I'm impressed. It seems to have everything you need in young adult fantasy, especially for those who experienced this while growing up with the characters.
It's awkward to marathon, since the series isn't intended for one age group. Each book/movie seems intended for whatever age group the characters are in, meaning it ideally takes seven to ten years to complete, and specifically the years between ages 11 and 21, roughly. Watching all of it in a few weeks at age 26, and for the first time, is suboptimal, as would be all of it at age 11, 21, or anywhere in between. It's not just a matter of connecting with the characters at their ages, but of style: the series matures tremendously in humor, subtlety, complexity, and intensity. An 11-year-old wouldn't have a good time with the later ones, as a 21-year-old wouldn't with the earlier (we're talking about first experiences of the series, so nostalgia isn't a factor). So I wonder how Harry Potter will survive into future generations. Kids will want to marathon the books and movies, but no age really works for this, and there's no way quick-fix kids will disperse them over ten years to honor the artist's intent. Maybe the maturity spectrum isn't as broad between the first and last books as the movies? Probably, but probably not narrow enough. I guess Harry Potter will remain popular and will be a vehicle of forceful maturation. Tweens will dive in and leave haunted. I doubt the series will wither anytime soon, but I doubt it could exist in its full bloom again. That was for my generation -- just older than me. Like a bell curve, I guess it worked best for those aged as Harry himself when the books/movies were coming out; those too old stomached the immaturity, and those too young stomached the maturity. And those young enough to have missed the real-time craze will see the connection diminished still: all future generations are in this group. But I expect for a while there will still be a sweet spot between 11 and 21 in which the series still works well enough. Then it will antiquate, as Tolkien: still read, but queerly classical.
I was impressed. By the end the whole seemed like really high-quality young adult fiction. The characters, themes, plot and everything else seemed not just excellent but comprehensive. I can understand the obsession. What was missing? It tackled most things a teenager could care about. It may be more comprehensive in spanning all of life than Tolkien, or at least all of 21st-century life. Most types of relationships and emotions were portrayed. It was rich enough to prompt many doctoral theses I imagine. And it was well-executed, with style and care and intelligence. Rowling impressed me.
Still, it's young-adult, much more than Lord of the Rings. Until about 3/4 through the movies things were painfully cheesy. I feel that with the LotR movies, and The Hobbit as a novel is pretty juvenile, but the LotR books do not seem fit for teenagers in my mind. Well, maybe the Harry Potter books aren't as cheesy as the movies. I got through the first 3/4 of the series on brewing and sometimes blazing darkness. Just like LotR, Star Wars and more, I chase the cheese with building darkness and godlike displays of power. Yes, I'll say the same as in several posts of the last year or two: I'm infatuated with godlike power. One of my favorite moments in Harry Potter was when he, a kid, revealed himself as the white stag he thought was his father. Harry's, Dumbledore's, Voldemort's and others' power was intoxicating for me. And much of the darkness was painful, and these things pulled me through the juvenility. Also the plot, which ended up interesting. I doubt the world and plot are as subtly crafted as Tolkien, but I can't say for sure without reading the books. Tolkien's books will hint at subtleties the movies smother in cheese, and I'm sure Rowling wrote with a finer tip than the movies suggest. Still, it's younger than Lord of the Rings. Some of it is painfully obvious.
I definitely liked the later movies better, especially the last three. The immaturity diminished; jokes were funnier; social conflict cut deeper; acting improved. These things matter: my intellect wasn't insulted. A lot of blockbuster movies insult the intellect. I'm not blaming Rowling necessarily, who I'm sure is very intelligent, but yes, I do believe much of the series was grossly unsubtle. It's young-adult. So it's natural I preferred the later ones. I felt the same with Tolkien: things got darker and deeper later. People love the innocence of The Fellowship. I love the divinity of Return of the King. And the innocence of The Fellowship. But mostly the intellect-shattering profoundness of the later, darker ones. Same with Harry Potter.
The Dumbledore actor situation is really tragic, first for the actor, second for the integrity of the series. I really wish we wouldn't have lost the first Dumbledore. I never connected with the second as well. I don't know what it's like in the books, but the first's voice and carriage carried millennia more wisdom and heartache than the second. The second sounds and moves so much harsher. Ian McKellan as Gandalf is between the two. The Dumbledore transition was upsetting for me -- sad and jarring. My affection for the character never quite recovered, which is a big blow, as I was establishing a connection as I have with Gandalf. Dumbledore was a good candidate for my favorite character.
No comments:
Post a Comment