half-Blood Prince
Discuss. But mostly corroborate my findings or gtfo. I kid. But really.
Sunday
Addendum.
[Begin Spoiler for This post is still about Harry Potter. — Highlight to view]
I liked all the parts that everyone else liked. You know, Neville. McGonagall. The things.
The part that almost got me, though? Like, I mean, the part where a warm tear threatened to squeak from the far corner of my eye? Seeing the Cornish pixie and the Devil's Snare in the Room of Requirement. Aww. All this stuff.
Also, and I mentioned this before when the trailer came out, but I don't think it was in the proper venue. You know how in Goblet of Fire, there's the showdown in the graveyard, and priori incantatem, and the wands connect and all that? And remember how there's more unintentional comedy because Harry looks like he's struggling for control with all he's got and Voldemort -- though looking equally under strain -- is holding on to his wand with, like, two fingers? I have never been able to take that scene seriously.
But I have a strange retroactive affection for it now, because during the final showdown, Harry is holding strong with only one arm. And that is a stupendous, visceral image.
I thought other things, too, obviously, but what else am I really going to say?
[End Spoiler]
In other news, can we please start losing our shit about The Hobbit? I feel like I've been patient for a long time, but now I really must insist.
I liked all the parts that everyone else liked. You know, Neville. McGonagall. The things.
The part that almost got me, though? Like, I mean, the part where a warm tear threatened to squeak from the far corner of my eye? Seeing the Cornish pixie and the Devil's Snare in the Room of Requirement. Aww. All this stuff.
Also, and I mentioned this before when the trailer came out, but I don't think it was in the proper venue. You know how in Goblet of Fire, there's the showdown in the graveyard, and priori incantatem, and the wands connect and all that? And remember how there's more unintentional comedy because Harry looks like he's struggling for control with all he's got and Voldemort -- though looking equally under strain -- is holding on to his wand with, like, two fingers? I have never been able to take that scene seriously.
But I have a strange retroactive affection for it now, because during the final showdown, Harry is holding strong with only one arm. And that is a stupendous, visceral image.
I thought other things, too, obviously, but what else am I really going to say?
[End Spoiler]
In other news, can we please start losing our shit about The Hobbit? I feel like I've been patient for a long time, but now I really must insist.
Wednesday
Guess what this post is about.
I don't update my blog!? You don't update your blog.
[Begin Spoiler for What are these spoilers about? — Highlight to view]
It was okay.
That's such a let down! I really feel like I should have more to say, but the most pressing thing that I feel the need to utter about the final Harry Potter film is: "It was okay." Maybe I'm doing it wrong.
I saw it twice. Once in 3D because they really want you to see it in 3D. It was better the second time. I think that's because I knew what to expect. The first time around, I didn't (I mean, I did, obviously, but not how the path to get there would look) and sitting there wondering "what happens next?" was not a pleasant experience at all. It wasn't a thrilling, shovelling-popcorn-into-your-mouth kind of "what happens next?" it was a "well... this is awkward" sort of "what happens next?"
I'm blaming David Yates because I don't know whom else to blame. I mean, I think there's some debate to be had in here about the limits of verisimilitude as it relates to creating art, but I'm not jazzed enough to have that conversation.
I idly wonder if, maybe in ten years or so, the series can be redone. Not reshot, you understand. Not recast. Remastered, maybe. Alt takes. Different editing. Digitally making young Lily's eyes not brown. You know.
My God, you guys. Can you believe that shit with Lily's eye color? The unintentional humor quotient was so high. I'm not exactly sure what color Geraldine Somerville's eyes are, because she's always in sepia memory foam, but you can at least tell that they are light-colored. Close enough. And if you recall that Albus was the only one of Harry's children to inherit Lily's eyes, it is really rather awesome when the epilogue scene rolls around and Daniel Radcliffe and his pretend son have the exact same color eyes. And, I mean, I don't want to even pretend to be one of those people to whom hair and eye desperately matter, but we had reached the actual, literal moment when "You have your mother's eyes" pays out, and BAM! brown-eyed baby Lily. If I may ... lol.
Speaking of which, I love the epilogue. Always have always will. Whatevs.
On the most positive end, every performance was flawless. Alan Rickman was for once not under-utilized, and you could practically hear him shout "Fucking finally" through his performance. This movie also renewed my desire to one day be bffs with Daniel Radcliffe. Is it weird to be proud of someone you've never met? Probably. I want to draw hearts around his face in the most non-romantic yet soul-mate-ish way possible. This adds to my conviction that there must have been a shinier diamond to be cut from this raw material.
I mean, ten goddamn years and all you see is the back of Ron's head. I ask you.
[End Spoiler]
[Begin Spoiler for What are these spoilers about? — Highlight to view]
It was okay.
That's such a let down! I really feel like I should have more to say, but the most pressing thing that I feel the need to utter about the final Harry Potter film is: "It was okay." Maybe I'm doing it wrong.
I saw it twice. Once in 3D because they really want you to see it in 3D. It was better the second time. I think that's because I knew what to expect. The first time around, I didn't (I mean, I did, obviously, but not how the path to get there would look) and sitting there wondering "what happens next?" was not a pleasant experience at all. It wasn't a thrilling, shovelling-popcorn-into-your-mouth kind of "what happens next?" it was a "well... this is awkward" sort of "what happens next?"
I'm blaming David Yates because I don't know whom else to blame. I mean, I think there's some debate to be had in here about the limits of verisimilitude as it relates to creating art, but I'm not jazzed enough to have that conversation.
I idly wonder if, maybe in ten years or so, the series can be redone. Not reshot, you understand. Not recast. Remastered, maybe. Alt takes. Different editing. Digitally making young Lily's eyes not brown. You know.
My God, you guys. Can you believe that shit with Lily's eye color? The unintentional humor quotient was so high. I'm not exactly sure what color Geraldine Somerville's eyes are, because she's always in sepia memory foam, but you can at least tell that they are light-colored. Close enough. And if you recall that Albus was the only one of Harry's children to inherit Lily's eyes, it is really rather awesome when the epilogue scene rolls around and Daniel Radcliffe and his pretend son have the exact same color eyes. And, I mean, I don't want to even pretend to be one of those people to whom hair and eye desperately matter, but we had reached the actual, literal moment when "You have your mother's eyes" pays out, and BAM! brown-eyed baby Lily. If I may ... lol.
Speaking of which, I love the epilogue. Always have always will. Whatevs.
On the most positive end, every performance was flawless. Alan Rickman was for once not under-utilized, and you could practically hear him shout "Fucking finally" through his performance. This movie also renewed my desire to one day be bffs with Daniel Radcliffe. Is it weird to be proud of someone you've never met? Probably. I want to draw hearts around his face in the most non-romantic yet soul-mate-ish way possible. This adds to my conviction that there must have been a shinier diamond to be cut from this raw material.
I mean, ten goddamn years and all you see is the back of Ron's head. I ask you.
[End Spoiler]
Sunday
Wowie, Harry Potter!
I liked the new Harry Potter movie, you guys.
[Begin Spoiler for The Deathly Hallows, .5 — Highlight to view]
I mean, don't get me wrong. I will nitpick the hell of out it. However, contingent upon the second half maintaining and hopefully surpassing the quality of the first half, this is the best Harry Potter movie. BETTER THAN AZKABAN, OKAY.
This is due, in enormously large part, to the pacing. In that there is some. I think what made HBP suck so much (ps you guys HBP sucked quite a lot) is that it had slow, plodding scenes connected by quick transitions. It was like: Scene.Scene.Scene.Scene.Scene. It doesn't matter how good the scenes were (some of them were okay), that's not a movie.
This is a movie. Just like a real movie! And not a visual SparkNotes. A couple bits were a little Yates-y (i.e. slow to the point of being uncomfortable), like Dumbledore's will unfolding or Xenophilius drawing the Deathly Hallows symbol or ... well, we'll get to the dance. But mostly that crap was kept to a minimum. Atmosphere was attained! Themes were developed! Emotions were evoked!
This is sounding like a lot of backhanded praise. Honestly, though, one of my major feelings is relief that this picture didn't suck when I could easily imagine the ways in which it would suck. So, there's that. On top of that relief, I enjoyed the movie quite a bit, but that was maybe a given. I mean, I don't know if you've noticed this about me, but I like Harry Potter.
Now, here's some shit: That dance was stupid, David Yates. I read a review already that said of it, "it's supposed to be tender and heartfelt but comes off awkward and forced in". Or, you know, sentiments to that effect. So true. And I was already annoyed by that point because of the following anecdote I'll relate.
On Thursday, a certain comm I'm in posted an early review that called HP "just like Twilight" because of the love triangle and whatall. Everyone laughed because clearly that writer is unfamiliar with either story. Then I went and I saw the movie, and it dawned on me, "Oh shit, that guy is kinda right. They're even in a tent!" In the book, it's clear (to the literate) that it's Ron and Hermione, and that Ron's romantic jealousy is a manifestation of the fact that he's insanely jealous of his best friend and maybe he should deal with those issues. Not because there could actually be something there. But in the movie ... are they trying to make me think there could be something there? It seems like they are. I mean, not that Harry has any romantic chemistry with Hermione, but he doesn't have any chemistry with Ginny, either, so what message am I getting?
Sidebar: I can't pretend anymore. I wanted to deny. Harry and Ginny have zero chemistry and it's horrible. And I sorta-ship it! And I adore Bonnie Wright. She's gorgeous and I want to smish her. And it's not her fault! She had beautiful depth of emotion when she turned her back to him. Anytime they're facing each other, though, it's like a kid playing with Barbies and making them kiss. I'm terrified for the finale, because how can I suspend my disbelief long enough to believe these people made three kids??
Harry doesn't say anything to Ron after the locket thing. Awkward city. That locket scene in general was just a mess. Anyway. It really does feel like they threw in a last minute love-triangle subplot. I blame Steve Kloves.
Disappointing: Xeno was a bit of a creepster. I didn't get the emotions out of that scene that I wanted. Ditto the Hermione torture. She was good for her part, but Ron needed to freak out more. And ... some other things I forget.
Neutral: I really wanted to see a snake rip out of a corpse, but at least they kept the blood on Hermione's hands. The animated part was okay.
On the plus side: The Snatchers were effectively creepy. The Ministry scenes were excellent. Helena Bonham Carter makes up for most things. Neville is in this movie for two seconds and those two seconds are bad-ass.
And ... I cried over Dobby. I don't even know how! I assure you I kept my heart as stony as possible. He's a CGI bat for goodness sake! But then he's going on about how happy he is to be with his friend Harry and ... oh fuck, there's a leak in my face.
And then ... we paused the DVD to hit the lavs and get a snack. Seriously. The most evident problem with Deathly Hallows: Part 1 is that it's only half a movie. It is not the first half of a two-parter and it is not, as I have seen spouted in many places, a "setup" for Part 2. It's literally the first half of a movie. And sometime in July, we're going to hang up the phone, realize we left that movie on pause, and sit back down to it.
I HOPE IT'S AWESOME.
[End Spoiler]
[Begin Spoiler for The Deathly Hallows, .5 — Highlight to view]
I mean, don't get me wrong. I will nitpick the hell of out it. However, contingent upon the second half maintaining and hopefully surpassing the quality of the first half, this is the best Harry Potter movie. BETTER THAN AZKABAN, OKAY.
This is due, in enormously large part, to the pacing. In that there is some. I think what made HBP suck so much (ps you guys HBP sucked quite a lot) is that it had slow, plodding scenes connected by quick transitions. It was like: Scene.Scene.Scene.Scene.Scene. It doesn't matter how good the scenes were (some of them were okay), that's not a movie.
This is a movie. Just like a real movie! And not a visual SparkNotes. A couple bits were a little Yates-y (i.e. slow to the point of being uncomfortable), like Dumbledore's will unfolding or Xenophilius drawing the Deathly Hallows symbol or ... well, we'll get to the dance. But mostly that crap was kept to a minimum. Atmosphere was attained! Themes were developed! Emotions were evoked!
This is sounding like a lot of backhanded praise. Honestly, though, one of my major feelings is relief that this picture didn't suck when I could easily imagine the ways in which it would suck. So, there's that. On top of that relief, I enjoyed the movie quite a bit, but that was maybe a given. I mean, I don't know if you've noticed this about me, but I like Harry Potter.
Now, here's some shit: That dance was stupid, David Yates. I read a review already that said of it, "it's supposed to be tender and heartfelt but comes off awkward and forced in". Or, you know, sentiments to that effect. So true. And I was already annoyed by that point because of the following anecdote I'll relate.
On Thursday, a certain comm I'm in posted an early review that called HP "just like Twilight" because of the love triangle and whatall. Everyone laughed because clearly that writer is unfamiliar with either story. Then I went and I saw the movie, and it dawned on me, "Oh shit, that guy is kinda right. They're even in a tent!" In the book, it's clear (to the literate) that it's Ron and Hermione, and that Ron's romantic jealousy is a manifestation of the fact that he's insanely jealous of his best friend and maybe he should deal with those issues. Not because there could actually be something there. But in the movie ... are they trying to make me think there could be something there? It seems like they are. I mean, not that Harry has any romantic chemistry with Hermione, but he doesn't have any chemistry with Ginny, either, so what message am I getting?
Sidebar: I can't pretend anymore. I wanted to deny. Harry and Ginny have zero chemistry and it's horrible. And I sorta-ship it! And I adore Bonnie Wright. She's gorgeous and I want to smish her. And it's not her fault! She had beautiful depth of emotion when she turned her back to him. Anytime they're facing each other, though, it's like a kid playing with Barbies and making them kiss. I'm terrified for the finale, because how can I suspend my disbelief long enough to believe these people made three kids??
Harry doesn't say anything to Ron after the locket thing. Awkward city. That locket scene in general was just a mess. Anyway. It really does feel like they threw in a last minute love-triangle subplot. I blame Steve Kloves.
Disappointing: Xeno was a bit of a creepster. I didn't get the emotions out of that scene that I wanted. Ditto the Hermione torture. She was good for her part, but Ron needed to freak out more. And ... some other things I forget.
Neutral: I really wanted to see a snake rip out of a corpse, but at least they kept the blood on Hermione's hands. The animated part was okay.
On the plus side: The Snatchers were effectively creepy. The Ministry scenes were excellent. Helena Bonham Carter makes up for most things. Neville is in this movie for two seconds and those two seconds are bad-ass.
And ... I cried over Dobby. I don't even know how! I assure you I kept my heart as stony as possible. He's a CGI bat for goodness sake! But then he's going on about how happy he is to be with his friend Harry and ... oh fuck, there's a leak in my face.
And then ... we paused the DVD to hit the lavs and get a snack. Seriously. The most evident problem with Deathly Hallows: Part 1 is that it's only half a movie. It is not the first half of a two-parter and it is not, as I have seen spouted in many places, a "setup" for Part 2. It's literally the first half of a movie. And sometime in July, we're going to hang up the phone, realize we left that movie on pause, and sit back down to it.
I HOPE IT'S AWESOME.
[End Spoiler]
Wednesday
Congratulations, Chamber of Secrets!
You are no longer the most boring Harry Potter movie!
[Begin Spoiler for HBP Review, in which I say "UGH" a lot. ... Metaphorically. — Highlight to view]
If you haven't seen it yet, maybe you shouldn't read this. I mean, I don't know. I don't want to ruin things for you. I've seen a lot of very positive reviews, and much internet chatter saying that this was "ZOMG Best One Ever!!!" and, frankly, you may agree. I don't want to take the possibility that you may agree away from you. But me, I'm profoundly disappointed right now.
The profundity of my disappointment is due, in main, to the fact that this is the first time it's happened. This is the first time I've sat in a theater, watched a Potter film, and as the credits began to roll thought: "I didn't like it. It wasn't good. I am disappointed." And in fact, it started before that. At some point I started to fretfully realize that the film wasn't going well. I had the horrible suspicion that it wasn't good, and I wasn't going to walk away liking it. I tried to shove that feeling down, but it would not be denied.
And just so we're clear - I'm not talking about things cut or things changed. I do not care. Frankly, I think they could have cut more than they did. If I've said it once, I've said it (and you've read it) a thousand times: I am not a book adaptation purist. In fact, and this may be the linguist in me, I sort of love seeing the changes and the omissions - the translation of the story from book to screen. Book and screen are two languages I'm fluent in, so this is a thrill I can't as yet receive from actual languages. As a stand-alone entity, the movie is mediocre. As a translated retelling of the book, it's mediocre.
That's the thing - it's not flat out bad. And, of course, being Potter, there were parts of it that I liked and enjoyed seeing brought to life, and I'll probably talk about those further on if this doesn't get tediously long before then. But the whole of it did not hang. Altogether, it was dull and lackluster and boring. Even the explosions felt muted and clinical; how the fuck do you make SHIT BLOWS UP into something boring? I'm not sure, but this film managed it.
The problem is, I suspect, two-fold: lazy screenwriting and ineffective directing. Let's start with the first. HBP is rather plot-lite. I mean, in terms of the overall fight of good vs. evil. The book makes up for with a lot of (sometimes awkward) color. I think this is why I can't decide where HBP falls in my book rankings. I love it, but it's ultimately filler. The script takes two plotlines: the learn-about-Voldemort plot and the teen-romance plot, and half-asses both of them. The memory scenes felt like filler, but then so did all the other scenes. Which one is the A-plot?
Then, there's the criminal misuse of Alan Rickman. At the end, where he reveals himself to be the Half-Blood Prince, my eyes rolled of their own accord, and I had to suppress a WHO CARES. Because, honestly, who gives a shit at that point? The whole thing is a side-note, there's no suspense regarding the Prince's identity, and it adds nothing to the story. If it weren't the title of the goddamn movie (which should have been a hint), they would have been better off cutting it entirely. Finally, it was a stupid coda to a scene that was already robbed of most of its emotional resonance.
I'm going to slip in here that the best performance of the film was given by Tom Felton, hands down. I don't think that he, personally, could have done anything more to make his part awesome. But his part, too, was ineptly pared down. From what I can tell onscreen, things seem to be going pretty well and then after a small setback suddenly Draco's sobbing in a bathroom. It makes his emotional turmoil at the end feel shallow and not fully convincing. If not for the aforementioned skill of Mr. Felton, I probably wouldn't have cared at all.
And here's the thing: WHO CARES? Well, I do. Or did, anyway. I cared walking into the theater. I've been caring for over a year waiting for this movie to come out. Hell, I've been caring for half my life at this point. If they couldn't keep my sympathies, they did something wrong.
Now I'm going to talk about directing. And I'm going to talk about directing with the authority that I've actually directed stuff, and because this is my blog and you love me you'll refrain from pointing out that I've never directed anything on film and therefore sound like a jerk. Good deal? Alright. So, I've decided that I don't think David Yates is a good director. This makes me sad because I would really like it to be otherwise. And ... I don't know. I'm not saying he's Chris Columbus by any means. He's not bad like that. But I feel he may be out of his league trying to direct something on this large a scale. I was hoping that all he needed was a chance to find his footing, but this film took all the things that didn't work in Order of the Phoenix and magnified them, which means all that's happening is he's just getting more confident with his mistakes.
If you watch any interviews with David Yates, you'll find that he's very unassuming and soft-spoken. I feel like he projects that personality onto his work. There were literally times when I was struggling to hear the dialogue. And his big thing seems to be reining the actors in - pushing for more subtlety. And I'm all for that! I enjoy subtlety in acting! But when subdued acting is your raw material, you need to do more to bring the audience into it. The transitions here are dead. The pacing is terrible. The beats are stilted and awkward. Like with OOTP, I found that I liked scenes individually, but it was a pain and a half getting "into" them. And GOOD GOD save me from David Yates and his wide shots. I'm serious. I get what he's going for, I think. Putting the audience at a distance from the characters makes the characters seem more intimate with each other. But it doesn't make the audience intimate with the characters. Sometimes we need to get right up in their business to remember why we like them. And always, techniques in moderation, please.
Also, for all the "humor" supposedly in this film - no one laughed. Like, ever. At one point I remember finding something funny and wanting to laugh, but feeling stifled by the fact that no one else was laughing. Frankly, Daniel Radcliffe does comedy really well. Harry on Felix Felicis was hilarious. And yet, awkward. Again, the beats. Jokes were over and gone before people realized they'd been made. David Yates may know how to get good performances out of actors, and I'll admit I think he does, but he has no idea how to craft a scene.
The cinematography, on the other hand, was gorgeous. This is probably one of the prettiest films I've seen in some time. But it wasn't put to good use either. It was like a mirror: shiny, cold, flat, and with no life other than what you project onto it.
Also, just throwing this out there: the score didn't match up with the action. I don't know whose fault that was.
I will have to admit, though, that the Inferi scene was bad-ass. I jumped, even though I saw it coming. I was nearly on the edge of my seat, but at that point, I was already suffering from numb disappointment, so it was hard to really live in the moment.
Dumbledore's death scene was well done, but felt somewhat inorganic and emotionally manipulative after the flatness of everything that preceded it. Oh, hands raised in solidarity! Lights in the sky! Haunting music! Again: WHO CARES.
And what in the Christing Christ was that line about Harry having never noticed how beautiful Hogwarts was? Aside from perhaps the Burrow, Hogwarts is the only beautiful place Harry has ever seen. FAIL, Kloves.
[End Spoiler]
I guess I'm done for now. I feel rather incredibly down. So, I'm going to go make what may be the best cookies known to man. If you read all this, and especially if you reply, please let me know if you would like me to send you one.
[Begin Spoiler for HBP Review, in which I say "UGH" a lot. ... Metaphorically. — Highlight to view]
If you haven't seen it yet, maybe you shouldn't read this. I mean, I don't know. I don't want to ruin things for you. I've seen a lot of very positive reviews, and much internet chatter saying that this was "ZOMG Best One Ever!!!" and, frankly, you may agree. I don't want to take the possibility that you may agree away from you. But me, I'm profoundly disappointed right now.
The profundity of my disappointment is due, in main, to the fact that this is the first time it's happened. This is the first time I've sat in a theater, watched a Potter film, and as the credits began to roll thought: "I didn't like it. It wasn't good. I am disappointed." And in fact, it started before that. At some point I started to fretfully realize that the film wasn't going well. I had the horrible suspicion that it wasn't good, and I wasn't going to walk away liking it. I tried to shove that feeling down, but it would not be denied.
And just so we're clear - I'm not talking about things cut or things changed. I do not care. Frankly, I think they could have cut more than they did. If I've said it once, I've said it (and you've read it) a thousand times: I am not a book adaptation purist. In fact, and this may be the linguist in me, I sort of love seeing the changes and the omissions - the translation of the story from book to screen. Book and screen are two languages I'm fluent in, so this is a thrill I can't as yet receive from actual languages. As a stand-alone entity, the movie is mediocre. As a translated retelling of the book, it's mediocre.
That's the thing - it's not flat out bad. And, of course, being Potter, there were parts of it that I liked and enjoyed seeing brought to life, and I'll probably talk about those further on if this doesn't get tediously long before then. But the whole of it did not hang. Altogether, it was dull and lackluster and boring. Even the explosions felt muted and clinical; how the fuck do you make SHIT BLOWS UP into something boring? I'm not sure, but this film managed it.
The problem is, I suspect, two-fold: lazy screenwriting and ineffective directing. Let's start with the first. HBP is rather plot-lite. I mean, in terms of the overall fight of good vs. evil. The book makes up for with a lot of (sometimes awkward) color. I think this is why I can't decide where HBP falls in my book rankings. I love it, but it's ultimately filler. The script takes two plotlines: the learn-about-Voldemort plot and the teen-romance plot, and half-asses both of them. The memory scenes felt like filler, but then so did all the other scenes. Which one is the A-plot?
Then, there's the criminal misuse of Alan Rickman. At the end, where he reveals himself to be the Half-Blood Prince, my eyes rolled of their own accord, and I had to suppress a WHO CARES. Because, honestly, who gives a shit at that point? The whole thing is a side-note, there's no suspense regarding the Prince's identity, and it adds nothing to the story. If it weren't the title of the goddamn movie (which should have been a hint), they would have been better off cutting it entirely. Finally, it was a stupid coda to a scene that was already robbed of most of its emotional resonance.
I'm going to slip in here that the best performance of the film was given by Tom Felton, hands down. I don't think that he, personally, could have done anything more to make his part awesome. But his part, too, was ineptly pared down. From what I can tell onscreen, things seem to be going pretty well and then after a small setback suddenly Draco's sobbing in a bathroom. It makes his emotional turmoil at the end feel shallow and not fully convincing. If not for the aforementioned skill of Mr. Felton, I probably wouldn't have cared at all.
And here's the thing: WHO CARES? Well, I do. Or did, anyway. I cared walking into the theater. I've been caring for over a year waiting for this movie to come out. Hell, I've been caring for half my life at this point. If they couldn't keep my sympathies, they did something wrong.
Now I'm going to talk about directing. And I'm going to talk about directing with the authority that I've actually directed stuff, and because this is my blog and you love me you'll refrain from pointing out that I've never directed anything on film and therefore sound like a jerk. Good deal? Alright. So, I've decided that I don't think David Yates is a good director. This makes me sad because I would really like it to be otherwise. And ... I don't know. I'm not saying he's Chris Columbus by any means. He's not bad like that. But I feel he may be out of his league trying to direct something on this large a scale. I was hoping that all he needed was a chance to find his footing, but this film took all the things that didn't work in Order of the Phoenix and magnified them, which means all that's happening is he's just getting more confident with his mistakes.
If you watch any interviews with David Yates, you'll find that he's very unassuming and soft-spoken. I feel like he projects that personality onto his work. There were literally times when I was struggling to hear the dialogue. And his big thing seems to be reining the actors in - pushing for more subtlety. And I'm all for that! I enjoy subtlety in acting! But when subdued acting is your raw material, you need to do more to bring the audience into it. The transitions here are dead. The pacing is terrible. The beats are stilted and awkward. Like with OOTP, I found that I liked scenes individually, but it was a pain and a half getting "into" them. And GOOD GOD save me from David Yates and his wide shots. I'm serious. I get what he's going for, I think. Putting the audience at a distance from the characters makes the characters seem more intimate with each other. But it doesn't make the audience intimate with the characters. Sometimes we need to get right up in their business to remember why we like them. And always, techniques in moderation, please.
Also, for all the "humor" supposedly in this film - no one laughed. Like, ever. At one point I remember finding something funny and wanting to laugh, but feeling stifled by the fact that no one else was laughing. Frankly, Daniel Radcliffe does comedy really well. Harry on Felix Felicis was hilarious. And yet, awkward. Again, the beats. Jokes were over and gone before people realized they'd been made. David Yates may know how to get good performances out of actors, and I'll admit I think he does, but he has no idea how to craft a scene.
The cinematography, on the other hand, was gorgeous. This is probably one of the prettiest films I've seen in some time. But it wasn't put to good use either. It was like a mirror: shiny, cold, flat, and with no life other than what you project onto it.
Also, just throwing this out there: the score didn't match up with the action. I don't know whose fault that was.
I will have to admit, though, that the Inferi scene was bad-ass. I jumped, even though I saw it coming. I was nearly on the edge of my seat, but at that point, I was already suffering from numb disappointment, so it was hard to really live in the moment.
Dumbledore's death scene was well done, but felt somewhat inorganic and emotionally manipulative after the flatness of everything that preceded it. Oh, hands raised in solidarity! Lights in the sky! Haunting music! Again: WHO CARES.
And what in the Christing Christ was that line about Harry having never noticed how beautiful Hogwarts was? Aside from perhaps the Burrow, Hogwarts is the only beautiful place Harry has ever seen. FAIL, Kloves.
[End Spoiler]
I guess I'm done for now. I feel rather incredibly down. So, I'm going to go make what may be the best cookies known to man. If you read all this, and especially if you reply, please let me know if you would like me to send you one.
Monday
Update for the sake of updating.
I am still sad, and nothing has felt interesting enough to blog about, but I figured it was time to bump the dead cat post from the top of the list.
It was suddenly a billion degrees over the weekend, and I was ill. I figured the best thing to do would be to annihilate Madagascar with Fluffy Kitten Amoebic Encephalopathy, but the only time I managed to get them, Canada screwed me over by closing its borders and developing a vaccine. Curse you, socialized medicine!
Thank goodness for New Moon filming, though. It has kept me up to my ears in lulz, despite the super secretness of the production. If you ever wondered what happened to Merry's hair from LotR, don't worry. It went to a good home.
Speaking of filming, I may have teared up. I'm not saying definitely, but it might have happened.
It was suddenly a billion degrees over the weekend, and I was ill. I figured the best thing to do would be to annihilate Madagascar with Fluffy Kitten Amoebic Encephalopathy, but the only time I managed to get them, Canada screwed me over by closing its borders and developing a vaccine. Curse you, socialized medicine!
Thank goodness for New Moon filming, though. It has kept me up to my ears in lulz, despite the super secretness of the production. If you ever wondered what happened to Merry's hair from LotR, don't worry. It went to a good home.
Speaking of filming, I may have teared up. I'm not saying definitely, but it might have happened.
WB is genius evil.
Ask any Harry Potter fan who've ever ended a rant against them with the sentence: "Yeah I'm still gonna see the movie."
Latest example: Ciarán Hinds has been cast as Aberforth Dumbledore for Deathly Hallows.
As you might recall, Aberforth was already cast and played by someone else in Order of the Phoenix. The completist in me rails at this, because why bother casting the part if you weren't going to have the same actor back? At best it shows a lack of foresight. Now the continuity is all messed up, you jerks!
But on the other hand, omg Ciarán Hinds!!
The corporation is slowly draining away my nerd morals.
Latest example: Ciarán Hinds has been cast as Aberforth Dumbledore for Deathly Hallows.
As you might recall, Aberforth was already cast and played by someone else in Order of the Phoenix. The completist in me rails at this, because why bother casting the part if you weren't going to have the same actor back? At best it shows a lack of foresight. Now the continuity is all messed up, you jerks!
But on the other hand, omg Ciarán Hinds!!
The corporation is slowly draining away my nerd morals.
Friday
So I was looking at the internet.
And I saw this piece of flair -- I'm not really sure where from -- that said something to the effect of, "Oh hey, Edward Cullen. Sure, I'd love to go out with you on November 21. I had a date with Harry Potter, but he canceled."
It was fairly amusing, so I'll admit that I laughed. And then I kind of cried. Because if this button were true to life, I would probably be busy leaving 50 messages on Harry Potter's voicemail. Why won't you return my calls, Harry? WE'RE MEANT TO BE. *sob*
Is that Draco in the bathroom? Hell yes it is. He should probably turn around 'cause he's 'bout to get cut. OMFG.
It was fairly amusing, so I'll admit that I laughed. And then I kind of cried. Because if this button were true to life, I would probably be busy leaving 50 messages on Harry Potter's voicemail. Why won't you return my calls, Harry? WE'RE MEANT TO BE. *sob*
Is that Draco in the bathroom? Hell yes it is. He should probably turn around 'cause he's 'bout to get cut. OMFG.
Sunday
I saw Daniel Radcliffe naked.
If you were interested.
I mean, he was in a play.
I was going to say "I saw Harry Potter naked" but I didn't because I respect him as an actor.
I mean, he was in a play.
I was going to say "I saw Harry Potter naked" but I didn't because I respect him as an actor.
Monday
HP is srs bsns.
JK Rowling wins copyright case.
Yay!!! I know I haven't talked about this at all, but I am really really happy right now.
Fuck you, Steve Vander Ark. Fuck your classifications, and fuck your Peter Pan syndrome.
Yay!!! I know I haven't talked about this at all, but I am really really happy right now.
Fuck you, Steve Vander Ark. Fuck your classifications, and fuck your Peter Pan syndrome.
Thursday
Wednesday
iPod introspection.
So, I've been spending a lot of time out of my house lately, which has led me to exploring some of the functions on my iPod. Turns out that iTunes will automatically compile a playlist of the songs that you listen to most often ... so that you can listen to them more often.
I checked out my list. And it was odd. It's not an entirely accurate system. Turns out that if you take a song off your iPod and then put it back on, it will reset the count. Ditto if you change the file name. Also, it counts a "play" as reaching the end of the track, and sometimes I will skip back to the beginning of a song if I want to hear it again, so songs with long fade outs are under-represented. And a whole bunch of other explanations and excuses.
Anyway, as it stands, these are the songs I've played the most, on my iPod:
Love Song To My Guru - Katell Keineg with The Floors
(Fair. I've listened to this a million times.)
That's All Right, Mama - Arthur Crudup
(Really? It's catchy, but this is a surprise showing.)
Pistol - Dustin Krensue
(Fair. I love this song.)
I Will Follow You Into The Dark - Death Cab For Cutie
(Fair. Embarrassingly enough.)
Portions For Foxes - Rilo Kiley
(True story: I didn't like this song at all when I first heard it, and then something clicked, and I listened to it all the time.)
Challengers - The New Pornographers
(Neko Case sing so pretty.)
All That I Want - The Weepies
(I haven't listened to this since Christmastide. This list is out of date!)
Endless Sleep - Jody Reynolds
(Surprising!)
From Where I'm Standing - Schuyler Fisk
(Jenny's right, she has a really pretty voice.)
Freedom Is Only A Hippogriff Away - The Mudbloods
(The only Wizard Rock song on the list! Seriously though, this is an excellent song even if you don't know Harry Potter from a hole in the ground.)
All The Old Showstoppers - The New Pornographers
(Hee! I just talked about this! I suspect stuffed ballots.)
Backwater Blues - Dave Van Ronk
(Again, really? Then again, there was a playlist that I had to listen to for a while because I was MAKING A CD FOR SOMEONE, and this was on it.)
Someday You Will Be Loved - Death Cab For Cutie
(Oy. In my defense, this would make a great fan video that I'll never make.)
Hiding In Plain Sight - Lauren Hoffman
(I'm surprised she's not better represented - I listened to her A LOT a while back.)
We Throw Parties, You Throw Knives - Los Campesinos!
(Hee!)
Paperweight - Schuyler Fisk and ... some dude.
(No really, she sings pretty.)
Keep On The Sunny Side - The Whites
(Again, hee!)
Australia - The Shins
(Yup. Totally fair.)
I've Just Seen A Face - The Beatles
(Really?)
Both Hands - Ani DiFranco
(Utterly fair.)
Expectations - Belle And Sebastian
(Fair.)
The Engine Driver - The Decemberists
(I guess? Although I've listened to "Yankee Bayonet" so many more times, I think.)
1234 - Feist
(Really?)
So Long - Guster
(I guess so!)
Diggin' My Potatoes - Lonnie Donegan
(Hee! Hee! Hee!)
Um. So, geez. What this playlist tells me is that I'm really fucking maudlin. And that I may have the Blues. What the hell?
I checked out my list. And it was odd. It's not an entirely accurate system. Turns out that if you take a song off your iPod and then put it back on, it will reset the count. Ditto if you change the file name. Also, it counts a "play" as reaching the end of the track, and sometimes I will skip back to the beginning of a song if I want to hear it again, so songs with long fade outs are under-represented. And a whole bunch of other explanations and excuses.
Anyway, as it stands, these are the songs I've played the most, on my iPod:
Love Song To My Guru - Katell Keineg with The Floors
(Fair. I've listened to this a million times.)
That's All Right, Mama - Arthur Crudup
(Really? It's catchy, but this is a surprise showing.)
Pistol - Dustin Krensue
(Fair. I love this song.)
I Will Follow You Into The Dark - Death Cab For Cutie
(Fair. Embarrassingly enough.)
Portions For Foxes - Rilo Kiley
(True story: I didn't like this song at all when I first heard it, and then something clicked, and I listened to it all the time.)
Challengers - The New Pornographers
(Neko Case sing so pretty.)
All That I Want - The Weepies
(I haven't listened to this since Christmastide. This list is out of date!)
Endless Sleep - Jody Reynolds
(Surprising!)
From Where I'm Standing - Schuyler Fisk
(Jenny's right, she has a really pretty voice.)
Freedom Is Only A Hippogriff Away - The Mudbloods
(The only Wizard Rock song on the list! Seriously though, this is an excellent song even if you don't know Harry Potter from a hole in the ground.)
All The Old Showstoppers - The New Pornographers
(Hee! I just talked about this! I suspect stuffed ballots.)
Backwater Blues - Dave Van Ronk
(Again, really? Then again, there was a playlist that I had to listen to for a while because I was MAKING A CD FOR SOMEONE, and this was on it.)
Someday You Will Be Loved - Death Cab For Cutie
(Oy. In my defense, this would make a great fan video that I'll never make.)
Hiding In Plain Sight - Lauren Hoffman
(I'm surprised she's not better represented - I listened to her A LOT a while back.)
We Throw Parties, You Throw Knives - Los Campesinos!
(Hee!)
Paperweight - Schuyler Fisk and ... some dude.
(No really, she sings pretty.)
Keep On The Sunny Side - The Whites
(Again, hee!)
Australia - The Shins
(Yup. Totally fair.)
I've Just Seen A Face - The Beatles
(Really?)
Both Hands - Ani DiFranco
(Utterly fair.)
Expectations - Belle And Sebastian
(Fair.)
The Engine Driver - The Decemberists
(I guess? Although I've listened to "Yankee Bayonet" so many more times, I think.)
1234 - Feist
(Really?)
So Long - Guster
(I guess so!)
Diggin' My Potatoes - Lonnie Donegan
(Hee! Hee! Hee!)
Um. So, geez. What this playlist tells me is that I'm really fucking maudlin. And that I may have the Blues. What the hell?
So, the first thing is, Umbridge is a Hufflepuff.
I had to go back and check on what Hufflepuff qualities actually are because, while this is a very clear thing in my head, "Because she is" probably isn't very convincing. Although, really, I've heard that you can convince plenty of people that something is true simply by saying it, so bear that in mind for the future.
Part of the reason that I think Umbridge is a Hufflepuff is that I don't think she fits in any other house. Or, to make this easier, I don't think she's a Slytherin. Intelligence fosters dissent and heroes break rules, so I'm crossing off Ravenclaw and Gryffindor before we start.
So, turns out that Hufflepuffs like the following things: Hard work, Fair Play, and Loyalty.
Hard Work - Can't tell me that lady's not hardworking. It may not be towards the right ends, but that's one motivated woman. Look at how fast she got those pamphlets and crap out!
Fair play - Um. Look over there! Actually, no. While on the surface it seems that Umbridge was unfair to everyone - she wasn't. She wanted everyone to play by the rules - her rules, but the rules nonetheless. If they did, they were rewarded. If they didn't, they were punished. She doesn't see her rules as being unreasonable, so this is her metric of fairness and she's actually very faithful to it.
Loyalty - This is where most of my argument lies. I always thought of Umbridge as representing the dark side of loyalty. She is unflinchingly loyal to the Ministry, its people, and its policies. In the podcast, they talked about the changes in the Ministry in the seventh book, and how they believed that Umbridge's acceptance of these very drastic changes was evidence of her ambition and disregard for everything else. I don't think that's true at all. First of all, the changes weren't that drastic. There was no official take-over of the Ministry. As far as anyone on the inside was concerned, the Ministry was continuing as it always had, having nothing to do with Voldemort or any outside forces whatsoever. Such a position would be either very naïve, or willfully blind, but I think that describes Umbridge perfectly. She is so blindly loyal to the Ministry that in the end, it doesn't actually matter what the Ministry is. It doesn't matter what its policies are, what its goals are, or what actions it carries out. Umbridge is pro Ministry, whatever that means.
I don't think that Umbridge is a particularly ambitious person, which is the same as saying that I don't think she's a Slytherin. It's hard to say, though, because at a certain point, hard work and ambition conflate and it's hard to tell them apart. But her biggest goal was to be a supporter. Her biggest goal was to be the most important team player there was. She didn't want to be a rock star, she wanted to be the president of the fan club. She never wanted to actually be in charge, because she needed validation from whoever was in charge that she had done a good job. Yeah, she grabbed up power left and right at Hogwarts, but only so that she could tell Cornelius Fudge all about it and have him pat her on the head.
The other important thing to note about Umbridge is that she's a bigot. Why is that important? It's important because Slytherins don't have the market cornered on bigotry. I think, in fact, that her expressed prejudice is conditional to that of the people around her. As far as we saw, she had no opinion on Muggle-borns at all until the Ministry decided to go after them. As we heard, the Ministry had a long-standing bad treatment of part-humans, which probably allowed her personal dislike to flourish. She was just taking the views of the day to their most extreme end. If the Ministry suddenly decided to take of the cause of house elf rights, she'd probably denounce Hermione for not being pro-active enough.
Furthermore, there's this perception that Hufflepuffs are always nice and friendly and accepting of everyone, but that's not true. I'm remembering that scene in Chamber of Secrets when all the Hufflepuffs are gossiping about Harry, and then when they catch him overhearing, they fully turn their backs on him. Hufflepuffs can be insular and hive-minded at the worst of times. When cornered, their loyalty is to their own group, to the exclusion of anyone who's not in that group. Umbridge, again, gives an extreme example of that in the way that she treats Harry and the other students: if you're not with her group, worse, if you're against her group, then she seriously does not even have the wherewithal to be concerned about you.
I think I'm out of examples. BUT SERIOUSLY, THOUGH.
Part of the reason that I think Umbridge is a Hufflepuff is that I don't think she fits in any other house. Or, to make this easier, I don't think she's a Slytherin. Intelligence fosters dissent and heroes break rules, so I'm crossing off Ravenclaw and Gryffindor before we start.
So, turns out that Hufflepuffs like the following things: Hard work, Fair Play, and Loyalty.
Hard Work - Can't tell me that lady's not hardworking. It may not be towards the right ends, but that's one motivated woman. Look at how fast she got those pamphlets and crap out!
Fair play - Um. Look over there! Actually, no. While on the surface it seems that Umbridge was unfair to everyone - she wasn't. She wanted everyone to play by the rules - her rules, but the rules nonetheless. If they did, they were rewarded. If they didn't, they were punished. She doesn't see her rules as being unreasonable, so this is her metric of fairness and she's actually very faithful to it.
Loyalty - This is where most of my argument lies. I always thought of Umbridge as representing the dark side of loyalty. She is unflinchingly loyal to the Ministry, its people, and its policies. In the podcast, they talked about the changes in the Ministry in the seventh book, and how they believed that Umbridge's acceptance of these very drastic changes was evidence of her ambition and disregard for everything else. I don't think that's true at all. First of all, the changes weren't that drastic. There was no official take-over of the Ministry. As far as anyone on the inside was concerned, the Ministry was continuing as it always had, having nothing to do with Voldemort or any outside forces whatsoever. Such a position would be either very naïve, or willfully blind, but I think that describes Umbridge perfectly. She is so blindly loyal to the Ministry that in the end, it doesn't actually matter what the Ministry is. It doesn't matter what its policies are, what its goals are, or what actions it carries out. Umbridge is pro Ministry, whatever that means.
I don't think that Umbridge is a particularly ambitious person, which is the same as saying that I don't think she's a Slytherin. It's hard to say, though, because at a certain point, hard work and ambition conflate and it's hard to tell them apart. But her biggest goal was to be a supporter. Her biggest goal was to be the most important team player there was. She didn't want to be a rock star, she wanted to be the president of the fan club. She never wanted to actually be in charge, because she needed validation from whoever was in charge that she had done a good job. Yeah, she grabbed up power left and right at Hogwarts, but only so that she could tell Cornelius Fudge all about it and have him pat her on the head.
The other important thing to note about Umbridge is that she's a bigot. Why is that important? It's important because Slytherins don't have the market cornered on bigotry. I think, in fact, that her expressed prejudice is conditional to that of the people around her. As far as we saw, she had no opinion on Muggle-borns at all until the Ministry decided to go after them. As we heard, the Ministry had a long-standing bad treatment of part-humans, which probably allowed her personal dislike to flourish. She was just taking the views of the day to their most extreme end. If the Ministry suddenly decided to take of the cause of house elf rights, she'd probably denounce Hermione for not being pro-active enough.
Furthermore, there's this perception that Hufflepuffs are always nice and friendly and accepting of everyone, but that's not true. I'm remembering that scene in Chamber of Secrets when all the Hufflepuffs are gossiping about Harry, and then when they catch him overhearing, they fully turn their backs on him. Hufflepuffs can be insular and hive-minded at the worst of times. When cornered, their loyalty is to their own group, to the exclusion of anyone who's not in that group. Umbridge, again, gives an extreme example of that in the way that she treats Harry and the other students: if you're not with her group, worse, if you're against her group, then she seriously does not even have the wherewithal to be concerned about you.
I think I'm out of examples. BUT SERIOUSLY, THOUGH.
Saturday
Guys, guys. Guess what this post is about!
This post is about Harry Potter. I know! It's been a couple months.
Also, I feel like I should mention (and, uh, apologize to the P@) that I won't be doing that thing where you summarize your life in six words. I just ... no. Sorry.
NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT HARRY POTTER.*
As I've mentioned a few times, I listen to Harry Potter podcasts. Specifically, I listen to PotterCast and MuggleCast. Caz knows what I'm talking about. Anyway, I decided recently that I'm going to stop listening to MuggleCast. I just can't take it anymore. The last episode I listened to (which may or may not be the last one they put out) the hosts mispronounced (because they were clearly completely unfamiliar with) no fewer than four words, and not terribly complex ones at that. For example, "truant." You've been to fucking high school, don't even give me that. (I mean, except for the one girl on the show, who was homeschooled, and who therefore never has any trouble with pronunciation or comprehension.) Also, they debated why the Weasley twins would use the code name "Rodent" for that thing they do. (Are there still spoilers?) Is it because they're ratting people out or something? The Weasley twins, people. That, plus the way they massacre Latin every other episode just really pushed me over the edge. And! They all seem to enjoy Twilight, unironically, and I just don't even know what to do with that.
Not that PotterCast doesn't have its moments of stupidity. And then there's Sue Upton and her whole obsession with Hufflepuff, which, when I'm paying attention, makes me want to stab myself in the eye. Just the one eye, though. However, even with some lapses, I find myself pretty consistently entertained by PotterCast. So I'm going to keep listening to that one. They really need to cut out the segment with all the chicks who can't read off a page, though. Cut it, or give them a few speech lessons or something. I can't even pay attention to what they're saying half the time; it's painful.
Um. What's my point here? One of the dangers of listening to podcasts is that it's like reading a message board where you're not registered and can't reply to anything. It's very frustrating sometimes when you've got the answer down and they're floundering all over the place trying come up with something. And then you yell and curse at the air in front of you. It's awkward. It's why I listen to podcasts in my room.
There are two things that I'd like to discuss today that I've been thinking about because of podcasts. Well, actually, I'd been thinking about them before podcasts, but the podcasts gave me the desire to talk about it because apparently I'm the only one who understands. And, naturally, my blog is the only place where I have that kind of platform. But that's okay, you guys like Harry Potter. Right? You guys still like Harry Potter? Guys?
Okay, Issue 1. This is the general issue, and it has to do with Sorting, and how people are sorted. There seems to be this ... fundamental misunderstanding about Sorting. A widespread fundamental misunderstanding, that leads to unnecessary consternation about things like, why is Hermione in Gryffindor if she's so smart? Should Snape have been sorted into Gryffindor if he did brave things? Is Luna really smart enough to be in Ravenclaw?
Here's the thing. On casual inspection, Sorting seems like it's one thing. If you're smart, you go in Ravenclaw. If you're brave, or a jerk, you go in Gryffindor. If you're evil, you go in Slytherin, and if you're D. none of the above, you go in Hufflepuff. But see, you have to wonder. JK Rowling makes this big deal about how it's not our abilities that define us, but our choices. It's a theme. So, it's weird, then, for her to have this system in place where people are labeled, separated, and therefore defined, according solely to their abilities.
A-ha! Here's the crux: people are not sorted based on their abilities. They're sorted based on their values. Loyalty, bravery, intelligence, ambition: which one do you place higher than the rest? That's what Sorting is. Yes, Hermione is smart, but she would be a Gryffindor no matter how smart she was because, as she explains in the very first book: there are more important things [than book smarts]. Snape would never be a Gryffindor, no matter how many brave things he did, because he didn't give a shit about bravery.
This also explains why families tend to wind up in the same house. Look at the Weasleys. All of them wound up in Gryffindor, despite the fact that they're all very very different people with different talents and goals. Why? Because their parents instilled them with the same values growing up. I mean, at least until the time they were eleven. Neville (I want to punch in the face everyone who says Neville should have been a Hufflepuff) was raised to believe that his parents were the ultimate standard, his parents who were very brave. He was never going to be anything other than a Gryffindor. Sirius wound up in a house where none of the rest of his family had ever been placed because his values went against theirs.
I mean, I'm right, aren't I? You see the logic in this, don't you? So why does no one else seem to get this? (I don't mean you people. I mean the Harry Potter people.) Why are they still trying to figure out what houses people would be in based on what they do?
Which brings us up to Issue 2. And this is no where near as long. A couple weeks ago PotterCast had a discussion on what house Dolores Umbridge would be in. And they gave arguments for three options. Which was hilarious to me because the house that they didn't even consider is the house that I always assumed she would be in: Umbridge is totally a Hufflepuff. Think about it. I mean, I'll explain further if anybody wants, but ... think about it.
*Oh, snap, looks like I did it anyway.
Also, I feel like I should mention (and, uh, apologize to the P@) that I won't be doing that thing where you summarize your life in six words. I just ... no. Sorry.
NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT HARRY POTTER.*
As I've mentioned a few times, I listen to Harry Potter podcasts. Specifically, I listen to PotterCast and MuggleCast. Caz knows what I'm talking about. Anyway, I decided recently that I'm going to stop listening to MuggleCast. I just can't take it anymore. The last episode I listened to (which may or may not be the last one they put out) the hosts mispronounced (because they were clearly completely unfamiliar with) no fewer than four words, and not terribly complex ones at that. For example, "truant." You've been to fucking high school, don't even give me that. (I mean, except for the one girl on the show, who was homeschooled, and who therefore never has any trouble with pronunciation or comprehension.) Also, they debated why the Weasley twins would use the code name "Rodent" for that thing they do. (Are there still spoilers?) Is it because they're ratting people out or something? The Weasley twins, people. That, plus the way they massacre Latin every other episode just really pushed me over the edge. And! They all seem to enjoy Twilight, unironically, and I just don't even know what to do with that.
Not that PotterCast doesn't have its moments of stupidity. And then there's Sue Upton and her whole obsession with Hufflepuff, which, when I'm paying attention, makes me want to stab myself in the eye. Just the one eye, though. However, even with some lapses, I find myself pretty consistently entertained by PotterCast. So I'm going to keep listening to that one. They really need to cut out the segment with all the chicks who can't read off a page, though. Cut it, or give them a few speech lessons or something. I can't even pay attention to what they're saying half the time; it's painful.
Um. What's my point here? One of the dangers of listening to podcasts is that it's like reading a message board where you're not registered and can't reply to anything. It's very frustrating sometimes when you've got the answer down and they're floundering all over the place trying come up with something. And then you yell and curse at the air in front of you. It's awkward. It's why I listen to podcasts in my room.
There are two things that I'd like to discuss today that I've been thinking about because of podcasts. Well, actually, I'd been thinking about them before podcasts, but the podcasts gave me the desire to talk about it because apparently I'm the only one who understands. And, naturally, my blog is the only place where I have that kind of platform. But that's okay, you guys like Harry Potter. Right? You guys still like Harry Potter? Guys?
Okay, Issue 1. This is the general issue, and it has to do with Sorting, and how people are sorted. There seems to be this ... fundamental misunderstanding about Sorting. A widespread fundamental misunderstanding, that leads to unnecessary consternation about things like, why is Hermione in Gryffindor if she's so smart? Should Snape have been sorted into Gryffindor if he did brave things? Is Luna really smart enough to be in Ravenclaw?
Here's the thing. On casual inspection, Sorting seems like it's one thing. If you're smart, you go in Ravenclaw. If you're brave, or a jerk, you go in Gryffindor. If you're evil, you go in Slytherin, and if you're D. none of the above, you go in Hufflepuff. But see, you have to wonder. JK Rowling makes this big deal about how it's not our abilities that define us, but our choices. It's a theme. So, it's weird, then, for her to have this system in place where people are labeled, separated, and therefore defined, according solely to their abilities.
A-ha! Here's the crux: people are not sorted based on their abilities. They're sorted based on their values. Loyalty, bravery, intelligence, ambition: which one do you place higher than the rest? That's what Sorting is. Yes, Hermione is smart, but she would be a Gryffindor no matter how smart she was because, as she explains in the very first book: there are more important things [than book smarts]. Snape would never be a Gryffindor, no matter how many brave things he did, because he didn't give a shit about bravery.
This also explains why families tend to wind up in the same house. Look at the Weasleys. All of them wound up in Gryffindor, despite the fact that they're all very very different people with different talents and goals. Why? Because their parents instilled them with the same values growing up. I mean, at least until the time they were eleven. Neville (I want to punch in the face everyone who says Neville should have been a Hufflepuff) was raised to believe that his parents were the ultimate standard, his parents who were very brave. He was never going to be anything other than a Gryffindor. Sirius wound up in a house where none of the rest of his family had ever been placed because his values went against theirs.
I mean, I'm right, aren't I? You see the logic in this, don't you? So why does no one else seem to get this? (I don't mean you people. I mean the Harry Potter people.) Why are they still trying to figure out what houses people would be in based on what they do?
Which brings us up to Issue 2. And this is no where near as long. A couple weeks ago PotterCast had a discussion on what house Dolores Umbridge would be in. And they gave arguments for three options. Which was hilarious to me because the house that they didn't even consider is the house that I always assumed she would be in: Umbridge is totally a Hufflepuff. Think about it. I mean, I'll explain further if anybody wants, but ... think about it.
*Oh, snap, looks like I did it anyway.
Tuesday
At least it was technically free.
This is one of at least three blog posts that I plan on writing today. Right now. With only breaks to get more apple juice and maybe dinner, depending on how late this goes.
Okay, so, what this post is about is, see, I recently picked up and read Twilight, the first in the eponymous book series by author Stephenie Meyer. I would like to talk about that.
Fair warning, if you have any interest in reading this series, you probably shouldn't read any more, because I really don't know if I can be bothered to use spoiler tags. Maybe, though! We'll see.
Twilight has recently been heavily pimped by the Harry Potter podcasts I listen to. Prior to that, I don't think I'd heard of it. The Potter geeks are interested because a movie version is in the process of being made, and the male lead is to be played by Robert "at least three 't's HOTTT" Pattinson, better known to most of us as the late, lamented, Cedric Diggory. After some cursory research, I found that the film will also include a few more people whom I register on the neutral/positive spectrum: Kristen Stewart, whom I greatly enjoyed in Panic Room, wherein she played a character who was essentially Lauren (though I've so far not managed to see her in anything else), and Michael Welch, who was wonderful as Amber Tamblyn's brother on "Joan Of Arcadia."
Variety of title style is getting a workout in this entry.
So, anyway, after they'd mentioned this a few times, I decided to try it out. I was promised sexy times, action adventure, and vampires. Seriously, odds are it was up my alley.
I went to the library to try to snag it there, but for the third time in a row, the book was listed as being in the library, but it was not on the shelf. So, either my public library has a large problem with theft, or they can't catalogue for shit. I wound up picking it up at the Barnes & Noble because I found a gift card I had for $30. I also finally picked up the last Ted Leo album.
The book is about 500 pages, and I finished it in less than 24 hours, gross time, even with doing other actual activities. This book bothered me greatly. Why, you may ask? It is a resplendent example of why I'm scared to write a novel: because I worry that this is the sort of story I would produce. Now, don't misunderstand. I'm not saying I didn't like it. I did, after all, just pay it the high compliment of saying that I could see myself writing it.[/hubris] I'm saying that it wasn't any good.
I checked out the author's website, and I read some of her background on her writing. (This is her first novel.) Among the things that quirked my lip corners: She got the idea for this story from a dream. Also, she obsesses mainly over the details of the characters. And she looks a lot like Charisma Carpenter. That last point is just for color.
She takes an awful amount of pages to say not very much. There's no plot to speak of, except towards the end where the characters passively happen to fall into a weak and contrived scenario. There's no active decision making that I can remember at all. The writing is painfully repetitive. The human girl's vampire boyfriend is very pretty. The author mentions this in every sentence in which he is described. Which happens 5-10 times for every scene that he's in. ... Which is pretty much every scene. Also, the human girlfriend is clumsy. Vampires are pale. She loves her vampire boyfriend. Her breath catches. Her heart beats erratically. Et cetera. Also, the vampire boyfriend has some sort of issue where he'll go from laughing to scowling and angry to smiling every other sentence. In a few years, if you're ever flipping through the premium channels and you catch Mr. Pattinson and he's doing this - he's not insane. He's in character.
The secondary vampire characters are all fairly ridiculous and not worth mentioning. They attend high school for Chrissakes. Listen, if you were a hundred years old, would you go back to high school? On purpose? Even if people left you alone and you aced all your tests and occasionally got a human girlfriend? No. You would not. There are a variety of subplots that wind up never having anything to do with anything. And of course there's the usual dilemma. You know, the vampire boyfriend totally loves the human girlfriend and they want to be with each other forever, but of course he doesn't want to make her a vampire. Except, see, in the mythology created by this book, and in the context of this story, this makes no effing sense. Seriously. As written, every single objection is discounted or can be worked around. So the dilemma comes across as preposterously artificial, and I was instantly tired with the whole thing as soon as we got there. Because I've read this before. Innumerable times. And it's been done. Better.
Of course, they don't really address the question of whether or not vampires have souls. I'm going to have to come down on the side of "no" though, because of one exchange. The vampire boyfriend claims that he likes music from the 50s and the 80s, but not the 60s or the 70s. And I can't. freaking. understand that! He must be evil, because that's a completely soulless thing to say. Furthermore, it doesn't make any sense. Most of the music in the 80s was a direct derivative of the music they were playing in the 70s, except for the teeny pop, which was based on the music of the early 60s. THAT SHIT MAKES NO SENSE. Get me a flow chart. What is he saying? That he would rather hear Tiffany than the Jackson 5? He would rather listen to Billy Joel than Bob Dylan? Poison is better than the Zep? Is he seriously saying that he prefers WHAM! to the Beatles? Human girlfriend: dump his stupid evil ass.
Of course, the author listed some of her musical preferences on her website, and she's got shit taste, too, so this perhaps explains it.
So, wait, what was my point? Oh yes. I worry that I would write something like this. I mean, obviously, my taste in music is better, and I would like to believe that my writing skills are better, but about the meandering plotless vacuum with excessive focus on character thing. About vampires or something like that. What's baffling, though, is that this series seems to have a large cult following. It's mostly teenage girls OMGing about romance and hot boys, but still. It was a NY Times bestseller. It's gotten all sorts of good reviews from various sources. Is it me? Are people just not that discriminating anymore? And ... I don't know, could that conceivably work to my advantage?
I'm not as keyed up about it as the entry probably sounds, though I have all these issues. Again, I didn't dislike it. I'm a sucker for vamp angst. It's like chicken. Even if it's not the greatest, I'll probably eat it. It's one of the few things I enjoy. But I definitely won't be getting the follow-up books. Especially as I'm given to understand that a werewolf storyline gets introduced, and man, I just don't have the time. The book collectively took less than 6 hours of my life, but I just do not have the time for that.
Okay, so, what this post is about is, see, I recently picked up and read Twilight, the first in the eponymous book series by author Stephenie Meyer. I would like to talk about that.
Fair warning, if you have any interest in reading this series, you probably shouldn't read any more, because I really don't know if I can be bothered to use spoiler tags. Maybe, though! We'll see.
Twilight has recently been heavily pimped by the Harry Potter podcasts I listen to. Prior to that, I don't think I'd heard of it. The Potter geeks are interested because a movie version is in the process of being made, and the male lead is to be played by Robert "at least three 't's HOTTT" Pattinson, better known to most of us as the late, lamented, Cedric Diggory. After some cursory research, I found that the film will also include a few more people whom I register on the neutral/positive spectrum: Kristen Stewart, whom I greatly enjoyed in Panic Room, wherein she played a character who was essentially Lauren (though I've so far not managed to see her in anything else), and Michael Welch, who was wonderful as Amber Tamblyn's brother on "Joan Of Arcadia."
Variety of title style is getting a workout in this entry.
So, anyway, after they'd mentioned this a few times, I decided to try it out. I was promised sexy times, action adventure, and vampires. Seriously, odds are it was up my alley.
I went to the library to try to snag it there, but for the third time in a row, the book was listed as being in the library, but it was not on the shelf. So, either my public library has a large problem with theft, or they can't catalogue for shit. I wound up picking it up at the Barnes & Noble because I found a gift card I had for $30. I also finally picked up the last Ted Leo album.
The book is about 500 pages, and I finished it in less than 24 hours, gross time, even with doing other actual activities. This book bothered me greatly. Why, you may ask? It is a resplendent example of why I'm scared to write a novel: because I worry that this is the sort of story I would produce. Now, don't misunderstand. I'm not saying I didn't like it. I did, after all, just pay it the high compliment of saying that I could see myself writing it.[/hubris] I'm saying that it wasn't any good.
I checked out the author's website, and I read some of her background on her writing. (This is her first novel.) Among the things that quirked my lip corners: She got the idea for this story from a dream. Also, she obsesses mainly over the details of the characters. And she looks a lot like Charisma Carpenter. That last point is just for color.
She takes an awful amount of pages to say not very much. There's no plot to speak of, except towards the end where the characters passively happen to fall into a weak and contrived scenario. There's no active decision making that I can remember at all. The writing is painfully repetitive. The human girl's vampire boyfriend is very pretty. The author mentions this in every sentence in which he is described. Which happens 5-10 times for every scene that he's in. ... Which is pretty much every scene. Also, the human girlfriend is clumsy. Vampires are pale. She loves her vampire boyfriend. Her breath catches. Her heart beats erratically. Et cetera. Also, the vampire boyfriend has some sort of issue where he'll go from laughing to scowling and angry to smiling every other sentence. In a few years, if you're ever flipping through the premium channels and you catch Mr. Pattinson and he's doing this - he's not insane. He's in character.
The secondary vampire characters are all fairly ridiculous and not worth mentioning. They attend high school for Chrissakes. Listen, if you were a hundred years old, would you go back to high school? On purpose? Even if people left you alone and you aced all your tests and occasionally got a human girlfriend? No. You would not. There are a variety of subplots that wind up never having anything to do with anything. And of course there's the usual dilemma. You know, the vampire boyfriend totally loves the human girlfriend and they want to be with each other forever, but of course he doesn't want to make her a vampire. Except, see, in the mythology created by this book, and in the context of this story, this makes no effing sense. Seriously. As written, every single objection is discounted or can be worked around. So the dilemma comes across as preposterously artificial, and I was instantly tired with the whole thing as soon as we got there. Because I've read this before. Innumerable times. And it's been done. Better.
Of course, they don't really address the question of whether or not vampires have souls. I'm going to have to come down on the side of "no" though, because of one exchange. The vampire boyfriend claims that he likes music from the 50s and the 80s, but not the 60s or the 70s. And I can't. freaking. understand that! He must be evil, because that's a completely soulless thing to say. Furthermore, it doesn't make any sense. Most of the music in the 80s was a direct derivative of the music they were playing in the 70s, except for the teeny pop, which was based on the music of the early 60s. THAT SHIT MAKES NO SENSE. Get me a flow chart. What is he saying? That he would rather hear Tiffany than the Jackson 5? He would rather listen to Billy Joel than Bob Dylan? Poison is better than the Zep? Is he seriously saying that he prefers WHAM! to the Beatles? Human girlfriend: dump his stupid evil ass.
Of course, the author listed some of her musical preferences on her website, and she's got shit taste, too, so this perhaps explains it.
So, wait, what was my point? Oh yes. I worry that I would write something like this. I mean, obviously, my taste in music is better, and I would like to believe that my writing skills are better, but about the meandering plotless vacuum with excessive focus on character thing. About vampires or something like that. What's baffling, though, is that this series seems to have a large cult following. It's mostly teenage girls OMGing about romance and hot boys, but still. It was a NY Times bestseller. It's gotten all sorts of good reviews from various sources. Is it me? Are people just not that discriminating anymore? And ... I don't know, could that conceivably work to my advantage?
I'm not as keyed up about it as the entry probably sounds, though I have all these issues. Again, I didn't dislike it. I'm a sucker for vamp angst. It's like chicken. Even if it's not the greatest, I'll probably eat it. It's one of the few things I enjoy. But I definitely won't be getting the follow-up books. Especially as I'm given to understand that a werewolf storyline gets introduced, and man, I just don't have the time. The book collectively took less than 6 hours of my life, but I just do not have the time for that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
