Latest Harry Potter, Deathly Hallows Trailer

[FluffyUnbound]

I think Harry's decision to sacrifice himself to save everyone else counts as a conflict.

And the Elder Wand is kind of a red herring. The real reason that Voldemort loses is because Harry sacrifices himself. He repeats the blood sacrifice undertaken by his mother, but he does it on behalf of everyone. That's the real defeat of Voldemort. Even if none of the Elder Wand stuff happens and Voldemort kills Harry a second time, Voldemort is done, because he can no longer use magic against any other character.

I think some people believe that Voldemort's magic is failing at the end because he's using the "wrong" wand. But that's secondary. His magic fails during the final battle because of the blood magic.

That's one reason I have my doubts about expanding the final duel for cinematic purposes. I like the more subtle way Voldemort has been defeated in the text, without his even knowing it or grasping it until it's too late. The whole "Elder Wand belongs to Draco Malfoy" thing saves Harry, but everyone else has already been saved.

 

[Gaith]

I see what you're getting at, but your facts are wrong... No, the Moses story is very lengthy (it takes place over 40 years, after all), and the entire time, Moses is only doing what he has been forced, by God, to do.

Hm... well, I read Exodus once, but I'm certainly underinformed on the matter, it seems, and defer to your knowledge thereof. But if, as you say, Moses only questions the way things are going once or twice, then it would certainly seem that his story isn't thematically complex, and thus artistically lacking. Of course, it's pretty well impossible to view the story neutrally, hard-coded as it is into Western civilization...

Anyway, no, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a character who is never given a choice, and is forced to simply do what must be done. Come to think of it, isn't that the Jesus story too?

AFAIK the Scriptures never say whether or not he's tempted to go his own way, because how would the authors presume to know?

The site to which SiorX linked has two rather excellent Potter articles, one on the clumsy and morally troubling assertion that Dumbledore was gay, and the other on the rigid, semi-Calvinist determinism that governs the characters' actions.

I think Harry's decision to sacrifice himself to save everyone else counts as a conflict.

No, a conflict is a choice wherein the best answer is unclear. As he sees it, he has two options: sacrifice himself and save the world, or not do so, probably be killed anyway, and let all his friends die. That's not a conflict, that's a plot point, devoid of all but the barest traces of character.

 

[Ubik]

I see what you're getting at, but your facts are wrong... No, the Moses story is very lengthy (it takes place over 40 years, after all), and the entire time, Moses is only doing what he has been forced, by God, to do.

Hm... well, I read Exodus once, but I'm certainly underinformed on the matter, it seems, and defer to your knowledge thereof. But if, as you say, Moses only questions the way things are going once or twice, then it would certainly seem that his story isn't thematically complex, and thus artistically lacking. Of course, it's pretty well impossible to view the story neutrally, hard-coded as it is into Western civilization...

Anyway, no, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a character who is never given a choice, and is forced to simply do what must be done. Come to think of it, isn't that the Jesus story too?

AFAIK the Scriptures never say whether or not he's tempted to go his own way, because how would the authors presume to know?

The site to which SiorX linked has two rather excellent Potter articles, one on the clumsy and morally troubling assertion that Dumbledore was gay, and the other on the rigid, semi-Calvinist determinism that governs the characters' actions.

I think Harry's decision to sacrifice himself to save everyone else counts as a conflict.

No, a conflict is a choice wherein the best answer is unclear. As he sees it, he has two options: sacrifice himself and save the world, or not do so, probably be killed anyway, and let all his friends die. That's not a conflict, that's a plot point, devoid of all but the barest traces of character.

I would argue that the Moses story has lasted so long only BECAUSE it was, in some way, artistically compelling. Thematically complex? No, probably not. No one ever accused the Hebrew Bible of being thematically complex. But clearly there's SOMETHING fascinating about these old stories, or they wouldn't have lasted. And if that something is not thematic or character complexity, it must be something else. To find out what that something is, read up on theories of myth and ancient storytelling, and you'll find there are tons of theories on that. In any case, basically, the heroes of epics are, by design, the least complex of fictional individuals. Over thousands of years, they have been created, over and over, by various completely different cultures, from a surprisingly common template, a basic outline of characteristics, and rarely do they part from that template. This is why so many epic heroes, from Gilgamesh to Achilles to Moses to Frodo to Luke, have so much in common. And only very rarely are these heroes given much of a choice in their actions. The Greek heroes, for example, are utterly devoid of complexity, self-doubt, and free will. And yet they are compelling and unforgettable. So, there must be something in a character, outside of complexity or self-analysis or free will, that makes him or her compelling for us, and whatever that something is, Harry Potter has clearly got it.

So, as I've said, the idea that an epic requires a protagonist who has depth of character is a very 20th century idea. And I don't mind at all that Harry has more in common with Moses than Luke, in his lack of freedom or choice. There is, after all, a very old and lasting tradition along those lines.

 

[Deckerd]

They're books written for children, not philosophical treatises, nor epic poetry. A bit of perspective here might not go amiss.

 

[Ubik]

They're books written for children, not philosophical treatises, nor epic poetry. A bit of perspective here might not go amiss.

Nonsense. The line between so-called "high" and "low" culture is complete hogwash. I teach Shakespeare in my Lit. classes, sure, but I teach Harry Potter too, and the idea that there are "levels" of culture, that Poe is somehow inherently superior to King, is an old class-based bias that good universities over the last few decades have been doing their best to extinguish. No, Rowling, just like Tolkien or Le Guin, deserve the same kind of critical attention as Milton or Chaucer.

(By the way, other works of art aimed at children: Treasure Island, Alice in Wonderland, and Huckleberry Finn, all far superior to many recent award-winning novels aimed at adults. Again, the distinction between high and low culture is nonsense.)

 

[Lapis Exilis]

They're books written for children, not philosophical treatises, nor epic poetry. A bit of perspective here might not go amiss.

Nonsense. The line between so-called "high" and "low" culture is complete hogwash. I teach Shakespeare in my Lit. classes, sure, but I teach Harry Potter too, and the idea that there are "levels" of culture, that Poe is somehow inherently superior to King, is an old class-based bias that good universities over the last few decades have been doing their best to extinguish. No, Rowling, just like Tolkien or Le Guin, deserve the same kind of critical attention as Milton or Chaucer.

(By the way, other works of art aimed at children: Treasure Island, Alice in Wonderland, and Huckleberry Finn, all far superior to many recent award-winning novels aimed at adults. Again, the distinction between high and low culture is nonsense.)

Hear, hear!

I agree completely that Harry Potter is not thematically complex, and never pretends to be. From page one, book one, Rowling lays out a clear mythic structure and follows it, step by step, to its inevitable ending, which is practically encoded in our DNA so that you are anticipating that ending from the very beginning. I get a little frustrated in discussions of HP in which either fans tout its complexity (it is complicated, but not in the least complex), or people criticize it for its lack of complexity. By book two, the rhythm of the storytelling is clearly established, and is as regular as any cycle of heroic tales and part of the series' charm. The books never attempt to put forth any moral ambiguity or psychological complexity - that's simply not what they're about. It's like criticizing Watership Down because Hazel is routinely self-sacrificing and inclusive of everyone's talents, Bigwig is routinely gruff and courageous and Fiver routinely intuitive and right about everything. That cyclical rhythm is the point and the source of the story's satisfaction.

Don't get me wrong, Gaith, I'd tend to agree the series was overly long, but then the world building aspect of it was always a large part of its appeal, so it's a bit like saying The Lord of the Rings (a similarly straight-forward epic tale lacking any character evolution) is too long. By that I mean, it's really a matter of taste. If the world doesn't hold your attention, then it's too long. If the world does, it can almost never be long enough. I'd even say that gives Rowling her out on the Elder Wand business - each book has to add to the world seeing as how that's rather the reason they're being written and Harry's heroic journey is in large part merely the framework upon which the world is draped.

 

[Gaith]

I would argue that the Moses story has lasted so long only BECAUSE it was, in some way, artistically compelling.

Well, it's certainly iconic, full of striking images and vivid plot points along the hero's journey. But imagine if it had never been written, and we'd all grown up on Gilgamesh, Greek mythology, and some more Roman variant on Christianity. If someone came up with the Moses story today, would it really resonate? Maybe, but maybe it'd be forgotten as quickly as The Prince of Egypt.

But clearly there's SOMETHING fascinating about these old stories, or they wouldn't have lasted.

Well, yeah, there's an ideological fascination in the idea that your tribe is inherently superior to all the others, even if they built pyramids and huge civilizations and you didn't. And if you come up with the (admittedly original) idea that your alien benefactor is the only one in the whole cosmos, it also makes sense to invent a persecution narrative to both explain your comparative plainness and balance out the arrogance of your "one god" assertion.

But, I take your well-reasoned points.

From page one, book one, Rowling lays out a clear mythic structure and follows it, step by step, to its inevitable ending...

I'd hardly call its increasing insularity from Book 4 inevitable. One of the reasons I'm so frustrated with 5-7 is that they take 4's promise of bigger and greater worlds, characters and situations and ditch it in favor of the Great Camping Trip.

Harry's heroic journey is in large part merely the framework upon which the world is draped.

Sure, but I was kinda hoping to get both an interesting journey and a great framework.

t's a bit like saying The Lord of the Rings (a similarly straight-forward epic tale lacking any character evolution) is too long.

I'm not nuts about the LotR books either, but I do think that their "power corrupts" message is considerably more profound than HP's "love is good, unlove is ungood", and in basically making Gollum and later Frodo drug addicts, Tolkien at least touched on deeper and more complex emotions/psychologies than Rowling, whose characters never exhibit any particular traumatic aftershocks or indeed much emotional memory of any kind. And then Tolkien's prose far exceed's Rowling's.

 

[McCoy]

I think Snape has quite a lot of depth. You don't see much development over the course of the Harry years, but as you learn his back story you can see the distance traveled between where he started and where he ended up. You can see where and why he is consistent. I think she crafted his character rather skilfully.

 

[Nardpuncher]

They're books written for children, not philosophical treatises, nor epic poetry. A bit of perspective here might not go amiss.

Nonsense. The line between so-called "high" and "low" culture is complete hogwash. I teach Shakespeare in my Lit. classes, sure, but I teach Harry Potter too, and the idea that there are "levels" of culture, that Poe is somehow inherently superior to King, is an old class-based bias that good universities over the last few decades have been doing their best to extinguish. No, Rowling, just like Tolkien or Le Guin, deserve the same kind of critical attention as Milton or Chaucer.

(By the way, other works of art aimed at children: Treasure Island, Alice in Wonderland, and Huckleberry Finn, all far superior to many recent award-winning novels aimed at adults. Again, the distinction between high and low culture is nonsense.)

I was agreeing with you all the way. Then images of Power Rangers and The Family Guy popped into my head.

 

[Deckerd]

(By the way, other works of art aimed at children: Treasure Island, Alice in Wonderland, and Huckleberry Finn, all far superior to many recent award-winning novels aimed at adults. Again, the distinction between high and low culture is nonsense.)

If you teach literature then you really should be able to distinguish between genre and intended readership. I don't know where you plucked 'high and low culture' from but it wasn't from my post.

 

[Nardpuncher]

^^ Ooh! Lemme in on this!

50 bucks on Ubik!

 

[paudemge]

I enjoyed the movies, but I wouldn't consider myself a fan, I could never get paste everybody seemingly OK with Harry living in an extremely abusive home with his step parents.

 

[Hyperspace05]

I'm no HP fan - but that trailer sure look EPIC. Nice job on the cutting of it - although I'll probably wait for the DVD.

 

[Gaith]

And what's with this jacket? I mean, I dig it, but I have no idea where it came from...

 

[CorporalClegg]

"Like my jacket? It keeps me safe when I'm in a forest on the run!"

 

[DigificWriter]

Gaith, it doesn't sound like you've read DH, and so, without going into too much spoilery detail, the scene in question occurs right after the trio return from an 'outing' that is extremely critical to the overall plot of the book and its filmic adaptation, and the outfits they are wearing are related to what they were doing.

 

[Gaith]

I read it, but forgot most of the middle section. Is that her Umbridge jacket or something? Never mind, don't really care...