Sunday, March 6, 2016

Harry Potter #3

Three movies in, and I'm convinced that either J. K. Rowlings was just trying to see how much absurd craziness she could get away with in a magical world.  I'm just saying.  People can knit, clean, and stir their tea with magic, and their textbooks are literally vicious monsters that attack anything that moves and spits paper everywhere.  What kind of world is this magical realm, anyway?  I once complained that the parameters of magic in the Eragon books was too loose because everything and anything could be fixed with a spell or enough mind probing.  I, however, would argue that the Harry Potter universe takes the cake in its absurd overuse of magic.

Or maybe it's just that these movies are still geared for children?  And the juvenile nature of it is beginning to get on my nerves.

And yet...I'm still here.  Watching yet another of these darn movies.

Three movies in, I was actually looking forward to watching them.  This could be a good, meaning that the overall quality of the stories and the acting and the filmmaking are improving with each new film.  This could also be a really bad thing, meaning that I've actually started to...like them (goodness forbid!).  While this is not necessarily "bad", I'm more concerned that I will be sucked in by this deceptively innocent series.

It could also be that I'm eager to get the series over with as quickly as possible.

Or, I just want to see what kind of horrible things the Dursleys will inflict upon their charge.  This is, admittedly, a large part of why I willingly suffer through these movies, their overuse of magic, and those ridiculous Quidditch games (I don't like sports on a good day in the real world -- having to watch one or two per movie is getting a bit tiresome).  And a large factor in my final decision to watch them...

...but anyway...


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 6, 2016: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

The Dursleys are back and just as nasty as ever.  But joining them is another relative, who is just about as nasty as they are.  Except that she takes things a bit further by openly insulting Harry's biological [and long dead] parents...

...in front of Harry...

We really can't blame him for his...outburst.  After all, who wouldn't ardently defend the honor of our parents?...unless they were manipulative, abusive dirtbags...and even then.  Thing is that Harry's outburst comes in the form of inflating the aforementioned nasty relative like a balloon and causing her to float off into the sky.  Then, as he probably should have done two movies ago, Harry packs up and runs away.

Please note that I do not condone hormonal teenagers running away from home, but neither do I condone child abuse in any shape or form.  In an ideal world, Harry should have been transferred into the protective custody of the Weasleys.  They've always been rather welcoming toward him, even going so far as to break him out of the house in the previous movie.  I may not be familiar with custody laws in England, but I see no reason why the Weasleys can't just take over protective custody of Harry.  Then he would be among his own people, people who actually care about him and all that...

But I digress.

I guess Hogwarts makes exceptions to their strict "no magic outside of school" laws for instances of self-defense or disposing of verbally abusive distant relations who were in the process of bashing one's long dead parents, because Harry isn't expelled from school as he should have been.  Instead, he heads off to school where he encounters the dementors of Azkaban, the maximum security prison of the magical realm...I guess.  Anyway, Sirius Black, a very dangerous follower of Voldemort's, has escaped from prison and may be trying to kill Harry...but, then again, who isn't?  So, the dementors have stationed themselves around Hogwarts to recapture him, whereby preventing him from getting in to kill Harry.  Problem is that whenever Harry gets within a couple feet of the dementors, they try to suck out his soul and Harry passes out.


Thoughts

This school has absolutely terrible luck with its Defenses Against the Dark Arts instructors.  It's getting rather predictable.  Whoever is coming on staff to fill the position is probably, in some way or another, related to the bad guy.  This time, it's just a werewolf who's friends with the guy who is trying to kill Harry, who are both friends of the were...rat who betrayed Harry's parents to Voldemort.


These people seriously need to run better background checks on their faculty.  Just saying.

Special effects and acting have greatly improved as our three main characters enter their teens.  And I liked the story up until the whole time travel thing came into play.  Maybe I got lost because I've been writing this review while I watch the movie in real time, and therefore probably missed something important along the way.  But--

Oh, don't do this!  What's the deal with the end credits shifting from side to side?  Don't do this to me, please!  It hurts the human brain.

Anyway, time travel.  I liked the story up until Harry and Hermione go back in time and do all that stuff.  I understand it shows how Harry and Sirius were saved from the dementors, and gives us a whole thing where Harry thinks his dad which gets our hopes up too, but then it turns out to be future-Harry himself, but honestly I lost interest in the story around the time Lupin turned into a were--

Oh crap...they're doing the moving credits thing again.  I know they thought it was a cool effect to go along with the meandering footprints on the map, but it's making my head hurt.

I'll be right back, folks.

Ah, NCIS!  Much better!  No meandering end credits!

Now, where was I?

Maybe I just lost interest half-way through because I was trying to watch and review simultaneously, but the fact that I felt unengaged enough to multitask says something.  But although I was distracted, I have no desire to go back and watch it again...whatsoever.


Concerns

Reading tea leaves.  While we shouldn't be surprised that students at Hogwarts would study the fine art of reading their tea leaves, it is a reference to a real-world psychic practice.  Similar to palm reading and tarot cards, tea leaf reading is the practice of fortune telling by way of the shapes made by tea leaves in the bottom of a teacup.  Theoretically, the tea leaves will take on certain symbols that have different meanings, such as good fortune, bad luck, or imminent peril.  While the movie makes this practice look like a fun little fortune telling trick, palm reading, tea leaf reading, and tarot cards are all practices of divination, which is the occultic practice of seeking insight into the future.  And the occult is the practice of seeking knowledge of the paranormal.  In many ways, not much different than Paganism or Wicca.   




Divination also happens to be one of those things God said His people shouldn't mess with, saying, "There shall not be found among you...anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens.” (Deuteronomy 18:10), and referred to as a sin in 1 Samuel 15:10.  It has been my experience that if God says not to mess with something, it's probably a good idea to avoid it.  Because, think about it, if the power isn't coming from God (the all-powerful Creator of the universe), there's really only one other place it could be coming from (the Devil)...and since the Devil is trying so very hard to turn us away from God, he uses what power to mascarade as all-knowing, thus misleading and deceiving any who will stop to listen to him.  That is what makes divination and the occult inherently dangerous.  




It breaks my heart that such insidious darkness has been woven into what could have been a fun series.  It really does.





Saturday, March 5, 2016

Harry Potter #1

Of course, the first step in breezing through eight Harry Potter movies is figuring out which one comes first.

To those who have already watched these movies, this may seem like a no-brainer.  But you must remember that my knowledge of the Harry Potter franchise extended only as far as the existence of pagan references and details I overheard from friends and relatives who were unabashed Potterheads. And because the movie's aren't conveniently labeled Harry Potter #1, #2, and so on, I had to turn to Wikipedia to get the chronological order of the movies.  Thus it was that I finally sat down with a bowl of popcorn to watch Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

To add to my confusion, this book technically has 2 titles: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.  One titles was U.K. print while the other was U.S. print, so it makes sense that the movies (which were made in the U.K.) would use the U.K. printed book's title.

CAVEATS:
Just because I decided to watch these movies does not mean that I endorse them in anyway.  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 3, 2016: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone




One down.

Seven to go.

Oh boy.


Seriously?  Why does the Movie #1 poster resemble the Book 4 cover?  My theory: The movie was released shortly after the 4th Book was published.  Therefore, the image is meant to be reminiscent of the most recently published book cover image even if it is not the same as the cover of the book it is supposed to portray.  Does that make sense?






Summary


After the arguably unnecessary opening sequence where Hagrid, Dumbledore, and McGonagall leave baby Harry on the Dursley's doorstep, we meet our little friend Harry shortly before his 11th birthday.  Orphaned as a baby, Harry lives with his uncle and aunt, who are the worst surrogate parents ever.  While their own son Dudley is pampered and spoiled beyond belief, Harry is neglected and abused and kept in a proverbial state of servitude.  Things get interesting when Harry, who never gets mail, receives a strange letter from someplace called Hogwarts.  The Dursley's go to extraordinary lengths to keep Harry from getting these letters, but eventually Hagrid just bursts through the door and takes Harry off to the wizard world to prepare for school.  From there, Harry sets off on an adventure of sorts as he discovers who he really is (a wizard) and learns to navigate a world of magic, school bullies, unnecessarily violent ball games, strange villains with two faces, and weird glowing stones that supposedly give people unending life...?



Thoughts

For the majority, the movie feels random, a collection of indicates in which Harry learns to navigate school and makes friends (and enemies).  At about 1 hour, 18 minutes, and 41 seconds, I realized that the movie was called Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone but no one has mentioned anything to do with the sorcerer's stone yet.  We've seen Hagrid collecting a mysterious pouch from a super secret bank account, and he's eluded to a secret he can't share, but nothing, at all, has been said or done about the actual subject of this movie -- this elusive stone.

Overall, I wasn't impressed.  The movie was produced in the early 2000's when CGI was both a novelty and grossly overused, thus causing many of special effects to feel forced and cartoonish.  And again, some children just cannot act.  This is especially noticeable during the last 30-45 minutes of the movie, ironically also the climax of the movie.

Two scenes stood out to me, though.

The first was early on, when the Dursleys take Harry with them to the zoo for Dudley's birthday.  Dudley and his parents are off somewhere else, leaving Harry alone with a rather large snake (in a tank, of course...we are at a zoo, after all), and Harry starts talking to the snake.  This doesn't seem weird to me since I talk to food in the grocery store, but what is weird is that the snake "answers" him.  Kinda.  It nods and points subtly at things, and in this manner they carry on a bit of a conversation.  Harry asks the snake where it is from and if it misses its home.  The snake simply points at a sign that reads, Bred in Captivity.  Harry turns back to the snake and simply says, "Me too."  I liked this scene because it speaks to Harry's relationship with the Dursleys, and specifically to how he's treated by them.  He's grown up as a slave in their household.  He's given old, faded hand-me-downs to wears and sleeps in a closet under the stairs.  And if you want to get really film nerdy, the shadow cast by the window grate thing on the closet door vaguely resembles the bars of a cage.  Whatsmore, this conversation gives Harry and the snake a connection.  They've both grown up in captivity.  The snake doesn't know what his home (Burma) is like, but I think deep down he longs for it.  Likewise, Harry has never had a family that loved him, but he longs for one.  Both snake and little boy don't know what they're missing, but they both long for it anyway.




<---See what I mean?  It looks like a cage!








The 2nd was when Harry looks into the mirror at Hogwarts (from here on out I shall refer to this as the Mirror of Deepest Desire because I don't know what it's actually called).  Harry finds the Mirror of Deepest Desire and sees his parents in its reflection, and in that reflection his mother places her hand on his shoulder.  Later when he tries to show Ron Weasley, all Ron sees is himself becoming the Quidditch champion and getting all kinds of recognition and fame.  I think this demonstrates something of Harry's character.  Ron's [current] deepest desires are to become famous and liked by all.  Harry's deepest desire, on the other hand, is simple.  He just wants his family.  He wants parents who love him and care for him.  Ron, I think, takes his family and their love for granted because they have always been there for him, an active part of his life.  Harry doesn't have that, and it's what he desires more than anything (at this time).












Concerns

My biggest concern is that Harry gets away with a lot of bad stuff.  He flies on a broomstick when he's not supposed to.  He and his friends sneak past a 3-headed guard dog and into a somewhat forbidden secret chamber, and sneak around Hogwarts after the designated lights-out time to do so.  They do all get detention...once.  The other times Harry and gang disobey strict school rules, they're rewarded.  I don't think this is a message we should be sending 10 to 14 year olds.


More Concerning Still...

This first installment in the Harry Potter saga is definitely geared for a younger audience, but in the way it's written, the over-the-top humorous elements, and the terrible acting (I'm sorry, but some kids just cannot act).  The seemingly charming nature of the film overall, however, acts as a smokescreen for the real world paganism hidden within.

That being said, my knowledge of real world paganism is purposefully small.  This, however, is what I do know:

1. The tradition of witches flying on broomsticks, yes that.  It's something we're all familiar with in regards to cartoon witches and Halloween.  And since Harry Potter is a wizard in a universe packed with young witches and wizards, we shouldn't at all be surprised that Harry and his classmates learn to fly around on broomsticks.  But the practice happens has roots in a pagan sexual ritual (think about it for a minute, how do witches usually sit on broomsticks...yeah, I've just ruined your childhood memories).  

Paganism is a surprisingly sexual religion (if we can even call it that).  There is, for example, a ritual where a virgin is douced in infant's blood and then fornicated by the priest (or whatever he's called).  And yes, I said infant's blood.  As in baby humans.

All this disturbing stuff is censored out of Harry Potter, though, because if kids and their parents saw Paganism for what it really was, they would be appalled.  And run in the opposite direction.  The only parts we get to see are the fun parts, casting spells and soaring around on broomsticks.  Power.  Magic.

Which brings me to another point...


2. Spells.  Yeah, those.  Hocus pocus.  Bibbedy boddedy boo.  Etc.  While spells and incantations abound in the fiction and fantasy worlds (go watch Lord of the Rings), the difference is that some (at least) of the spells used in the Harry Potter universe are real world spells, chants, etc.  While I'm not well-versed in paganism, I can tell you this: Unlike the spells cast in Middle Earth, which are primarily spoken in languages Tolkien created himself, the Harry Potter spells are spoken in Latin, which is a real world language which is still taught to this day.  So are the spells and incantations used in real world paganism.

While the spells the children of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry are more innocent and practical than insidious for the most part, one must question the logic of using real world pagan spells in a fantasy world geared for children.  Is this really a wise decision?


For more information, please watch: Harry Potter: Witchcraft Repackaged...which I've just recently discovered you can watch on YouTube.

Click Here for Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd6zC9hUB7M
Click Here for Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZpqQq4bkyI

















Thursday, March 3, 2016

The Harry Potter Diaries

March 2, 2016:

Would you believe I've never read or watched Harry Potter?

It's one of the most popular book/movie series in the world, with zillions of fans purchasing bobbleheads and Hogwarts attire, people quoting favorite lines and spells, and children frightened out if their minds at funerals because the church reminds them of that room with all the hands coming out of the walls.

And I sat it out.

On purpose.

My parents did some research and found that there were real-world pagan/satanic references in the books, and therefore in the movies.  And while they all appear to be harmless childish fun, the series does, in a way, serve as an introduction to paganism.

There are movies and books on this subject.

Harry Potter: Witchcraft Repackaged is a good one.

Also, Halloween: Trick or Treat? is worth seeing at least once.

Now, please don't be offended.  I'm not condemning anyone who has read the books or seen the movies.  I'm just explaining why I wasn't allowed to read or watch them.

Even to this day, people tend to flip out when I tell them I haven't read the books or seen the movies.  It's gotten to the point where I just roll my eyes as these people fly through the ceiling, turn some saumersaults, then belly flop on the ground (in a purely figurative sense, of course).  But I always have to tread carefully when they eventually ask why I allowed myself to be deprived all these years.  A lot of people were never aware of the pagan references, and some have taken my innocent explanation as judgement.  Once upon a time, I was talking about this with a Potter-fan friend of mine, and her mother became so offended that I was seriously afraid the woman was going to beat me (knowing that my friend's parents spanked their children).  With no other fandom have I ever feared for my physical safety. 

14 years, 7 books, and 8 movies later, I found myself in a theatre watching the trailer for the upcoming Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, and I groaned.  Not another Harry Potter movie!  The whole thing with saumersaulting fans and physically violent parents was probably going to start all over again!

But even as I searched Amazon.com for protective body gear, a thought occurred to me.  I'm almost 24 years old.   I'm aware of the danger, so I will be on the lookout for it.  I know Who the one true God is, the guy with all the real power, and the One who has already defeated the Devil and his various minions.  I can't escape Pottermania, so why not take it head-on?  With Jesus protecting me, I would hypothetically emerge unscathed.

There is a time for everything.  A time to be born, and a time to die.  A time to plant, and a time to reap.  A time to dance, and a time to mourn.  A time to avoid Harry Potter like the plague, and a time to be exposed.

It was time to be exposed.

And thus, I am writing here today.  I'm going to watch all 8 Harry Potter movies and journal my thoughts for you, my readers. 

So, please stay tuned for my various thoughts on the Harry Potter series.

Monday, January 4, 2016

Who [the heck] is Rey?

Prior to December 26, 2015, I wasn't a fan of the Star Wars series.  Not because they weren't good movies are anything (although something could be said about how cheesy Episode 2 was...search your feelings, you know it to be true).  I just never really got into them for whatever reason.  I grew up in the generation that got Darth Maul toys in our Happy Meals, and my family watched all six movies once, and I knew enough about the universe of the story and the Force to have a decent conversation with actual fans.  But that was it.

As of December 26, 2015, I'm officially now a fan.  This is because I saw Episode 7 The Force Awakens, and was so amazed by it that I saw it in the theatre 3 times in 5 days, and am currently planning to go a 4th time this week.

Other than the amazing talent of director J. J. Abrams and his trusty DP Daniel Mindel, one of the things that I think makes this movie so engaging (and makes people return to the theatre multiple times) is the fact that the main characters aren't your typical leads.

Finn is a former Storm Trooper [who just happens to be black, by the way] who deserts the First Order (the new bad guys).  Finn's character shows the humanity of the Troopers, that they are still human and capable of independent thought.  When he realizes what he is and what he's being ordered to do (kill a bunch of innocent people on Jakku), he's devastated and escapes with the assistance of a Resistance pilot named Poe (previously captured by the First Order).  Finn's knowledge of the Storm Troopers and the First Order's new weapon, the Star Killer Base, become crucial to the plot later on.

Our new head villain, Kylo Ren, wants to emulate his evil grandfather [Darth Vader], but feels a pull toward the Light.  This is interesting because it's the exact opposite of Vader, who was pulled to the darkness.  I'm not going to get into this much more now because we'll be discussing Kylo Ren in some detail later on.

Finally, we have Rey, a scavenger on Jakku.  What makes Rey such an intriguing character is that she's a woman who, well, doesn't fit the Hollywood model.  She's not constantly flirting or using her womanly wiles or anything like that.  She's just trying to survive.  In fact, she's pretty good at holding her own.

Here's the thing about Rey.  Other than the fact that she's a tomboy and that she's a brunette, we know next to nothing about her.  Over the course of the movie, we find out that she's been left on Jakku, that she's waiting for her family to return for her, and that she's Force-sensitive, but other than that we know nothing.  Who her family is.  Why she was dumped on Jakku.  We've got nothing.  I mean, other than that it places her in the perfect position to conveniently collide with BB-8 and Finn.


So, who the heck is she?

I have a theory.


WARNING!  
SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!  
(turn back now if you don't want to be exposed to massive amounts of spoilers)


LynZ's Theory About Rey

Granted, having seen the movie 3 times now, I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this theory, but here's what I want to believe is going on and the evidence I'm going off of.

Theory: Rey and Kylo Ren are siblings.  Because of Ren's pull to the Light, he couldn't bring himself to kill his little sister when he murdered all the other Jedi (as seen in Rey's vision), so he dumped her on Jakku so that he would never have to see her again.

Well, not exactly dumped.

Kinda, but not exactly.

During Rey's vision (when she touches Luke's lightsaber), she sees a flashback of herself as a child crying as a ship departs the planet.  We also notice the hand of an alien creature holding her back, and hear a voice coldly order her to be quiet.  We all recognize the voice as being that of Unkar Plutt, the greedy guy on whom the scavenger's existence depends (as he is their main source of food and water).

Someone obviously approached Plutt and just kinda handed the young Rey over to him.

Handed over or sold to.

This all depends on who gave/sold Rey to Plutt.


So, Who Left Rey on Jakku? 

Three viewings later, I still have no idea.

But I have a theory.

Theory: It wasn't her parents.

Why?

What kind of loving parent leaves their five-year-old on a desert planet to fend for herself?

Well, okay, not entirely by herself.  But let's admit, scavenging for Plutt isn't a picnic.  Plutt is anything but fair, and as a result how much the scavengers get to eat each night is entirely dependent on how generous he's feeling...which isn't often.

The scavengers are basically Plutt’s slaves…or indentured servants.


Therefore, Rey is basically a slave.

Reasons I think this:

1) There's a short little clip near the beginning of the movie where she's polishing up some of her finds before turning them over to Plutt, and she glances up and stares [kinda randomly] at an older woman in the station next to hers.

In the book (yes, I've read the book), this scene makes a little more sense because she's observing a tender interaction between a mother and son, and this becomes the first clue that we the audience/readers get that she's either been orphaned or abandoned.  However, two viewings later, I'm still not sure what the purpose of having her randomly stare at this woman is.  Perhaps she's thinking that this woman could be her mother?  Maybe this woman raised her when she was little?  The first time around, I took it as she saw how old the woman had become and was a tiny bit sympathetic because the woman couldn't really be much of a scavenger at her age and there's some kind of unspoken "You know what happens when you've outlived your usefulness" thing looming over the scavengers.  After the second viewing, I'm not so sure what they were going for with that.  Perhaps a fourth viewing will make this clear?

Random woman aside, Rey's randomly staring at her, absently scrubbing at some odd piece of machinery, when this alien guy (the book says it's one of Plutt's assistants) comes up and bangs his staff against a canape leg (or a chair leg, it's hard to tell...suffice it to say he bangs something with his staff).  The book specifically states that this is to imply that "it would be in her best interest to focus on her work, and not allow herself to be distracted."  It may be nothing, but my boss doesn't have people hovering over me to be like, "Hey, you should be working instead of writing that random blog post about Star Wars!"  Three viewings and multiple reading later, this incident still strikes me as odd for free, independent contract scavengers who happen to all sell their goods to the same greedy alien guy.    This seems more like the kind of incident one might find in a prison or a slave camp.

Again, maybe I'm reading too much into this.

Maybe not.

2) At one point in the book, Rey actually faces off with Plutt and basically tells him that she's "an independent operator" who is "beholden to no one", and finishes by stating, "As to what I have, that would be my freedom and my pride".  Now, again, I don't know about the rest of you, but from what I've observed the only people who feel the need to affirm their freedom are people who feel like that freedom is being abused or circumvented and people who want an excuse to do whatever the heck they want (who hasn't heard phrases like, "It's a free country"?).  And since the latter clearly isn't the case with Rey, I'm left asking "Why else would Rey feel the need to make this statement if she already knows she's a free woman and she's not trying to get away with something illegal?"

The reactions of the other scavengers who overhear this conversation is also interesting.  "Murmurs of assent rose from behind her," the book tells us, because she's just said everything the other scavengers have been thinking but never dared say out loud, especially to Plutt's face.

Question: Why would a bunch of independent scavengers have the same thoughts or feel the need to affirm their status as free people?

Answer: Plutt abuses the freedom of his scavengers.  I'm calling them his scavengers on purpose.  As far as he's concerned, they're dependent on him and his less-than-fair payments.  As far as he's concerned, they are his slaves, and he treats them accordingly.

3) Rey's flashback.  I thought it was the most obvious, but I could be wrong.  In the movie, one of the visions she sees when she touches the lightsaber in Maz's basement is of herself as a child on Jakku.  She watches her younger self crying as a spaceship leaves the planet, and we see that something (okay, someone) is holding her arm, holding her back.  As it turns out, this something/someone is Plutt, and the only reason we know that is because we hear him say, "Quiet, girl!" as younger Rey is screaming and crying for whoever is on that mysterious ship to come back.

It's not much to go off of, but there are really only two possible reasons this vision/flashback exists.

Either someone left her with Plutt in the belief that he would actually take care of her, or the person who gave (or sold) her to Plutt didn't really care what happened to her.

So either Plutt's just a horrible surrogate parent, or Rey has been put (or sold) into a sort of slavery to him.

Just saying.


So, I ask again: What kind of loving parent leaves their five-year-old in near-slavery on a desert planet?

Argument: While this situation is not ideal, working like a slave on Jakku keeps Rey too busy to discover her Force powers.

This makes sense.  After all, if you don't want somebody to find out something, the best thing to do is keep them busy or distracted, right?

But this isn't solid evidence that her parents put her there.  The bad guys could have put her there for the same reason, not wanting her to reach out and Luke or Leia know where she was or that she was okay.


How Does Kylo Ren Figure Into All Of This?


Good question.

Theory: Kylo Ren is Rey's brother, and he's the one who put her on Jakku.

Why?

We could argue that Ren could've gotten someone else to dump his sister on this planet, but Rey specifically tells BB-8 that she's waiting for her family, that she believes they'll come back for her.  Her family can't come back for her if they didn't drop her off in the first place.  They can come get her, but they can't come back for her.

Does that make sense?

Moving on...

Notice that she says her "family", but her parents.

Family could be anyone.  It could be an uncle, aunt, or cousin or an immediate relative like a brother or sister.  Just because she says her "family" is coming back for her doesn't automatically mean her parents were involved or that they know where she is.

Enter Kylo Ren.  Masked, cruel, freaky powerful, and yet the mentioning of "a girl" helping Finn and BB-8 escape the Storm Troopers on Jakku catches his attention.  Later on Takodana, when Ren is informed that BB-8 has been spotted in the woods with a girl, Ren leaves the actual battle to go after them.  Inevitably, Ren and Rey crash into each other, Ren uses the Force to take her captive and probe her mind, discovers she has what he needs (the missing piece to a map that is said to lead to the hiding place of Luke Skywalker), and calls the other Troopers to retreat.

What he does next confused me a bit if we're talking about a ruthless Darth Vader character who's never met this random scavenger from Jakku before.

When Ren knocks Rey out with his Force powers, he personally scoops her up and carries her back to his ship.

What?

We've just seen this guy order the mass execution of an entire village of innocent people.  Now he's personally carrying this random girl from a desert planet to his ship?

Argument: He didn't want her to get damaged in case actually collapsing to the ground would compromise the information in her mind.

Problem: He does let her fall to the ground in the book (yes, there's a book!), so obviously head injuries aren't a huge concern.

But why carry her back to his ship?  This is a point both the book and the movie agree on; Kylo Ren carries Rey onto his ship in his arms.  Why?  Why not have a Storm Trooper do it?  Why knock her out?  When Resistance pilot Poe Dameron was captured at the beginning of the movie, he was taken conscious, stuffed into some handcuffs, and dragged off by a couple Troopers.  So, why knock Rey out and carry her?  To prevent struggling, probably.  But still, why carry her?

Theory: She's his sister, and despite what he wants us to believe, he still cares about her.

We know Ren feels a pull toward the Light.  We also know that he still has some feelings for his parents, Han Solo and Leia Organa.  We can also guess from certain exchanges that he's keenly interested in finding his uncle Luke for reasons other than destroying the good Jedi people.

Fast forward a couple scenes.

Rey wakes up in prison aboard the Star Killer Base.  Kylo Ren is waiting for her.  She asks where she is.  He says she's his "guest", and [in the book] releases her restraints.

Side Note:  I understand why they chose to keep Rey restrained during this scene in the movie.  As much as I love it in the book because it's a display of power on the part of Ren, it's probably not a good idea to perform a forceful mind probe on someone who isn't restrained.  Further still, it makes no sense that Rey would simply submit to it (as happens in the book).  Hence, keeping her restrained for the duration of their encounter was a good move.

Back on topic.

As you've probably figured out from reading my little side note above, Ren does perform another mind probe on Rey after she blatantly refuses to spill the beans about the map to Luke Skywalker.   What's interesting is what happens in the book.  Kylo Ren, feared protégé of Supreme Leader Snoke and grandson of Darth Vader, actually says (and I quote), "I would have preferred to avoid this [mind probe].  Despite what you may believe, it gives me no pleasure."

What?

Theory: Ren doesn't want to hurt Rey because she's his little sister and he still has surprisingly strong feelings for his family.

Argument: This doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't want to hurt Rey because they're related and all that jazz.  It could just be a result of the pull he feels toward the Light.  He sees (or feels?) the pain his mind probing causes, and deep down he feels remorse.  But if he does, he doesn't admit to it.

Rebuttal: We do know from one of Ren's conversations with Supreme Leader Snoke that he does have some feelings for his parents, Han and Leia.  Although he denies it and says he will not fail "the test" (choosing his family over the Dark Side?), he later admits to Grandaddy Vader's burned-up helmet that he feels the pull toward the Light.  And while he never voices it, it is possible that the pull he feels somehow includes feelings for his family.  Thus, killing Han is an attempt to demonstrate that he doesn't have feelings for them anymore, and this becomes his official turning to the Dark Side.  However, he still feels kinda (maybe) bad for hurting Rey with the mind probe, and later during their climactic lightsaber duel, he offers to train her in the ways of the Force.

Why would he care so much about this young, inexperienced Force-sensitive person?  If she's the one padawan who somehow escaped the Jedi massacre all those years ago, wouldn't Ren just try to finish the job?  Why is he suddenly so concerned about her and offering to take her on as an apprentice?

Theory: Because Rey is his sister.

Argument: But when Ren takes off his helmet, Rey doesn't react.

Here's the thing.  Over the course of thirty years, we've seen various Jedi and Sith use the Force in various ways.  One of the classic examples is, "These are not the droids you're looking for."  You can do a lot with the Force, from strangling your general from many light years away to swaying a pair of dice so that they roll in your favor.

Theory: Rey doesn't remember Ren because he (or another bad guy) wiped her memory.

We have to admit, it is a possibility.  We know one can do a lot with the Force in the Star Wars universe.  So why couldn't Rey's mind have been wiped.

Argument: She doesn't react to Han or Leia when she meets them either.  If she was related to Han, Leia, and Ren, she would've recognized them.

Rebuttal: Not necessarily.  Maybe all memories of her family have been wiped to prevent her from trying to contact them.  She knows her family left her on Jakku, and she wants to believe they're coming back for her, but it could also be argued that she didn't seem to remember the flashback with Plutt (mentioned somewhere above) before her lightsaber-induced vision.  Rey does seem genuinely surprised by the vision of her younger self screaming and crying as the mysterious ship flies away.  Almost like she wasn't expecting it.  So, perhaps, her memory was wiped so that she wouldn't recognize her parents or her big brother on the off-chance that they all ended up in the same room ever again, and then her memories were replaced with another set of memories of her faceless family promising to return for her.  While this vision is much different (and more confusing) in the book, it makes it sound like Rey never actually sees her parents in the vision, only hears their voices telling her to wait for them.


Rey Solo
...or tactfully not telling your parents that you dumped your little sister on a desolate desert planet...

Rey Solo: I Want to Believe
Argument: But Han, Leia, and Ren, at least, should have recognized Rey.

Rebuttal: Who says they didn't?

Han does appear to recognize her a bit at one point, when they're on Takodana and he asks who she is.  Why he doesn't just blurt out, "Yo, you're my long-last daughter!" is definitely questionable.  But think about it, how many people have the same name?  I went to school with at least 2 people with the same name.  So, this strange girl suddenly shows up who looks kinda like a grown up version of your long-lost daughter, and she even has the same name, do you naturally assume that she is your long-lost daughter who wasn't killed by your evil son, and you just never got the memo?  This person who looks like your long-lost daughter and has the same name could know about your long-lost daughter and try playing the "I'm your long-lost daughter" card for her own exploits.  How long has it been?  Fifteen, maybe twenty years since the Jedi massacre?

Question: If he has suspicions about Rey being their daughter, why doesn't he mention it to Leia?

Answer: Who says he didn't?

At the Resistance Base, Finn approaches Leia about rescuing Rey from Kylo Ren, and Leia says, "Han told me about the girl."  In the movie this is kind of brushed over, but in the book Finn is surprised by this comment.  If Rey was just a random scavenger who helped Finn and BB-8 escape the First Order, why would Han feel the need to tell Leia about her?  Certainly they have bigger problems, like blowing up Star Killer Base because the First Order can blow them up.  In fact, Rey's rescue does take a back seat during the Resistance's battle planning.  So, why would Han bother Leia about this girl from Jakku at this crucial time?

Possible Answer: Because Han thinks Rey might be their long-lost daughter who has been living in a sort of slavery on a desolate desert planet all these years.

Then why aren't they jumping for joy?

Theory: Han and Leia believe Rey died in the Jedi massacre.

It makes sense.  After all, if you've just turned from your family to join the bad guys, and killed off your uncle's padawans, would you really run home to be like, "Hey, just wanted to let you know that your daughter is alive.  I just dumped her with this really horrible scavenger guy on a desolate desert planet far, far away."?  I think not.  So, if Han and Leia think Rey's dead, they have no reason to go looking for her.

Also, we know there has been a strain on Han and Leia's relationship ever since Ren went bad.  I mean, having your son turn to the Dark Side is bad enough, but it's even worse if your son who turned to the Dark Side is also responsible for your young daughter's death.  Perhaps this is part of the reason Han assumes Leia doesn't want to see him, because seeing Han reminds her of Ren, and Ren reminds her of Rey and what Ren did to her.

Thankfully I've never been through this, but I'm guessing that if they spent 15-20 years thinking their daughter was dead, they wouldn't immediately assume that the scavenger from Jakku who happened to find Han's ship, looks similar to their daughter, and even has the same name is their daughter.  There would be shock, disbelief, hesitation.  They would probably be excited, hoping against all hope that it's true, that this girl is their daughter, that their evil son didn't kill her, and she's been living in a form of slavery on this desolate desert planet all these years...not that any parent would want that sort of hard life for their children.  I think they would hesitate.  It is still the possibility that Han is wrong and Rey just coincidentally looks like their daughter and has the same name, then all parties involved would be disappointed.  Han and Leia already had their hearts crushed once by their evil son.  They can't bear the thought of going through that again.

Question: But, why wouldn't Ren acknowledge this relationship to Rey during either of their many confrontations?

Answer: If you memory-wiped your little sister so that she wouldn't remember you and discover her Force powers, why would you just blurt out, "Yo!  I'm your big brother, you know, the one who dumped you on Jakku when you were five!"  I think not.

Argument: Darth Vader didn't know that Luke and Leia were his children because Obi Wan and Yoda sent them into hiding to protect them from him.  It's possible that Luke, Leia, or Han could have hidden Rey on Jakku to protect her from Kylo Ren.


Case In Point: Luke and Leia

Dad is an evil super-villain.

Mom dies from despair.

What to do with these two adorable Force-sensitive twin orphans?  We don't really want super-villain daddy in the picture because the last thing we need are more Dark Siders.

Leia is taken in by the King and Queen of Alderaan, thus becoming a princess.

Luke is taken in by his father's mother's stepson and his wife.

Even though it can be argued that Leia grows up in luxury as a princess, she quickly becomes entangled in the conflict with the Empire, leading to her almost getting executed by her own father (unbeknownst to him).

Luke, on the other hand, lives in the desert of Tatooine and works very hard for/with his step-uncle.  However, I will make the argument that he is in a two-parent home, he's not a slave, and there is always food on the table.

Both of them were placed in situations where they would be cared for AND stay under the radar.

Rey, on the other hand, is basically dumped on this desert planet and left to the mercy of the greedy Plutt.  How much (or if) she gets to eat are determined by how Plutt is feeling each day.  This girl lives in the remains of an AT-AT in the middle of nowhere, clinging to a vain hope that whoever left her there is actually planning to come back for her.

Argument: Plutt does take care of her, in the most basic sense.  He keeps her fed (although not very well) and provides water for her and the other scavengers.  And, if he does know something about her Force-sensitivity, he hasn't turned her in yet.

But I'm not entirely sure if I'm convinced that this is the case, mainly because of the "Quiet, girl" command mentioned above.

First off, he refers to her simply as "girl" which is not generally something people do unless they're from that generation that says things like, "You got this, girl!"...or they don't think you're important enough to bother learning your name.  And since I highly doubt Plutt grew up in the "you got this, girl" generation, I'm leaning towards he just doesn't deem it necessary to know her name, or use it.

Second, there's no attempt whatsoever to reassure her that her family (or whoever left her there) are actually planning to come back.  Just the simple command, "Quiet!"

Other Argument: That one older guy who gets killed by Kylo Ren at the beginning of the movie.  Yeah, him.  He's been commissioned by Luke, Leia, Han, whoever to "look after" Rey from a distance, which explains his coincidental presence on Jakku.

Here's my problem with that theory: He's in a completely different village.  And other than that opening scene where the Storm Troopers raid the place and Ren kills that guy, he's, like, never mentioned again.  Ever.  His village is even too far away for Rey or any of the other scavengers to see the smoke from the attack.  Sometimes two important people being in the same vicinity means something, but other times it's just a coincidence.  
  

Conclusion

So, yeah.

That's my theory.

As stated way up at the beginning of this post, I'm not entirely sure if this is the case, but I want to believe it.  Perhaps viewing #4 will yield some insight.

What's super annoying is that we'll have to wait almost 2 more years to get some answer (or we could fly to London and use our secret ninja skills to spy on them as they film Episode 8 this year).

Anyway, if you've read this far in this post and haven't seen the movie yet, shame on you.  Now that you know all these spoilers that I cleared warned you about at the beginning of this post, you must go see the movie!

If you were not a Star Wars fan before, this may be the movie that makes you one!

May the Force be with you!





Monday, November 16, 2015

Me and Earl and the Fault in Our Stars: An Epic Battle of Life and Death

First, I would like to apologize to those who may find the title of this blog post to be a bit insensitive.  In my attempts to be witty, every so often I cross the line.  However, being the former family member of a cancer victim (may Mom rest in peace), I feel I have the right to make somewhat dark jokes about cancer.  Sometimes it's the only way to cope, making dark-humored jokes about the malignant elephant in the room.

Moving on.

When The Fault in Our Stars came out in 2014, I wasn't sure I'd be able to see it.  Granted, it had been over three years since my Mom's death to Non-Hodgkins B-Cell Lymphoma.  That being said, I wasn't sure how I'd react.  Cancer seems to be very common in media for some reason.  The one that has bothered me the most was when Star-Lord's mother dies of cancer at the beginning of Gardians of the Galaxy.  That was seriously the most cliched cancer death I have ever seen.  Sickening cliched.  I knew I didn't like that portrayal of cancer, but I wasn't sure if I was ready for something a little more, I don't know, realistic.  It might hit too close to home.

But several people who knew me pretty well and had been there for me when my Mom was dying saw it and highly recommended it to me.  As a filmmaker, I would love it.  As the daughter of a cancer victim, I would relate to it.  I was probably going to cry, but I would LOVE the movie.

So, I finally bit the bullet and grabbed a copy from Redbox.


The Part Where I Watched The Fault in Our Stars

At first, it was awkward, because I'd just seen Divergent where Shailene Woodley and Ansel Elgort were sister and brother team/rivals Tris and Caleb Prior.  Now, Shailene and Ansel were (quite literally) star-crossed lovers, Hazel and Augustus (Gus).

The only catch was that Hazel was suffering from cancer and was undergoing a clinical trial, which was helping to prolong her life (for now) but still left her unable to breathe on her own.  Thus Hazel is condemned to a life of being hooked up to oxygen tanks everyone she goes.  Considering that, as far as I know, Shailene does not have cancer or trouble breathing or anything like that, her performance as Hazel was extremely convincing.  Maybe that's why I like her as an actress.  The diversity of characters she is capable of playing believably is incredible!

Back on topic.

To add to this already doomed story, enter Augustus, the handsome cancer survivor who Hazel suddenly realizes she's in love with.  Her only concern is that, as she puts it, she's a "grenade" who is going to go off eventually and she wants to cause as little emotional damage as possible when that happens.  Augustus thinks this is a ridiculous reason not to fall in love and actively pursues a relationship with her.

Then tragedy strikes, but I'm not going to go too far down that rabbit trail.  Suffice it to say it's not the tragedy you're probably expecting from my brief summary of the movie so far.

Overall, I loved the movie.  So much so that I went out and bought the book and read the whole thing on a vacation (my parents couldn't understand why I was laughing for the duration of those long car rides).  Yes, I said laughing.  The story is hilarious, mostly due to Augustus' optimistic view on life.  I liked it because it wasn't really a movie about cancer so much as it was a love story about two young people who just happen to have cancer.  Cancer makes more of a cultural appearance than a main role.  I thought that made it a much more accurate portrayal of cancer than that overly cliched death scene from Guardians of the Galaxy.

My one major quibble about the movie was the scene in the Anne Frank House.  Through a string of events, Hazel and Augustus find themselves in Amsterdam, and they decide to take a tour of the Anne Frank House.  Which is made interesting by the fact that Hazel has trouble breathing and there are a ton of stairs involved.  Reaching the top of those stairs is a triumphant moment for her, even though she's winded and a little woozy.  And then she and Augustus spontaneously kiss (for the first time), and everybody else in the room starts clapping.  I understand all the people in their tour clapping because Hazel conquers the stairs despite her cancer, but there is no logical reason for everyone to start clapping when they kiss.  Nobody else knows about their little love story or how Hazel has been afraid to really LOVE Augustus until this moment.  Besides that, I think it's highly disrespectful of them to be making out in the room where Anne Frank was arrested.

...unless Shailene and Ansel were actually playing Anne Frank and Peter van Pels in an actual Anne Frank movie...

...which, in my opinion, wouldn't be a bad idea...

...except that they're much older than Anne and Peter were in real life...

...but, perhaps slapping Shailene and Ansel in a Holocause movie wouldn't be such a bad idea...

As a filmmaker with a deep respect for the Holocaust, I'm completely seriously about this.  After all, if they can bounce between tough siblings in a dystopian Chicago to cancer patients in the real world and back to tough siblings in a dystopian Chiacgo, who's to say they wouldn't be able to pull off being in a Holocaust movie as well?

Just a thought.


The Part Where I Watched Me and Earl and the Dying Girl...
...because I Liked The Fault in Our Stars

Then came Me and Earl and the Dying Girl.

And I literally thought, "Hey, I really liked The Fault in Our Stars, so maybe I should go see this movie too!"

As it turned out, I ended up accidentally renting two of them from Redbox in the same evening.  The good thing that came out of that is I got twice as many Redbox PlayPass Points due to the mistake.  Yay!

I'd seen Olivia Cooke (who plays Rachel in MEDG) as a girl with a lung condition on Bates Motel and she did an amazing job with that character.  So, I assumed I would like Me and Earl and the Dying Girl because she was in it.

I also assumed I would like it because it looks very much like a Wes Anderson film, and I happen to really like Wes Anderson's style.  Sadly, Mr. Anderson didn't have anything to do with Me and Earl and the Dying Girl, but whoever made the creative decisions on the movie clearly got a lot of influence from Mr. Anderson's work...all the way down to his awkwardly borderline racist sense of humor.  Wes Anderson can get away with it for some reason.  Alfonso Gomez-Rejon (the director of MEDG) got a little too close to the line for my comfort.


The Part Where I was Disappointed by Me and Earl and the Dying Girl

In the end, it might be a good thing that Wes Anderson wasn't involved with Me and Earl and the Dying Girl because it may have been the film to officially tarnish his reputation.

It was sad.  Not just sad, like "Oh, Rachel's dying of cancer, this is so sad!"  But just sad in that it wasn't what I'd hoped it would be.

Greg is the guy who tries to get through life with as little conflict as possible.  He frowns on making friends, and really only starts a relationship with Rachel because his mother forces him to on the grounds that Rachel has been diagnosed with cancer.  The whole movie is Greg trying not to admit he truly cares about Rachel even as he truly cares for her.  The whole movie is Greg being selfish, too afraid to say the friend-word, too afraid of doing something wrong to attempt to do something right.  Everything he does is for his own safety -- to appease everyone to avoid conflict.  I think that's what makes his character so unbearable.  The saddest part of the movie, really, is that he finally does something for someone other than himself THE DAY Rachel dies (of course she dies...it's in the title).

Other problem I had: His mom is way too pushy.  I understand encouraging someone to visit a sick friend or relative, but his mom is WAY too over-the-top about it.  And she keeps hounding him for the ENTIRE movie.  And when him spending time with Rachel causes him to get kicked out of college, his mom freaks out...ignoring the fact that she forced him to hang out with Rachel in the first place.


The Part Where I Share My Final Thoughts about The Fault in Our Stars and Me and Earl and the Dying Girl

Basically, I liked The Fault in Our Stars much, much, MUCH better than Me and Earl and the Dying Girl.

The Fault in Our Stars didn't have to try to be likable.  It just wanted to share the story of two star-crossed lovers who happen to have cancer.  The characters were relatable even if you've never had cancer.  I really cared about them and their doomed relationship, to the point where I bought the book and put the movie on my Christmas wishlist.

The same cannot be said for Me and Earl and the Dying Girl.  The best scene in the entire movie is when Rachel is watching the movie Greg and Earl made for her right before she goes into a coma and dies.  The second best scene is at the very end when Greg prepares to send this same movie to the college admisisons people to explain why his grades dropped so drastically in high school, and he puts a note on the DVD which says, "Caution: The last person to watch this immediately went into a coma and died".  I laughed because having my mom die of cancer gave me a morbid sense of humor.  However, others might find this note a tad bit offensive.  The rest of the movie was about an insecure guy hanging out with a cancer patient because he felt like he had to.  Consequently, Rachel is probably the most relatable character, and she ends up dead.