These Thoughts in my Head on PNN

What happened to the plot?

Posted by Maya Posted on: 07/19/09

What happened to the plot?

Two nights ago, I went with my brother to a late-night showing of the much-hyped 6th Harry Potter movie. I am a fan of the books, and discovered them before they became a huge deal in the US, and stuck with the series from 6th grade through to the end of my college years, when the final book was released.

I'll admit to not being a huge fan of the movies, and in fact avoided several of them, but decided to give "Half-Blood Prince" a shot since I'd heard so much about it. From an entertainment perspective, it wasn't bad. There were some stellar performances (once again I find myself loving Rowling for insisting on only British talent being used for the films, because there are some splendid, brilliant actors), some of the touches of humor that made me love the books, and the movie had some strong points from a cinematographic point of view as well.

What it lacked, however, was a solid plot that correlated to the book. Now, I know that the books got increasingly longer and cuts have to be made. I get that these movies have not aimed to be epic like the Lord of the Rings trilogy. But I am baffled as to how they are going to make the final two movies work when information that is crucial and essential to finishing the battle between Harry and Voldemort has been left out of the movie entirely. This movie focused more on the love triangle between Ron, Hermione and Lavender than it did on the impending forces of darkness that are closing in on Harry's world.

The two highlights of the movie for me (and I am avoiding spoiling anyone, so bear with me), are the performances of Professor Slughorn and Luna Lovegood. Jim Broadbent is magnificent as Slughorn, particularly in the scene that leads up to and culminates in Hagrid's cottage. And Evanna Lynch, how I do love you. She is Luna Lovegood brought to life, and she is simply awesome. I cannot wait to see more of her in the final two films. Tom Felton fleshed out the character of Draco excellently, particularly the scene with the bird and the disappearing closet. And, while the romance between Harry and Ginny seemed wooden and stilted, the scenes between Harry and Hermione were wonderful.

Plot criticisms aside, Alan Rickman as Snape was underutilized again, Helena Bonham Carter's Bellatrix was manic rather than terrifying, and Helen McCrory seemed horribly miscast as Narcissa Malfoy.

All in all, a mixed bag. I don't get why everyone else seems to be falling over themselves in praise of this movie; it was enjoyable, but it fell far short of what I had hoped, even with lowered expectations. I just hope that "The Deathly Hallows" part 1 redeems the shortcomings of this film, but I cannot say I am optimistic. I think I'll just wait for the remakes.

7Vote!

Comments (2) Share

Like this story? Share the news by clicking below:

Arabs and Terrorism

Arabs and Terrorismis one of the only documentaries being screened at the Osian festival, and happens to have been the first movie I saw almost a week ago. As the title suggests, the aim of the documentary is to examine the relationship between being an Arab and terrorism (this is not at all to suggest that all Arabs are terrorists, or for that matter, that Islam is the religion of terrorists/terrorism. To think such things is absurd and stupid in the extreme).

To attempt to answer this question, director Bassam Hassad crisscrossed the Middle East, the United Kingdom, and the United States, interviewing top officials, academics, intellectuals, and ordinary citizens, attempting to gauge public opinion on the topic of Arabs and terrorism.

While the documentary does shed some very revelatory light on American academic/policy makers attitudes towards Arabs and terrorism, and rightly points out that Arab/Islamic terrorism occupies thelionshareof American's attention even though it is far from being the sole source of global terrorist activity, it falls short in many other aspects.

Perhaps the best part of the documentary came in the third segment, where the director engaged in some rather provocative and revelatory film-making. He filmed his interview with figures such as key leaders of Hizbollah, and then showed the interview to an American policy official, usually of a conservative nature (it is worth noting that most of the American officials he interviewed seemed to slant towards the right), and filmed their reactions. He then did the same using their reply with the person who had originally been interviewed. Though the words these people speak say plenty, it is their facial expressions, unguarded, that provided the most telling glances into their thought processes.

One of my major critiques of this film is that too many of the interviewees are of the academic/intellectual nature - certainly, these are the people who help interpret and shape policy and attitudes towards terrorists and Arabs, but at the same time, if the director's aim was to attempt to discern what motivates people on an individual level to turn towards terrorism, logically, more of the film should have focused on interviewing ordinary people.

With regards to the intellectuals they did interview, most presented compelling points of view (from both sides of the spectrum, liberal and conservative), but I wonder why they did not interview the British journalist Robert Fisk. Fisk is known for his coverage of the Arab world and has written an extensive book on its history (and how that history and present-day reality of the region is largely ignored in the Western media), so to not have him is a little strange to me.

However, my main quibble comes from something else entirely. As far as I can tell, the filmmakers (for reasons best known unto themselves) avoided paying a visit to Saudi Arabia. I'm not sure whether this was due to them being denied permission to film in the Kingdom, or whether it was an intentional or accidental oversight, but it seems to be a rather glaring omission to me.

Saudi Arabia is one of the key actors in the global Islamist (not Islamic, Islamist, there is a difference) terrorist movement, especially in terms of funding and the spreading of Wahabi extremist ideology. Most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, and Osama bin Laden is originally from Saudi Arabia as well, though the government stripped him of his citizenship. Therefore, for the film not to include, reference, or interview Saudis in any significant way seems to be an almost inexcusable lapse.

Ultimately, the film concludes that the daily living conditions faced by many Arabs are a potent source of discontent - a conclusion I accept and agree with, but given the proposed scope of this documentary, the conclusion seems a little simplistic. It also occupies about 30 seconds of airtime just as the film closes. A more nuanced and intellectual conclusion as to the relationship between Arabs and terrorism would have made this film much richer one by far.

Overall verdict: Impressive in its scope, the film falls short on depth.

3/5 stars

4Vote!

Comments (0) Share

Like this story? Share the news by clicking below:

Lady Chatterley

Posted by Maya Posted on: 07/12/08

Lady Chatterley

Lady Chatterleyis a 2006 adaptation by French director Pascale Ferran of D.H. Lawrence's toned down version of his (in)famous novel Lady Chatterley's Lover, John Thomas and Lady Jane. It tells the story of a young, beautiful aristocratic woman named Constance, whose husband, Sir Clifford, has been crippled in the Great War. Though her life seems rather dreary, the one thing that gives Constance solace is wandering about the extensive grounds of their manor, Wragby, and her favorite spot soon becomes the little hut where their gameskeeper, a man by the name of Parkin, tends to the pheasants and chickens that he raises for them.

There are hints of the attraction Connie has for Parkin from the moment she sees him bathing, shirtless, from a distance, but his attraction to her does not become evident until much later in the film. Once revealed, however, the two embark on a passionate love affair and eventually fall in love with each other.

The film is beautifully shot, with extensive attention given to the natural surroundings of Wragby throughout the four seasons, which are the only real indication in the film that any time has passed at all. The plot is also exceedingly slow to develop, and once it does, never really reaches a climactic point or a dramatic resolution, settling instead for a very understated end. This would be fine, except for the fact that, at 168 minutes (just under three hours), the lack of action (minus the sex scenes, which include full frontal nudity, male and female) makes for a very tedious experience.

Had Ferran done a better job of editing the film, I feel that the subtlety of the film would be better appreciated, and that I would have enjoyed myself more. The performances by all the main characters are terrific. Marina Hands is luminous and stunning in her performance as Constance, and Jean-Louis Coullo'ch brings an unexpected tenderness to his portrayal of Parkin, and Hippolyte Giradot remains somewhat of a mystery as Sir Clifford.

My other main quibble with this film is that it makes no sense. I don't mean that the film's storyline makes no sense, but the decision of Ferran to shoot a French film while remaining faithful to the English setting and character names. The village in which Wragby is situated is clearly an English one as the shop names indicate, and the characters names (Clifford, Connie, Mrs. Bolton, etc) sound downright peculiar in French. If I had to guess, I would say Ferran wanted to remain entirely faithful to the setting and character names of the book, but since he is French, decided to shoot in French, but it makes very little sense on a logical level.

Overall verdict: A beautifully shot film, but long and slow moving.

3/5 stars

3Vote!

Comments (2) Share

Like this story? Share the news by clicking below: