Contagion 2011

When Contagion came out back in 2011, I thought it was a horrible idea for a movie. It had only been a few years since Swine Flu was a thing we all worried about. There had been scattered reports of outbreaks of Mad Cow Disease for years. And my mom had recently been ill with something we were originally told was, and I quote, "A virus infection thst jumps between her brain and her stomach."

Brief aside.

The naturopath who "diagnosed" my mother with this odd, nameless viral infection did so because in her twisted, self-righteous mind that was the only explanation for my mother's symptoms of vomiting and double-vision. After a series of spinal taps and a surgical biopsy, it was later revealed that my mom had an aggressive form of non-hodgkin's lymphoma in her brain. One tumor was pressing on her optic nerves and messed with her vision, and another was lodge in the corpus callosum in her brain and pressed in just the right places to cause her sporadic vomiting.

The naturopath had insisted that whatever this was couldn't be cancer because she (the naturopath) had supposedly cured herself of cancer, and therefore considered herself a cancer expert. Once it was revealed that the naturopath was wrong and that my mom did actually have cancer, the naturopath vanished from our lives and we haven't heard from her since. She didn't even bother to come to my mom's funeral.

The caveats to my story is that I don't blame naturopathy for what happened to my mom.  I still believe in the effectiveness of homeopathy and natural medicines. I do, however, blame that particular naturopath for her arrogance. She believed that she knew better than other "regular" doctors even after three cancer patients and our family cat died under her care within a year of each other. If my mom hadn't been so convinced by this woman's claims, she might have gotten an accurate diagnosis sooner, but as it is we will never know.

The point of my little, personal aside is not only to set context for when this movie came out, but also to show that I come from both sides of the medical debate. I believe in the effectiveness of both traditional and natural medicines.

Well, anyway, my mom's been in the ground only a few months, and this movie Contagion turns up in theatres. And I remember thinking, "I'm never going to watch that! It's too scary! It's just going to make me paranoid about everything."

Flash forward eight years, I have now watched Contagion twice through. Maybe this sudden fascination with medical procedures and outbreaks prevention was inadvertently caused by my stepmom's successful lung transplant. Or maybe it's something else. I don't know.

And what I discovered is the movie really isn't that scary. It gets you thinking. We've had several people at the hotel where I work exhibit flu symptoms, and just something as simple as that can make you think twice about how often you wash your hands after touching a door nob or even your cell phone. Recently, I had to seriously consider whether or not to cancel a plane trip to Seattle due to a cold. On the one hand I felt fine other than my cough and runny nose, but on the other I'm piling into an enclosed metal tube with 50-100 other people. They'll have three hours continuous exposure to my germs just because I'm breathing the same circulated air they are. Add to that that my own immune system is already compromised, which makes me more susceptible to pick up whatever little bacteria and viruses those other people might be carrying.

I am happy to report that my symptoms were significantly gone by the time my plane took off, and I had a great time in Seattle, and nobody else became sick or died because of me.

The same cannot be said for Gwyneth Paltrow, who plays Beth Emhoff in Contagion. She has just returned from a business trip (which involved a visit to a casino) in Hong Kong. On the way back, she takes advantage of a ling layover in Chicago to have a quick fling with an old flame.

None of which would have been discovered if it hadn't been for that gnarly little virus she brought back with her.

At first, it exhibits as standard flu symptoms; cough, throat pain, fever, headache. Nothing to worry about, right? Just take an antibiotic and some vitamin C, rest, drink tea. Badda boom, badda bang. Right?

Until Beth has a seizure and later dies in the hospital, closely followed by her young son who had started exhibiting symptoms the previous day.

Nobody suspects anything...until the doctors preforming the autopsy open up Beth's head and take a look at her brain. We never get to see what it looks like, but one doctor tells the other to step away from the table and call everyone.

Oh, and remember that guy Beth hsd the affair with during her layover in Chicago? He gets sick and dies, too. Same symptoms.

Add to this that a handful of other seemingly random people around the world suddenly develop the same symptoms.

All of them were in the casino in Hong Kong that night Beth was there.

And, as you can imagine from a movie about a deadly virus outbreak, mass hysteria eventually erupts. It's all of our worst fears. Shots of bodies being carted off to mass graves are reminiscent of the plague pits of the Black Death outbreaks in Europe.

The movie is unique in the it doesn't follow standard Hollywood movie structures. Tbe movie is about a few individuals and how they react and work to combat (or simply survive) the mysterious outbreak. There are no dramatic chase scenes. No political conspiracies. No Robin Hoods spewing anti-christian, left-wing propaganda. Just a handful of honest, hardworking people trying to get to the bottom of this thing.

And, arguably, this is one of those movies where a bunch of big names appear for about ten minutes, and that's it. Gwyneth Paltrow is patient zero, so she dies early, early on. Kate Winslet develops the virus and dies a few scenes later. Bryan Cranston makes a few appearances. Marion Cotillard gets kidnapped by desperate survivors 20-30 minutes in and we don't see her again until near the end when she's ransomed for a supply of the vaccine.

Spoiler alert: they eventually find a vaccine for this thing. It takes them the better part of an hour and a half and over 25 million people dead worldwide to do it, but they do.

The movie follows a few different people as they navigate the delicate terrain of this mysterious epidemic.

We follow Mitch (Matt Damon) and his daughter Jory, just some ordinary people trying not to get sick and survive when their hometown of Minneapolis is declared a quarantine zone. Well, Mitch is immune. We know this because his wife was Beth Emhoff, aka patient zero, so he's already been exposed and didn't get sick. He spends most of the movie trying to keep his only surviving daughter Jory from getting the virus that killed her mother and little brother at the beginning of the movie.

We also follow a team of dedicated researchers at the CDC who fight valiantly to figure out what this virus is and how to stop it.

We also follow a conspiracy nut/theorists (Jude Law) who is conducting his own research and suspects the CDC of hiding the truth about effective natural treatments in favor of creating a vaccine they can make millions off of.

The movie doesn't take sides. Instead it shows the epidemic from all of these different angles and how each of these people act.

For example, it is revealed that one CDC guy used his privileged position to get his girlfriend out of town between the quarantine. Later on, it is suggested that Jude Law, who has been running around claiming to have cured himself with a natural remedy, never had the virus and made his story up. Whether it was wrong for the CDC guy to get his girlfriend out of the danger zone or whether Jude Law was really faking his illness and recovery for his blog is never specified.  I appreciate the movie for staying open-minded like that, and for not just defaulting to calling Jude Law a nut or exposing deep, nefarious corruption and a diabolical conspiracy on the part of the CDC guy. Both are people who want to help find a cure for this virus as soon as possible, and they take extremely different avenues to accomplish this goal. Both have good intentions, but both are flawed.

Contagion feels very episodic, seamlessly jumping from one stage to another, demonstrating how different people react to the same emergency. It feels more like a biopic about an Ebola epidemic than a Hollywood movie with a laundry list of A-List actors. But it is a very well made fake biopic, and one which I highly recommend. In terms of its filmmaking, it's a refreshing change to the standard Hollywood format.

Even if it does make you think twice about touching your face and washing your hands.

The Long Awaited Answers Regarding Rey's Parentage

Two Years Ago, I posted about my theories about Rey's mysterious parents, the mysterious ship she remembered so vividly leaving her on Jakku, and the nameless, faceless "family" Rey was waiting for. I speculated about who they were and why they were no longer around, and how little Rey came to be in a slave-like state stranded on such a desolate desert planet as Jakku.

Now, 2 years of waiting and wondering and 9 viewings of The Force Awakens later, we finally have answers.

And I would like to go on record and say...that I was not correct.

But I wasn't entirely wrong either.

Warning: Major Spoilers Ahead

Still with me?

Ok, here we go....

Rey's Parentage: Revealed

In the midst of all the battles and the struggle of Dark and Light and overall wonderfulness, The Last Jedi makes several pointed attempts to answers the age-old (well, 2-year-old) question about Rey's parents. Who were they? Where have they gone?

When Rey is sucked into the Dark Side cave and sees the mirror thingy, first thing she asks to see are her parents.

And she almost sees her parents.

Almost.

But, not quite.

At that point, I was beginning to think we'd be left hanging with more theories and mind-dominating obsession until Episode 9...if we ever truly found out the answers we so earnestly hoped for at all.

Whoever made this image, you are amazing!

And then, Kylo Ren and Rey make their ying-yang Dark-Side/Light Side connection thing, and bits of them are revealed to each other.

Rey sees Ren's future and is therefore convinced he will turn to the Light if she helps him.

Ren, in turn, sees Rey's parents.

And also her future, which makes him think he can convert her to the Dark Side.

And thus continues their complicated relationship.

The movie then proceeds to spend an exuberant amount of time going back and forth.  At first it sounds like Ren is going to tell us, then he insists that Rey already knows the truth, and we begin to think they're going to leave us high and dry forever when Rey finally says what she apparently knew the whole time but has to now actually say out loud for the benefit of the billions of people worldwide who are literally on the edges of their seats:

"They were Nobody."

Rey Nobody

This is still my favorite TFA pic!

Finally.

Two years of waiting and wondering and distracting ourselves by watching IT multiple times (another topic for another blog post), we finally have answers.

Maybe not the answers we were hoping for, but we have them nonetheless.

Kylo Ren elaborates for our benefit, because Rey probably already knows the rest of it as well:

Her parents were some random junk traders who sold their five-year-old daughter to an overweight, greedy, manipulative, smelly creature on a barren wasteland planet that hardly anyone knew about.

Finn, all those many 2 years ago, already asked, "Why does everyone want to go back to Jakku?"

The point is that nobody does want to go back to Jakku. Especially the Nobody family, who have (within the last 15 years) reduced the size of their brood from 3 to 2 while also coming into a certain amount of money they fully intend to spend on alcohol.

They got what they came for.

They have no reason to go back.

It is at this point that I would like to point out that I was right about Rey being sold to Unkar Plutt. 

In my post Who [The Heck] is Rey?, I state several times that I suspected Rey had been sold rather than left there for her own protection. Episode 7 and it's companion book aren't explicit on this matter, but there are little hints throughout that indicate as much.

I did not, however, think it was her parents who sold her.

I didn't think they were capable of such evil, operating under the theory that they loved their little child and had every intention of going back for her.

"What kind of loving parents leave their 5-year-old with a guy like Plutt on a planet like Jakku?" I asked.

The Answer: They weren't loving parents.

They sold their own daughter for drinking money.

Which makes you wonder...what the first five years of Rey's life were like?

We can speculate about this all day, but we will never fully know because Rey is a fictional character and therefore we are only told what we need to know about her life in order for the story to move forward. If, one day, it becomes necessary for Rey to talk about those blocked memories of her early youth in order to move the story forward, we will find out.

And, yes, I do think those memories were blocked, not by her parents or a Jedi Master who conveniently set up shop a few towns over on the same planet. Rey blocked them herself because they were too painful for her little five-year-old self to reconcile.

Maz points out in TFA, "I see in your eyes. You already know the truth. Whoever you're waiting for on Jakku, they're never coming back."

Rey already knew they weren't coming back because she already knew who they were and why they left her there. She just suppressed the memory of it in favor of the more hopeful, "Oh yeah, they'll totally come back for me!" attitude.

Kylo Ren says as much. You know. You just suppressed it.

And she all but gives it away herself earlier in the movie, during one of their initial Force Mind Link Things.

In confronting Kylo Ren about Han Solo's death, she blurts out, "You had a father who gave a d--n about you!"  (Or "You had a father! He gave a d--n about you!" It's hard to tell.) The point is that I don't think she's just angry about Han being dead, I think she's also angry about the fact that Han still clearly loved Ben and Ben (who is now Kylo Ren) just totally drove a light saber through him.  In comparison, Rey's own father literally dumped her on a planet that is pretty much nowhere. He clearly didn't give a darn about her, so watching Ben/Kylo Ren kill his own father who actually loved him just exacerbated her swirl of post-Han's-murder emotions.

She doesn't just hate Kylo Ren for killing off the only father figure she can remember ("You think Han Solo is the father you never had," Kylo Ren says while Forcefully reading Rey's mind in TFA). She hates him for not appreciating or taking for granted the father Ben/Kylo Ren clearly did have. I would even go so far as to speculate that she hates Kylo Ren for hating his father enough to kill him.

Anyway, the fact that she says this line at all kinda implies that, as Kylo Ren points out later, she does already know the truth.

Rey has known this whole time that her parents didn't and probably still don't give a darn about her. She knows her parents sold to Plutt, though maybe her young mind wasn't able to process exactly why at the time. She knows they're not coming back for her.

Is it possible that Kylo Ren is lying to her? This is Kylo Ren we're talking about, so it is possible. But seeing as this information was gleaned from a Force Mind Link Thing AND since Rey doesn't try to refute it, I kinda doubt it.

A Peek Into The Lives of The Nobodys

I'm going out on a limp here, and there is absolutely no evidence in the written and visual Star Wars materials we have thus far, but I think I can speculate a little about what Rey's life was like leading up to the unfortunate events that led to her life on Jakku.

Best case scenario, her parents were mildly neglectful drunks cruising the galaxy with their five-year-old.

Best case scenario, they went through all of the motions of being good parents, but when they got stranded on Jakku with a huge debt and no money and probably a hankering for some whiskey, the only solution they saw was to sell their daughter to a fat disgusting alien creature dude.

They settle their debt, get some extra cash to boot, and try not to think about how they just sold their five year old on that planet.  They try not to think about what her life might look like because of what they did.

Maybe they did actually think about going back for her. One day. When they had enough money. But whiskey is just so delicious.

Worst case scenario, they weren't nice people at all. Having a kid running around totally foils their plans to hop across the galaxy selling junk and getting drunk and whatnot. She's an annoyance, and they're actually happy to get rid of her. Maybe they even went to Jakku for the purpose of getting rid of her.

Sell her off to an uncertain future, get some cash, kill two birds with one stone.

The "your parents gave a d--n about you" line she gives Kylo Ren in the movie seems to indicate, to me anyway, that the truth is somewhere in between.

They maybe weren't horrible parents but they obviously didn't care enough about her to stop them from selling her off when the opportunity presented itself.

Maybe if they'd known how special their daughter was, they wouldn't have sold her? Or maybe they did know and they just didn't care.

But since Rey doesn't really ever sit down and divulge large chunks of detail about her early life, we may never know. And maybe we don't need to know.

(I still want to know.)

The fact that Rey seems to have repressed her memories about her parents selling her may also mean that she's also blocked out other bad childhood memories before that. She doesn't remember them being drunk neglectful junk traders because she doesn't want to.

"I see it. I see the island." - Kylo Ren, TFA

"At night, desperate to sleep, you imagine an ocean," Kylo Ren gleans from her mind in TFA. Maybe the reason she can't sleep is because the memories of her parents, their possible degrees of neglect culminating in selling her off to Plutt keeps playing over and over in her mind, in her dreams, and she lies awake at night with tears in her eyes wondering if things would have been different if she'd tried harder to be a better child. Too young and confused and hurting to realize that nothing that happened to her was in any way her fault, she tries really hard to think about something else, anything more pleasant.

And what would be more pleasant right now than a big beautiful ocean with a pointy green island and a weird-looking tree that happens to contain some ancient Jedi texts?

And since she doesn't yet know about her Force powers, she doesn't realize that the Force is providing these images for her, perhaps as a way to give her hope.

Would I Like Rey to Find Her Parents Again?

Heck, yes, I would!

I imagine maybe one day she might run into them in battle, at a familiar Cantina, or at the grocery store. And I imagine her shrieking at them with Jyn Erso-esque passion, "YOU DUMPED ME!"

*Force chokes them to death.*

*Effectively turns to the Dark Side by accident.*

Kylo Ren: Told you.

But, seriously, there is a part of me that wishes she could find them and show them who she is, what she is, if for no other reason than to make them feel guilty for selling their little daughter for drinking money.

"Hey, you guys totally dumped me. You sold me off like a commodity to that Plutt guy. But I rose above my circumstances and became one of the most powerful Jedi in the universe. Now, I would love to stay and chat, but I gotta go fight for the freedom of the galaxy. Buh-bye!"

All things considered, there is still a part of me that wants this to happen.

Some Final Closing Thoughts

I hear and read about a lot of people complaining about how Rey's nobody parentage doesn't make sense. They have to be somebody because there is no way for Rey to be that strong with the Force if it's not hereditary.

I would argue that the fact that Rey's Force powers aren't hereditary and that she does come from nothing and her parents are nobodys, that would encourage ordinary folks like you and me.

You see, we don't have to be somebody to be somebody, if that makes sense. Just like Rey doesn't have to be a Skywalker or a Solo or a Kenobi to be one of the most powerful Jedis in the galaxy.

We have Kylo Ren who is hereditarily Force sensitive, and Rey who is not.  The Force isn't necessarily passed down, although it can be. It doesn't single out famous legendary family lines and create dynasties. It chooses, seemingly at random, those it wants -- whether they be the grandson of Anakin Skywalker or the lonely slave girl abandoned by her parents on Jakku.

Just like God doesn't exclusively call strong, powerful people to follow him and act on his behalf.

There was King Solomon who was hereditarily the king of Israel and who is still considered to be the wisest guy ever to have lived despite his many failings (and there were many).

But then there was King David. David was a shepherd, the youngest of 7 sons, and yet he became King of Israel (he's even got a few cities named after him). Joseph was not only one of the youngest of his 12 brothers, he was sold into slavery and spent time unjustly imprisoned before he became the 2nd most powerful guy in Egypt and eventually saved his own family from starvation. Jesus, himself, didn't choose to be born into a rich family when he came to Earth. Instead, he was born to the fiancee of a poor carpenter who had to bunk down in a stable in a foreign town because there was no room for them in the inn during a mandatory census.

Along this same line, another interesting thing is the connection between Rey, Anakin, and the little slave boy at the end of the movie.

Remember me?

Remember him?

At the very, very end of TJL, this kid walks outside, glances around, then reaches for a nearby broomstick AND IT COMES TO HIM.

A lot of people miss this the first time, but it's there. Next time you watch the movie, keep your eyes peeled for it.

I have read elsewhere that his name is Temiri Blagg, so I hope we see more of him in subsequent Star Wars movies. However, this is also the franchise that has a thing about naming random characters and then expecting you to somehow know all those secret names, so who knows. I really do hope we get to see little Temiri again, though.

If you think about it, these three characters -- Rey, Anakin, and the little boy -- have a lot in common.

All three of them come from nothing.

Anakin and the little boy are (or were) slaves, and Rey was technically a slave as implied by the fact that she was sold to Unkar Plutt.

Both Rey and Anikin came from miserable desert wastelands. Luke did as well, though I will argue that Luke had it pretty good compared to his father and Rey. Luke wasn't a slave either, so that's where that comparison ends.

Anakin doesn't have a father, and neither Rey nor the little boy have any parents -- Rey for the reasons mentioned in this blog post and the little boy for reasons unknown. Maybe he, too, was sold by his parents for drinking money?

The point of this, I think, is that hope comes from the most unlikely places -- the very "least of these" rise to become the greatest, not because of their circumstances, but in spite of them.

That, I think, is what we are meant to take away with us when we leave the theatre.

But, since TLJ's novelization isn't due for release until March (Why, oh cruel writers and publishers? Why???), it is entirely possible that there is subsequent information on this topic that we don't yet know about. Anything is possible.

Thanks for reading and may the Force be with you! 

LOTR: The Fellowship of the LynZ

Someone recently asked me which one of the Lord of the Rings books/movies was my favorite, and while I maintain that I love all of them (and, indeed, one can not simply watch one movie without watching the other two as well), I think I can say with some certainty that Fellowship of the Ring is my "favorite" of the trilogy.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Two Towers because of Pippin's character arch (which is a discussion for another blog post) and other such things. But Fellowship is probably the one that I have the fondest memories of. Fellowship contains most of the scenes I consider classic LOTR motif moments. 

Everyone film adaption and artist portrayal has a version of the Hobbits hiding under the tree roots while the Black Rider searches for them on the road. 

Almost every LOTR artist has done a painting or sketch of the confrontation at the Ford of Rivendell. 

The Mines of Moria. 

The Bridge of Khazad Dum. 

The Mirror of Galadriel. 

And, for course, Boromir's betrayal and Frodo's departure for Mordor.

These are the moments that immediately come to mind when I think of LOTR, and they all happen in the Fellowship of the Ring. 

This, I think, is the book that transitions us from the fun, juvenile nature of The Hobbit (which was originally intended to be a children's book) into the dark, gritty world Middle Earth that we become more familiar with in the proceeding two books.

Fellowship still has that air of homeliness, of home-cooked meals and quiet evenings by the fire. Even in its darkest moments, Fellowship is arguably more lighthearted than either Two Towers or Return of the King. There's still a sense that, yeah, we can totally get this Ring to Mordor, drop it in the fire, and be home in time for dinner...or supper...or whatever Hobbit meal happens around 7pm Shire Standard Time.

It isn't until the end of the book, as Frodo is heading off for Mordor by himself and Sam nearly drowns himself in order to go with him that we finally realize (as does Frodo, I think) that this mission isn't going to be all sunshine and daisies. This quest to destroy the Ring of Power is going to be fraught with a kind of danger we haven't encountered up to this point in our journey through Middle Earth.

Throughout the hardships, the struggles, and even the deaths that occur, Fellowship gives us the illusion that everything is still fun and lighthearted. Goodness, even after Frodo's been stabbed by the Morgul Blade and is PRACTICALLY DYING, the four Hobbits are all still being their goofy little selves, and they spend several pages of the book hanging out at Trollshaw (that place where Bilbo and the Dwarves were about to be eaten by trolls before Gandalf showed up and the trolls turned to stone, as recounted in The Hobbit). Sam even sings them a particularly long and ridiculous song about trolls while they eat lunch And Frodo, who by the way IS DYING, is totally cool with it, laughing and joking (although weakly) along with his friends.

Sorry, I went off on a tangent there.

My point is that Fellowship of the Ring is more of a pleasant, upbeat experience than the rest of the trilogy. The rest of the trilogy is great, don't get my wrong, but not in the "everything's good, everything's groovy" sort of way that Fellowship is.

But, I think Fellowship adds so much to the weight or gravity of the other two books. Because Fellowship left us with such warm, fuzzy memories of Hobbits reading by the fire, Hobbits laughing and joking about everything that comes across their path, and the innocent awe of Hobbits who are the first of their kind to see some of the hidden wonders of their world, the dark, depressing overtones in Two Towers and Return of the King feel even heavier, and I think helps us to understand the mindset of the Hobbits, and especially Frodo and Sam. We feel the weight of their desperate mission even more keenly because we can still feel the tiniest hint of that warm, fuzzy, lightheartedness from Fellowship. We feel Pippin and Merry's plight (as prisoners of the Uruk Hai) more keenly because we've seen then at their best (and worst) in Fellowship, the comedic relief of the Nine Walkers, the lighthearted fools who (perhaps unintentionally) make the first part of the journey that much more entertaining.

Then comes the end of the Two Towers movie, with Frodo and Sam in the ruins of Osgiliath with Nazgul and Orcs all around, and Sam is literally in tears because, let's face it, how on Middle Earth did they go from being quiet, peaceful folk in the most perfect place in the world to being hungry, exhausted wanderers, virtually prisoners to Faramir and his men, in this smoldering ruin of a city on the very borders of Hell itself?

"By rights, we shouldn't even be here," Sam says. "But we are."

And as Sam launches into his epic monologue, we find ourselves wondering along with Sam, how can things go back to the they were in Fellowship after all the crazy bad stuff that has happened in the meantime? Does that quiet, peaceful Shire still exist? It's so far away. Almost 5.75 hours have passed since the last time you saw the Shire (if you're marathoning).

The Shire is the familiar aspects of our lives, our family, our friends, pets, school, favorite places.

The Quest is the journey we must all take eventually, a new job in a different city, the loss or death of a loved one, graduating college, the collapse of your favorite tree.

The Fellowship of the Ring shows how even as we head out on the new stages of our life journey, our own personal quests, we still cling to a piece of the familiar, a piece of that thing that we left behind (whether willingly or unwillingly).

And as the curtain closes on Frodo and Sam heading off to Mordor on their own, cut off from their friends (and family, Merry and Pippin are related to Frodo, let's not forget), we learn that we, too, must eventually set off on our own, and leave the familiar comfort we once knew behind us. The memory of it will stay with us and effect us for the rest of our lives, even if it is far away and long ago.

On the Eve of Beauty and the Beast

I'm sitting here on the eve of the live action Beauty and the Beast opening night, listening to the soundtrack (which is surprisingly available before the movie, but whatever), and my brain doesn't know what to do with itself.

It hears voices and registers that Hermione Granger is talking, but then suddenly she starts...singing...which isn't all that bad, actually. It's just that my brain is having trouble registering that Hermione Granger;

a) is singing these classic songs, not Paige O'Hara

b) can actually sing pretty good (after all, singing isn't especially stressed at Hogwarts)

I will give you fair warning, I'm probably going to make a lot of Harry Potter jokes in this post.

Let Me Be Honest...

Beauty and the Beast was never my favorite of the Disney classics. It was too scary when I was little. I have much fonder memorials of Cinderella, Snow White, and The Lion King (and have to admit, I was slightly disappointed by the 2015 live action adaption of Cinderella, although they got the dress right, so I can't complain too much). 

But, I am a fan of Emma Watson's (questionable choices or not, the girl's got talent). This is a relatively new development, I'll admit, that started right around the time I watched Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (or was it Prisoners of Azkaban?). Admittedly, my Harry Potter binge of 2016 was not the first time I'd seen Emma in a movie. I'd actually seen Noah on opening day (yes, she's in that), and Perks of Being a Wallflower a few months before my Harry Potter binge. 

Am I admitting to going to see Beauty and the Beast for Emma Watson?

It gets worse.

Not only am I excited for this live action adaption of Beauty and the Beast, but...

...I am the proud owner of reserved seats at the almost midnight premiere tomorrow night (10:30pm Thursday the 16th, to be precise).

And I may or may not have bought those tickets 3 weeks ago.

Not only that, but I also have plans to see it again with another group of people on Saturday.  

So, yes. I am going to see this because I'm a fan of Emma Watson. I think she's a very talented young lady. I don't agree with a lot of her recent decisions, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy her acting in a movie.

Well, mostly....

Okay, okay, I'm not super excited for this movie just because Emma Watson's in it. 

Luke Evans is in it, too, and I'm very much Team Bard the Bowman! (If you have no idea what I'm talking about, go watch The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug and The Hobbit: There and Back Again.)

And Sir Ian McKellan.

And Ewan McGregor. 

And Emma Thompson.

And Stanley Tucci.

So, basically, Gandalf, Obi Wan Kenobi, Nanny McPhee, and Ceasar Flickerman all got together for a musical, and it's the best thing I've heard all year.

(We're not going to talk about Dan Stevens, or all the hearts he broke by leaving Downton Abbey in such a tragic manner....one broken heart of which was mine.) 

But, I'll admit, just as Belle slowly falls for Beast, I gradually fell in love with original 1991 movie. It was a gradual rediscovery that the story really wasn't as scary as I remembered it. The songs are catchy. The story has a good message (not judging by outer appearances). And, admittedly, the little detail of Belle being "imprisoned" in the palace did factor in.

There's something wonderful about this movie; I don't know why I didn't see it there before (see what I did there?).

But even as I'm excited for new live action adaption, I began to think about it, and the thought crossed my mind...


Why Do We Love This Story So Much???

Yes, it has a great message.

But, Belle is a prisoner.

At least she starts out that way.

And to prove this point, I have gone out of my way to take this screenshot from the trailer.

Which basically means that we can translate Belle's gradual affection for the Beast as glorified Stockholm Syndrome.

And once you think about that, the story takes a dark turn.


Belle as the Victim

Granted, she trades her freedom to get her father out of the Beast's prison.

Granted, everybody in the palace seems to go out of their way to encourage the relationship in order to break the spell and all.



But, seriously, if you need to get someone to love you (and learn to love them in return), is locking them in a tower really the smartest move?  Not really.

We never said the Beast was smart.

Should the servants/furniture have told her the plan?  Debatable.

Still, if you need a girl to fall in love with you (and you need to learn to love her in return), then why would you tell her she's a prisoner and can't ever leave your castle?

Let her go home, then send invitations to her and her father to come stay for dinner and use the library.  Just saying.

Well, whatever.  They were in a hurry. The Beast was almost 21 (their deadline).

Either way, the likelihood of Belle naturally falling in love with this, admittedly ugly, boorish individual (who also happens to be holding her prisoner on some level or another) is unlikely.

Unless, it's Stockholm Syndrome.

Stockholm Syndrome is where a prisoner or hostage forms certain psychological bonds with his/her captor/abductor.

Like where a beautiful young lady is held as an eternal prisoner in a foreboding castle in the dark and creepy woods but still falls in love with her captor (who happens to be a hideous beast), whereby breaking a spell/curse that has enchanted the captor and his entire household for the last 10 years.

Basically, Beast and the rest of the gang totally took advantage of the feelings of an impressionable young village girl to achieve their goals of not being cursed/enchanted for the rest of eternity.

Or this whole story is a commentary on Stockholm Syndrome and the irrational psychological whatnot that causes a young impressionable girl to fall madly in love with her captor (who happens to be a hideous beast), and how "true love" can change even the most hideous beast into a handsome prince in the perspective of one such young impressionable captive girl.


Belle as the Heroine

Or, of course, it's entirely possible that Belle is just a kind-heated person who willingly sacrifices herself to free her father, goes out of her way to help the Beast recover from his wolf-bite wounds, and eventually actually forms actual feelings for the Beast because she chooses to look past his outward appearance and terrible manners and helps him learn to love and be a decent individual, whereby breaking the curse/spell/enchantment that have effected the inhabitants of the castle for the last 10 years.


(My apologies for the very long sentence.)


She goes out of her way and sacrifices her dreams of "adventure in the great, wide somewhere" to help break the spell, whereby releasing him from an eternity of being this hideous monster surrounded by talking teacups.

There are a lot of plot holes.

The curse doesn't make sense in the first place.

But, the message about not judging someone based on first impressions and outward appearances is still there.

The classic Disney motif, that true love conquers all, holds true.

That's the story that attracts us.

That's the story we love to watch over, and over, and over again.

That is the story we love.

Nocturnal Animals

Rated: R

Basically, this is a story about a rich museum coordinator (Amy Adams) who receives the manuscript of a book her considerably less wealthy ex-husband (Jake Gyllenhaal).

The story by her ex-husband:
A family is driving through West Texas when they have a scary run-in with a group of drunk sociopaths, which ends with the man (also Jake Gyllenhaal) stranded in the middle of Nowheresville, TX and his wife (Ilsa Fischer) and teenage daughter brutally murdered.

A year later, the man is working with a dying cop to hunt down the men who killed his wife and daughter and bring them to justice.

This movie is going to get nominated for something, either sound design or cinematography, or both.

The story was just...weird.  Lots of nudity. Lots of swearing. Not so much on-screen sex, though. There is a brief rape scene, but it's blurry and the camera moves a lot so you don't see anything graphic (which is ironic considering how much nudity there is in other sequences).  And don't even get me started on the opening sequence.

The movie goes out of its way to lump Christians, conservatives, and Republicans in with sexists and racists which I found rather discouraging (and offensive, if I dare use that already over-used word), but I would like to point out that it also shows the presumably liberal, Democratic, tolerant character choosing a rich, good-looking guy over the Middle Class guy she truly "loved" (as to why anyone would dump Jake Gyllenhaal is beyond me).

I do kinda feel like this movie was a waste of my time, but, hey!  There was a promotion at the theatre, so I did get a thousand bonus points out of it. 

I highly recommend skipping this one.

Denial

Rated: PG-13

Once upon a time, a historian writes a book which claims that the Holocaust never happened. 

Meanwhile, a university professor writes another book about the Holocaust and calls the historian out on his bias toward Hitler and the lack of evidence to support his no-Holocaust theory. 

So, that historian takes the professor to court, claiming she has defamed his name and reputation.

And thus the trial of the century, the trial to prove that the Holocaust really happened.

Seeing as we still learn about the Holocaust, and may of us have had the opportunity to meet survivors or visit the sites, it's a pretty safe bet what the outcome of the trial was even before sitting though a 2-hour movie, but it's totally worth your time to do so (watch the movie). For those of us who haven't yet been or may never be able to go to Auschwitz in Poland, this movie gives us a second-hand look at the camp as it stands today (or, at least, how it stood in the late 90's).  The scenes that take place in the camp are both stark and poignant. Seeing Auschwitz in this movie felt almost just as haunting as when I visited Mauthausen Concentration Camp (and, let's be honest, a movie ticket is much cheaper than roundtrip tickets to Poland).  

I will be completely honest, I'm not a huge fan of Rachel Weisz. That being said, I actually rather enjoyed her performance in this movie.  Cinematically, it's beautiful, especially the scenes filmed in Auschwitz! 

Do I recommend this movie?  YES! 

GO SEE IT!!!  You won't regret it!

Priceless - 2016

Rated: PG-13

In keeping with the Christian movie motif of one-word titles that basically give away the theme of the story, Priceless is about a guy named James who takes a shady job driving a truck across the country. He later discovers that he's hauling two girls, Antonia and her sister Maria, who are to become trafficking victims. Working with a conscientious citizen/mentor (another Christian movie motif), James works and fights to rescue the girls from their captor/pimp.

While this movie does fall victim to the standard Christian movie motifs, including characters stating the obvious and random mini-music video sequences, this movie was surprisingly intense. It's a great message portrayed by a great cast in a moving story. None of it felt forced or over-rehearsed. I was very impressed!

Cinematically, this movie is gorgeous! While it does default to scenic shots to fill space between scenes, these scenic shots are truly beautiful!

Seeing as this is a movie about human trafficking, there is a rather intense scene where a girl is coerced into having sex and we later see her lying in bed, covering herself with a sheet (implying that she's been raped). People fight, one guy is shot, and a few people are held at gun point.

This is a heart-thumping drama that everybody should see!

The Girl on the Train

Rated: R

3 women, 2 men, an odd spattering of shrinks, strangers, and police detectives, all brought together by a train and a murder.

Rachel (Emily Blunt) is a disparaging woman who has turned to alcohol to drown out her problems (not being able to have a baby, then losing her husband to an affair). Apathetic and directionless, Rachel rides a train to and from the neighboring city every day. From the train window, she can see a couple in a house near the tracks. They seem to be deeply in love, possessing everything Rachel herself has lost, and she daydreams about their lives.

Megan (Haley Bennett) is a sexually frustrated housewife who doesn't sure her husband, Scott's (Luke Evans), desire to have a baby. Shadowed by a past tragedy, Megan engages in shady affairs with everyone from her neighbors to her therapist, anyone she feels won't expect anything from her (baby-wise).

When Rachel witnesses Megan kissing another man, she gets off the train, intending to confront Megan about her infidelities. She wakes up the next morning covered in blood, with no memory of the night before, and to the news that Megan has gone missing. Now she must regain her memories in order to exonerate herself of Megan's murder while trying to help the police and Scott hunt down Megan's real killer.

The movie stays true to the Paula Hawkins book on which it's based, even maintaining the book's non-linear storyline. The movie is trippy, but I thought it was much easier to follow than the book (maybe this is because I'm a visual learner?)  Emily Blunt is all-but-recognizable, but she really knocked her performance out of the ballpark with this character. Haley Bennett's performance is spotless.

Cinematically, this movie is beautiful! Camera angles, scenic shots, and the unique soundtrack all work together to build tension and enhance the already intricate story.

Problems: This movie is rated R for a reason. There's a lot of sex scenes, mostly naked women from behind, never anything full-frontal. There's also a fair amount of strong/bad language. Other than that, a few people get physically attacked (one person lethally so), and one guy gets stabbed in the throat.

Worth seeing? Yes!

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

So, last week my Psychology teacher had us watch Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind in class, then for our homework we were supposed to write a short review.  But, by way of the Secret Arts of Procrastination, I find myself just now sitting down to write this review...

...only to find that my computer battery is dead and I didn't bring the charger with me today.

So, instead of leaving the glorious privacy of the empty classroom I'm currently situated in, I'm going to write my review here (since I can access Blogger from my phone).  Besides, it is media related, so why not share my thoughts with the rest of you as well.

So, here we go:

Psychology: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

The story begins with an apathetic man who skips work and ends up running into an enthusiastic woman with blue hair.  They end up hitting it off and soon commit to some kind of a relationship.  But as the film progresses, we discover that they were both previously in a relationship, but broke up and decided to have their memories erased so as to avoid the painful memories.  As the man undergoes the memory wiping procedure, however, he realizes that the good memories of his former girlfriend are being attacked as well.  Panicked, he goes to extraordinary lengths to keep her (or the memory of her, anyway) from being completely erased. 

Fighting back from the outside are a doctor, his lab assistant and office clerk (who are secretly in love with each other and engage in sex over their patient's sleeping form).  Also there to complicate matters further is the lab assistant's assistant who has developed a crush on the main character's former girlfriend and is using the main character's memories to woo her.

Yup, quite the complicated storyline.

Since this is for a psychology class, I'm assuming I need to spend some time discussing the psychology interwoven into the movie as well as the psychological effects it had on me (or my response to it), so here we go.

It's interesting how much we wish we could forget sometimes, and I think the movie does a good job of comforting that desire head-on.  Yes, some memories can be painful and we may think that the only liberation we can get is if we rid ourselves of those memories.  But those bad memories contribute to our growth and maturity.  If we were to retrace our steps, we would find that those painful memories had just as much influence in making us who we are today as the good memories.

For example, my Mom dying of cancer is a bad memory of a difficult time in our family.  But as much as I wish it hadn't happened or that I could forget it, I know for a fact that I would not be the woman I am today.  I wouldn't be driving myself, I wouldn't know the meaning of the word "independent thought", I wouldn't be this close to publishing my book, I wouldn't be attending the Art Institute, and I probably wouldn't have started this blog.  And I definitely wouldn't have seen The Force Awakens seven times in the theatre  (my Mom was a bit controlling).  Because of her death, I'm more independent than I probably could have been if she was still alive.  Do I still get sad when I think about her?  Heck, yes!  I still break down whenever someone sings her favorite hymn.  Do I wish I could forget her?  No.

Back to the movie.

Overall, this wasn't my favorite movie.  Believe it or not, it was a little too weird for me (and that's saying something coming from the girl who loves Roald Dahl and The Series of Unfortunate Events).  But I did like how it touched on mankind's desire to be rid of pain.

As humans, we don't like to be in pain or discomfort.  It's our natural inclination to make pain go away (unless you're a sadist, but that's a whole different beast in and of itself).  If there's a cactus prickle in our feet, we're naturally inclined to want to pull it at as soon as possible.  I think it's the same with memories.  It's our natural inclination to make the pain stop by getting rid of the source, but we have to realize memories don't work that way.  Depending on the functionality of our minds, memories can be stuck with us for the rest of our lives.  If we could have them physically removed, I think we would.  I think Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind tackles that desire and says, "Yes, we all want to live a pain-free life, but if given the choice of losing all the memories of a person, place, or event, would we really choose to lose the good memories to?" 

It's certainly something worth pondering.

Okay, my cell phone is about to die, so I better go now.

Go watch Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind if you get a chance.  It's certainly very thought provoking and could start some interesting discussions.

Allegiant...In a Nutshell

There was something irony about today.

This time last year, my friend and I planned to go see Insurgent in the theatre on the Thursday before opening night.  Tuesday afternoon, however, my co-worker came up to me and asked if I could cover for him Thursday morning...even though I was already working an 8-hour shift that afternoon.

For whatever reason, I said yes...

...thus, I ended up working 11.5 hours straight, followed by a 2+ hour movie with my friend.

This experience is documented in my blog post: Insurgent_Count_Down

(I realize I promised to post my review within a few days of the showing but never did, and for that I apologize.)

This March, I planned to go see Allegiant at the dine-in theatre near campus as a treat for surviving Finals.  I bought my ticket for the 11:30am showing two days in advance, as this was the only showing that would get out before my 3pm shift at work (also on campus).  This morning (Thursday), I received a desperate message from my boss saying that the my co-worker had called in sick and she needed someone to cover at least for a little bit this morning (Finals Weeks isn't quite over yet).  And since the theatre was right next to school and I had to be out there at 11:30 anyway, I said I would come in from 9:30 to 11-ish, and hopefully after that my other co-worker would be able to come in a little early.

The irony in it all is that I was covering a Thursday morning shift for the same co-worker I'd covered for a year earlier, AND I was going to see a Divergent movie afterward.




Allegiant

Don't mind us.
We're just climbing a wall in style.

Where to begin?

Overall, I liked it.  I absolutely loved John Trapanese's original score from Insurgent, and I loved Allegiant's soundtrack just as much.

One of the biggest complaints I hear about Insurgent (other than all of the deviations from the book) is how bad the dialogue sounds.  And I'll admit, a good portion of it is a little clunky like whoever wrote it (Brian Duffield, Akiva Goldsman, Mark Bomback) just didn't know how to write believable dialogue.  Either that, or the actors weren't given very good direction from Robert Schwentke.  Or a combination thereof.

Whatever was going on in Insurgent seems to have been remedied in this latest installment, because the dialogue didn't seem quite as awkward to me.  Actually, it sounded pretty good.  Everyone seemed much more comfortable with their roles, so overall the performances were great.

Costume design was interesting as well.  I thought they utilized the costuming well to further separate Tris, who is considered pure, from the others, who are considered unpure, by dressing Tris in really bright whites to contrast blacks and the dark grays worn by everybody else.  Fantastically well-thought-out stuff!

Most of all, I loved the lighting!  I absolutely LOVED it!  It was a happy combination of softer high-key lighting (very light shadows) and the darker, heavier borderline chiaroscuro lighting I love so much.

So, overall, I enjoyed the movie...


Defiant 
(or why Allegiant should be excomminucated from the Divergent family)

Tris is sad because of how
inaccurate the movie was.

...but not as a member of the Divergent family.

A lot of liberties were taken with the storyline, especially after the first, like, half an hour or so.  Elements of the story remain the same --  Tori still dies during their escape, Tris finds out here mother used to work at the science facility, and David still tries to release a memory serum on the city of Chicago while the people are at war with each other.

I liked Allegiant as its own little stand-alone movie about a girl and her friends who seek to discover the trust about what lies beyond the wall that both protects and imprisons their dystopian city.

As its own little blob of movie, Allegiant is fantastic!

As a member of the Divergent family...it leaves something to be desired.




Arrogant 
(or how Tris is still alive and why I have a problem with that)

I should be dead.  What happened?

Now don't get me wrong, I actually like Shailene Woodley as an actress.  But the fact that Tris made it through this movies relatively unscathed just made me angry.

It's not that I want her to die.  Nobody truly wants one of their favorite characters to die at the end of a movie or a book (that's what makes their deaths so sad to us).  But, I understand that in order for the Divergent series to reach its full and complete end, Tris must die.  As a writer, I get that.  Sometimes you have to knock off your main character to solve the problem.  Sometimes your main character has to go down in order to take the antagonist down as well.  I get that.

I also [kinda] get why they split the movie into 2 parts: Allegiant being Part 1 and Ascendant being Part 2 (due next year).  On the one hand, it keeps the franchise going, and the longer the franchise lasts the more many media moguls in Hollywood can make.  See, the film industry is all about money and less about art in America, which is why movies like Son of Saul stand out to us so much (as the Hungarians are a bit more focused on the artful aspect of filmmaking than we are).  This is why I get really excited when I do see really artfully crafted movies or movie trailers.

Regardless, I have no problem with splitting a book into 2 movies, but only if it's done right.

Mockingjay Part 1 and Mockingjay Part 2 were done correctly in my opinion.

Breaking Dawn Part 1 and Breaking Dawn Part 2 were done correctly in my opinion.

Allegiant Part 1 was not done correctly in my opinion.

I defy them to make Allegiant Part 2 correctly at this point.

Splitting Allegiant into 2 movies wouldn't be a problem if the material was being equally distributed (or close to equally).  As it stands, the Allegiant movie covered so much of the book that they really should have just killed Tris off, ended the series, and called it good.

What makes me even more upset is that they set it up to kill Tris at least once during the climax, and yet she is still with us, and they're moving forward with Ascendant (which is technically Allegiant Part 2).  And I was prepared to forgive them for the rest of the inaccuracies if they just did this one little thing right and let Tris die at the end of the movie.  But no, it was not to be.

Considering how much of the book was covered by Allegiant, I defy them to make a full 2+ hour movie out of what's left of the book.  I defy them to do it!


Detergent
(or why I think Ascendant should be renamed Detergent and labeled as fanfiction)

The Final Chapter or the First Crossover?

I'm not saying they shouldn't make Ascendant.

I'm just saying that they should have ended Allegiant in one happy 2-hour, 20-minute movie, then make Ascendant something else entirely.  Disconnected from the Divergent series altogether.

How, you ask?

First, it's time for us to face the reality that Hollywood has been talking about making a Divergent/Hunger Games crossover.  And while some of us may have been hoping and praying to avoid this detriment to great literature, I think it's time for us to face the fact we may be seeing these crossover movies sooner than we'd like to admit.

Second, considering how they ended the existing Allegiant movie, it is possible that they will just run off and take Ascendant down a whole different path that is completely different from the remaining portion of the Allegiant book it's supposed to be based on.  On top of the fact are rumors that Ascendant will contain "all new material".  How, exactly, can a movie based on a book contain "all new material"?  And how does Hollywood expect fans to be excited about this "all new material" when it means the defiling of a wonderful piece of dystopian literature?

Tris and Katniss: Partners in Crime?

So, will Ascendant be the first Divergent/Hunger Games crossover?  Will we be seeing Katniss or any other TGH references scattered throughout the last installment of the Divergent series?  Will President Snow rise to power and turn the experimental cities like Chicago into the 13 districts?  Will a five-year-old Mags make an appearance?  Will Tris end up leading the rebellion that leads to the destruction of District 13?

Truthfully, I have no idea.

I wish I could use my psychic mojo to read the minds of the Ascendant production team so I could tell you what they have in store for the movie...but sadly, I don't have any psychic mojo (which is probably a good thing in the long run).

My fangirl would love to get Jennifer Lawrence and Shailene Woodley in a movie together, maybe not as Katniss and Tris, but definitely with playing similar characters in some sort of dystopian future with a totalitarian government.

But, as an author and a fan of the books, I'm horribly offended by the idea of merging the Divergent and Hunger Games universes into a gigantic dystopian blob.  I think that would only serve to destroy the hopes and dreams and childhoods of so many fans.  Filmmakers should show authors more respect when adapting their works into movies.

We really need a washing
machine, Four!

If they must make a crossover movie, they should call it Detergent and make it about how the oppressed Districts of Panem join forces with the people of Chicago to overthrow the totalitarian government who has denied them the right to use washing machines to do their laundry.  They can make weapons out of empty detergent bottles and break into the BGW to steal their heavily protected and highly coveted washing machines.  Tris is killed while breaking into the washing machine vault and Katniss helps restore order to the whole country by smuggling the stolen washing machines to the impoverished Districts and experimental cities.  Because, you see, the world would just be a better place if everyone could just do their laundry in washing machines.

And yes, Hollywood, you may use that idea if you'd like.

Something to Ponder

My dear readers,

I have spent the last four or five blog posts talking about my thoughts on the Harry Potter series, and in every single one I have stated that, although I have made the decision to watch them myself, I still believe them to be dangerous. From what I've seen so far, they are fun stories about life, school, and growing up.  And, really, that's what they could have been; fun children's books and movies.

No, the danger comes from the references to real world paganism, Wicca, and occult practices that are interwoven into the Harry Potter universe.  And while I am not an expert on these topics, I have made sure to explain what I do know and what I've found out.

The Harry Potter universe makes these practices seem fun, like the children's stories they masquerade as.  But hidden deep beneath the surface is a much more insidious force, one of darkness and deception.  It is my belief that if parents and children saw paganism, Wicca, and the occult for what they truly are, they would run as fast as they could in the opposite direction.  But all we see in the Harry Potter books/movies are the fun, childish things like flying on a broomstick and using spells to turn ourselves into cats or other people.  All fun and games, right?

Today, I want you to see these practices for what they really are, brutal, deceptive, pure evil.  I found this article on Facebook this evening, and it immediately made me think about the Harry Potter controversy.

Article: http://christiannews.net/2016/03/13/mexican-satanists-kill-friend-in-ritual-to-turn-him-into-vampire/

Vampires are monsters that suck blood, run hotels, marry pretty girls, and eventually turn out to be some disgruntled business owner in a costume (depending on what you read or watched growing up).  I think we've all joked about them and dressed up like them at costume parties.  Much like Harry Potter, the media has gone to extraordinary lengths to make vampires look as fun as possible.  But underlying that are satanic rituals and customs we can't even begin to fathom.

How anyone could do something like this to a friend is unthinkable to me.  The sad thing is that, like the girls in the Slender Man case, these young men actually believed in what they were doing.  They honestly believed they weren't brutally murdering their friend.  They believed they were giving him unending life by "returning him to his former state as a vampire". 

And thus, a young man is dead, his body wrapped in plastic and discarded on the road.

He was just a little bit older than me when he was killed.

This is the darkness that exists in the real world.  It is disgusting, brutal, and deceptive.  This is the enemy that prowls around like a roaring lion seeking whom it may destroy.  The lion masquerading as an innocent, adorable kitten to lure unsuspecting travelers into its lair.  It's real, and it's close to home.  Too close for comfort.

This is the insidious beast that hides behind the smokescreen of the Harry Potter universe.

It grieves my heart to read about things like this.  How these people went from being innocent children to brutally murdering their friend in a satanic rituals is devastating.

And bringing this whole blog post back to movies and my thoughts on Harry Potter, it grieves me that this same darkness can disguise itself with such childish innocence. 

I think the Harry Potter series could have been a fun, innocent, relatively wholesome story to be enjoyed by kids and adults alike.   But the innocence of these stories is tarnished by the underlying darkness that makes them so dangerous.

Harry Potter #4

The audiobooks are clearly numbered.

All this time, I've had to keep looking up the chronology of the movies on Wikipedia, because the movies aren't that clearly numbered (it's in tiny little print at the top of the spine, and these numbers aren't included on the library listings).  And all this time, the audiobooks have been sitting on Audible with big, friendly numbers printed smack dab on the cover.  Wow.

Seriously, whose brilliant idea was it not to be big, friendly numbers on the DVD covers in big, user-friendly print?  Not everyone automatically knows the order of these books/movies, so putting numbers on the covers would be very helpful for the rest of us.


CAVEATS:
Just because I decided to watch these movies does not mean that I endorse them in any way.  I do still believe there is danger here.  I still believe there are references to real world paganism woven into the stories.  I decided to watch them purely as reference material, so that I can carry on intelligent conversations about the movies with actual Potter-fans.  My decision to watch them was mine, and mine alone.  I strongly caution the rest of you to think and pray really long and really hard before deciding to watch the movies yourselves.  In fact, I would strongly advise against watching them at all.  Yeah, I know, I'm not taking my own advice.

March 7, 2016: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

4 down.

4 to go.

I'm halfway done!

For the first time since 2001, the Dursleys are nowhere in sight!  

Which was both greatly encouraging and immensely disappointing to me...

...but anyway...

Considering the fact that the last three movies have contained at least one Quidditch game each, we shouldn't be at all surprised when the movie opens with Harry, Hermione, and the entire Weasley family going to the annual Quidditch World Cup Championship Game.

...They would have one of those, wouldn't they...

However, things turn nasty when Voldemort's evil band of Death Eaters (a title which is as weird as it is disturbing) swings through the camp where all of the wizards have gathered for the big game.  

All of this weird and disturbingness is countered by the news that Hogwarts has been selected to host the annual TwiWizard Tournament, in which one champion from each of three different schools will compete in a series of challenges (none of which, thank goodness, involve a game of Quidditch) to achieve victory.  Contestants must be seventeens years or older to apply for the position of champion of their school by placing their names in an oversized cup that spits blue flames everywhere (you guessed it, this is the goblet of fire).

However, things take another confusing and complicated turn when Harry's name gets drawn as a fourth participant in the game.  This has never happened before, as there should only be one participant from each school.  Nor should it have happened to begin with because Harry is only fourteen and didn't even try (though others did) to put his name in the goblet.  Regardless of this, the faculty of Hogwarts conclude that Harry must compete due to the ancient tradition which states that once you have been chosen by the goblet of fire, you can't back out of the Tournament.

Oh, and for those who were wondering, Edward Cullen dies in this movie.

Thoughts

I remember when this movie came out, there was a huge to-do about the bathtub scene.  Rumors floated about that made it sound like it was Harry and Hermione hanging out together in a rather suggestive situation...but these rumors were also generated by those who hadn't seen the movies themselves and misunderstood what other people told them.

First, the bathtube was much bigger than I imagined it would be from the days of the Great Bathtub Debacle Rumors.

Second, it's not Hermione.  It's Moaning Myrtle, the ghost who haunts the bathrooms at Hogwarts.  She's being flirty.  Harry's awkwardly trying to get away.

Not that having a ghostly girl hitting on Harry while he's soaking in a gigantic bathtub and pondering a mysterious egg that contains a riddle is a good thing to be showing our impressionable teenagers.  It's a funny sequence simply due to the awkwardness of the situation, but not one which teenagers should be exposed to.  I know the original Harry Potter audience was meant to "grow up" with Harry (which also explains why the movies get progressively darker and the characters start using more swear words), but this type of scene is just plan inappropraite for children and teenagers alike.  

This may also explain why this is the first of the eight movies to receive a PG-13 rating (I verified this).

Bathtub Debacle aside, I have to admit that I actually really enjoyed this installment of the Harry Potter saga more than the previous ones.  This could be, at least in part, due to the fact that this is the first Harry Potter movie to receive a PG-13 rating.  It could, perhaps, have something to do with the new director (but they've been changing directors every movie).  It could also, partiallcy, be because I got the satisfaction of watching Edward Cullen die (even though Robert Patterson did a much better job acting in this movie than he did in the Twilight movies, so I was a little sad).  Or maybe it's because the stories are beginning to "grow up" a bit, to match the maturity of it's every aging original audience.

But also, definitely, because they used the lovely chiaroscuro lighting and awesome Dutch angles again (these were somewhat absent from the 3rd movie).

But mostly because I didn't feel like the pagan references were as noticeable in this movie.  The trials Harry must go through in the TriWizard Tournament could literally be any trials faced by any teenage boy in any fantasy world.  It doesn't feel like a Harry Potter movie.  The previous movies actually kinda made me physically uncomfortable.  Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire did not...


Concerns

...until Harry and Cedric get pulled into the graveyard and Wormtail brings Voldemort back from...

...well, he's not exactly "dead", per se...

...back from formlessness.  

That was just...uncomfortable to watch.  The whole "bone of the ancestor, flesh of the servent, blood of the enemy" thing made me physically uncomfortable.

And again, I'm not overly knowledgable on Wicca and paganism, but I have a feeling this recipe has some basis in a Wicca/pagan practice or tradition somewhere.  I will have to look this up someday.

That was really the only hint of pagan influence I detected in this movie.  

This either means that J.K. Rowlings was focusing more on the intricacy of the Tournament than the interweaving of the pagan references, or that I have become a bit descenitized to them.

Both of which are quite possible.


More Thoughts

However, Harry himself does have some redeeming qualities.  In severals of the Tournament challenges, he forgoes winning the game to help other people (teammates and enchanted drowning friends).  It was good to see that his otherwise friendly, generous character wasn't sacrificed in the name of victory (even though he, inevidably, ends up winning the Tournament).  

Perhaps these character traits are a foreshadowing of the end of the series?

(And, yes, I know what happens at the end of the series...more of less...)