Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

[GhostontheNet]

Just got back. Let me see if I can coherently write this at 3:00 am.

Pros:
By far the darkest film. Any hope or "lightheartedness" is all but engulfed in the oppressive atmosphere. This seems to be another case of bribing the movie ratings board. I thought it more than earned a PG-13. Additionally, Snape got a fair amount of screen time, which is always good. The new pensieve was also a highlight. Music is, as usual, excellent. My favorite is the second credits' song. Finally, the lighting, color tone, editing, and other cinemagraphic details were superb. The movie looked just plain fantastic.

Cons:
One of the slowest movies in the entire series. If you watch the trailer in the OP you will have seen pretty much all of the action in the entire movie. The battle in the final portions of the book is gone, so no epic fight at the end. Outside of the few moments of urgency, the main focus of The Half-Blood Prince is setting up for the next two movies and getting the main characters paired up with their appropriate love interests. The latter is pretty painful to watch (although there are attempts to make it humorous which occasionally succeed [I.E. Hermione's birds]). Personally, I would have liked to have seen less "snogging" and relational troubles and more memories from the pensieve.

Overall it is still way better than the book.

I've always loved the Harry Potter films for their dark Gothic textures and plot elements, it just makes them so much richer. I wouldn't go so far as to call it 'hopeless' or "oppressive", however, that's not what the films are about. Indeed, the movie had enough humor that I find it to be hilarious. I mean, to be sure, it isn't lighthearted fantasy, but it isn't set in a hostile moral universe where evil and injustice is impossible to overcome either. Like Hansel and Gretel, our heroic trio will eventually find their way out of the dark and haunted forest. Actually, I consider Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire to be the darkest film thematically, depicting as it does a metaphorical cup of suffering that holds the school authorities hostage to its will, and subjects the champions to a series of potentially lethal contests. To be sure, I absolutely loved the lighting, shots, and cinematography in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. That was absolutely immaculate.

Now, while I can't speak for anyone else, I for one actually rather liked the romantic subplots, and thought they were crucial to the development of the story. After all, when you get down to it, Harry Potter is basically a contemporary reworking of the story of the questing knight, and the story of the questing knight is basically a fertility myth about development into sexual maturity. I mean, when you look at the basic structure of the story, we start out with some kind of grave threat or peril that threatens the land with becoming barren and infertile. Well, naturally our old king or wise man discerns the threat must be fought, but is far too old to get out and do that sort of thing anymore, and so must rely upon an inexperienced young man to act in his stead. Thus commissioned, our hero sets forth with his sword, lance, or magic wand in hand (which will do nicely until a phallic symbol comes along) to prove his valor and restore fertility. Though facing many dangers and perils along the way, our brave hero eventually manages to win through, gaining the love or admiration of a lady. Thus is the old magic brought forth to restore fertility to the land. Of course, in the case of Harry Potter, it would be a mistake to take this too literally since most of the sexuality is sublimated, but that shouldn't blind us to the fact that it's tightly interwoven into the narrative.

So yeah, while Harry Potter draws on this ancient motif, it brings it into contemporary contexts in the form of high school dilemmas about trying to figure out the opposite sex, not to mention the full capabilities of the magic within. If the Harry Potter series' romantic interludes bring as much cringing as they do delight, it's largely because we're all too familiar with the scene we are now witnessing. In Ron's case, he seems to have been subjected to the A Midsummer Night's Dream treatment, in which eros flames up at full intensity, you get reduced to a complete idiot, and when you come to you wonder what on earth happened. Not so in the case of Harry and Ginny, who display a healthy amount of compatibility, philia, and agape along with eros. The Ginny of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets was a shy young girl unsure of herself and incapacitated on the floor to be the old damsel in distress. Not so with the Ginny of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. This Ginny has grown into a brave young woman who has learned to compensate for insecurity with courage and determination, and has become an impressive heroine in her own right. Where the rules of classical cinema tend to demand that the hero's gaze gets the girl, here the girl's gaze gets the hero, which I think sets a nice precedent. Yep, in all of Ginny's scenes I found myself cheering 'You go, girl!' Of course, my fancy goes to Luna Lovegood, who I think is really far out. It was really nice to see more of her, and in splendid fashion I might add. (Sigh, I'm having a moonage daydream now, I may not return to planet earth for some time while I go listen to The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust by David Bowie.)

[Bobtheduck]

They're called Pygmy Puffs! Ginny got it from Fred and George's shop :3

Wait, they've left Dobby out of all these movies (past the 2nd one) and they put galznerking PYGMY PUFFS in?

If Dobby is left out of Movie 7 or 8 (whichever he'd end up in), heads will seriously roll...

EDIT: Just got back from it.

Ok, I'm gonna say this is worlds better than Goblet of Fire (should go without saying) and a good deal better than Order of the Phoenix. That said, I'm... I did like it, though some "rules of the books" stuff sort of bugged me... Luna wore her lion head hat, which was good, but she was sitting in GRYFFINDOR... Then I see a table with a Slytherin and some other house's student sitting together, as well as Lavender NOT sitting in Gryffindor... This shouldn't happen.

The Luna thing was vaguely understandable, because she is a somewhat main character, and they want to give her more screen time. Having a Slytherin and... whatever the other kid was sitting at the same table at a meal just doesn't make any sense.

[spoiler] The ending... Well, the moment Harry and Dumbledore got back to Dumbledore's death was... I don't think it was handled all that well. I think Snape should have been a bit more reluctant. In fact, Harry and Snape's interactions were sort of bland. I felt there was a LOT more to it in the book.

The very end after the death, though, was handled pretty well. The wands in the air breaking the dark mark was a nice touch. I also liked the transitions from snogging teenagers to the reluctant would-be murderer earlier in the movie... I thought that was done very well. [/spoiler]

What I didn't find done well, however, or at least a bit perplexing, since they kept it a secret until the end in the book (and didn't in the movie, so I won't leave it a spoiler), was the vanishing cabinet. Of course, I found "The Fly" routine quite interesting, but we're not supposed to know what he's up to... I guess they sacrificed the surprise for the process, which... Was a fair trade, I suppose.

One thing I don't get is if they obviously have Tonks cast and in the film, why change her out for Luna in the beginning? I guess there was enough angst with the teens, they didn't need [spoiler]Tonks and Lupin[/spoiler] angst too, and probably will replace [spoiler]Bill and Fleur's wedding with Tonks and Lupin's wedding instead, for movie 7... Kind of sad... It means the whole sequence with Griphook will have changed.[/spoiler]

Anyhow... I could very possibly change my opinion on a second viewing the way I did with Goblet of Fire (which is now my least favorite movie), but I think this was my favorite movie in the series so far. I'm really hoping 7 and 8 blow me away.

I didn't feel this one was too short, like I did OotP, but I do wonder if a scene of Voldemort's mother could have been put in instead of that scene at the Burrow... I understand why much of what was cut was cut, but... I'd love to see a "World Masterpiece Theater" type treatment done to the series someday... An anime or prime time cartoon series that was 80% or more accurate to the book, in a way a movie never could be...

Just a dream... one of my least important ones. Anyhow

[ich1990]

[spoiler]Some teenagers are hormone-ridden, yes, but not all of them. Some teenagers do act like responsible adults and I for one am tired of entertainment acting as though they don't exist (and especially of it insisting that these things are mandatory). Just to clarify, I don't think I can speak for ich1990's position. But I can speak for my own, which I think is at least in the same general family. So full speed ahead. While flawed characters are a cornerstone of literature, I do not think that all flaws add depth. For example, if characters are miserably shallow they are clearly flawed, but that does not make them interesting. [/spoiler]

Yes I would say that is quite similar to what I was trying to get across, thank you for clarifying my rambles.

[spoiler] Speaking for myself, I enjoyed the series well enough, but my attitude toward Harry across all seven books was "Stop being an idiot." This is not limited to romantic subplots. Quite a few people championed Snape's innocence not because they liked the character, but on the tongue-in-cheek basis that Harry's judgment was so spectacularly awful that if he hated Snape then Snape must be good. [/spoiler]

This is where we differ. I thought that Harry was reasonably intelligent and likable in the first four books while being quite awful in five and six (to a lesser extent seven). Of course, that might simply be nostalgia speaking.

I've always loved the Harry Potter films for their dark Gothic textures and plot elements, it just makes them so much richer. I wouldn't go so far as to call it 'hopeless' or "oppressive", however, that's not what the films are about.

I was not saying that it is hopeless, just that the amount of hope is rather insignificant in relation to the bleakness of the movie. This is a “dusk before dawnâ€

[GhostontheNet]

I was not saying that it is hopeless, just that the amount of hope is rather insignificant in relation to the bleakness of the movie. This is a “]The Goblet of Fire is dark, sure, but despite all the mayhem, no one really gets hurt in all of the contests. Voldemort comes back, yes, but only to be fought to a draw by a teenage kid. Mad-Eye turns out to be a manipulative fake, but he is brought to justice before the end of the movie.

In tHBP, the Weasley's house and Hogwarts --two final bastions of safety-- are assaulted and broken down. The one wizard who can stand up to Voldemort is killed after being tortured in a vain attempt to weaken Voldemort. Worse, Harry had to watch him die while he seemingly begged for his life, all while doing nothing to stop it. On top of that, we find that Voldemort is even more powerful than imagined, being, in effect, invincible for the time being. If one did not know the rest of the story (or typical genre conventions for this sort of thing) it would seem like this is a hostile moral universe.

On top of that, the cinematic atmosphere is heavily shifted towards darker tones in the Half-Blood Prince. In the Goblet of Fire, on the other hand, there were the spectacularly colored battle with the dragon and a colorful quidditch match to help break up the gloom of the underwater world, the mist of the maze, and the shadows of the graveyard. [/spoiler]

Alright, since I like my comments to remain out in the public sphere, I will leave my remarks in the realm of the abstract so as to not give away crucial points in the plot of the movie. In the Harry Potter series' construction of the symbolic order, Hogwarts is the ethnos to which loyalty is owed, while Voldemort and his allies are the Other, which threaten the erasure of the boundaries upon which the ethnos is constituted. Now, this is a highly subjective, but I tend to find plots in which the subject is threatened by the ethnos on behalf of a symbol to be much darker than plots in which the subject is threatened by the Other because of a symbol's destruction. While The Goblet of Fire has no casualties in the actual contests, this is largely because the nature of the plot demands a more restrained approach since the threat is coming from within the symbolic. Indeed, if we extrapolate what would would happen if Harry Potter were not participating in the competition, the casualty count would likely be disproportionately high. And as for cinematography, despite its bright and majestic form, I find the dragon battle to be one of the most lastingly terrifying images in the film. And quidditch? That's a stable fixture of every film, varying only in thematic content.

So what about Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, is not the very tone and sequence of events teetering very close to the suggestion of a hostile moral universe? Several factors in the film suggest otherwise. First, the cutting, exposition, misse-en-scene, and Harry Potter's oft-repeated title of "the chosen one" suggest that having come of age, he has become a Christ figure who will lead his people to deliverance. Second, the romantic plot elements I have argued are crucial and the profusion of fertility symbols (i.e. love potions and Hermoine's birds) cue us in that things are not as bad as they seem, because where there is fertility there is a future. Uniting these two elements is a suggestive shot of Harry looking at a slightly racy billboard with the words "Divine Magic" printed upon it, upon which Dumbledore aptly comments upon the impact he is having in the world. So what does that tell us about the moral universe of the movie? First, it tells us that the film takes place in a universe in which God (whether conceived of in theist or pantheist terms) is immanent, indeed imparting the blessing of "magic" where it is needed. Second, because the billboard links this "divine magic" to human sexuality, the suggestion is made that this kind of magic has as much to do with the creative passions (i.e. art, spirituality, and sexuality) as it does with the art of wizardry. How can the forces of evil and destruction hope to win when these passions flare up with full intensity and are used wisely, perhaps even under the guidance of immanent Wisdom? Whether they stem from the ethnos or the Other, all the agents of oppression can hope to do is stifle or repress these passions with fear, because once they heat up, their days are numbered. So no, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is a far cry from a hostile moral universe.

[Maokun]

Wow.Now comment following GotN's will seem really inadecuate. Oh well, I'll take the bullet for everyone.

I agree that though the movie had darker undertones (and the world colorful is very significative in ich1990's comment, as THBP definitely uses a less saturated and less contrasted palette than the previous iterations), it is not necessarily bleaker. As GotN reflects, the development of teenage relationships was portrayed as the counterweight of the dreadful external events, and it was represented plentifully, not only with the main characters but also with random couples embracing in dark corners here and there. Even in the coldest winter (and almost all the external shoots stressed it), deep inside passions fluorish and rage and the bleakness outside can do little to match it. Just look how more violent was Hermione's pain at Ron's stupid behavior that at the tragedy at the end of the film. Indeed, most of the conflict of the movie was centered in the emotions of the main characters rather than in the scarce and shortlived physical skirmishes between the opposing forces.

Having said that, I'll join my voice to the chorus that declares this one as the best of the sixth one. If I asked why, I'd say that this was the one that managed to synthetize best the contents of the original book while cutting and altering as little as possible of it.

[ich1990]

And as for cinematography, despite its bright and majestic form, I find the dragon battle to be one of the most lastingly terrifying images in the film. And quidditch? That's a stable fixture of every film, varying only in thematic content.

Could you explain what you mean by the dragon battle being a "lastingly terrifying image"?

The quidditch in tGoF, although not fundamentally different, is qualitatively different in the fact that it is an official match, with droves of people coming from all over the world. By merely being held, it shows that the people of the world can suppress their fears and celebrate together in a magical show. At the quidditch tournament, people can become a part of an event that that stretches back into history for ages, thereby they draw on the tradition of the past for comfort and stability. It is like the superbowl in a way. It is held year after year and gives people a feeling of normalcy and unity.

How can the forces of evil and destruction hope to win when these passions flare up with full intensity and are used wisely, perhaps even under the guidance of immanent Wisdom? Whether they stem from the ethnos or the Other, all the agents of oppression can hope to do is stifle or repress these passions with fear, because once they heat up, their days are numbered. So no, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is a far cry from a hostile moral universe.

I took this the opposite way. As the power of evil outside continued to grow and press upon Hogwarts, so the pressures on the inside expand. Harry in particular has much placed on his shoulders as he is "the chosen one". Under all of these strains, the "passions" that erupt looked to me to be violent and destructive. Jealousy rips apart close friendships, at least for a while. Even Hermoine, who is normally the intelligent one, chooses to sacrifice her own happiness in order to hurt Ron even more (Slughorn's party). Far from bringing the power to fight evil, eros, at least in this violently uncontrolled form, reduces friends to enemies.

[spoiler]Of course evil is not unaware of this weakness and exploits it mercilessly. Bellatrix constantly uses Harry's friendship with Sirius (philia) and the fact that she ended it to manipulate Harry. She leads him away from his friends to Voldemort in the fifth movie and in the sixth she draws him away from the Weaselys' home, to the cornfield where he is vulnerable (an action that causes more well intentioned people to leave their home and enter the fight at a tactical disadvantage). If controlled passions are the undoing of evil, than it is clear that Harry and pals' passions are not controlled.

Contrast those attitudes with that of, say, Severus Snape. By shoving aside his emotions, especially love, he is able to become a powerful agent of good. Just imagine if he was overcome with eros, could he have been a double agent with a wife? What about philia, would he have been able to kill Dumbledore so easily if he hadn't limited his friendship? [/spoiler]

Part of what makes The Half-Blood Prince so dark is that these attempts at love do little but hand evil more weapons with which to destroy the good guys. In the movies 7 and 8 I do not doubt that we will see more self control as well as more agape. Those may, in fact, allow love to be the undoing of evil. I do not see that happening in THBP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeYOdgwByLc

[Bobtheduck]

Agape, Eros, Philia... All Greek to me...

(ba dum ching)

I will also say, at least as of my first viewing, that this is my favorite movie in the series so far. This judgment may change on second viewing (as it did with Goblet of Fire... Went from my favorite to my least favorite after my second or third viewing)

[Nate]

Hey the Bum Review is up!

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/bum-reviews/9639-hp6

The last Harry Potter movie I watched was the first one, so I'm glad Chester gave a detailed plot synopsis of the second through fifth films. Now I don't have to watch them!

[GhostontheNet]

Hey the Bum Review is up!

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/bum-reviews/9639-hp6

The last Harry Potter movie I watched was the first one, so I'm glad Chester gave a detailed plot synopsis of the second through fifth films. Now I don't have to watch them!

That's nice, I'm so glad you were able to save your money. A pity you could not save us your time as well.

[Nate]

That's nice, I'm so glad you were able to save your money. A pity you could not save us your time as well.

[Radical Dreamer]

I want this thread to stay on topic, but I also want to let you know, Nate, that I am totally stealing that picture for my own purposes. XDD I LOL'd at it pretty hard. XD

[Bobtheduck]

That's nice, I'm so glad you were able to save your money. A pity you could not save us your time as well.

Indeed. But, I suppose we all waste our times, so one bit more won't hurt.

In any case... I'm trying to think what scenes they left out that bugged me...

I think [spoiler]the funeral[/spoiler] was replaced by the glowing wand scene, and the end of the movie was actually just like the end of the book, in a way, because [spoiler]Fawkes still left the school, as a final image[/spoiler]

I thought that was done well. I don't remember [spoiler]Ginny and Dean actually breaking up[/spoiler] in the movie like they did in the book, so I wonder if people unfamiliar with the books may have simply thought she was a bit...

I wonder if Romilda Vayne may have been too good looking for the role, but at the same time... I mean, who wants on their resume that they had to play the "ugly girl", really?

I don't remember how Christmas went in the book, but I KNOW that's not how it went, and I'm not sure I liked it, though it actually partially fixed the problem of [spoiler]There not being enough time with Bellatrix[/spoiler] in the OotP movie. What it does, though, is sort of wreck the beginning of Movie 7... It'll be interesting to see how they bring that one back around.

I wish that scene hadn't been in there, and instead there was more time given at the "lightning struck tower"... Oh, wait, sorry... Now it's Dumbledore's office, which is no longer guarded by semi-sentient statues, but just ANYONE can waltz into it... In any case, I wish that scene were given a bit more time, and that there had been at least MENTION of a battle and of the order, not just that all the teachers were somehow asleep when it happened.

It's funny that while Goblet is my least favorite movie in the series, [spoiler]It has the best death scene of the movies... Or, at least the aftermath... "My boy!" makes me cry every time, without fail. I suppose the death itself was on par with the book, unlike Sirius in OotP and Dumbledore in HBP, which were both really poor death scenes in the films(though the aftermath of Dumbledore, like Goblet, was much better) but very moving moments in the books.[/spoiler]

I wish they had reintroduced Dobby and Kreacher, at least briefly... For obvious reasons if you've read book 7...

For the most part, I don't think anything else really important (and movie compatible) was left out, though there were a couple of character switches that weren't needed. This probably had the best balance out of the movies.

Crossing my fingers for the elves in 7 and 8... The movie people tend to hate them (because they're expensive to make, no doubt) so it wouldn't surprise me to see them taken out, but I really hope they don't. Not for Deathly Hallows... I won't hold my breath.

[Maokun]

Crossing my fingers for the elves in 7 and 8... The movie people tend to hate them (because they're expensive to make, no doubt) so it wouldn't surprise me to see them taken out, but I really hope they don't. Not for Deathly Hallows... I won't hold my breath.

Not likely.

[spoiler]Dobby's death is one of the dramatic heights of the book. Much bigger than Fred's. Though, even Hedwig's death was more dramatic than Fred's. Poor Fred was just a casuality in the all-out war of the end and would have gone almost totally unnoticed if it hadn't trigger the righteous wrath that allowed Mrs. Weasley to defeat Bellatrix. But I diggress. The elves are indispensable in Deathly Hallows, they need Kreacher to get Regulus' Horcrux anyway.[/spoiler]

[Bobtheduck]

Not likely.

[spoiler]Dobby's death is one of the dramatic heights of the book. Much bigger than Fred's. Though, even Hedwig's death was more dramatic than Fred's. Poor Fred was just a casuality in the all-out war of the end and would have gone almost totally unnoticed if it hadn't trigger the righteous wrath that allowed Mrs. Weasley to defeat Bellatrix. But I diggress. The elves are indispensable in Deathly Hallows, they need Kreacher to get Regulus' Horcrux anyway.[/spoiler]

That's another thing I'm wondering. [spoiler]Mundungus Fletcher.... Are they going to introduce him just for movie 7? They may as well throw Peeves in there while they're at it. Ok, so peeves isn't important to plot, but you'd think they could at least consult Rowling on who is and isn't important before they write the screenplays and do the casting, right? Without Mundungus fletcher having sold the horcrux, it comes down to Umbridge having simply stolen it. And without Mundungus to betray Mad Eye... Well, who's Mad Eye got with him when he dies? With no Bill and Fleur, are they just going to drop in a couple of meaningless characters for the 7 potters scene (I've already guessed they'll be replaced by Lupin and Tonks for the Wedding)? Are they going to skip that entirely, and skip Mad Eye's death?

Speaking of death, I guess Rufus not being there means no Rufus dying to redeem himself and not betray Harry, but what about Dumbledore's will? Also, Sirius's will was never discussed in the movie, either! There's nothing mentioning that Harry Owns Grimmauld Place, though I guess they never NEEDED to mention that... It's just annoying. Are we going to have some exposition saying "Kreacher, I am your owner now that Sirius died, I command you..." etc? If we have all the Elf scenes anyhow, that is.[/spoiler]

Point is, I'm really happy they're making it 2 movies (what they should have done with Order, to be honest) but they've got a huge mess to unravel to make up for problems they set up for themselves.

[Maokun]

Yeah, I believe too that having two movies dedicated for Deathly hallows will allow them to use the first one as a recap of some of the missing events.

[Maokun]

[spoiler]I particularly don't think they will leave Bill and Fleur out of the map, though Mundungus is totally possible (note that movies' Mad Eye is not that well fleshed out so we don't really need a big death scen for him anyway.) I also wonder if they are going to keep all the deaths. I always felt Rufus' was rather unnecesary and included just to add more poignancy to the cost of the battle. I wouldn't be surprised if the movie attempted for a slightly more sugary aftermath.)[/spoiler]

EDIT: Sorry for the (accidental) double post.

[Sheol777]

Spoiler ahead

[spoiler]Spoiler[/spoiler]

(goes to Urban Dictionary...do not go to if you are offended by such sites)

[Cognitive Gear]

Spoiler Text

Please spoiler tag that. It would also be prudent to warn people to not browse that site too much, as it DEFINITELY contains content that is not CAA-safe.

[Bobtheduck]

[spoiler]Snape kills Dumbledore[/spoiler] [/URL]

You still don't have a spoiler (I put it in your quote)

you have to use [ spoiler ] without the spaces and [ / spoiler ] at the end without the spaces...

[GhostontheNet]

Could you explain what you mean by the dragon battle being a "lastingly terrifying image"?

Alright, prima facie, we are dealing with a dragon, which has always inspired fear and fascination in equal measure. In the scriptures, the figure of Leviathan, translated as drakon or "dragon" in the Septuagint and reflected in the book of Revelation is a symbol of many fearful and wonderful things. In Job, the dragon represents God's inconceivably awesome powers of creation. In Isaiah, it represents the mighty power that rules over the chaotic sea of the nations. And in Revelation, it represents the horrifying power of the satan to lead the nations to bloody imperialistic conquest and the persecution of God's faithful ones. It is this family of texts that ultimately lie at the roots of Western dragon mythology, particularly those that involve a questing knight.

So what about the scene in question? Well, first of all, nothing in the narrative leads us to believe that an inexperienced hero like Harry is ready to beat a dragon, so a looming sense of doom is built around this event. Reinforcing these fearful apprehensions, the establishing shot has the camera pan uneasily around the stadium in an unsettlingly fast quivering motion, instilling a sense of unease. Similarly, the establishing shot of Harry shows him to be quite anxious and nervous, while the misse-en-scene is covered in a shadowy overcast. Hermoine too is quite anxious about the possibility of Harry's impending gruesome death, and gives him the kind of hug like this may be the last she will ever see him, but the moment of release is interrupted by media voyeurism.

Bleak stark grey rocks and grey overcast skies mark the establishing shot as Harry steps forth into the beast's den. The dragon, meanwhile, is introduced with a surprising depth of field shot that drops her into the middle ground behind Potter and makes the audience jump. This mood is sustained with jarring shock cuts of the dragon's tail crashing down and an ominous money shot -- this is one intimidating dragon! Potter frantically flees from her flames and the shock cut tailwhip onslaught continues. Our hero appears to be helpless, defenseless, and overpowered, and the character proxemics place the dragon on top in the position of power, and Potter below in the position of powerlessness. The appearance of the broomstick dizzyingly breaks the 180 rule, and the camera quickly jolt-pans to the dragon. Gaining the broomstick gives the scene a new sense of cathartic release and humor, but the dragon's threat remains immanent, and an element of acrophobia is introduced around the castle walls to give Potter a double threat. Even the dragon's final defeat is dreadful, its body taking a sizable chunk out of a solid stone bridge before dismally crashing into the sea with an agonized cry. So yes, there's plenty here to be terrified of in a lasting image burns into your consciousness kind of way.

The quidditch in tGoF, although not fundamentally different, is qualitatively different in the fact that it is an official match, with droves of people coming from all over the world. By merely being held, it shows that the people of the world can suppress their fears and celebrate together in a magical show. At the quidditch tournament, people can become a part of an event that that stretches back into history for ages, thereby they draw on the tradition of the past for comfort and stability. It is like the superbowl in a way. It is held year after year and gives people a feeling of normalcy and unity.

I think you missed the way the quidditch matches in the series serve both to establish thematic content of the work and to reinforce it. Christian exegetes have rightly pointed out that the Harry Potter series empasizes the virtue of self-giving love even unto death (i.e. martyrdom). Indeed, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire may be seen in a very important sense as Harry Potter and the Martyr's Cup, especially in light of the thematic resonance Cedric's sacrificial death. The cinematic incarnation of Goblet of Fire, however, was released in the cultural context of rampant anxiety over terrorism, suicide bombing in Iraq and the Middle East, the 2005 London Train bombings, and fears of terrorist attacks on the upcoming 2006 Winter Olympics. Within this context, it became in vogue to accuse the very idea of martyrdom of being the kind of religious fanaticism exemplified by the half-decade long strand of terrorism. Christians, naturally, protested that dying in an arena before bloodthirsty spectators as a witness to one's faith is much different from strapping yourself to an explosive device to assault a group of bystanders because they are associated with a cultural enemy. Well, as providence would have it, the original novel was published in the cultural context of the 2000 Summer Olympic games, and its description of Voldemort's attack on the Quidditch World Cup fit nicely within this new context. It served as an important counterpoint to deal with what martyrdom is and is not about. So too, where the competition that transpires at Hogwarts give the work a distinctly eurocentric and nationalistic character ('England rules!'), the Quidditch World Cup serve to give it an important internationalist counterpoint. Far from mere bread and circuses, then, the events that transpire in the Quidditch World Cup serve an indispensable role in the narrative.

I took this the opposite way. As the power of evil outside continued to grow and press upon Hogwarts, so the pressures on the inside expand. Harry in particular has much placed on his shoulders as he is "the chosen one". Under all of these strains, the "passions" that erupt looked to me to be violent and destructive. Jealousy rips apart close friendships, at least for a while. Even Hermoine, who is normally the intelligent one, chooses to sacrifice her own happiness in order to hurt Ron even more (Slughorn's party). Far from bringing the power to fight evil, eros, at least in this violently uncontrolled form, reduces friends to enemies.

[spoiler]Of course evil is not unaware of this weakness and exploits it mercilessly. Bellatrix constantly uses Harry's friendship with Sirius (philia) and the fact that she ended it to manipulate Harry. She leads him away from his friends to Voldemort in the fifth movie and in the sixth she draws him away from the Weaselys' home, to the cornfield where he is vulnerable (an action that causes more well intentioned people to leave their home and enter the fight at a tactical disadvantage). If controlled passions are the undoing of evil, than it is clear that Harry and pals' passions are not controlled.

Contrast those attitudes with that of, say, Severus Snape. By shoving aside his emotions, especially love, he is able to become a powerful agent of good. Just imagine if he was overcome with eros, could he have been a double agent with a wife? What about philia, would he have been able to kill Dumbledore so easily if he hadn't limited his friendship? [/spoiler]

Part of what makes The Half-Blood Prince so dark is that these attempts at love do little but hand evil more weapons with which to destroy the good guys. In the movies 7 and 8 I do not doubt that we will see more self control as well as more agape. Those may, in fact, allow love to be the undoing of evil. I do not see that happening in THBP.

To be sure, it's not like the creative passions are a cure for all the world's ills. I mean, time and time again we hear of relational complications owing to changes directly attributable to the introduction of art, spirituality, or sexuality. But these complications come precisely because of the power of these elements, and on the whole, it's definitely worth it. The Harry Potter trio like each other too much to remain estranged for any extended period of time, they just weren't ready to view each other as sexual beings. Sin can distort and manipulate the creative passions just as the pleasure in sin rests in its capacity both to reveal and to distort the good. But on the whole of it, their creative force are among the greatest gifts God has given us to set the world to rights. And as for Snape, he is a rather interesting character because his passions are both deeply repressed and welling at the surface. His relation to Harry is particularly interesting in this regard. But anyway, even Severus is not immune to the power of love, as may be seen by the way the symbolism, acting, dialogue, and character proxemics of the "Unbreakable Vow" scene resemble the Celtic ritual of handfasting in marriage (today popular in Neopagan weddings). No wonder this is such a crucial turning point for his character!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeYOdgwByLc

Now that, right there, is one virtuoso montage. Amazing what changing the sequence of cutting can do for the meaning of a film, isn't it? The editor really does have a terrifying power over us as the invisible man behind the curtain who chooses what to include and what stays on the cutting room floor. Soviet filmmakers Dziga Vertov and Sergei Eisenstein proved just what power they have in their films Man with a Movie Camera and The Battleship Potemkim respectively. But people remain largely oblivious to it, and that's fine by the seemless standards of classical cutting and the Hollywood movie machine. Not even Harry Potter could escape the distorted lens of the media, and only politics through the looking glass publications like The Quibbler offer any semblance of truth. Life is very scary once you start to be able to see the apparatus in motion, but it isn't without its rewards to make up for it.

[ich1990]

Alright, prima facie, we are dealing with a dragon...........So yes, there's plenty here to be terrified of in a lasting image burns into your consciousness kind of way.

That is an interesting viewpoint. For me, the dragon fight held little suspense or terror. I figured that there would be no chance that the character the entire series of seven books is named after would die halfway the storyline, thus there was no threat of death, dismemberment, or serious injury]if[/i] Harry was going to win, but how. To each his own I suppose.

I think you missed the way the quidditch matches in the series serve both to establish thematic content of the work and to reinforce it.

That is strange, I thought it was yourself who wasn't giving the quidditch match enough credit. You called it a "stable fixture of every film, varying only in thematic content." I assumed that meant you were downplaying the importance of quidditch. I would agree with that assessment except for the World Contest, which I said was qualitatively different.

Now you say that the quidditch matches reinforce the theme of film. I agree in the case of the fourth film, it reinforces the feelings of comfort, stability, normalcy, and unity. Are we now on the same page, at least for the fourth movie?

Christian exegetes have rightly pointed out that the Harry Potter series empasizes the virtue of self-giving love even unto death (i.e. martyrdom). Indeed, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire may be seen in a very important sense as Harry Potter and the Martyr's Cup..... Christians, naturally, protested that dying in an arena before bloodthirsty spectators as a witness to one's faith is much different from strapping yourself to an explosive device to assault a group of bystanders because they are associated with a cultural enemy.

So, the world looks down on Christians because they believe martyrdom is OK, but Harry Potter is supportive of Christianity because it shows the nobility in martyrdom? I can mostly agree with that, but what does it have to do with the tendencies towards nationalism and unification that sports tournaments inspire?

Well, as providence would have it, the original novel was published in the cultural context of the 2000 Summer Olympic games, and its description of Voldemort's attack on the Quidditch World Cup fit nicely within this new context.........Far from mere bread and circuses, then, the events that transpire in the Quidditch World Cup serve an indispensable role in the narrative.

[spoiler]So the fact that Voldemort attacked the Quidditch World Cup proves that even such long held and cherished events and traditions are not safe from evil's reach? I guess that would go along with my argument that the QWC is a psychologically important event.

If I am remembering the book correctly, it stated that the Death Eater's attack was more of a drunken revelry harkening back to the "good ole' days" before Voldemort shot at baby Harry. Those days, Muggles were treated like dirt, and I believe they were the main target of the Death Eater's partying magic. Drunken revelries are not too uncommon after a big sports event, so I didn't think there was much significance in their "attack".

Strictly going by the movie, there was a more deliberate strike against the Quidditch World Cup. Still, the Death Eaters didn't dare move against such a powerful institution until nightfall, when those who would stop them were either sleeping or drunk. In other words, they did not display all that much power or menace.[/spoiler]

To be sure, it's not like the creative passions are a cure for all the world's ills. I mean, time and time again we hear of relational complications owing to changes directly attributable to the introduction of art, spirituality, or sexuality. But these complications come precisely because of the power of these elements, and on the whole, it's definitely worth it.

So love = creative passions? I don't necessarily agree. Love can drive people to do creative things, but that doesn't in and of itself make it creative.

For the second part you seem to be saying that love (or "creative passions") is like a loose cannon of emotionalism that explodes every which way, we are just lucky that it usually does more good than harm. I definitely don't agree with that statement. Love is always good, first and foremost on a spiritual level and usually on a physical one as well. If it is exploding and causing harm, then it isn't love at all, but a sinful perversion of it. One of the easiest ways to pervert genuine love is to remove self-control and introduce selfishness.

The Harry Potter trio like each other too much to remain estranged for any extended period of time, they just weren't ready to view each other as sexual beings. Sin can distort and manipulate the creative passions just as the pleasure in sin rests in its capacity both to reveal and to distort the good. But on the whole of it, their creative force are among the greatest gifts God has given us to set the world to rights.

We are wholly in agreement here. The "love" that causes the trio so much pain is selfish and lacking in self control. As you put it, sin manipulated and distorted their "creative passions", thus making the movie depressing.

And as for Snape, he is a rather interesting character because his passions are both deeply repressed and welling at the surface. His relation to Harry is particularly interesting in this regard. But anyway, even Severus is not immune to the power of love, as may be seen by the way the symbolism, acting, dialogue, and character proxemics of the "Unbreakable Vow" scene resemble the Celtic ritual of handfasting in marriage (today popular in Neopagan weddings). No wonder this is such a crucial turning point for his character!

[spoiler]Snape is great in that he limits (or has self-control over) his "passions" (I think that could be replaced with the word love as well). This allows him to use his "love" for good, instead of letting selfishness and sinfulness ruin it. To quote him:

"Fools who wear their hearts proudly on their sleeves, who cannot control their emotions, who wallow in sad memories and allow themselves to be provoked this easily –]

Self control is important to keep love from becoming ruined and used for evil.

Severus does (occasionally in the movies and more often in the books) allow his emotions to lead him to be harsh on Harry, but I get the impression those are mostly for show. Snape is supposed to be a double agent working against Dumbledore after all, he can't be too nice to the person who temporarily killed his boss. When those punishments are not for show, they are at least intended to keep Harry from developing a personality like his father (from what we know of James, I can't say that I blame Snape for his harsh discipline). Severus obviously cares for Harry. To quote him again, this time talking to Dumbledore:

[i]"You have used me. I have spied for you, lied for you, put myself in mortal danger for you. Everything was supposed to be to keep Lily Potter's son safe. Now you tell me you have been raising him like a pig for slaughter—"[/spoiler]

Thus, Snape is indeed an interesting character, not to mention an excellent example of how one can use "Creative Passions" and Love genuinely (to the detriment of evil). As for the "Unbreakable Vow", you will have to explain a bit further.

I think that was my largest post ever.

[Bobtheduck]

Indeed

[GhostontheNet]

That is an interesting viewpoint. For me, the dragon fight held little suspense or terror. I figured that there would be no chance that the character the entire series of seven books is named after would die halfway the storyline, thus there was no threat of death, dismemberment, or serious injury]if[/i] Harry was going to win, but how. To each his own I suppose.

Well, that's just the old problem of suspension of disbelief when the audience is familiar with genre conventions. It's a lot like the Romantic ironist who made one of the characters in his play say "One cannot die in the middle of Act Five." It's generally true, but it's no fun to see it that way. In acting, they teach you not to perform like you are aware of the exact outcome of a scene so as to deliver a believable performance. This is basically the same for the construction of the cinematic spectacle, which generally must not belie its predetermined nature in order to hold an audience. In this respect, my analysis of the formal content of the scene is sound. When J.K. Rowling published Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, she had us going by revealing that one of the major characters was going to die. In this way, the suspense was maintained for the original audience by unsettling normative assumptions about who does and does not survive in the narrative. Of course, it's fairly obvious that Harry Potter is going to survive for far too many reasons to mention (most of which lie outside the narrative world), but a flicker of doubt always manages to keep things exciting.

That is strange, I thought it was yourself who wasn't giving the quidditch match enough credit. You called it a "stable fixture of every film, varying only in thematic content." I assumed that meant you were downplaying the importance of quidditch. I would agree with that assessment except for the World Contest, which I said was qualitatively different.

When I said it was a "stable fixture of every film, varying only in thematic content," what I meant is that it's a convention of the film series. With the probable exception of the upcoming Deathly Hollows films (a change based on J.K. Rowling's creative decision as author), a Harry Potter film without a Quidditch match is like a Star Wars film without a lightsaber battle. Where things are kept fresh is the way the Quidditch matches relate to the thematic content of the film, functioning as a kind of spectacle within the spectacle that provides an additional layer of information about its meaning. For this reason, Quidditch can't just be thrown out willy nilly, but must be taken account of. However, because Quidditch is a film convention of the series, the fact that a game occurs doesn't mean that it is brighter or darker than its peers. Well, I suppose that Deathly Hollows will likely be darker for its lack of Quidditch match owing to the the way it reveals the destabilization of a stabilizing norm, but that's another matter.

So, the world looks down on Christians because they believe martyrdom is OK, but Harry Potter is supportive of Christianity because it shows the nobility in martyrdom? I can mostly agree with that, but what does it have to do with the tendencies towards nationalism and unification that sports tournaments inspire?

Well, aside from the fact that martyrdom, terrorism, and war (topics of major concern in the contemporaneous cultural climate) not infrequently stems from conflict with the cultural demands of a given nation state? Here we have a metaphoric reenactment of a ritual (namely, the Olympics) revived from ancient times with the intent of ending war by giving the nations another outlet for conflict, an effort evidently not entirely successful in light of the 20th century's imperialistic travesty and the 21st century's cheerful start. This ritual, however, is assaulted by the representatives of martyrdom's parody, who threaten all nations alike. So what would the narrative have us do, side with the thinly veiled imperialistic machine-gun democracy (assuredly the ideological heir of "gunboat diplomacy") of England and the United States as they continue to wage war in defiance of the international community and the United Nations? On the contrary, the inter-national character of the competition signals that the problem must be addressed cooperatively among the nations. Of course, England has far too many good characteristics to throw the baby out with the bloodbath, so a narrative is set up in which it can show its worth and mettle against the backdrop of other European nations. In this way, the narrative is both nationalist and internationalist in orientation while addressing important concerns of the day, including the place of martyrdom.

[spoiler]So the fact that Voldemort attacked the Quidditch World Cup proves that even such long held and cherished events and traditions are not safe from evil's reach?... Still, the Death Eaters didn't dare move against such a powerful institution until nightfall, when those who would stop them were either sleeping or drunk. In other words, they did not display all that much power or menace.[/spoiler]

Yes, the event certainly has important psychological and sociological dimensions, both in terms of the film world and the audience, although we could probably be here a while figuring them all out. J.K. Rowling's original book could not have been created in a cultural context of terrorism because she could not have anticipated the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks in 2000 at the time of the novel's publication. If what you are saying is accurate, than her concern would seem to be to address issues of racially oriented mob violence directed against the hated Other. Meanings and contexts change with the times, however, and I believe I have given good reasons to see this film as reflective of the 2005 cultural climate. Whether one is Caesar, Hannibal, or some hothead with an explosive device, the only determining factor of the success or failure of an attack is the degree to which it circumvents or overcomes enemy defenses to achieve its objectives. Waiting until nightfall to make your attack is a classic tactic. If the Greeks could send in a Trojan Horse and wait until nightfall to take the city unawares, I see no reason the Death Eaters could not do the same. So no, at this stage the Death Eaters couldn't win in direct combat, but the impact of their attack is felt as acutely as the friends my dad lost to terrorist attacks in Germany.

So love = creative passions? I don't necessarily agree. Love can drive people to do creative things, but that doesn't in and of itself make it creative.

In the world of philosophy from at least the time of Socrates onward, the emotional states people experience have been referred to as the "passions", and this is an important term established by millennia of cultural discourse. Within philosophy and theology, the subject of the nature, role, and place of the passions in the formation and destiny of the individual and society has been a topic of central concern, and rightly so. Change your view of the passions, and your whole worldview will change with it. So fast-forward to the mystics and monastics, and you start to find contemplatives with much in the way of opportunity to explore their spirituality and create art, but little in the way of being able to explore their sexuality. Ever resourceful, these mystics and monastics begin to channel and sublimate their sexual drive into spirituality and art to achieve some truly magnificent results. Love may be defined as a passion or quest for the reciprocally expressed and expressive connection with another subject. At its deepest level, this connection is expressed in warm and intimate sexual union, which unites together both subjects in body and soul, links back to God and nature and the entire symbolic order, and invites the possibility of the formation of a new subject. To say that love is not necessarily creative, then, would be to go against the ontology of the thing, and deny their link to the Creator. Rather, where love does not result in something creative, or even results in something destructive, it would be more fair to say that something frustrated the quest from being truly fulfilled. I therefore refer to these as the creative passions, which is a very useful term to use.

For the second part you seem to be saying that love (or "creative passions") is like a loose cannon of emotionalism that explodes every which way, we are just lucky that it usually does more good than harm. I definitely don't agree with that statement. Love is always good, first and foremost on a spiritual level and usually on a physical one as well. If it is exploding and causing harm, then it isn't love at all, but a sinful perversion of it. One of the easiest ways to pervert genuine love is to remove self-control and introduce selfishness.

"Self-control" (the word) is a slippery little concept, meaning alternately either the denial and repression of the initial passion, or the intentionally directed channeling of that passion in accordance to reason and virtue. The latter option is, of course, a much better prospect both for the conservation of the passion's creative energy and for the psychological well-being of the subject. Whether we are talking about a loose cannon or a carefully guided cannon depends on the individual(s) in question, but the general ability to go boom is a good thing. I'll cut here and save the rest for later.

[Radical Dreamer]

Indeed

I know, right?

[Kurama]

It was interesting. I was quite satisfied in the ending. Ooohh Snape is so awesome.

[the_wolfs_howl]

Having said that, I'll join my voice to the chorus that declares this one as the best of the sixth one. If I asked why, I'd say that this was the one that managed to synthetize best the contents of the original book while cutting and altering as little as possible of it.

This is pretty much what I'd say about it. I was really impressed with this movie, because the first four barely escaped being absolutely awful, and while the fifth one was pretty good, it felt rushed. But this movie felt as though it moved at the right pace, and though they removed or changed some things, like the fifth movie, you could almost imagine that those scenes were happening anyway, but we just weren't shown them. If David Yates is responsible for that, then I wish even more than ever that he'd made the movies from day one.

And I could say many things about the book, but I think almost everything's been touched upon before now, so I don't really see any point. I'll just say that the book is my second-least-favorite of the series (primarily because of the romance, which annoyed me to no end though it's perfectly believable when you consider where the characters are at), but the movie is by far my favorite.

As for Bill and Fleur, I don't think anyone should worry too much about that. Someone has been cast as Bill, they've done shooting at a location that had been converted into Seashell Cottage or whatever it's called, and I'm not 100% positive, but I think I remember someone in the crew mentioning in an interview that they were going to shoot the wedding.

[Bobtheduck]

I'm much more worried about the elves than Bill and Fleur. Hearing that Bill was cast, though, gives me hope for the elves. The elves are, no doubt, a harder thing to accomplish that a new member of the cast, but they could have easily replaced Bill and Fleur with Tonks and Lupin, since they already established them in movie 6. That means they're taking corrective measures to make sure movies 7 and 8 are faithful.

[GhostontheNet]

[spoiler]Snape is great in that he limits (or has self-control over) his "passions" (I think that could be replaced with the word love as well). This allows him to use his "love" for good, instead of letting selfishness and sinfulness ruin it. To quote him:

"Fools who wear their hearts proudly on their sleeves, who cannot control their emotions, who wallow in sad memories and allow themselves to be provoked this easily –]

Self control is important to keep love from becoming ruined and used for evil.

Severus does (occasionally in the movies and more often in the books) allow his emotions to lead him to be harsh on Harry, but I get the impression those are mostly for show. Snape is supposed to be a double agent working against Dumbledore after all, he can't be too nice to the person who temporarily killed his boss. When those punishments are not for show, they are at least intended to keep Harry from developing a personality like his father (from what we know of James, I can't say that I blame Snape for his harsh discipline). Severus obviously cares for Harry. To quote him again, this time talking to Dumbledore:

[i]"You have used me. I have spied for you, lied for you, put myself in mortal danger for you. Everything was supposed to be to keep Lily Potter's son safe. Now you tell me you have been raising him like a pig for slaughter—"[/spoiler]

Thus, Snape is indeed an interesting character, not to mention an excellent example of how one can use "Creative Passions" and Love genuinely (to the detriment of evil). As for the "Unbreakable Vow", you will have to explain a bit further.

I think that was my largest post ever.

I think Severus Snape's has a kind of love-hate relationship to Harry that can see a dimension to him that no one else can. For Snape, more often than not he seems to see it as a matter of 'If I do not do something about it, one of these days that fool is going to get himself killed.' So he plays the harsh and strict father to avoid revealing too much of his feelings, to let Harry know that he will not receive special treatment as a special case, and to clue him in on the direness of his situation. Naturally, saving Harry from inheriting his father's hubris is important as well. I can't say that Snape's tendency to keep his emotions bottled up is very healthy, but sometimes survival outweighs the need for what would normally be a good emotional and psychological state. He sneers at this, but if old Voldemort were not at large, the problem would quite conspicuously be him. And as for that line complaining to Dumbledore about Harry that "you have been raising him like a pig for slaughter," the reference to the prophet Isaiah is rather obvious. There we read of the suffering servant that "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth." (Isaiah 53:7 ESV) This would, of course, mesh nicely with my previous argument that Harry has developed into a Christ figure. Still, Snape's remark carries a hint of irony since a pig is an unclean animal off-limits in the Jewish dietary and sacrificial system. This implies that he feels that Harry's suffering and sacrifice will ultimately be in vain, and that he has put his life on the line for nothing.

So what do I mean about the scene depicting Severus Snape making The Unbreakable Vow resembling the marriage ritual of handfasting? Well, I'm sure you've heard the idiom comparing marriage to "tying the knot," haven't you? Where this phrase comes from is the wedding ceremony practiced by the Celts, in which a chord, string, ribbon, or other fabric is wrapped around the arms of the couple and tied in a knot to bind them together. In this way, the ritual symbolizes that the couple has now been bound together in life as the ceremony has bound their arms together as one. Of course, these days handfasting is all the rage for the weddings of Neopagans, who certainly wouldn't want to collude with Christian efforts to stifle the old religion. So here we have a scene in which Bellatrix invites Severus to make "The Unbreakable Vow" and look after young Draco, delivering the line as both a challenge and a come on. Thinking it over long and hard, Severus finally consents, and a magic chord is wrapped around the couple bound hand in hand as the solemn oath is spoken. The reference to the rite of handfasting couldn't be clearer, and it seems safe to say that they both love each other in an unsentimental villain kind of way. Of course, here another element of irony is introduced because Neopagans are skeptical about the whole Christian "Until death do us part" thing, instead making the marriage binding "For as long as love lasts." Not so for this handfasting ritual, which would make death literally part the couple the instant the oath is broken (so much for divorce proceedings). Throughout the film, Harry and Hogwarts is linked to Christian imagery, while Draco and the Death Eaters are linked to Pagan imagery. And while I'm grateful that director David Yates has done our faith the service of being represented in a positive light, I'm more than a little concerned about the possible vilification of Neopagans, who are already a feared and hated minority.

[Bobtheduck]

I smell 2 dissertations.

[Radical Dreamer]

I smell 2 dissertations.

Honestly, I'm just waiting for a new member named Harold_Bloom to show up and jump right in. XDD