January 2011: Insanity in Film

"Insanity on film...Insanity on film..." (a la Duran Duran yeh bad joke)

January was just cold enough, just dark enough to make the study of insanity on film bearable, for in these dark times "comes a rush of inhabitance worth of everyday living, madness and cold flesh upon them, lay it on of hands so may it be, the mouth of madness!..." and of what did I learn in these depths of insane triviality and frivolity and of larger universals that could exist in the mind of God? the mind of madness? the White Sound? the paths to enlightenment? the onset of broken mind from the likes of biology, the onset from the likes of megalomania, of the ego got out of control, the likes of identity, and the confusions and permutations thereof, asking the question "who are we?" and "who am I?", from the transcendence of social known boundaries resulting in those who reside behind them in safety and comfort, to award labels such as insane to those desperate few for meaning, those who transgress, those who step beyond, willingly, to gather for themselves some form of new truth, those who cannot be labeled as such, those who deconstruct by being, those stereotypes and contextuals that bind our identities together, leaving those who want to understand lost in their labeling paradigm, unwilling to cope, unwilling to broaden their narrow perspectives, the want of ignorance over newfound hope or ways of being, this is fear, the unknown, this is madness...

The Dark Knight, (2008), the Joker and his "evil", his uncaring, his desperation unapparent and non-existent, he is chaos embodied, the destructive force in nature, embodied, much to Gotham's chagrin, much to their, again, want of ignorance, chaos and destruction as means of change, agents of it, in the natural cycle, in more balanced times, your yang (or yin?) your dark, destruction comes at the hands of ones who have minute amounts of sympathy at least for themselves and their power mongering egos, but yet what do you do with one who will not stop? who wants not the treasures of regular men, the money, the fame, the power, the gold, the women...all they have akin to them is the greed, (an overindulgent and overpowering id perchance?) what does the world do with one who just wants to "watch it all burn?" as Alfred told Bruce Wayne...and so, in speaking, this attitude would be seen as "insane" this want for destruction, this greed for abandon, fire, apocalyptic nothingness, burning, ash, suffering, pain, this is all seen as dysfunctional for if twas seen as commonplace and regular, civilization would have a harder time keeping itself together, would be the fundamental breakdown of civilized society, the glue would reap and tear and falling bits of all-known would be lost to man and memory, however, this force is apparent and real, only to be embodied in one man (some would call monster) in this film, the Joker, and his rivaling opponent Batman, the force of "good", the Right, the stability, of sanity, of Order in the universe...in the universe this force is real, black holes, stars erupting into supernova, decay, entropy, death, these are very real forces in our universe yet seen as criminable in our society, but mustn't they? for how would society function, an orderly system, if destruction were allowed its abandon? how would chaos function, an inorderly system, without order? doesn't this happen every moment of our existence? tiny black holes surround us, caught at the quantum level, but from the bush fire comes the evergreen wood that seems alive interminable, and once its time hath come, there shall it burn again, this cycle, although seen as incriminating, destruction and chaos are as true and as fearful a reality as anything, for it to be embodied into one man, one character, is existence on PCP yet they are strong symbols for true forces in our universe..."what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?" as so quoteth the Joker, this paradox is existence, as is existence is seen as this conflict

Europa 51 (1952) (also known as The Greatest Love) a socialite turned Mary herself in ways...this story exemplifies what I mentioned earlier about transgression, she, through her upper class estate and living, "reduces" herself to the common ground, the working class, the poor, and, at first, uses her stately origins to help those in need, she begins to experience this other way of living (after such a traumatic episode as losing her son from complications of an almost suicide) could it have been guilt that drove her? she claims in the movie it was self-hate, that it was her self-hate that drove her out to be amongst the others, the others "below", it drove her to seemingly love all, to be open to All...so sayeth the Priest, who could not understand her, neither could the Politician (leftist/communist) neither could the Husband, or the Mother, all of these social institutions, all of these social constructs could not fathom her actions, none but the People, the commoners, the working class, our "heroine" did not agree with the beguilings of the Priest or Politician, seemingly saying without doing so, "it is much larger than what you claim to believe!" it is not what you think, what you apparently preach to others in order for them to save themselves, tis not a political system or religious belief, already prescribed in books and lecture, it is connection, it is help, it is understanding, it is empathy and sympathy, sacrifice, what these institutions proscribe yet fail to exemplify through its adherents, those who gorge in their power (stereotypically) others are lost to this...our heroine works in the factories, visits the sick, helps the prostitute, nurtures the children all for what? for what? is this reward system or question even valid? a result of capitalism? reward-based living? based on biology? is it an essence of our living? and is this why she seemed transcendent? for she neither seemed to be ascribed to, nor motivated by this system of give and take, she just was, an emblem of enlightenment, short-changed when she was ultimately charged as problematic and insane and put into the mental ward for therapy, for there is no way this could could be of value to her nor to anyone else, value of good...she had transcended her boundaries of what it meant to be an urban female socialite (through the self-sacrifice of her son, she was born again, ah the Jesus rears its head) into a being those around her could not understand nor label, she had transgressed a social line in the sand, and what do we do with those who transgress? we punish. that is social law, that is majority rule, and in ways that is democracy

The Tenant (1976) and Persona (1966) both deal with the complexity of identity, and the assumptions thereof...what does one do when treated as someone else? when you are seen as another? and not just another, but someone of the different sex, gender, class, or sexual orientation? does this mean that everyone else defines you? where are your own limits? your own boundaries of what one would call self? how were these implemented? layed down? how could it be that this all happened? seems natural enough but we are not born as these "selves" at least not wholly, only in part with room to grow...this tenant became that who came before him, a woman, he a man, or was he? it is the psychosis of pressures dealing with what it means to be a self, Polanski treats this as well in Repulsion (1965) (first part of the so-called Apartment Trilogy) with like-minded motifs it seems...and these pressures were so great that he caved, he/she could not withstand the pressures of society to be what he thought he was, and so he caved, so much so he broke himself upon the concrete ground, suicide was his answer to all this, the destruction of self, and as is shown in the movie, a vicious cycle, a loop is there, waiting to snare, for what began, ended, him/her in cast and screaming from the release of this illusion...
Bergman also dealt with identity in Persona breaking up the figures into parts of the self, mainly in two parts, the healer (true self) and the actress, the actress being our mask that is worn to the world great, what we show the world, what we want to show and therefore showing what we want to hide beneath as well, another paradox, the actress says our lines for us, so we don't have to, she motions us through the grieving world, so we can stay in shadowed corners and mull or cry or mope or be afraid, or try and cope, but, and as portrayed in this film, the actress sometimes breaks and falls silent, our creation snaps and will not go on speaking her lines, will not motion us anymore through the world, and it is left to the self to break through to gather its strength if any it has and shut up the actress forever, in this case, through much introspection, the actress is felled silent and left with only one line "Nothing." which could mean for her an existential quiet. Silence. We create the actress to cope. Yet it is ultimately unsatisfactory in existence to have that cover, although masks have their place, the sun must shine upon our faces at least part of the time, the light without dark is just that and is nothing, one defines the other, right? masks and self, self and masks, like good and evil, creation and destruction, here at the bottoms we find these paradoxes apparent and alive and they call this madness? and so as it turns, the actress had her own actress inside of her, and could not even reveal her true self, possibly a systemic problem with the art of theater? the habitual loss of self within created characters, so much so one becomes them? loss of self is never bad, how could it be? for self is not a stagnant thing, definable not by staunchly held grounds, but is more free as the wind, blowing ethereal, wispy, ephemeral. A sense of self lost is only a foray into a wider world (?)

The White Sound (Das Weisse Rauschen) (2001) was respectably a great film in regards to its realistic portrayal of paranoid schizophrenia, from the perspective of the main character, that brings the viewer into a first person account...aesthetically at first, it seemed a bit "student-filmy", but this gave way to a greater story, and I think, by the end of the film, the home video quality certainly adds to the realism of the portrayal, as if it were indeed a reality tv episode worth watching...this film was interesting in that, on a superficial level, it seems to claim that the character's eating of the mushrooms was the determining factor, was indeed the cause of his onset of schizophrenia, but his outburst at the movie attendant, and his seeming confusion at trying to get registered for classes at Uni, not to mention his mother's state of mental health and suicide, goes to show that the mushrooms were only a catalyst, something that amplified what was inherent, potential turned kinetic, the releasing of a wild boar or monster upon the unwilling, a caged one who was there all along. This film reminded me of Shawn in many different aspects, namely, his mental and emotional condition under the influence of the psychotic drugs, how Lukas felt numb and diluted under the weight of the drugs, they calmed his speaking mind, his paranoia, yet he did not feel alive, only living in haze, as a zombie, much like Shawn did since he started his prescription regimen...tis a sad occurrence, for anyone with sympathy for life could relate to Lukas' want to get out from underneath the huge weight of mind-numbing drugs, would want to live his life in freedom and clarity, even if it meant living the way he did, which ultimately, the first time around, ended with him throwing himself out the window....tragic in either case...one is instantly faced with the paradoxical dilemma of a schizophrenic when it comes to these situations of drugs therapy, or does one live just to be alive and a productive citizen? or does one face the elements of that "altered" state of mind and face potential disrepair?...The Naturals (a la Hippies) got him out of the urban landscape,which is probably not ideal for a paranoid schizophrenic, suffering from delusions of conspiracy and power control, more people = more agitation? which brings to mind the idea of the urban landscape being a reflection of man's mind, as a creation of man, therefore men living inside his creation, inside his mind, and man living solely in his mind is a definition of insanity, and i think this especially true in larger megalopolises, where nature can rarely be found and if it can be, is man-organized, manicured, and safe, still not the natural world...there is a definite dichotomy here, one that may or may not be real, for, as I am sure, the way to manage such "altered" states of mind, so that it is not all-consuming, is not beyond the borders of self-control and analysis, varies with every case, i just wonder this, the natural versus the man-made in this instance of mental illness, does it contribute in any way?are there factors rooted in this difference?
which brings one to question: did his rural lifestyle actually serve to dampen what was already festering there? in his mind? or harboring?, to what extent did nature, or the Natural Way actually help Lukas? well one could argue that the Natural Way was not a panacea, for it was the mushrooms (all natural) that broke open loose the floodgates, right? Either way the hippies traveled him to Spain, to this place to that, but even this idyllic way of life, this small-in-number-commune was still not healthy for his altered mind, it seemed at times that Lukas was on the verge of physical violence (Taxi Driver being an allusion in this regard), violence that would leave physical scars of severe damage, although he does have some altercations with his sister, he does not lean this way in dealing with his newfound condition, it leaves us plaintively, on the shores of some beach in Spain, where the hippies have left him, with his consent, watching as the waves crash repeatedly against the shore, and Lukas' monologue about the White Sound, the movie's namesake, about how it is the culmination of all things, and if one were to see/hear it it would drive the sane insane and the insane, sane...an obvious path is laid out before him, will he try to find it? will he walk backwards on the path, to reach sanity again? the voices are not given prominence in the movie in Act III, after he throws himself from a bridge--in his hippie quietude, were the voices silent? did the beach calm him? all alone is he along this trek, not his parents, grandparents, sister, friends, doctors, are there, no one is there in the end but man and nature, and his search...what will he find out on the brink?

Harvey (1940) twas a quaint tale about a man with a supposed hallucination, a 6'3 1/2 inch tall rabbit (which turned out to be a pooka, a mythical creature from Celtic mythology)...Elwood is seen as an outcast to those who do not understand his relationship with his pooka, Harvey, and, according to wiki, pookas are fond of social outcasts, and through the movie we are given details such as Elwood's fancy to drink, which could lead a narrow mind to assume and conclude that his alcoholism is the reason for his hallucinations, and yet he is thrivingly personable, friendly and charming, does not hurt anyone and is not malicious in any way, yet when the rabbit is introduced, there stems the wall from the ground, forever and anon with most, society is quick to judge these kinds of episodes as insane and delusional, society is not equipped, at large,on the streets, to deal with this kind of behavior that is inherently out of the norm, and is indicative of the conservative nature of the social structure and hierarchy, as in Europa 51, he is judged for we do not understand, and when there are those who cross the boundaries of understanding, they must be pent up, put away, therapy is the only way, therapeutics to revive this man back to "sanity" whatever that means...the "serum" of therapy, of injecting in this man all social norms and codes, would therefore permanently change his perceptions forever, who knows? without Harvey, maybe he would be a raving lunatic or a disagreeable man, or a binge-drinker alcoholic with real problems that we can see and treat, but a seemingly charming man with a unseen rabbit friend? that is just too bizarre, too outlandish! treat him! treat him! for we suffer from the curse of ignorance! Elwood was actually a kind gentle man who was very sociable and willing to meet everyone, inviting them to his house, even perfect strangers whom he had just met were invited to come and enjoy a dinner with him, yet he was deemed insane, he was more socially acceptable than most who wold deem themselves "normal"...the travesty! and through all this, we come to realize that even though those who do not understand: family, institutions, the social norm, that although we "accept" Elwood the way he is, (although it is only just a hallucination) the writers have given us the truth: that Harvey does indeed exist, and that Elwood truly does have a 6 foot 3 1/2 inch tall rabbit friend...who is crazy and why?

Aguirre, Wrath of God (1972) is a great study in megalomania, the obsessive want of greatness, to find none other than the lost city of gold, El Dorado, the metaphoric obsession end-goal of anyone seized by such tantalizing prizes...he was driven insane by it, this want, to be famous, renowned, down in the jungle complete, lost and without food, nothing to sustain them or he, exceot this want for notoreity, the want for the seemign All. He sacrificed the lives of all in his shabby band of loyal followers, and those who took to his stead, even the monk was corrupt, his innocent daughter was even sacrificed, he did seem to love her, but did not cease to save her life as he sailed on down the river in search of the lost city, attacked by natives in a strange land, picking them down one by one, almost in a calculated way, the horse they left behind for death, probably in a better state of being than those left on the raft, the appointed leader of the party, taken off the boat to the mainland to be murdered, his early death was proabbly a welcome cure, it was a portrayal of madness and how it corrupted them and him, Aguirre, saw how it deconstructed the party one by one, showed the typical loyalists who for whatever reason always side with madness, giving them approval and a source of power, for without the Nazi party, Hitler would have been nothing, another mouth to feed, yet Aguirre had his cronies, had his men who would do all that he asked, even those who did not want to follow,had to, for fear of incurring the wrath of Aguirre or his men, and it so happens often in the story, it was almost as if they were all mad or dead by the end of it, even whist alive they all seemed mad by a certain look of it, even his plaintive daughter seemed straight out of a fairy tale, clothed in renaissance garb and long flowing hair, giggling at this and that, she seemed unreal and a point of sanity for Aguirre, or at least, a point of loving security, hunger drives the devil or is it the other way around? hunger was a problem after a while, hunger and sheer fatigue, but madness needs not these things to survive, just a want to find, to be, to become great, that search for greatness that never comes only makes the madness worse, deepens it for all, to where it is entrenched and can never be removed, for once the taste is there, tis hard to resist...even the setting was perfect for the story, the "undiscovered" Amazon, the raging river and rapids, the cannibals, the death, destruction, hunger (which makes one wonder would any have stretched themselves to such lengths, given they had run out of food, but i suppose that is beyond the movie's scope, but interesting nevertheless, they earlier condemned it, coming across a deserted camp with evidence of cannibalism all around...would they have resorted to it too? given the desperation?) Yeah, its that type of movie...depicts the sheer will of pure madness, the incredible endurance and vision of another scope, another field entirely, where gods are met and heroes formed, for tis the double blade of insanity, walking that fine line, will one fall into greatness? or will thou fall into the deepened darkness, that greater depth of chasm beheld, that of inscrutable and uncontainable madness...

Hour of the Wolf (1968) Another classic by Bergman, a horror jaunt for him, in this case, a horror classic, Gothic horror piece to be exact, Johan is an artist and acrazed, he sees personifications of his guilts and traumas throughout his life, embodied in old ladies, royalty and little boys by the sea on an island that he and his pregnant wife are staying, he is obsessed with a past love and seems to never have gotten over her, his guilt and or his obsession about her seems to come to climax with a humiliating scene of him in drag being exposed, the Bird-Man was intense, his hallucinations come to life, and leaves the wife to question the idea of being so close to your lover as to be incorporated with his/her traumas, the question being, if that had not happened, would she have been better equipped to help him when embroiled within his madness? questions of division in love and the idea of both being ever so close, being detrimental in this case, empowering the idea of independence IN dependence, having space as Gibran hath said, a critique of marriage as one union, melded in romance, a romantic view, could be deadly in madness

And last but not least, The Madness of King George (1994)

2010: The Year of Harry Potter...closing thoughts? Or just the beginnings?...

Although its not true that this is the end, for I have yet to divulge and ingest the addendum books: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Quidditch Through the Ages, and The Tales of Beedle the Bard (along with a "Prequel" which is online and from what I understand not too long)...yes seems like so long ago (and compared to those whom stuck with the series, this is laughable) that in January of 2010 I started my/the first Harry Potter book, and ended the last in November 2010 (reread the ending several chapters or so again in early January for I read them aloud to share with Jamie before the grand release of the film: Deathly Hallows Part One) there were spacings in-between, especially between Order of Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince for I needed to gather a copy of Prince) so what was Potter all about to me? What overall themes did I notice, witness, were moved by? what were the significances? Will return to this in more depth, reading more analysis but for now, my own imaginings will do...

The Harry Potter series has at its core the theme of death and all that surrounds it, the living with, the experiencing of, the conquering of, the fear of (embodied in the character of Voldemort, Harry as the main to experience it, in different forms and ways, ultimately overcoming his fear, ie: Voldemort) it is significant to say that the series starts out with a double murder (Potter's parents, or at least is told of/mentioned) and the orphaned child is left to live in a world alone in life, not ever knowing, living out of a broom closet being almost handmaiden to his "family" his mother's sister's family the Dursleys, in remote allusion to Cinderella there, in that he is poorly mistreated in favor of some stepsisters, in Potter, his cousin Dudley Dursley...it is a great tale, epic in size and proportion, intricately detailed world, set in our own, but with a genius stroke of a hidden world within it, of magic and wizards and witches and monsters and spells and wands...yet within this world are characters that could be found in our "regular" world and culture, seemingly the same...

Ron and Hermione, Harry and Albus, Hagrid and McGonagall, all are familiar to us in their personalities and traits, albeit some are great wizards and witches, some of them happen to be giants, or half-breeds, or centaurs...we love them because they are familiar and so close, yes J.K. Rowling uses tropes and stereotypes and cliches and typicals, yet, it is in the way she uses them, and frames them to make them her own, in her own universe, which makes it unique...which brings in the idea of trope usage as a way to further the genre, of whatever it is one is discussing, using cliches in cliches form, in a generic standard, gets one nowhere but where one has been before, but to meld these tropes into something new and improved, that seems to be the way of progress? "Progress"? the furthering of the "Line"? the line so many want to cross, to push, but fail? Rowling made her own universe, not easy to do, and it seemed to natural to her I am sure, so natural to us as readers and viewers, it only made sense that Hogwarts was a boarding school in the traditional UK sense, but it was so fantastic to us, almost real, Rowling made it a place of comfort and joy, a place of growth and pain, and the center of much of the action in this series, we returned to it every year, every book (except the last), just as Harry did...Hagrid was a half-bred giant with a Scottish accent and a personality to boot, a little dim-witted but lovable and a loyal friend all the same, Albus (meaning white in Latin btw, as in the white wizard, homage to Gandalf I am sure) was the wizard who bestowed upon the hero gifts and training all the way to almost the end, when he must set himself aside, in death or otherwise, as prescribed in Campbell's hero's journey, or monomyth, and was a wise and deepend soul, to lead Harry, to advise him, so that he may move on to finish his quest, a la Obi Wan, Gandalf, and Virgil(?)...

And her world is so original yet familiar, the traditional families as represented by the Weasleys, Mr. and Mrs. and the newlyweds Bill and LeFleur, where the man works and the woman is a homemaker, takes care of kids, cleans, cooks, etc. and this could be critiqued, yet there is no absence of strong female characters in these stories, ie: McGonagall, Hermione, (although twisted) Bellatrix, Luna, Ginny and even Molly Weasley herself stepped up to face Bellatrix, and it is only then we witness Molly's true power as a witch, something she had hid from the reader due to the lack of urgency for her strengths to be shown...the school itself as mentioned above with Hogwarts, the fight between (as Rowling has put it) what is right, and what is easy, which is, as far as my understanding goes, a unique and profound take on notions of what is "good" and "evil", what I've always liked about the four houses in Hogwarts, was the representation of Slytherin (seen superficially as the House where from so many go on to become "evil") yet as characterized in the book early on, they are the ones who are ambitious, and have a taste for power, which could be seen in a more positive light, yet, at the same time, is so tantalizing to choose those paths that would lead to "evil" deeds and wrong, Rowling I think successfully blurs the line between good/evil in a constructive way, as in life, it is never quite so simple as black and white, that life is met and experienced in more of gray tones than anything...that Draco, after all his musings and characterizations, was never truly evil, although seemingly predisposed to be such, that even Severus Snape, who we had ambiguous feelings about after he killed Albus, and was not sure where his loyalties lay, (even though I could not believe that he had betrayed Albus, given their fights on Hogwarts grounds in Half-Blood, it just didn't seem to add up that he would be back loyal to Voldemort, I just didn't know how it could have played out, and must admit that I did give up on him towards middle of Deathly Hallows, come to find out, OH!) that after all he had shown, that he could have been loyal all along, the most two dimensional it seems, would be Voldemort, who was a caricature anyways, much like Sauron and Darth Vader, (yet Lucas tried to further his story with the god forsaken prequels, but to no avail, sometimes the two-dimensionality works better for a character and works to make them more profound) yet, Voldemort was not without his history and development, and is miles away in comparison to Lucas' treatment of Anakin's development...but Slytherin seems, in the end, not all lost to the whims of "Easy" and "Power-hungry" for example, Slughorn was on the side of "right" to the end, although he was one who helped (albeit unknowingly) Voldemort (at time Tom Riddle) to pursue further the ideas of Horcrux creation, he did feel remorse for his actions, although no one could blame him, twas all in the name of academic curiosity at the time it seemed to him...he felt so much guilt in fact, he was a hindrance instead of help until Harry, under the guise and direction of Felix Felicis, could draw it out of him, with the help of his mother's memory of course...all is not what it seems...see below...

I have seen analysts describe within the Potter books the element of "not everything is as it seems" and while this seemed perfunctory and cliche at the time, now seems legitimate now, after having read the books, mystery is a large part of the Potter series, and very much drives the plot along in most books, if not all of them, and the characters and plot-lines are both at the mercy of the whims of mystery...

Perhaps the art of creation is the taking of tropes and cliches and making them unique, for there seems to be, at least we are preached to as artists today, that nothing is original ever, and ever amen...and while this may seem a daunting task, tis not originality that an artist should strive, it should be the movement of an artist's audience which should drive him more, for the pursuit of originality in its own sense is only selfish in the end, and a troubadour's song lost to the ears of a supposed audience, never to be heard yet perhaps appreciated in scholarly lore (???) And Rowling does just this, with monomyth as her guide he builds an elaborate world around a growing boy, through his teenage years, so profound, so turbulent, so chaotic and painful, and what a great time to center this story of death? around the age when we all feel a sense of immortality, of selfishness, whereas Harry feels this pride, he is hardly ever arrogant, humble to the last, which is probably indebted to Albus' plan of leaving him with the Dursleys in his formative years, to instill in him a sense of humility based on such nominal but in either case mental/emotional abuse...was not enough to scar him for life, yet enough to wish and hope for more, never in a state of complacence, he was a strong soul who went with what was dealt, until that fateful day that he received his first piece of mail ever, delivered to him by owl nonetheless...

That that little boy went on to face death, and in him, and for everyone else in symbol, the face of it, is so perfectly laced within this tale of a growing teenage boy, fraught with lessons, and scowling professors, and female interludes, and friendship squabbles, all the things that a normal, everyday teenager faces, yet wrapped up within this story of old, this larger, more transcendent story of life and death, love and the battles we face...Shakespearean in league, in scope, with the idea of the everyday wrought within the timeless, that there are scopes of teenie angst followed by tales of kidnappings and torture and the threat that all is lost, (which come to think of it, reflects the teenage sense of drama, so overwhelming, everything is so life or death!...)

In terms of technique, very interesting to note that she scaled her work to reflect the age of the characters, ie Harry, for example her use of vocabulary, her grammar and sentence structure, all became more advanced as Harry got older, along with the plotlines and scope of the overarching story, simpler at first, very intricate and convoluted by the end, wrapped up very nicely by the last chapters of Deathly Hallows...tidy it seems, too tidy in a way, all or most characters being revisited by the end, them all being there for the last fight, losing some of the most integral characters by the end, but just prices to pay in such times...Fred was lost, but at the cost of losing a twin, not a severe lost, for we have a carbon copy of him named George, its only their dynamic betwixt them that we lose, the twins, the Gemini of the Potter universe...anyways I cannot discern whether Rowling intended for this advancement to happen with her writing style, that she had planned this form the first, or if it just happened as she became herself a professional writer and had more time, and more of a niche, to be able to write in a vein, in a voice that she had found uniquely hers, this I cannot tell, perhaps she has commented on this, have not read up on it, I mean she has been writing stories since she was six (?), so writing has become second nature to her, the telling of a story in prose, maybe her skills (of course they had to have) improved over the course of these 7 books, I mean, how could they not? to write 7-800 page books, and then being well-received, your technique would definitely flourish a bit, would it not?

The character's relationships feel real, feel warm and inviting, and how she interconnected them all is a testament to her creative genius, her ability to connect (period) is a testament and a hallmark of her creative genius as well, the way her sinewy plotlines shape and twist and converge and diverge all leading to a grand climax is superb, her flawless pacing helps to move the story along as well, rushing or slowing, giving time to breathe, to run, to lose sight of, to laugh, to cry, every emotion seems to be represented here in these books, in this series, Harry feeling the brunt of them for he is growing up, growing through not only in physicals, but in emotionals and mentals as well, spirituals in a sense for he deals with the deaths of so many dear to him, and ultimately faces it alone, himself, to be redeemed as a Christ figure in a way, his cross beared for so long against his forehead, that mark of that meant so much to so many, a symbol of life over death, tis truly a cross symbol, just as the resurrection is symbolized with the cross for it is where he died, born again yes in the cave, and yes the death cult of Christianity uses the cross instead, focusing on where he died, as his sacrifice is paramount to the meaning behind it all, yet it is ultimately his resurrection, his life over death which has been instilled as miraculous, and Harry's is no lesser...Harry came back from the dead, in novel form, came back to destroy symbolic death forever amongst his people, those who in a way worshiped him, his deeds, his scar, his deeds in which he could never take full credit for, not that he felt he deserved it (and maybe if grown in the magical world he migh'tve been different) yet his humility kept him from such tantalizingly selfish thoughts and attitudes, his betrayal of the Slytherin House as his true home, but come to find out, twas only the death within him that lurked, the piece of Voldemort that was still attached from that fateful day, that day that he overcame death with the help of his sacrificial mother, and her love, Voldemort spat on love, something he didn't understand, which came in the end to finish him, his ignorance of its power, and Harry's unusual luck or fate or whatever have you...he defeated death twice in his life, something rare and magical about that, miraculours if you will, Jesus didn't even do that (hehe) yet the point was that he faced it as Jesus did on the cross, yet Harry did have those he cared about in spirit with him at he walk, who was with Jesus to his walk to Calvary? (is this correct?) Harry accepted it and walked up to the face of it, to sacrifice himself for those he loved, to die for those he loved, ot does seem to me, that sacrifice is one of the most profound of human emotions (yes felt in emotions) and acts that can be experienced, and resonates deeply within the human psyche, as does death as does love...as with life and death, there is sacrifice

And so it seems there is another Christ story amongst us, did not recognize it before until now, but it no less aggravates me as would a lesser story, the use of such cliche, for there is no doubting the resonating power of Jesus' time on the cross, his teachings and what he died for, in so many permutations before and after the phenomenon of Christianity hit the world, this is but the latest and most profound, and so readable and accessible to all age groups, for the "growing up"/ bildungsroman story saga of Harry Potter relates to us all, as does the primordial themes that Rowling uses as her central focus throughout the series, tied ever so tightly and integrally within her made up universe of Expelliarmus and Nox, Every Flavor Beans and games of Exploding Snap, Holly wands and Phoenix songs, friendships that last a lifetime, memories that last forever, this is the world of Harry Potter, a world that thankfully does not end, and can start whenever one picks up any one of the books, for a ride is set to take you into this most cherished world, as Harry Potter and Hermione and Ron all set themselves up on high beside the greatest characters and heroes of literary legend, Harry stands amongst them all in myth and in lore, as the Boy Who Lived...

And there is more! Harry's notions of family, and what family means and stands for, he has had many models of "family" from the Dursleys, to his godfather Sirius (who was closer to being an uncle than anything he had as one), to the Weasleys, who, for their part, gave him the most traditional family setup, Molly being his "second mother" in senses, cooking for him, making him sweaters, treating him as one of her own, much like many mothers do whose sons have best friends...but Harry has had many models, more than most, and never could for an instant, take what family meant for granted, it was always in shift, for if they were alive, they were then dead, and the model again shifted, the Weasleys were great, he loved them all, and although never mentioned, they were not really his blood family, and in his own private way, yearned for, for this would treat him closer to his parents who he missed so much...

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?

Dante's Inferno: thoughts...

The three animals that visit Dante, leopard, lion and she-wolf all represent some vice or sin, and/or symbolize the three stages of Dante's travel through Hell (concupiscence, pride and avarice). Animals as symbols, much like the deer in my story, the Sacred Hunt. She is a symbol of virginity, of innocence thereby sacrificed (or otherwise consumed) to reach Heaven.

Dante starts his journey with a darkened forest (selva oscura), a typical symbol of not only mystery and confusion, of evil and disorientation, of a darkened liminal state, 'tis also one of birth, since the forest seems so fecund, tis a mysterious place to begin, to start off the journey. He uses synesthesia, simile and vague and enigmatic prophecies to build a beginning scene of disjointed but creative confusion, one of swarming darkness...

the Greyhound...Virgil's wunderkind in his Georgics...as amplified and propagandized as Jesus' birth, wow, Virgil as prophecizer for the Christian faith, this man of heathen betrothed. Incredibly interesting (albeit rather condescending) that Dante uses his hero, Virgil, in this light, this role of guide but one who has not been severely punished for his living beliefs, one touted so high as to be given, by the Christian god, a savory and special place in the afterlife, and it does not include suffering at the hands of devils...Dante thought so much of his hero, as to give him this advantage, although, in the end, he was a filthy heathen that knew no better, yet, if he was a contemporary, wouldve definitely been Christian, right Dante?

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince: Felix Felicis and the Horcrux Cave

The Half Blood Prince has perhaps risen to the top of my favorite book within the Harry Potter series, although, this is difficult considering I almost never pick a favorite, especially out of such a fine lineup...favoritism aside, there are some truly memorable scenes in this book: the Felix Felicis scene and the Horcrux Cave scene. Here's why...

Felix Felicis

For starters, the Felix Felicis scene has to be one of the most bizarre and strangely fascinating scenes I have ever read, due to its context and nature, events and characters involved, it is so seemingly random, though it betrays a sense of overwhelming unity in the end, since that is what the Felix Felicis potion does: it makes one lucky, wherein whatever one sets out to accomplish, it is done with ease, which reminds me of those events and times in my own life where there is a sense of systemic confidence and sublimity, where all stimuli seem to merge together and the path is clearer than it usually is, the foggy murk gives way to an ambition that leads to success...tis quite the variant take on the idea of lucky, as if we the readers, get to sit in the backroom where the gears of life crank, and we get to see how it all comes together, as if the mechanism was exposed to us plainly, as it seems to have done with Harry...

In both the book and the film this scene was executed brilliantly, for the tale behind it is classical and superb...it all starts with Harry ingesting the potion, and we watch, as Hermione and Ron watched, with nervous apprehension, to see what would happen: how is this going to affect Harry? what does being "lucky" look like? And the first thing Harry does, is say, in a most random fashion, "I'm going to Hagrid's!" To which, of course, Hermione and Ron are flabbergasted, saying, "No Harry! You have to get that memory from Slughorn!" But Harry isn't listening, he knows, or rather, Felix knows, that going straight to Slughorn isn't going to work...that indeed, a more roundabout path is called for, which, although it seems ludicrous and chaotic, is a path that leads Harry to success, and the retrieval of the memory, the very thing he needed to get done, success!






















He happens upon Slughorn, (the book and the film somewhat differ here, but both being effective, the film having a more sympathetic tone from Slughorn to accompany Harry to Aragog's funeral, for Harry caught Slughorn in the act of stealing a rare plant from Professor Sprout's greenhouse, which makes him a bit guilty, and with Harry being out of doors after curfew, he couldn't quite say no, although he did make some weak attempts at urging him to go back inside...versus the book, where Harry just met Slughorn, who was actually talking to Sprout at the time, and he was reprimanded in a weak way as well, yet when told he was going to Aragog's funeral, he was interested to go, in fact, he went to go change, and bring back a vial or two so he could collect some of Aragog's venom, which, according to Slughorn, an acromantula's venom is quite rare and valuable to those looking for it...and so, he comes back with some mead(?) or some alcohol rare, for the occasion of the funeral...) anyways, what ensues from this is a bizarre and memorable scene of Aragog's funeral, with Hagrid, Slughorn, and Harry, (and Fang!) with Aragog on his back (and Slughorn taking a vial or two of his venom, although acting as if he were inspecting his head, pretending as though it was of some mild interest, for no one was ever so close to an acromantula's head without being soon dead (yet this was only in the book, the film, Hagrid let him knowingly take a vial of the venom) Hagrid was crying and upset, Harry was just standing there, and Slughorn ends up saying a few words in Aragog's memory...a man who did not ever know the creature, and he said the most perfect thing...such a strange collection of characters in a most perfect setting and context, the event, everything was perfect though random, which, upon reflection, seems to wrap up those times when "lucky" seemed to be happening, it is always those random, strange, inexplicable times that seem to work out, that's when it seems to coalesce into One, and that is what lucky is all about: enlightenment! (??)












































The scene resolves in Hagrid's hut, where the drinking ensues, (yet Harry feels it is not right for him to drink, he must stay sober)(another "lucky" trait? listening to your gut? this is very Jedi. the inner voice, Harry listened to his gut, his instinct, which was in this case his Felix potion, but the symbol could be that Harry was listening more to his intuition, which is a deeper voice to hear and one which could be considered a Felix voice within us all, a God voice?) which ultimately leads to Harry extracting the memory from Slughorn, who was so inebriated, that had he not been so, he probably would not have divulged it yet again, and probably would have become a nuisance to Slughorn and fallen out of favor with him, since the Slytherin professor did hold him in such high esteem...either way, Harry's mother Lily was one of Slughorn's favorites, and so, using that advantage and leverage as well, Harry was able to get beyond Slughorn's guilt, and, paradoxically make him feel guilty for another reason, that he should divulge the memory, or Lily's life and death were for nothing, because his memory was considered so valuable as to be the key that could unlock the mystery of Voldemort's demise...























The Horcrux Cave

The other powerful scene, was the one in which Dumbledore and Harry were at the cave where Voldemort supposedly had hid one of his precious Horcruxes. This one is significant to me, because of its relation to the Hero's Journey motif where the old wizard has to die for the young hero to move on and bring back order to the land, etc. And yet. it is not the outright death of Dumbledore that happens here, it is a variant that I have never before seen, in which the hero hand feeds something, in this case, a vile protective potion laid out by Voldemort to discourage those who wish to steal his hidden Horcrux, that in essence, hinders him, and depowers him, reduces his strength and therefore cripples him, which does lead to his demise by Snape. The fact that Harry has to handfeed it to him is quite interesting, that, no, Harry is not directly responsible for his death, but this action, indeed one that had to happen for the Horcrux to be found, definitely worked against him to help bring about the conditions in which Dumbledore dies...although it is quite believable that Dumbledore had this worked out, indeed, that he might have foreseen it, for he knew, it is obvious, that Malfoy was to kill him, and that he had to be a sacrifice for the greater good, although that left everyone else to fend for themselves without such a powerful ally as Dumbledore...yet without this umbrella of security, is when all the characters, including Harry, must stand and unite, for it is ultimately the change of guard that is to happen, that happens in these events, tragic and unfortunate, yet is a necessary rite of passage to become a stronger, more realized individual, a hero, and this blanket of security is what Harry now has to live without, but it is necessary in his development, although it now seems hopeless and futile without Dumbledore, he will soon realize the truth.












































Much like Luke Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi, Frodo and Gandalf (although Gandalf comes back and Obi-Wan can come back as a ghostly apparition, can Dumbledore? haven't read the last installment yet) how they both had a hand in their master's deaths, so too, did Harry, but it is this critical scene, and the way in which it was handled which makes it superb and brilliant. How Dumbledore cut his own hand for the offering to enter the Cave's Horcrux chamber, and how Harry felt like he was to be okay, since Dumbledore was with him, and then after the transferal of power by a liquid potion concocted by the main villain mind you, Voldemort, and on their way out, Harry was the one who offered the blood, he was the one who helped Dumbledore out because he was so weak, and, as Harry was consoling Dumbledore, telling him that he could Apparate them back to safety, that everything was going to be alright, Dumbledore said, "I know, because I am with you..." now, this is a very enigmatic statement, and can be read different ways, and because there is no emphasis in the text literal, (and it is because of this that one can read it in different ways) then it leaves it open, (very enigmatic statement from such an enigmatic character!) Yet, on the whole, I like to see it as Dumbledore's transference of power to Harry and that he feels like they will be alright, because he feels comfort in knowing that Harry is there and with him. That in fact, in the way that I read it, it says, "I know, because I am with you."

And not to mention the charred hand of Dumbledore in the book, and the talk of Dumbledore's age in the film, both serving to undermine his credibility, and his power, which develop and climax with, indeed, his death, as if they were portents, portentous of his dying at the end, to be buried in his White Tomb there on the grounds of Hogwarts next to the lake, a serene and beautiful resting place for such a strong character, no I do not think Dumbledore will return in spirit, but wait, his predecessors do in their paintings, why can't he? I guess we shall see in the next and final installment, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows!

Doctor Who, Love & Monsters

I wonder if it is Russell T. Davies' job to write the campy ones? His Slitheen episodes were similar to this one, lighthearted and campy, goofy and geeky, which, truth be told, is not all bad, if you're expecting it...yet, how about a Shakespearean run? A tragic tale bekindled by a snag joke or two? leaving the fart and ass jokes behind? (no pun intended there, indeed) I don't know why Davies is keen to include this kind of toilet humor, if in fact, he is satisfying himself, or those needs of the general viewing public, but come on! Is it always necessary to resort to toilet humor? Bliss being absorbed into the Absorbaloff, straight to his arse?

Love & Monsters was, well, not extremely difficult to watch, save for the thoughts and ideas that reside behind the campy commentary...it seems to bridge the gap in the understanding of the "common man and woman" perspective, those "joes" which one witnesses running away from that explosion in downtown London, or that other one who was almost "upgraded" by the invading Cybermen...the idea that there are many in this mythos who are directly and indirectly impacted by the Doctor and his (mis)adventures, and the dialogue of this episode seems to address this, to address how and what he leaves behind besides his legend...it also speaks to the viewers who have been along with the Doctor as his "silent companions" for all these years and episodes, traveling to the farthest reaches of the universe, in time and space. There is a feeling of victory and triumph in these tellings, fear, intelligence, the unknown, etc...and the idea of the payment one must render in the experience of such power, that those who come in contact with the Doctor, especially the ones closest to him, get burned in the end, that the adventure, for him at least,always continues on, and yet for all those others, it can stop at any time, in essence, death awaits from this life at any time, so live whilst one can, experience whatever one can, for the ride with the Doctor will surely come to a close at some point in your life, as every one of these characters can attest to...

It also addresses the Doctor being a "god" figure in the Davies/Tennant incarnation, that this character has the ability to bring people together, the power, in fact, to do so, which is portrayed here in a most campy light: the LINDA group and its further activities...starts out as a means to find him this strange "alien", but turns into a self-help, hobby, interest group of friends devoted to being together and spending time together, coming closer to each other in the process...which, i can see now, is an example of this wholesome image that Davies has been criticized for, this almost Disney version of a once terrible man...in fact, the Abosrbaloff rattles off a series of adjectives, including "sweet" which the Doctor cannot attest to (no!) ...

So the campy ELO scenes, the SUPERCAMP Scooby-Doo scene where they are running in and out of the various rooms being chased by the monster...what the hell? Since that one was towards the beginning, it has the effect of setting the tone for the entire episode, which is: oh, be prepared, this ones gonna be campy! And yet there were some nice storytelling ideas that cropped out,including the story of Elton (another camp device btw) when he was young and saw the Doctor in his living room, and as it turns out, the night his mother dies, and the portrayal of how this was affecting him, this was well done...but I mean, come on, LINDA forming a band? and then goofily playing an ELO cover? "Don't Bring Me Down"? I think? CAMP! the thing is, i can't enjoy it! it isn't a delicious camp, that one can savor from a Fulci film or from "Evil Dead II". I suppose for something to be excellent camp, it cannot be forced, that, in truth, it only comes out that way, for camp to be induced on purpose, and with a sizable budget, will not be effective, or at least, I've never seen it pulled off with these qualifications, or even double at least, the guys down at BBC and Davies just don't have the artistic vision, nor the ability to pull off prized camp, if indeed it is what they are trying to accomplish, and, sadly, if not, then all it is reduced to is just poor storytelling and a wholesome Disney portrayal to satisfy the mediocre watching tastes of general Joe and Jane Viewer who do not care to divulge for an instant a shred of a thought or reflection about what they witness on the "telly", and that this episode was for them "pretty good" and "ha-ha" at best...

Makes me wonder if the producers, executive or otherwise, (including Davies), and any higher-ups in BBC entertainment management, have a goal or simplified plan of what is expected from a series such as Doctor Who? And I wonder if, in fact, they have a formula, much like radio stations have formulas for playlists, on how a season is to be arranged, to achieve the highest rating potentials, for, from what I understand, Doctor Who is huge in Britain, and so, to keep things the way they are, if they expect certain things, like "safe" episodes, ones that people are not going to have to think about or trouble themselves to understand, BUT, mix these lighter tropes with the actual "great" episodes that lie therein, a la Dalek, The Impossible Planet, The Satan Pit, Midnight, etc....that these are indeed necessary over the season's story arc to flesh out and balance the season out...I would say "why?" on all the great albums there are no fillers, in fact, fillers are only there to flesh out an album so that they can call it thus, to basically support buying a full album just for the two (maybe three if you're lucky) hits that have driven sales and interest in the first place, I just want to know, does Davies think these episodes are of quality? or does he know, and only follows a formula? And why does it always seem to be Davies that writes them? Lost was guilty of this as well, filler episodes, and I only wonder why? Does it fill up space that couldn't be filled with quality storytelling because of poor scripts from a pool of nothing but? budget and/or time constraints? why can't they all be "mind-breaking" instead of some opting out for the "mind-numbing" category?

But, besides all this complaining, how do these fillers develop the overall story and/or characters? How did Love & Monsters? As mentioned before, it did well in the description of those he leaves behind and their coming together because of him in some way; that the character in essence is great, for he bridges bonds together between disparates, and forges them through his name, (so god-like is it not?) and this is a lighthearted telling of that phenomenon, in fact, the Doctor and Rose are only in this episode for a max of perhaps five minutes...his legacy and memory and effects are what drives this one forward...Elton's monologue at the end pretty much sums up the story: that out of convention, there is unusual strangeness, and out of the norm is unknown darkness, and however maddening this is (to live within it), it is so much for the better, so much more beautiful, than a life lived within a box metaphorically and physically (mentally and emotionally as well)...and this abnormality, this outside the box mentality, is what the Doctor represents, symbolizes for us all, and this fake-camp episode tries its best to get at the heart of this idea, and does in places, but yet falls short in the end, (probably reached at its highest peak and development with Martha Jones' season (perhaps the season finale with her?) where she spreads the "News of the Doctor" in an evangelical style (?) this was one of the first episodes I ever saw of the Doctor, has been a while, will be coming up on that one in the next season!)

It tries to do the trick with a seemingly average Joe, who vlogs his life, or, at least, those times of his life when affected by the Doctor, or, that man who was in my living room that night...for, outside of his dropping out of school, getting a job and liking ELO, which works to hammer in the ideas of "normalcy", there was this experience he had when he was younger...and then jumping to those other times in his life when he directly experienced alien intrusion upon the Earth (specifically London) which, lo and behold, were incidents that the Doctor was involved in...and the tragedy for this normal "Joe" aka Elton, which he has even then worked around and established a new set paradigm, was that his one true love, Ursula (played by Shirley Henderson of Harry Potter Moaning Myrtle fame), was trapped in a squared stone, and yet he was able to retrieve her (thanks to the Doctor), and now lives with her, and has actually a "kind-of-a-love-life" with her, and has, in essence, worked around such a tragedy to become a better person, and this is the wonderful horror of being burned by the Doctor, that living outside the box is indeed beautiful and wondrous, and yet it is indeed dangerous, and that one must be prepared to face these harsh truths when they do indeed come, its the whole "living on the edge" mentality and serves to promote this philosophy as a truer way to live, instead of normalcy and convention and rules and comfort, to just letting go and trying something new and facing the strange and the unknown, the darkness, and you do it with those you care about, that is the metaphor of the Doctor and his companion, and all of us "silent companions": that you go through life to struggle and face the unknowns, not to settle for comforts and routines, but you do it not alone, but only with those you care about, for the experience of life is not in a vacuum, and does not reside forever within your own eyes, for it is through the eyes of another that one may witness true bliss...