‘Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince’: An Alternate View
by Andrew LeighSo, John Nolte didn’t much care for the new “Harry Potter” movie. If memory serves, he didn’t care for movies 1-5, either. He admits, however, to never reading the books. This is a fatal error in appreciating the “Harry Potter” films, in my opinion.
John is like Charlie Brown and the football — forever doomed to dislike these movies, but he keeps coming back for more. Because the “Harry Potter” films are made for the books’ readers, period. In fact, you might say it’s a unique genre unto itself.
Let me attempt to head off the expected response to this: a movie should stand on its own, without requiring familiarity with the source material. Ordinarily, I agree with this. And I agree that the “Harry Potter” movies would probably be better off if they tried harder to satisfy this rule.
But it seems as though the filmmakers made a conscious or semi-conscious decision at some point early on to make these movies for the readership, not for the general public. They’re really cult films. And with such lavish budgets, if they were based on any other source material, they’d be a financial debacle.
But the “Harry Potter” series, as one of the biggest-selling of all time, is a very big cult indeed. And so, rather than drastically slash and retool the original stories, they tried to maintain fidelity to them, at the expense of comprehensibility for the non-readers in their audience.
Heck, I have trouble following the movies’ complex plotlines myself. And I’ve read all of the novels. I can’t imagine trying to grasp all those story threads without the benefit of the books.
For the most part, I just sit back and bask in the eye candy of the rich sets, costumes, locations, and special effects. As an unabashed Anglophile, I reveled in the magnificent British cast, glittering with such acting jewels as Maggie Smith, Michael Gambon, Helena Bonham Carter, Jim Broadbent, and David Thewlis. In particular, Alan Rickman’s delicious performance as the slithery Snape is alone worth the price of admission.
But I do agree with some of John’s criticisms. The movie is too long (what movie nowadays isn’t?) and probably tries to cram in too much detail from the novel. Of course, when adapting a 652-page book, you have to make many judicious cuts in what to transfer to the screen, but some of the choices seemed odd.
Some major plot points are quickly glossed over, while inconsequential events are dwelled on out of proportion to their significance. For example, they spend what feels like a quarter of an hour on Hagrid weeping over a dead giant tarantula, which has virtually no bearing on the story. But they leave out key elements of the ending, which renders the movie’s ending more emotionally flat than the book’s.
One more note on the film: While recent entries in the series have (understandably) taken a turn toward the dark, this latest contains some truly humorous moments, usually revolving around Ron’s and Harry’s romantic interests. Jessie Cave as the girl with a massive crush on Ron is especially amusing.
Now, on to another point about “Harry Potter” and culture in general:
Earlier this week Big Hollywood linked to an article on the Newsbusters site, which took note of an organization styling itself the Harry Potter Alliance. This group is trying to organize Harry Potter fans into an army of little left-wing grassroots activists.
Take a glance at some of the issues they address and it’s nearly indistinguishable from the Daily Kos: Darfur, Don’t Buy New Stuff, Fair Trade, Global Warming, LGBT, No New Stuff (it’s listed twice), Poverty, Rwanda, “WaldeMart,” etc.
I’m not entirely surprised by this development. What I was disappointed in, however, was the Newbusters correspondent’s reaction. Instead of critiquing the Alliance’s mostly boneheaded interpretations, he mocked the very idea of taking books and movies seriously.
“You know that some people have no lives when they take a movie and/or book and use it as a template for their lives,” he writes.
Instead of telling people to ignore the impact of popular culture (a quixotic effort if ever there was one), why not present an alternative view? In the case of “Harry Potter,” it’s a cinch to counter the HPA’s dubious lefty inferences with the ample conservative themes woven throughout the books.
For instance, I’ve always thought of the rise of Voldemort as a symbol for terrorism. And the way the media and bureaucracy in the “Harry Potter” books try to hush up or downplay the threat of Voldemort seems so reminiscent of our own feeble institutional responses to the rise of Islamist terror. It’s certainly a more apt analogy than the Harry Potter Alliance’s wan attempt to link global warming and commercialism with He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named (and what does that remind you of?).
And any attempt to link “Harry Potter” with a critique of capitalism is just risible on its face. Is there a more robustly commercial enterprise than the Harry Potter machine? In the books themselves, there are numerous joyous references to the act of commerce. Ron Weasley’s twin brothers’ dream is to own their own shop, and one of the great pleasures detailed in the books is shopping for, yes, “new stuff” like wands, candy and Quidditch broomsticks.
As for the series’ underlying critique of conformity, one could just as easily argue that trying to indoctrinate kids into the prevailing leftist ethic is more conformist than conservatism, which is hardly the orthodoxy in the Age of Obama. For example, when even major broadcast networks such as NBC are hosting “green weeks,” how can anyone claim that concern for the environment is an edgy, unconventional stance?
I don’t mean to pick on Newsbusters, as a dismissive attitude toward pop culture prevails among most conservatives. But if conservatives truly want a place at the table again, they’ve got to take culture seriously. Winning elections isn’t enough. If the last nine years haven’t taught them that, nothing will.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
112 Comments
Oh, yeah!!??
To the Alliance's credit, there is one obvious leftist parallel in the Harry Potter franchise: Obama is Gilderoy Lockhart. Charming, narcissistic, eager for the spotlight and adoration, bereft of ethics, and utterly incompetent when it comes to wielding power.
I agree with a lot of this article. I have yet to see this movie, but having read the whole series of books, I know what is happening and where it's headed and it doesn't bother me one bit that the movie follows the book. In fact if there were changes I would be quite upset. I think most fans (and there are huge numbers of us) would not be pleased with any attempt to make the movie something different than novel. I believe that J.K. Rowling has kept a pretty tight leash on her creation. She is protective of it. There probably wasn't a lot that a 'creative' screenwriter, director, or whoever would be allowed to do.
And like Gilderoy, you've got to wonder exactly how many people he ruined to get to where he is.
And like Gilderoy, you've got to wonder exactly how many people he ruined to get to where he is now.
Yeah!!!
(It's erudite disputations on such a cerebral level that make me love Big Hollywood.)
I've never read the books, but enjoyed the previous movies tremendously.
The latest movie, Half-Blood Prince, is simply boring with no pay off. Relationships and romance is fine, but it doesn't go anywhere in this movie. And what a completely anti-climatic ending.
For me, this movie was a step backwards for the franchise. Let's hope they can get their act together for the final movies.
I have never read the Potter books, not my kind of literature anda seris, come on tell the story. My daughter who is now 21, read each one as they came out and we indulged her in all things Harry. she even began dressing up for the new books and going to midnight showings. After seeing Goblet of Fire she swore she was done. She was frustrated with the huge differences between book and film. "Friends" tricked her into seeing Order of the Phoenix. She did not like that one either. Today she is 21 and can hardly wait for Comic Con. Good bye Harry hello Alcatraz High. Her only disappoint will be not seeing the Supernatural boys in Sunday. Church day.
Readers may be interested in an article published about five years ago. In it French literary theorists and professor, Ilias Yocaris, condemns the Harry Potter books for being polemics for "neoliberal capitalism". Yocaris writes that, "On the face of it, the world of Harry Potter has nothing in common with our own. Nothing at all, except one detail: like ours, the fantastic universe of Harry Potter is a capitalist universe."
He, of course, thinks this is a bad thing. It just gave me another reason to love the books that much more.
You can read his article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/opinion/18YOCA….
Ok, reading this as someone who would NEVER read one of the books, even though I read hundreds of books every year, and as someone who would NEVER see the movies, I have to say this make immense sense to me. My son and daughter have been big HP fans, son liked the books, daughter liked them both, so I see how making them for the fans to enjoy would be the way to go. Also like how you addressed the cultural aspects. I love John Nolte, but I think you have the firmest grip on what is behind the HP series. Thanks.
[...] here: ‘Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince’: An Alternate View This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
Author JK Rowling told a nearly all female audience to thunderous applause that Dumbledore was gay. So, being written by a fairly left wing woman, who wants and needs the approval of a female, and therefore left-wing audience/readership, it is safe to assume that on most questions of culture and society, the Harry Potter Books are pretty left wing.
It's pretty clear that the villain(s) are straight White men, who do "evil Straight White Male things" that must be stopped by a "diverse" group of people. Heroes copied this basic template as well. The series conforms to every left-wing prejudice, bias, and bigotry of the standard, leftist younger woman in Britain (such as being gay is automatically a laudable identity). As well as to the desires — mindless status consumerism, endless navel gazing about romance, and so on that make the book series entirely tedious beyond it's (mostly female) Young Adult audience. Indeed, the entire Young Adult line is a mostly girl-female ghetto, stories like Kidnapped or Treasure Island could hardly be published today — the male readership for Robert Louis Stevenson's classics just don't exist today — books are largely for girls at that age.
The Potter books were a fad for the tween audience, who seem to have moved on according to the WSJ, to Twilight's Edward Cullen.
Are you out of your mind? This movie was clearly and properly a prelude to the war. Zerobama, I mean Voldemort, is about to terrorize everyone and must be stopped! As to the "Romance" JKR had to develop the relationship between HP and Ginny as well as Ron and Hermione. They are getting married! Also the feelings between Ron and Hermione is a major story line in Hallows! The ending was NOT anti-climactic unless Dumbledore's murder was anti-climactic. I don't think so! There was a few minutes of film after the murder but the clock tower was the ending! You can bet your Elder Wand that there will be funeral at the beginnig of the next movie! They did it right. I do agree with the reviewer; a little less time on Aragog and more on Dumbledores withered and blackened had would have made more sense.
Gilderoy Lockhart is a tertiary character who has very little to do in the Harry Potter universe. To compare his minimal role in the series to a major political and historical figure like Obama is absolutely asinine. You're absolutely off base, "bereft of ethics, and utterly incompetent when it comes to wielding power" may be true when referencing Lockhart but to state that Obama has done nothing but clean house while opening doors that have in the past remained locked by others need for power over some idealistic sense of what is right for American's. If Lockhardt can be compared to anyone in U.S. politics then I'd say he is Sarah Palin. Easy on the eyes, solid background you can relate to, not the brightest crayon in the box, and living through someone else's accomplishments while failing in the face of confrontation and problem.
I read the books, and I still can't understand the plots of the movies. Therefore, I think they should make the movies so that anyone can follow them, rather than the people who read them four times a year.
Are you out of your mind? Obvioulsy you have never written a book. The writer must be able to visualize a character to extract dialogue from the player. Making Dumbledore gay was an artifice (look it up) to allow JKR to get the dialogue she needed. It had nothing to do with left wing or right wing! Look up MacGuffin whilst you are educating yourself.!
Now, now, just because you didn't like it, doesn't mean someone else can't like it.
dude.
As for the Dumbledore is gay thing, while I found it annoying at the time they way she played "gotcha", upon reflection I think conservatives should embrace Dumbledore as their gay spokesman. The moral message of an entire book — I think the Order of the Pheonix — is about making sure Harry understands that he's not the chosen one because he was born that way, but because of choices he makes in his life (it turns out there's at least one other boy who fits the conditions of the prophecy). There's a very long dialogue where Dumbledore makes absolutely sure Harry understands that his choices determined his life, and if that's not a conservative view, I don't know what is.
[...] more. Because the “Harry Potter” films are made for the books’ reaRead more at http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/aleigh/2009/07/17/harry-potter-an-alternate-view/ Tags: Custody, Debbie, guardianship, Hearing, Jackson « Under God: Loving Harry, [...]
[...] more. Because the “Harry Potter” films are made for the books’ reaRead more at http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/aleigh/2009/07/17/harry-potter-an-alternate-view/ Tags: and, the « Legendary TV…. Cronkite’s passing: A death in [...]
Except that in the books, Gilderoy Lockhart had the media constantly propping him up, worshipping him, and failing to ask any hard questions. Sounds a lot like the thrills up the leg that Chris Matthews has for Obama.
I'm kind of skeptical of the whole "Dumbledore is gay" thing. I haven't read the books for a long time, but I don't remember anything that unambiguously points toward Dumbledore being a homosexual. The whole announcement seemed to me like more of a publicity stunt and an attempt to stir up controversy and boost sales than anything else.
Haven't seen this one yet and I'm not sure I saw the last one. Read all the books.
I'd like to bring up another point, not in disagreement but as a consideration in *addition* to these films being made for the books' readers and fans… they are made for *children*.
This doesn't mean they need to be childish, but I'm reminded of something that a children's book writer once said… kids get *mad* when the illustrations are wrong.
Adults are used to the illustrations being wrong and the cover art having little or nothing to do with the book. Kids have a very low to non-existent tolerance for pictures that don't match the words.
And a movie is pictures.
Adults aren't immune, of course, because for all the reactions that *I* had that Snape was *perfect* that Hagrid was *perfect* that Dumbledore and everyone and maybe Hermione was a *little* too cute… I also, when the actors that played the Weasley twins *grew* looked at them on the screen and thought… wow, that is just so *wrong*.
"Because the 'Harry Potter' films are made for the books’ readers, period."
Not a very good motivation for making a major Hollywood blockbuster. If they had been features on the Sci-fi network, maybe. But the Potter movies are for a general audience. They are not genre films. Not fantasy, not childrens', not action, and certainly not "fans of the book". If anything, it falls under the wide genre of popcorn flick.
In any case, for a movie to be good, it has to stand on its own. People who say, "You had to read the book" are simply apologists. If the movie cannot be enjoyed on its own merits, what was the point of making it? You already have the book; go on enjoying it. Forget about someone else interpreting the images for you. Unless you think doing so would be an interesting endeavor for its own sake.
"This movie was clearly and properly a prelude to the war. Zerobama, I mean Voldemort, is about to terrorize everyone and must be stopped!"
Voldemort was terrorizing everyone in the previous film, too. If this one's just another prelude, like the last one, only without the martial preparation and high stakes confrontation, tell me, why did we need yet another prelude?
The ending was anti-climactic. It consisted of people pointing sticks at eachother, waiting for something to happen. Then something happened. Exactly what we knew was going to happen. We had to wait, without any real suspense, which is the definition of an anti-climax. The part immediately preceeding it was spooky and effective, which made it all the more boring.
'Hundreds' of books a year? You're good.
I was someone who was initially suspicious of the Harry Potter series and read the first one early on, since I have four children who were young at the time. The link to the occult in the whole witch/wizard/magic arena greatly concerned me.
However, I have come to appreciate Rowling's work . First of all, the virtues of the characters are – IMHO – anything but leftist. 1) There is a very clear distinction between good and evil. 2) No moral equivalence in the big picture story line. You're on one side or the other and one is good and one is bad. ( Definitely NOT post-modern). 3) On Harry's side, there is sacrifice, love, doing the right thing even when it hurts, hanging on to truth even when your friends desert you. 4) On the other side, it is satanic. Lord Volemort is a tyrant not only to his enemies but also his followers. He will willingly sacrifice THEM for his own purposes. And he was evil from the beginning. Society did not make him do it.
The magic is a prop to tell the tale for an age old struggle far beyond the pedestrian struggles we see in our world today.
There really are two sides fighting in this world and there's no middle ground, as much as some would like there to be.
I think THAT is the appeal of Potter – besides being very well written and a good story with "real" characters. It reflects a truth way beyond what we see in most literature and movies in today's popular "wham bam, sex crazed, ultra violent" fare. It hits home on the true struggle all around us that is in many respects unseen.
Finally, I went with my older children to the opening. At the end, there was very little clapping. That's a plus. The end of the movie was not your trite feel good resolution, but a sober one. Upon later reflection I thought it far better than my initial reaction at the end. And thus it usually is with good literature. I know I will enjoy watching it more times to fully appreciate all that went on.
I think we need more of this for our kids – and we adults can benefit as well.
And of course Obama is living only on his own accomplishments…..assuming of course we actually know what they really are but with every iota of information about his past blocked from public view it is hard to know just what he has accomplished. Sarah Palin certainly cannot be said to have no accomplishments of her own though.
And only time will tell if Obama is a major historical figure or not. Nero and Caligula are certainly known from history but I hardly rank them as major figures and I think history will come to see Obama as a failed blip on the continum of time as well.
So, my post on Nolte's piece was moderated out, ergo, second try.
Coming from a non-fan, I found the first two books boring, and the films not much better. With that said – anyone who would go to part 6 of anything without seeing the first five is a fool, and it's not as though – the present critic's idea notwithstanding – that this is some cult thing. I would guess that more American tweens, adolescents and young adults are well-versed in the HP universe than they are in the bible (yeah, that one).
The larger question(s) for me is(are) simple: are HP people creepier than Scientology people? Do LoTR people trump both? And, should Atlas Shrugged be made into a movie, do the odds favor Objectivists like me trumping all three on the creep-meter? Meh – who is jg?
@BrendanOC
Translation:
Obama can't be Lockhart because Obama's important! And historic!
Obama opened doors by re-hiring former Clinton appointees, Goldman Sachs alumni, lobbyists, and creating dozens of czar positions that circumvent the advice and consent clause of the Constitution to undermine the other branches of government so he is ethical and historic! He abandoned his promise to read and post bills for the public to read five days before signing them because he is too important and historic! He hired Kal Penn because he wants to create opportunity for poor under appreciated celebrities who are historic in their important-ness! His Attorney General has advised in favor of warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, military tribunals, and unlimited detention, just like Bush's Attorney General, which really cleaned house!
Sarah Palin sucks!
It appears Obama's memory charm has worked its magic on you, just like Gilderoy Lockhart's would have. Now imagine if Dumbledore had believed Gilderoy Lockhart was the only hope against Voldemort, and had invested all of Hogwart's substantial resources in him. Then you might understand where we are with Obama.
Well, except for the fact that all the movies in the franchise have broken box office records ….. nah, you still don't have a point.
It's difficult to read posts by people who haven't read the books denigrating the movies. The movies weren't meant to stand on their own.
I don't want to give anything away (SPOILER ALERT***) but in the final book Rowling writes of the ultimate struggle of good vs. bad ~ good vs. evil ~ I daresay even Satan vs. Humanity, saved by the love of one person … in the book, it's Harry's mother Lily Potter, in real life it's Jesus. That's how I see it, anyway.
You certainly can't argue with the movies' success.
I'm not so sure Rowling is a left-winger, either. I've never seen her comment on current events, but for a little while I was convinced she didn't like the US. (except for the massive amounts of money she was receiving from book royalties)
At the first of Half-Blood Prince (the book, haven't seen the flick), the British PM is awaiting a call from "the president of a far distant country", a "wretched man". I always thought that was a reference to America and Bush until I read Rowling's statement clarifying when HP was born, July 31, 1980, which would mean – in the timeline of things – it was when Clinton was in office.
I'm a big HP fan ( but I don't own a replica sorting hat or anything like that) and am much, much older than the average HP fan, old enough to be their grandfather.
When the first two movies came out, I hadn't read the books and knew nothing of Harry Potter. I understood it was a big deal, but it meant nothing to me. Bored one day, I decided to get some dvds. From what I knew of Harry Potter it was about kids with magic. Since I like fantasy movies and I'm ok with the occasional "kids' movie" I decided to give the movies a shot and finally watched the first two films. I was very much entertained. I liked the movies, a lot! Testing the waters some more, I decided to read the first book. I was dismayed to have to go to the children's section of the bookstore, but I was determined. I loved the book. Completely hooked, I bought the rest of the book series. Order of the Phoenix was the latest book at the time. I could not stop reading them. When Cedric died I literally threw the book in being upset. I've read the series about 4 times now.
If you know your J.K. Rowling, you know that Gilderoy Lockhart is actually Phillip Pullman, loathsome author of the "His Dark Materials" series that attempts to indoctrinate children into athiesm.
"The Golden Compass" was such a huge failure that it brought down New Line Cinema. Heh. As the story goes, Joann Rowling went to a book signing of Phillip Pullman's when she was just a writer wanna-be. Pullman's incredible ego and horrible behavior inspired her to write Gilderoy Lockhart. And serves him right, I might add.
All in all, though, Gilderoy is not Obama. Gilderoy could cast the occasional spell, and he actually held a job.
Of course we all know Harold Bloom's opinion, a real critic.
http://papercuts.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/har...
Dear, read "The Secret Key to Harry Potter" and get back to me after that. I won't elucidate them here; too much information. You won't regret it.
I just saw the movie today, so I have not read your review yet. But I'd definitely agree with Andrew – you need to read the books! The movies are fun, but the books are far better. No, they are not Shakespeare. But JKR has created a captivating universe here. They really are quite fun and involving, and has some great examples of good vs. evil. Give 'em a try.
There was NOTHING in the books along these lines! Unless it was something so obscure that you'd have to be the type who is looking for such things in order to pick up on it. So I remember being stunned when I heard of this announcement, because it seemed to come of nowhere. Publicity stunt seems the only plausible explanation, though why this woman would feel like she needs MORE publicity, I cannot fathom.
I have chosen to just pretend it never happened at all.
Bravo! I've tried to describe the books to other grown-up non-Potter fans, but not as concisely as you.
I will admit that I don't view the movies with an eye for the manner in which a novice (to the storyline) would. I love the latest movie for the outstanding visuals, the return to humour. My 17 yr old son and I were laughing at all the teenage love "angst".
I also give Ms. Rowling credit for helping to teach my son to read. When the first book was published, he was struggling to achieve at-grade reading levels. I began reading this book to him at bedtime. Within several months, he was reading to me, and within a year, he was reading at high school level.
I also appreciated the values lessons she stressed in the books. She dealt with the death and loss issues very well, and this Mom has been a grateful reader and fan of Harry for years! If you haven't read the stories yet, give it a try. Start with "Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone". You won't regret it.
Yowch!
Nice background info- didn't know how Rowling was inspired to create the Lockhart character other than imagination, so I found this very interesting.
Houses Ravingmad (MSNBC) and Huff'n'Puff (HuffPo) are still fawning over Obama. It will never end.
See my reply to WHISKEY
You assumed WAY too much, but you are the only one made an *ss of. Good and evil are quite clearly demarcked in the books, and this clarity is NOT a left-wing hallmark. If the DeathEaters were treated sympathetically, and the Gryffindors viewed as meddling jingoists, well then MAYBE we could grant you your point.
Since when is killing a young boy's parents an "evil Straight White Male thing"? THAT is a very Left-wing viewpoint, not to mention bigoted. (Well, I guess six of one and half-dozen of the other.)
I know a fair number of adults (30 yoa and up) who enjoy these stories immensely and have yet to pick up a Twilight book, and probably never will. (I am one of them.) There is richness in the series; there are morality tales, charactyers which are brave and too human, and characters which are evil and then redeemed. There is evil for evil's sake. There is laughter and sorrow. It is a fantasy series which is very true to life.
Great idea! Let's make them as boring and pointless as everything else!! Oh, why oh why aren't you working for Universal?
I tend to agree. Had to quit watching "The Simpsons" since the writers began to feel compelled to put a gay reerence of one typwe or another into every episode. It was an un-necessary act to decree Dumbledore was gay, but, if Rowling intended him to be so all along, at least he did not act on his proclivities.Perhaps because they were sinful! (they do celebrate Christmas there at Hogwarts; we can assume the faculty and students are Christian- they certainly ACT Christian, most of them.)
A gay character that does not commit the sin of sodomy. THAT's inspiring!
If there is any doubt that J.K. Rowling is a left-winger:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.k._rowling#Politic...
It is all rather strange though, because there are a LOT of conservative themes in the books. Of course, its always possible that she really is right-leaning deep down inside, but supports the left because she's been suckered into thinking that the left is the party of individual rights, freedom and prosperity. It happens to a lot of other people.
I remember you from Libertas. You really do hate women, don't you?
Have you bothered to read the books? Have you not seen boys reading these books, going to the bookstore events, etc.? Or has your nasty attitude toward women in general colored your view? Sheesh.
Two more actually. More $$$ but it should give them a chance to do the final volume more justice.
I believe that somewhere in Washington D.C. that a certain someone's buttocks is smiting viciously, and he has no idea why.
The Harry Potter story is truly one of the best I've ever heard. I love the books.
"The Half Blood Prince" is one of the best books. But the movie was horrible. All the parts I looked forward to in the new movie were either completely cut out or neglected.
I can't believe they postponed the movie for so long and then after all they hype and wait it ended up being a total disappointment.
I was actually pretty sad at how poor the movie was. All the other movies are done fairly well for "book to movie" movies. But this one crossed the line. I really hope they can pull it together for the last two movies.
I agree. The biggest problem with Whiskey's argument is that Harry, Ron, and Hermione are all white, and Harry (a white male) is the main person fighting "the Evil Straight White male" in the end. Whiskey's argument is beyond ludicrous because Rowling makes it a major point to show that Voldemort is not in the least bit recognizably human, he has degraded so that he isn't straight, white, or male: he is simply Evil.
I enjoyed it,. I thought it was one of the better movies in the series. But I agree, it's hard to fully appreciate these films unless you read the books. Yet, if you read the books, the films are bound to disappoint you because they leave so much out.
She does get a lot better from the first book, and she weaves a very complex series of mysteries that turn out to be very interconnected from the start. I won't spoil it tio say how, but this film reveals a very important fact that ties all the stories together inspite of the obvious running plot. There si excellent foreshadowing in this series..
This film does a masterful job of compressing the story, though they leave out a lot of Voldermort's past. And they never explain why Dumbledore's hand got withered, They also fail to give us as much characterization scenes as was needed IMO. It was a long film and a lot was still left by the wayside.
I do think the director improved in leaps and bounds from his last outing, however. I understand he talked to Alphonse Curon who did the best directing job. It shows. This film's look is perfect.
Only one more to go.
Just got back from Harry Potter last night.
Isn't it refreshing that a kids' movie is made for readers? And how about what the Pope said . It "promotes values of friendship, altruism, and loyalty" and makes it clear that the search for immortality epitomized by the-one -that-shall not-be-named is wrong. Wow, don't tell the kids!
Harry continues his search for the adult world in a path that makes ours look easy (but in some ways much more fun.)
Here's to Harry and all the grown-ups who read the books and/or are going with their children and teens to follow this modern gem.
"Don´t buy new stuff"
Really? Like a Nimbus 2000?
To quote Robert Conquest: Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.
In their personal lives, when it comes to their children, their money and so on, people understand how things work and they are usually conservative by a big margin. They just cannot translate that into an understanding of society. They end up voting against their (and our) interests.
Rowling needs a sitdown with Theodore Dalrymple.
That's pretty much the point of the books – he's evil and amoral. The witch he freed from prison certainly digs him, but he's cold towards her and everyone else. His only love is of power, not flesh. That was the point of the books – love of fellow man vs. quest for power over fellow man. Yeah, OK, I bit and read them and found them entertaining but that's what the main theme of the books seem to be.
I meant to add that Rowling may support the welfare state and not know about the downside, but these are not the values of the books. The books have good values. I envy every kid who reads them at the right age.
I agree she needed a better editor because these books are definitely too long. But it's pretty quick reading. It's not like they're really deep, you know?
It seems that she started writing these initially for younger children, but when the popularity skyrocketed, she started reaching for an older audience. The first three books weren't nearly as long as the last four – and she strove to cover more weighty subjects in the last four as well. She could have gone on writing about simpler subjects like in the first three, but starting with book four, she started the "Harry Potter will eventually save the world" theme and was shaped/limited by that from that point onwards.
I had a similar experience with the whole Harry Potter thing at about the same time that you did. I found that I liked them in spite of myself. These books and movies weren't the kind I would usually read or see. But there's no reason to look for deep meanings in everything one reads or sees in movies. It's refreshing to read a book with a simple but powerful message or go to a movie, switch off the reasoning part of the brain and just be entertained, as I've been doing with everything HP to date.
“You know that some people have no lives when they take a movie and/or book and use it as a template for their lives”
That describes a big chunk of the fanbase that plays World of Warcraft.
Don't read the books, John, I want you to eat your hat! ha-ha (kidding, kinda)
I'm a Harry Potter fan. I read all the books and think Rowling is an excellent writer. That she started out with simple writing suitable for youngsters and "aged" her writing and her characters as THEY ages is masterful.
I don't care if she claimed Dumbledore was gay. She didn't have him hitting on any of the boys so who who cares? (I suspect Rowling was trying to burnish her left wing credentials since she's the richest woman in England, I believe. She sure didn't want to provoke a left wing boy cot (I separated the word and left off the "t:" so the Site Nazi couldn't get the post — it doesn't seem to like the word) and all the ad hominem attacks by being rich without toeing the Left wing party line. Apparently people in the arts or celebrity have to be gay friendly or they're black listed. Ask Carrie Prejean. Just as apparently, one can be rich as Midas so long as he/she wants taxes to equalize everyone else (Hillary, Kerry, Kennedy, Corzine and most of the rest of the Democratic Party).
About the movie. A miserable piece of cinema. One of the few movies I actually considered walking out on halfway through – some of that was spouse wiggling around bored to tears).
There wasn't a single thing to recommend the film from the screenplay to the director to the main characters. Rickman, Coltrane, Smith, Broadbent, Bonham-Carter and the kids who played Draco and Tom were excellent, but sadly, none were on screen long enough to carry the film. The girls with the small parts (Fern and the one chasing Ron) were excellent and picked up the movie when they were involved. Gambon was a terrible Dumbledore. Harris did a much better job.
The director cannot be blamed for the fact that Radcliffe, Watson and Grint have absolutely no charisma as adults with each other or with the audience as they were cast years ago when they were three darling child actors who were wonderful in their roles and so have to follow it through. Unfortunately, they didn't grow up well. That happens to lots of child actors. In fact, the child actor who does grow up to be a major adult actor is the exception, not the rule.(Where is Haley Joel Osmet these days? How about Dakota Fanning. I saw a photo of her recently and it was scary!)
I'd be very surprised if Watson or Grint do anything after Potter. Radcliffe seems to be favored by producers and directors so he'll probably be foisted on us a la Madonna, Aniston and Sarah Jessica Parker — actors the public don't seem to want to see on the screen but the "powers that be" are determined to advance their careers in film.
There weren't enough special effects and the special effects that were there were kind of silly. I differ from Hudnall in that I thought Hagrad and his dead spider was one of the better scenes. (Coltrane is an excellent actor. The dead arachnid had slightly more charisma than Radcliffe).
And scenes was what the film was. A lot of them with no connection one to the other.
Bad film, bad cast, bad direction, bad screenplay – good supporting characters.
Site Nazi got me again. I'll try again later to post. NOLTE! If you're reading this thread, please consider reinstituting DHP – your loyal fans are getting tired of getting zapped by the site Nazi.
What is DHP? I am clueless.
I think it is difficult to write about good vs. evil, courage in the face of insurmountable odds, etc. without sounding conservative.
Yeah, I had one stopped this morning. It didn't affect any others. I am wondering what the parameters the Admin Nazi uses. Right now , it is hit or miss with me.
I have a theory as to why the author said DumbleDore is gay. She said it to get the Gay Lobby off her back so she could go back to writing.
I get a lot stopped. It would be helpful if the Site Admin would tell us what the Nazi doesn't like. Someone said you cannot use the three letter word for someone who has the same religion as the Israelis, so I don't use that. I don't use vulgarities and don't attack other posters. Frankly, I'm flummoxed.
In my post that got pinched by the site Nazi, I posited the same possibility. Artists and celebrities who do not toe the Lefty party line get savaged — ask Carrie Prejean. Seems to me, it'd be easier to recite the party line and stay in the closet than be distracted from your job, and possibly fired or black listed, Did you read Roger Simon's "Blacklisting Myself". Great book. He's an excellent writer. Lots of inside stuff about Hollywood.
I haven't read it yet. I mean to but……………..wife, kids…….excuses. Hehehehe Seriously, I thought it is just a line he said.
Anything juicy in it?
"Your comment must be approved by the site adminis before it will appear publicly."
So what does that mean?
Tell me, do you concentrate on one article and comment, or do you go from article to article to comment?
The ending WAS anti-climactic, but as Leigh points out, that's the film's flaw, not the book's, because essentials were left out at the end. It's actually, in the book, a pretty exciting ending, but because certain characters and plot points had been left out previously, well, they couldn't just randomly throw them in at the last minute.
Yes, JKR is a liberal. Even aside from the DD is Gay thing, she has made statements disparaging Christianity and conservative causes. However, these sentiments aren't really reflected in the books. In fact, Order of the Phoenix, while a travesty of a film (in my opinion) was maybe the best treatise AGAINST government-run education in existence today. That's not exactly a left-wing stance.
That may well be true; And may also have been true of C S Lewis and the Chronicles of Narnia in terms of moving on with the story.
The only thing I find amazing is how the books all hang together – which doesn't present a random or deviated approach.
If you were referring to my comment "as a template" you are wrong, manic otter!
We were "swim parents" who did the bulk of our child/parent guidance through a sport that involved way way more than movie attendance. But I do think that it is very good to accompany children to movies and know what they are reading. It enriches your bond and gives lots of oppurtunities for great discussions.
Don't be in such a bad mood. Sheesh! I like you!
II believe Rowling wrote the first HP book while on the dole – I think I read somewhere she'd take her kid to school — she was a single mother — and spend the day in a cafe writing the book. Since she had a college degree, I wondered at the time why she didn't find some kind of job. But then, of course, she wouldn't have had time to write HP and become the richest woman in England. I don't know. While I admire her writing, I have trouble with those who have the means to support themselves but who use the system to chase their dreams. Maybe those working to support them would like to chase their own dreams instead of carrying the load for deadbeats. Anyway, it's colored my opinion of Rowling if not my enjoyment of her talent.
No problemo…us otters are a little snarky sometimes when we don't mean to be!
Yes, that's true. But like I say, those things aren't really reflected in the story. For example, Mrs. Weasley is a SAHM, but you never get the idea that there is anything "lesser" about her because of it, and (she has said in interviews) both Ginny and Hermione grow up to be career women. One thing I like about the stories is that it doesn't generalize about people. There are good and bad poor people, good and bad rich people, good and bad young people, good and bad old people. As DD said, "It is our choices, not our abilities, that define us."
Was she on unemployment, or was she on one of those "artist's grants" they keep trying to do here? I think that it may have been a grant, in which case, I would consider her only partially unemployed, since she did actually produce not just one but seven works from it.
John's also the guy who said Star Trek was a disaster, so I take pretty much everything he says with a grain of salt. Most reviewers aren't able to maintain neutrality about all subjects, so if you can find one who seems to be dependable 75% of the time, count yourself lucky.
Just got back from Harry Potter last night.
Isn't it refreshing that a kids' movie is made for readers? How about that it makes them wait for the "pictures" (in the form of a movie) until AFTER they have read the whole book? As harry, himself might say, "Brilliant!"
And how about what the Pope said? It "promotes values of friendship, altruism, and loyalty" and makes it clear that the search for immortality epitomized by the-one -that-shall not-be-named is wrong. Wow, don't tell the kids!
Harry continues his search for the adult world in a path that makes ours look easy (but in some ways much more fun.)
Here's to Harry and all the grown-ups who read the books and/or are going with their children and teens to follow this modern gem.
I liked the first three, but the sheer volume of the following tomes discouraged me. Those books are long, life is short. Good writers do not need such heavy wordage. Tolkien didn´t.
How has she disparaged Christianity? She herself is a Christian, and her beliefs in the afterlife, etc. play a huge role in the last book. "Deathly Hallows" could be considered a Christian allegory…
JKR highlights this in an interview: http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?News...
Yep, I agree too. I didn't know that Rowling kept control over the content of the movies, but good for her. She probably learned the lesson of many other authors who didn't. Plus, she probably had more at stake given that her book series wasn't finished when the movies started to appear. A disaster at the box office might have hurt book sales.
Heh, that was my thought, but I read hundreds of books every year too. All but a couple of dozen are comic books, but still . . .
"But the Potter movies are for a general audience."
Well, yes and no. Clearly there was a desire to attract more viewers, who might then also become readers, but most movies for a "general audience" still target some segment of the population. Some may be more narrowly targeted (e.g., slasher movies) than others, but very few movies will appeal to all major groups.
It's a fine motivation for a blockbuster, when you consider that the books' readers number in the many millions all over the world, and for every kid ticket you sell there's at least one adult ticket as well. Pretty damn good motivation IMHO. Factor in the creation of new fans who go into the movie blind and you end up with exactly what Warners & Rowling have: an indestructable franchise that's made billions.
I saw Half-Blood Prince last night, with the Missus, and found it quite enjoyable – even the giant spider burial scene.
I took the film as a fantastical exploration on every human's yearning to be loved and to love. This is a theme that runs throughout the film, most obviously in the Harry, Ron & Hermione. The movie also shows us what can happen when our longing for love goes bad, as in the case of Draco Malfoy. I might argue that Severus Snape is a case of making the ultimate sacrifice, a piece of his soul, out of love for others – both Draco & Dumbledore.
I came out of the movie with a much deeper appreciate of the Rowling's story and especially for the character, Snape, who seems to me to be one of the most complex characters in the Potter world.
Good point. It could be that she just expanded the story, so to speak. On the other hand, I've wondered whether she simply pitched the later books to her core readers who were growing up. If the stories had all been at the same level, the readers who made the first book such a success would have been bored with them long before the seventh book was published.
I was shocked by how many capitalist and christian themes are crammed into the Harry Potter books, I was always under the impression that there was a good reason that the right wing attacked the series and its author. Whether it is the constant assault on the incompetence and overbearing interventionism of government (the Ministry of Magic) or the generally comfortable disposition towards risk taking in school (in todays ultra litigated environment Hogwarts wouldn't last a term), or the acceptance of different individuals having different gifts that they could put to use with no one except the government to regulate the creative.
The Judeo Christian value of redemption and a very clear concept of evil makes me think of Chronicles of Narnia. While there are often characters whose personal values are ambiguous, the understanding of right from wrong is rather clear which only serves to emphasize how actions can often be complex and grey.
It also shows the harmful affects of dabbling in darkness, or having a cynical obsession with the macabre. It places individual acts of goodness over that of corporate power. Parent figures are respected, particularly the Weasleys who are good parents who have mischievous children, but it is never in doubt that they are a good family that loves one another. Family and friends are important and many of the books play out like morality tales.
Great books, probably the most conservative leaning books kids read and other than Rowling's claim that Dumbledore was gay, there has not really been any heavy handed leftist indoctrination.
Great books, would recommend highly to Conservatives and Christians alike. Up there with Lord of the Ring, Willy Wonka, Chronicles of Narnia, and LS's SoUEs.
Oh, and I rather liked the movie… I have not been a fan of the movies, but this one was willing to cut some parts and focus on others so as to make a movie that was satisfactory and entertaining. Several lines were omitted that I felt were very important, particularly between Dumbledore and Malfoy and Dumbledore and Harry.
I enjoyed this movie more than any others, with possible exception to Prisoner of Azkaban, which is funny because I really did not like this book very much as it is next to impossible to follow up a great book like Order of the Phoenix.
Snape is a fantastic character. (***SPOILER ALERT***) I also thought there were strong elements of Christian redemption in his story arc. He's a character who did truly awful things but manages to redeem himself through reflection, self-sacrifice, and love. When he's young, he acts only for himself, and in the end, he acts only for others.
DHP is "Dirty Harry's Place". Before Nolte moved to "Big Hollywood", he had a wonderful web site (DHP) which discussed politics, films, etc. There was no Nazi pinching posts unless the posts advocated violence and/or vulgarities. It was a great place to discuss issues intelligently. BH is excellent, however, the site Nazi has been pulling most of my posts recently — sometimes they come back up; sometimes they don't. I don't have a clue what triggered this latest "awaiting moderation". It was just a straight forward opinion on the latest Harry Potter film. I didn't advocate violence, use vulgarity, use any of the prohibited words that I know of.
I always believed she was pandering to fanfiction fangirls. They are largely pro-gay who fantasize about the gayness of Harry, Draco, Snape and Dumbledore.
As far as the left vs right aspect, there is an undeniable similarity linking the author and her beloved character. J.K. and Harry both came from dire circumstances and used their talents to excel in life. The horrible guilt of success will keep J.K. at the altar of the left as she enjoys the riches of the right core principle. Shocking!!
Oh, and I haven't read the books yet I've still enjoyed the movies on a mildly amusing level.
The movie was supposed to be released last summer but Warner Bros. didn't want it to compete against "The Dark Knight" so they pushed it back to this summer.
I haven't read the books yet but love the movies. I liked this movie but the ending should've had emotional weight (I knew what was going to happen to Dumbledore). I think the director is saving it for the final two movies which better have everything and the kitchen sink thrown in.
I think its a great accomplishment for this franchise to have all of the original actors(minus Richard Harris with his death) complete the series.
I like the book the Golden Compass, the movie was a failure because they changed the story. A huge part of the story was that the man who had raised Lyra(probably wrong spelling) attempted to poison her uncle(her father) and then turned around and gave her a magnificient gift. The movie had an unknown person to Lyra do it. What a change in the story. Anyway, the book was good, the movie was like watching the movie Starship Troopers.
I believe many people, like myself, first heard the name "Caligula" due to a certain "adult film." I need sleep. This brings up the possibility of "O'Bammer" adult films someday. I had to wait for a crock pot to cool down. Black on white is a popular theme, as well as groups. Okay, I can put in in the fridge now. Besides Michelle, to keep it liberal they would toss in Hillary and Nancy. I can finally get to bed. Yup, I am done with eating for the night. Hope I can sleep.
From what I understand, she was on the dole. When she finished HP, she, like most new writers, collected her share of rejections. I don't think the publisher really realized what he had in his hands when he accepted it. There are plenty of writers who before breaking into publishing get up at 3 a.m. to write before going to their "day jobs". Being on the dole with a college education really made me think less of Rowling. Some less educated worker was supporting her while she had the luxury of writing her book. That said, I admire her talent and her HP books immensely.
I didn't remember anything pointing that way either . . . until the last book. SPOILER ALERT FOR LAST MOVIE:
DD and Grindelwald – the "friendly" relationship seemed a little bit too "passionate", but I brushed it off. When the "gay" thing came out, it kind of dawned on me.
However, I think JKR's words (and feel free to correct me) was more along the lines of "I always thought of Dumbledore as gay", not that he was necessarily gay.
But whatever. It still didn't ruin anything for me.
I don't believe that JKR is a left-winger either, but there are conservative themes running through the books, it makes me wonder if she even realizes it. The good v. evil, yes. OoTP and Dumbledore's Army – the Ministry being afraid that DD was starting his own Army and the kids learning how to defend themselves from Voldemort, a threat that the Ministry (gov't) was denying. DD not liking the fact that they sorted kids so early (group thinking is bad?).
But the best part is this: JKR said that she was glad that no one ever asked her about her religious beliefs because then it would have given the ultimate mystery away.
And the ultimate mystery solved and the resolution is very Christian. There is a bit of a Christian allegory going on in the end, about death and acceptance of it. And it is very beautiful and hardly "leftist" at all.
So she maybe "leftist", but the books definitely don't come across that way at all.
I enjoy reading/viewing Harry Potter, but am not a fantic about it. I agree with the points of this article for the most part. It is very dangerous to critize something — directly or its cultural effects — without having read/seen the source material. As long as conservatives act like the fuddy-duddies we'll continue to cede ground.
I've not yet seen HG6, but I have seen 1-5 and have read all of the books. The characteristic that I found most annoying about the series– that chance and luck save Harry again and again — is resolved very differently at the end of the series, to my satisfaction. In fact, there is a lot of CS Lewis in the Harry Potter series, but it only becomes explicit at the end of the last book. I don't know whether or not JK Rowling is a Christian, but she sure seemed like one by the end: we are free beings, but there is a higher power that may or may not be using us for His purposes.
With regard to the density and complexity of the movies, that is the same as the books and it doesn't seem to have hurt her sales figures. Conservatives should be glad that an author is demanding of her readers and that her readers — who otherwise live in a low-expectation, coddled world — respond positively. This goes to the movies too, Rowling's deal with Warner Bros gives her very strong control over production. This is her world and she's not going to let it be watered down or bastardized.
me knuckledragger (ie: conservative). big words make brain hurt
Actually, when the series finally came to an end, she said that she was glad that no one had every questioned her about her Christian beliefs because that would have given the ending of the whole series away.
And, as you know, the ending is frought with Christian allegory about Death and Resurrection and Sacrifice.
So, although I'm pretty sure she's the usual Leftist, her books are far from that.
Sorry, Mr. Nolte, but my eleven year old daughter had no trouble following the plot of the movie, and she has never read any of the books. I dare say she would have found it hard going if she had not seen the previous films, but just how "stand-alone" must each movie in a franchise be? It would be tedious to explain Harry, the Weasleys, Hermione, Dumbledore, Voldemort, etc. in each separate film. They are quite long enough as it is. (And, as a "tween," she was vastly amused by the teen-aged high-jinks cluttering up the film. Keep in mind the target audience.)
I enjoyed the books and am looking forward to seeing the movie, mostly because I'm always curious as to how books I've enjoyed have been adapted to the big screen. My favorite film adaptation of _Jane Eyre_ is probably the one made in 2007 with Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson. The one I liked best before that one was the one with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clark. I didn't like the one with William Hurt at all. I don't expect the HP books to have the longevity of _Jane Eyre_, but I still like to see what the filmmakers have done with it. I enjoyed reading your review, as well as Mr. Nolte's. I'll reserve my own judgment until I see it myself–through my own lens (cloudy though it tends to be). Thanks.
[...] Andrew Leigh, “‘Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince’: An Alternate View” (more positive) « Michael Baran perfectly prophesied this president [...]
watch Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince online
http://megashare.info/watch.php?id=TVRRMg
You must be logged in to post a comment.