Category Archives: Childhood

Harry Potter: From an (In)different Perspective

Leave a reply

WARNING: This article contains a brief, but pretty major spoiler for “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2,” If you care that much, I suggest you stop reading now.

When “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part Two” concluded, a saga that had lasted over a decade had ended. Some people in the audience cried, others cheered, and pretty much everyone clapped wildly. For these people, it was a truly emotional moment.
Me? I made a fart sound with my mouth.
Maybe my reaction was a little bit immature. However, it summed up why I could just never get into this series. No matter how eye popping or imaginative “Harry Potter” could be, it just never clicked with me, whether in novel or film form.
My indifference to “Harry Potter” was never too personal. I read the first two books, and thoroughly enjoyed them. I saw the first two movies, enjoyed those, too. The series started to lose me around the fourth film, though I have always appreciated the increasingly dark tone of the series. Looking back on it, the “Harry Potter” series did many good things. Most importantly, J.K. Rowling inspired children not only to read, but to enjoy reading, and to want to read, and to finish a book that was over 800 pages in one sitting. Even Dr. Seuss and Roald Dahl would have had trouble pulling that off.
I never made it to the seventh book, and after giving up on movie number four, I only saw the second half of the seventh film (longest second act, ever). Harry’s original story, as a misfit who doesn’t understand his potential power is easily relatable to any young teen trying to figure out who they are. I could relate to this (no, I am not a wizard and no, my parents never forced me to live in a closet under the stairs). Yet, no real emotional connection ever forged between me and the young witches and wizards of Rowling’s universe.
When I was younger, I became attached to certain sagas and passed over all others. The world of “Harry Potter” never appealed to me. I tried “The Matrix” for one film and while I love “Star Wars” I could never call myself a fanboy. Rather than obsessing over Potter, I spent most of elementary and middle school as a “Lord of the Rings” geek. Later on, it was the two part universe of “Kill Bill” that somehow got the best of me and made me embark on my never-ending journey to watch every movie I could find at the public library.
“Harry Potter” has always felt strangely cartoonish to me. Even in its most serious moments, I never got a grasp in my mind that this world of magic could actually exist, that Hogwarts was a place I could put myself into. As far as the movies ago, I was never a fan of its mentality of making a gripping and dark action scene and then trying to end it with a light-hearted moment. That one little one liner would always devalue some of the previous scene’s seriousness. That’s just taking the idea of comic relief too far. Maybe it’s just an English thing.
At this point you are probably wondering: where the hell is my review? I just spent $10.50 and two and a half hours of my life on this movie, so shouldn’t I have some clear, formulated opinion? Well, here it is: “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows: Part 2″ is a highly entertaining summer blockbuster. Its special effects are dazzling and show the very best Hollywood has to offer in the latest CGI. This film shows how much the series has changed since its humble roots. However, if this is your first “Harry Potter” film, or your first “Harry Potter” film in quite some time, then you will not find yourself enjoying it so much. I would offer another big blockbuster for you to see but unfortunately, the only other ones currently out are sequels. So instead, I’ll request you go watch the pristine images and dinosaurs in “The Tree of Life.” That’s what you get for not liking “Harry Potter” more, you resentful jerk.
Anyway, there are some things I really do like about “Harry Potter.” I really like what the series did with Snape. I also admire the film’s special effects, which are the moviemaking equivalent of magic. The CGI felt organic, not forced. But because this film took place in the middle of a story that I was never involved in, I don’t feel I can properly review this film to the highest degree. Therefore, I leave you with these last two paragraphs.
All in all, not feeling an emotional connection with Harry and his friends doesn’t mean you’re missing a piece of your heart. Those tears that people felt once future Harry, Ron, and Hermione sent their kids away to Hogwarts is the exact way I felt after watching Andy give away all of his toys last year in “Toy Story 3.”
When some people walked out of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2,” a piece of their childhood ended along with the franchise. Everyone my age grew up alongside the “Potter” kids. Their awkward changes once they hit puberty only rivaled our own.
For me, once the screen faded to black, I just continued living from where my life had left off right before the film. However, I did feel an immense sting of disappointment that I didn’t stick around for the trailer for “The Dark Knight Rises” that played following the credits.

Movie Review: Where The Wild Things Are

1 Reply

Like many children in America, I remember being read only two books growing up: “The Cat in the Hat,” and “Where the Wild Things Are.” The former got a movie adaptation that few would ever like to mention again, while the latter, after so many years, finally made it to the big screen.

“Where the Wild Things Are” is a movie adaptation I’ve been waiting for for quite some time. The idea of how someone could take 10 sentences and turn it into a feature length film fascinated me. The end result is something of a mixed bag; an intense labor of love that just isn’t given all the love it truly needs.
In order to make the story fit a feature length, director/writer Spike Jonze and co-writer Dave Eggers added a backstory. Young Max (Max Records) feels isolated from the rest of the world. He doesn’t have friends, he has an indifferent older sister, and divorced parents.
Just like in the book, Max’s frustrations mount to him donning the trademark wolf suit, biting his mother, and then sailing off to the land of the Wild Things. There, he meets the tough but lonely Carol (James Gandolfini), the bullied Alexander (Paul Dano), and the free-spirited KW (Lauren Ambrose).
Like in the book, Max becomes their king. Here though, he learns that it ain’t easy being in charge.
“Where the Wild Things Are” was brought to the big screen by one of Hollywood’s most wildly imaginative directors, Spike Jonze. This is his third film, following “Being John Malkovich” and “Adaptation.” His version of “Where the Wild Things Are” proves to be not only Maurice Sendack’s vision, but also his own. He turns the island of the Wild Things into a land of not only dense forests but also desolate, empty deserts. And there’s a giant dog.
Like “Being John Malkovich,” “Where the Wild Things Are” takes place entirely inside one person’s imagination. In this case, it’s in Max’s head. Unlike the book, Jonze doesn’t seem to distinguish between Max’s fantasy and reality. Perhaps this is his way of saying Max hasn’t entered the realm of early maturity yet, and the only thing that will accompany him is his dreams.
Before I dish out some complaints of the film, there are a few things here that must be praised. Mainly, it’s Lance Accord’s camerawork. His cinematography ranks alongside “The Assassination of Jesse James” and “Children of Men” as the best of the decade. Some of the best shots come during the “magic hour” of the day when the sun isn’t quite set, but still beams down in golden rays. The desert is used perfectly as a metaphor for Max’s isolation from humanity.
But maybe most profound is the way the Wild Things themselves are depicted. Instead of choosing CGI, Jonze went with old fashioned puppetry. While on set, Records was never talking to a green screen, but rather living, breathing creatures. Then, there’s the way they are introduced. While most directors might make a big deal out of it and create a slow, painful introduction (i.e. Peter Jackson’s “King Kong”), Jonze shows us the Wild Things just seconds after Max arrives.
When I left the film, I felt conflicted. I knew there was something missing from the film, but I just didn’t know what. While it’s understandably hard to turn 10 sentences into an entire film, the approach seemed a little backwards. In a way, almost nothing seems to happen in the film. While the Wild Things certainly are given a human face, some of the conflict felt a little forced. At one point, Carol asks Max if he knows the feeling when your teeth spread apart as you get older. Lines like this sound more like Andy Rooney observations than actual thematic discussion.
Maybe “Where the Wild Things Are” could also be a victim of bad timing. The film about the child who creates a fantasy world to escape their horrible reality has become quite commonplace. It was done best most recently with “Pan’s Labyrinth.” In a way, I wish Jonze laid the plot out a little more like that film. “Pan’s” felt more like a story with actual challenges facing Ofelia in her own fantasy.
In the end, I still do appreciate everything Jonze did to make this movie. I call it a labor of love because I know Jonze truly did all he could to get his vision on the screen. It’s a labor of love like Copolla’s “Apocalypse Now,” Ridley Scott’s “Blade Runner,” or Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds” in which the style is so flawlessly executed that most might lose the meaning of exactly what was going through the director’s head. Could this version of “Where the Wild Things Are” be so personal to Jones that it might just be lost on us?
Max was a hero to me in my youth and his character continues to interest me. Jonze makes him out to be not just an outsider, but also something of a misguided rebel. Could he be a boy with no love in his life who deserves it like Jim Stark? Or just someone as emotionally immature as Holden Caufield?
But let’s not over-analyze. The simple message of this film is the power of a little bit of love. It’s a message so simple yet so brilliant that only 10 sentences are needed to fully illustrate its power.