Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part One, initial thoughts...

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows...just finished the book last weekend, saw Part One of the film version as well, the first in the whole seven part series that I read the book before watching the film, to expected results...wanted to see more of the book represented in the film, but tried to think about sentiiment, which is the screenwriter/director's job in the end alas...sentiment is what condenses 800 page books into 2.5 hour films, or at least, constructive straining, to filter out the most important themes and events to truly get across what the story, in whatever medium it is carried, means

And although I do still recognize the difference, and i felt, at this time upon one viewing, it was a good treatment, not great, but good, I still have problems with the film here's some thoughts:

Why oh, why was Voldemort so absent form this movie? His appearance at the Godric Hollow-Bathilda Bagshot house was key in really deepening the tension, really put into perspective the fact that Voldemort was so ostensibly close, and, as I deemed correct, the end of Part One was t be the mid-book conflict and resolution at Lucius Malfoy's estate, with Potter and pals making a bloody getaway with Voledemort right at their heels, and showing up just a bit too late, to the much chagrin of Lestrange et al...so why was Lucius written to almost call Voldemort? To ever so closely touch his Dark Mark, but never does, everything seemed to be anti-climatic in this treatment! I thought for sure Voldemort's quick return to the Malfoy's under the impression that they had Potter, mixed with their quick getaway (plus showdown), would surely be a great way to end this the first part, but to no case, Lestrange was treated as the head baddie with Voldemort kept out of the loop, why wasn't Pettigrew killed? as he was in the book, by his own hand after helping Harry and Ron out of the cellar, that's an easy one I surmise, for his timely death will come in the movie in part deux, at a more climatic time (i hope, i mean there is significance in this film adaptation for Pettigrew DYING seeing as how his betrayal led to the impetus of the whole series of events in this myhtos)...Why oh why did they two-dimensionalize Grindewald? as one who tells Voldemort, gives him the correct information, as if the two evil-doers should be pals, that Voldemort, in Grindewald's eyes, is continuing what he started all those years ago with his "for the greater good" campaign, which wasn't like this in the book, where he not only reluctantly siad anything, he told Voldemort that he hardly knew what was going on, that his knowledge was limited and he laughed and scoffed at him, which sets up the knowing of Potter at the climatic ending betwixt he and Voldemort! Why did they have Gellert say the exact opposite of what he said in the book? It took no less time!

I would like to know if time (which of course it is in a production such as this) was a factor, but already knowing that it was, how dies this determine the outcome of the screenplay? I mean, my God man, you're given two movies of at least 2.5 hours each, and there is still problems! Suffice it to say, Deathly Hallows is a pretty plot dense story, with action sequences framing a more thick plot...but there again its the sentiment that should show not necessarily all of the details that should have been included...but one of my main problems with David Yates' direction, is his apparent lack of style in this one, he did a great job with Order and Half-Blood Prince, although many did not think so with Prince, yet there again, I watched the film before reading the book, but it just seems that they got the sentiment right with it, especially with the addition of Malfoy's dilemma and his dark path of preparing the Vanishing Cabinet, and the dead bird, etc. all of which were not in the book...which leads me quickly to an excellent adaptation in Hallows where Hermione is shown Obliviating her parents, which almost defeats her, yet she is called to do it again to the Death Eaters in the diner, the mood and music setting it up, her face exactly like it was earlier, when she stood behind the couch and raised her wand to her parent's backs...wonderfully done and not in the book, but great deepening of Hermione's character in that way...

Its not a bad film, its a good film, but its not a great film, what made Alfonso Cuaron's Prisoner of Azkaban so good, is that it came out of nowhere after Philosopher's Stone and Chamber of Secrets, which were both well done, but were not, admittedly, stylistic, which Prisoner was, it had visual poetry and symbolism, recurring images of thematic material, a grand filmic soliloquy that truly got to the heart of what the film was about, one of the themes being Time, and references to this can be seen all throughout the movie, not in the book, therefore owing much to the adapter's hands and imagination...And, it must be said, that the first two movies did follow the books pretty closely, and, feasibly, they could, given the fact that the page count and the time available in the film matched up nicely, paving a way for the two to gel pretty consistently, however, in Prisoner, this was not the case and adaptation was obvious, but so well done, that hitherto had not been seen in this series...one of the greatest things was getting Columbus out of the director's chair, and recruiting Cuaron for the job, and also, the death of the actor who played the first Dumbledore led to the addition of the second, who hands down, does a superior job in the character's performance...

I digress...Yates did a great job with Order and Half-Blood, and I eagerly awaited to see if his skills would evolve to an even greater Hallows, but to no avail, there was nothing stylistic about it, it just seemed to plod from one scene to the next, as if a checklist was being adhered to, better yet, chained to, no sweeping vistas, no scrupulous shots, hardly any art at all, just story, which granted this one is, but with a little ingenuity and imagination, maybe could have made a difference, what would Cuaron have done with it? something better? perhaps? and the exclusion of Nicholas Hooper was also a surprise, I thought he did a wonderful job on the soundtrack/scores of the two previous movies, do not know the situation, maybe he declined to join, maybe they wanted someone else, who, apparently, had the same thing in mind as the director, which wasnt much but the plodding of the story, the music wasn't memorable at all, minus the Williams themes that he had set from the original movie, and some atmospheric, textural, tension-biting score, but, I mean, is this what they wanted? Hooper has two classic treatments of Harry's kiss with Cho and with Ginny, that superbly sum up the scene's gravitas and meaning, (that, I am sure, will be its own post in the near future)...

And even when Ron came back to Harry to save him, it seemed anti-climatic, I mean is it just me? Having read the book, its scenic display seemed to be more warmer and surprising than the film's adaptation, but it could be just me, expecting certain things that they did not include...why so anti-climatic? why hold off? is it because it will lead better into the final piece Part Two? How can it effectively? When they are separated so? It just seemed weak on the whole, yet for all of this griping, there were some great moments and sentiments, including the already mentioned Hermione rounding. It did give a good sense of the trudging onwards, from place to place, not knowing where to go next, yet, even here, some dialogue at some point would have been great, to reinforce the frustration of not knowing, of disputations and irreconcilable differences in what they should be doing, which leads me to think that by this point it seems, the filmmakers were only making this last set for the ones who've read the books, because if one has, then one would know deeper what was going on, yet, this cannot be seriously considered, since I know there are plenty who have not read the books and have only followed the films to date, but they seem to have no complaint...just like I had problems with the ending of Half-Blood, not really grasping the significance of Snape being the Half-Blood Prince, after having read the book though, we see that Prince is in fact Snape's mother's maiden name, and the sobering fact (to Harry) that he has been helped by Snape the whole year, one whom he detests very dearly...but a non-reader would not have gotten that from the film itself, although a perceptive viewer would have at least grasped the latter...

The sentimental scene with Harry (in Hallows) when he retraces his past in the Dursley's house, especially his visit to the cupboard under the stairs, was very effective, sad, melancholic, emotional, 11 years he spent there as home, and look to where he stood now, and all that he had witnessed and experienced, come-a-long-way-eh sequence, and we all felt the same, for we were with him all the way...I think, somewhat, they have set up the Harry not really knowing Dumbledore as well as he once thought sentiment was set up fairly well, which this has to happen, is pretty crucial in the tension building of the story-at-large. I did like the radio being constantly played, espousing the names of all those who have (I suspect) gone missing or have been killed under this ruthless regime of Voldemort (aka Ministry of Magic) Its drone of death always in the background during those scenes is pretty haunting, and serves a twofold purpose, one of painting a world shackled and broken, and under fear, another of a distant but dark connection to the outside world, a connection they really didnt have in the book, but nevertheless, they were still estranged for all that time...Ron's leaving was authentic, Hermione's upset believable...

The wedding should have been more happy I think, more festive, given the dark times that surround them to the last, twas a beacon of hope and joy there admisdt it all....

Inferno Cantos I and II...thoughts

So Dante has lost the "straight path", or "straightforward path", which in metaphor describes alienation from God, a medieval Christian God that is, why? to what did he presuppose to step off this beaten trail, this trail of moral goodness and excellence, of walking towards mountains high, where Icarus would be seen falling with burning wing? Was it arrogance? Was it seeking knowledge? does God want his people, his believers, to "seek" knowledge? knowledge of Him? for this is exactly what Dante does, he finds himself, still alive, but searching the depths of the afterlife, in three sections per medieval Christian belief, ie: Catholicism...Vatican Right. What strayed him from his diritta via? Apparently is also metaphor for the state of moral, political, societal and spiritual matters in his present day Italy, his as commentation.

Apparently the she-wolf was the worst to bear, worst to face and remove, concupiscence or lustful havings--of the flesh and bodily warmth, orgasm indeed, she scoured him the most.

Dante asks and begs for the "high genius" the Muses themselves to assist him in the recollection of, and writing down of his experiences...divine memory it is

Dante compares himself to two figures that also were given chances to achieve a physical manifestation in afterworlds: ie: Underworld and Heaven, so what makes him so special? Had anyone in the literature visited Purgatorio in the past? Before Dante's work? Or was Dante the first to envision it so, and so deeply?

Peter as Father of the Church, Dante believed that Rome paved the way, set the course for Christianity's rise, and even God willed the setting of its hearth in Italy, in Rome (now Vatican City) but God also seems to have moved on into Islam, and spoke to Calvin and Luther, whose also versions spread as well, God's will as seen in the spread, influence and practice of ideas, if anything you could as well say that tis work of the Devil, for ultimate knowledge of God could be seen as individual recognition or enlightenment, this is also a cultural idea, yet, biologically read physically, we cannot share innate knowledge verbatim, and this is the succulent world of God, the unconscious but bleeding into our everyday waking lives knowledge...

Cowardice befalls those who face trials burdened, "which many times a man encumber so", says Virgil. He also states that he was "among those...who are in suspense." read Purgatorio. Virgil from Mantua. Perhaps God is immortal, and, having fashioned Adam and Eve upon himself, makes us too, want the immortal, like God, who just is immortal, we strive to become like His existence, which is good and pure and immortal, but as the belief goes on, we attain this after death, when we are joined again with Him. Tis the struggle of man, but what of those whose legacy keeps them immortal in life, in the World, does God want this as well? Jesus will ever be immortal, his legacy, as will Dante and Virgil, in the World, God keeps to them? As His highest? What of those who rose then were forgotten? It is easy to attribute ones own ideas onto something like another idea, God. What would God do? Think? What does He do, how does He work? Does He work at all?