I was in the unusual position of NOT following the Harry Potter series for the last decade. I haven't read the books (though I plan to), and up until two weeks ago I'd only ever seen the first movie. I figured I needed to watch at least one in theatres (and I promised some friends I'd go with them to the finale midnight release,) so I caught up with the rest of the world and watched the others. And whaddayaknow, I really liked them. I think by not having read the books, I was immune to most of the complaints, which seemed to stem more from material that was cut or changed rather than the actual content of the movie.
A few random thoughts. Spoilers below.
- What's the point of Ravenclaw & Hufflepuff? I mean, Gryffindor is good and Slytherin is bad, and the other two are just kinda... there. Do they serve any purpose in the books, because I can think of one noteworthy student from Hufflepuff and that's it. I figure any student who winds up in one of those has got to feel shafted, because they know they're destined for a life of not mattering.
- If they openly admit that Slytherin is the evil house and that any wizard who's gone bad has been from Slytherin, why the hell do they keep training little snake kids? Yes, I know Snape wasn't really evil, but that doesn't excuse the rest of the house or explain why they train them all to be dicks (because they really do.)
- That said, do we really want to send a message that internment camps are a good idea? McGonagall schooling Snape was cool and all, but I do question her decision to send all of Slytherin house to the dungeons. Yeah, send the girl who wanted to turn over Harry, but at least give the others a choice before you treat them like the Japanese in WWII (because that worked out so well.)
- As long as we're on Snape, the flashback scenes were amazing. You go, Alan Rickman.
- Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint have really come into their own as actors. Watson in particular really shines; she's definitely learned from Rickman how to say volumes with just a look. Can't wait to see what they do next.
- Did J.K. Rowling just completely ban Americans from being in these movies? I don't recall a single American actor in any of them.
- Why didn't anyone just try shooting Harry or Voldemort? You know... with a gun. Oh sure, it's not flashy, but it's damned effective. Just ask Tara.
- As far as deaths go, it would have been nice if we had actually seen more of the characters die. It always feels unceremonious to me when important characters die offscreen.
- Loved that epilogue. After following the trio for seven years of school, that's exactly the conclusion the series needed to give a nice sense of closure.
...man, haven't used this name in AGES.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, to answer your questions:
1) It's not that Gryffindor is good and Slytherin is evil - it's that even though the series is narrated in third person, it's told from Harry's perspective, so it just seems that way. (Gryffs and Slytherins have had a long-standing rivalry - kind of like my high school had with the town just south of us.)
If you had to break it down: Gryffindor is characterized by the pursuit of bravery, Slytherin is characterized by the pursuit of power, Ravenclaw's the pursuit of wisdom, and Hufflepuff's the pursuit of loyalty. While...yeah, that makes the first two houses classic "good" and "evil" on the surface, that doesn't make Gryffindor perfect or Slytherin pure evil.
Besides, Snape alone is an argument against that view, IMO. (He's not a woobie or the true hero of the series, as Slytherfen sometimes argue. He's unquestionably a dick. But he's OUR dick. Even if he did kill Dumbledore.)
2) As such, that answers the first question for a large part. Plus, I think that it should be noted that GRYFFINDORS ARE NOT PERFECT. I haven't seen any of the movies save for PoA and DH1, but I've read the books. I will note that there are quite a few skeletons in the closet (and no, not just the one where Dumbledore is gay) and questionable actions when you think about them.
Conversely: Despite perceptions, arguably SLYTHERIN ISN'T PURE EVIL. I think that while Slytherin would probably be the house most prone to falling to Death Eater rhetoric (Hufflepuffs would be hesitant to turn in their friends, Ravenclaws would find the entire idea stupid, and Gryffindors...well, you know)...this is going to Godwin my entire argument, but I think that's kind of like saying that we should have just abolished Germany and Japan after WWII and annexed them to the US. (Nowhere near the same thing, but I guess kind of like the same concept.)
6) Well, Hogwarts is a British boarding school, and all of the action takes place in the UK. So that'd be why.
7) Wizards and witches literally do not believe in the power of muggle (non-wizard) technology and culture, for the most part. This is what makes the Weasleys so odd - Arthur's interest in muggles is wholly uncharacteristic of a wizard.
So it wouldn't have occurred to most of the characters - and in Voldemort's case, it likely wouldn't have worked!
8) In the books themselves, a lot of them die off-screen (in fact, I believe they're targeted for the age range of the characters - so, Sorcerer's Stone would be more of a tween book, while from GoH on is more YA, and progressively more mature). So a fade to black would be fitting.
So that should be pretty much everything. My memory may be a bit fuzzy, and while my heart bleeds crimson and gold, I still have a bit of sympathy for all the houses.
1-2.) Oh yeah, I definitely see the shades of grey in there. It just seems like they're aiming for a more black-and-white picture (although I get what you're saying about it being from Harry's perspective.) Especially with Snape's flashback scenes, it really turned things on end and made Dumbledore look like a bigger dick than Snape in some respects.
ReplyDelete6.) Not saying there should be American accents in there anywhere, more just a statement on the lack of American actors, especially when you consider the sheer number of Hollywood movies that feature British or Australian actors with American accents.
Yeah, I figure once I read the books it'll flesh out the details of the world a good bit. Unfortunately, there's only so much you can put onscreen without turning it into a four hour epic.
Brian, in interviews J.K. stated that in order for WB to produce the movies she required that they have only British actors. So thats why there are no American actors in any of the films.
ReplyDeleteAh, okay. I knew she'd said the children had to be British, which I can understand (trying to get a child to master an accent is a tricky thing.) Seems kinda silly to extend that to the adults, though.
ReplyDelete