Thoughts on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2

Spoilers ahead. Don't read any further if you haven't watched the movie (and preferably also read the book).  Also, this is not a movie where I sap on about how much I'm going to miss Harry Potter.  You can find THAT post here.

About a decade ago, I got into Harry Potter. And I remember going to that first movie (which also came out about a decade ago) thinking, "What will it be like when the seventh movie is over? The kids will be all grown up." Yes, the kids are all grown up. And there were actually eight movies.

I'm glad there were eight movies. They took their time adapting the last book. I'm not sure they could have done an adequate job of telling the story in one movie. Well, maybe. But I like what they did. Plus, it dragged Harry Potter out a little longer. And now...it's over.

Overall, I really enjoyed this movie. I loved it. I loved the Gringotts scene--of course with the Dragon! I'd been looking forward to seeing the Dragon escape the bank since the book came out. There are some things that are awesome in print, but seeing it on screen is a whole new experience.

I also loved loved loved the Hogwarts battle scenes--especially getting to see McGonagall take on Snape and Molly Weasley take on Bellatrix (even if Bellatrix's death was a little hokey and CGI'd). The only time the battle scenes got tedious were near the end--after Harry had already gone to meet Voldemort in the Forbidden Forest, "died," and come back to life. To me, that was kind of the big major climax. Yes, Voldemort actually dying was also a big major climax, but it wasn't as important as Harry's sacrificial acts, of his meeting and speaking with Dumbledore at "King's Cross."

In fact, I think the whole "death of Voldemort" thing was really overplayed. Sometimes books don't transfer well into movies and need a little help. Sure, okay. Nothing wrong with spicing things up a little visually. But they took it too far. I'm sure the filmmakers were going for more drama, more suspense. They took it past the dramatic and suspenseful and made it just plain boring. I was having to bite my tongue to keep from screaming, "OH JUST SHOW NEVILLE SLICING OFF NAGINI'S HEAD ALREADY SO WE CAN GET ON WITH THIS!" Because, honestly, watching Neville slice off Nagini's head was one of the things I was most looking forward to seeing.  I heart Neville so much.

But, no no, there was this big, long, drawn-out battle between Harry and Voldemort where the latter chased the former through Hogwarts for no apparent reason. It was boring. I was ready for Voldemort to just die, since we all knew that was coming. And when Voldemort did die, I was a little underwhelmed. I don't like comparing books and movies too much, but in this case, I really think the filmmakers missed something important. In the book, Voldemort didn't crumble into pixie dust or whatever that was that he did in the film. No. Harry's signature defensive "Expelliarmus" spell caused Voldemort's killing curse to rebound, and he just kind of fell down dead. Anticlimactically. He just died. No fanfare. No big dramatic death scene.

I really liked the fact that in the book, Voldemort, the greatest dark wizard ever, who went to great, tremendously evil lengths to preserve his own life, died a ridiculously simple, lackluster death. And I guess the filmmakers thought it too simple, so they spiced it up with some more silly fake CGI. But that wasn't too big of a deal--just something that irked me slightly.

I'm also slightly irked by the "King's Cross" scene. For one thing, the whole backstory on Dumbledore was not revealed. Anyone who hasn't read the books still doesn't know a thing about Ariana other than some vague idea from Aberforth that Albus gave her "everything except his time." It reminded me slightly of the film "Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban" where they left out a lot of important background information about the Marauder's Map and Harry's dad, Sirius, Lupin, and Peter Pettigrew. And I'm not sure if the filmmakers just didn't see Dumbledore's family history as being pertinent information to the story they wanted to convey, or if they didn't think there was time for it, or if perhaps they wanted the movie-going audience to still see Dumbledore as a bright shiny character without any personal demons. Maybe it was a combination of all those things.

But what really bothers me more than it probably should was something movie Dumbledore said in "King's Cross" that wasn't in the book at all. Something like (definitely paraphrasing here--only saw the movie once): "I once said that help would always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it. I'd like to amend that. Help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who deserve it."

Dumbledore didn't say that in the book. I'm pretty sure the Dumbledore of the book WOULD NOT EVER say that. I don't know exactly what the filmmakers were trying to convey by that. I think it was perhaps a halfhearted attempt to show that Voldemort didn't deserve help or that Snape really did deserve help...or something (I really need to see the film again and hear the line in its proper context). But see, one of the major themes near the end of the book (and probably running through all the books) was that there might still be some hope for Voldemort if he showed a little remorse.

Rowling revealed that there are intentional Christian themes in Harry Potter, especially in the seventh book.  I don't want to go too deep into something she might not have meant to be this deep, but being the Christian reader/writer that I am, I can't help but wonder.  Metaphorically, is that idea of remorse akin or even figuratively equal to salvation?  I don't know how far Rowling wanted to carry that out.

But it doesn't really matter how deep she meant that idea to go.  The fact remains, she did seem to want to communicate that Voldemort was not beyond help and hope if he would simply show remorse.  And the Dumbledore of the books was always ready to see the best in others--and to offer second chances.  He HAD a personal history that was less than perfect.  He knew first hand that HE didn't deserve help.  He was ready to offer help to others whether they deserved it or not.  And that's probably why he was able to see that there was hope for Voldemort...if Voldemort was willing to let go of his pride and confidence in himself...and ask for help.

And it bugs me that the filmmakers completely missed that.  They fudged it over.  Maybe it's because I want to see Christian themes (dragging them out kicking and screaming), or maybe they really are there in the book, or maybe it's a little of both.  But the fact is, redemption and salvation don't depend on how much someone deserves it.  No one deserves it.  But if we ask for it, it's given.  Ask, and it shall be given.  Seek, and you shall find.  Knock, and the door will be opened unto you.  So no.  Dumbledore would not have said anything about help being given to those who deserve it. 

But that's the biggest issue I have with an otherwise wonderful movie.  I shed lots of tears--starting with Snape's death (everything about Snape in this movie was stinking amazing) and pretty much not ending until I got bored watching Voldemort chase Harry through Hogwarts.  Some things could have been done in a less cheesy manner (Ron and Hermione's kiss just made me giggle in a not good way).  The epilogue was cute and touching, but I was underwhelmed with the "aging makeup/CGI," (sidenote--the makeup/CGI anti-aging on Snape was fantastic!) but it was a good way to end a great series--just looking into the faces of Ron, Hermione, and Harry Potter.

Even without the bad aging CGI, those kids really have grown up.

Characters Welcome

I really like those USA television promos with the little "Characters Welcome" slogan. USA gets it. Good television shows don't do well because every single script is perfect. Even the best shows have bad episodes (except maybe Psych. Never saw a bad episode of Psych--but even that is because Shawn and Gus make me snortle). While good plots are very important, what really keeps people watching is the characters.

Plots are important, but I think characters are even more important. If you have a wonderful plot with amazing twists and turns, I'm probably not going to care too much about it unless you also have some amazing characters to experience that plot. I'm not going to relate to anything in the story unless I can relate to the characters. That relating can mean I understand where they're coming from and what they're dealing with because I've been there, or it can mean I want to know WHY they're acting the way they do in a certain situation, or it can mean I want to be more like them. However I relate to a character, I'm going to keep reading to figure out what's going to happen because I've made an emotional investment in the characters.

I'm looking back on some of my favorite fictional characters. At the top of the list is Meg Murray from "A Wrinkle in Time" and the other books in that series. I get her. In a lot of ways, I am her. I'm that awkward kid who gets frustrated with herself and others way too easily. I'm constantly struggling with the idea that I am not good enough, trying to balance it with the idea that I've been made in the image of God. Madeleine L'Engle struck gold when she found Meg. I know a lot of people who have said that they're just like her. If she can overcome the odds she had to face, then so can we. That's good writing.

Then there's my second favorite fictional character, Samwise Gamgee from LOTR. To me, this little hobbit is the embodiment of loyalty. He wouldn't leave Frodo. When he couldn't carry Frodo's burden, he carried him. I relate to Sam because I think I am a lot like him, but I want to be even more like him. I want to be that fiercely loyal friend. My emotional investment to him caused me to weep like a baby when I got to the end of the books and realized he would have to be separated from Frodo. It makes me a little teary eyed to think of it even now.

My third favorite fictional character is also someone I wish I could be more like. Lucy Pevensie from "The Chronicles of Narnia." I wish I could be as childlike as she is. Every time she has to leave Aslan, especially at the end of "Voyage of the Dawn Treader," I also get weepy.

Another of my favorite characters is Taran from "The Chronicles of Prydain." He's a boy and he's a little harder to understand than some of the other characters I love. I do understand him some. I do want to be like him in some ways (good characterization is usually pretty multifaceted). I also wonder what he's going to do next because I don't always understand why he acts the way he does. I want to see if he attains his dreams. I want to see if he gets the girl. I want to see what he learns through his journies.

It's the same sort of feeling I get when I read Harry Potter. I don't get why Harry acts the way he does. I don't know why he gets himself into certain predicaments, but it's interesting to see how he gets out of them. I want to see what happens to him. J. K. Rowling is very good at weaving elements through stories. Something that seems insignificant somewhere might be the very thing that ties everything else together. I like her writing, but it wouldn't be very good if she didn't also have all these amazing and interesting characters.

I've been thinking about my own characters. There's a few that are very much like me, and these have been the easiest for me to write. But right now I'm starting a new story and I think the main character is a lot like me, only I'm having a lot of trouble with her. I think the reason is because she's a lot like who I was when I was a teenager, only perhaps a little more down to earth (she has had more disappointment in life than I had ever had at that point in my life). She's closed. She doesn't let people in easily. I'm trying to write her, but she doesn't want to let me in enough to let me see how to write her. She has the potential to be someone amazing, and I want to show her that. Right now, though, she's uncomfortably awkward (I've finally become very comfortable with my awkwardness--read my socially awkward blog). She has one friend. She doesn't trust people. She's angry and bitter and extremely moody. She has a lot of good qualities, too, of course, but it's harder to see them because she doesn't like to show them.

I adore her, but she doesn't want to let me write her.

I know that sounds weird. I can't help the way I relate to my characters. Ever since a character named "Rain" entered my life and demanded that I write her the way she IS instead of the way I wanted her to be, I've been treating my characters with a lot more respect. If I expect them to live, then they're more likely to live.

But Rain didn't take over (and quite literally possess me for two weeks) immediately. I dreamt her up and thought she was someone quite weak and unimportant until one day she just spoke up and proclaimed her strength and vitality. Maybe it's the same thing with this other character. Maybe I need to give her some time.

I hope it doesn't take too long. I've got a plot (weak as it is at the moment), but without her and another character (who I am also having just a little bit of trouble with), the plot is pretty much useless. I want people to invest in her and my other characters. I want to make people care about what happens to her. At the moment, I don't think she WANTS other people to care. So that's where the conflict is. Sigh.

I think it's time to write letters to my characters again.