Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1

When it comes to the religion of Harry Potter, I'm hardly very pious. Although I dutifully brought The Deathly Hallows novel when it was released in 2007, I will admit that The Deathly Hallows, Part 1 was the first of the movie saga that I didn't bother going to the cinema to see when it came out.

And last night, I caught Harry on DVD for the first time and realized that I'd made the right decision.

While some of the Harry Potter movies are barnstormers (Prisoner of Azkhaban and Goblet of Fire being the best) the final movies seem to have stumbled more into Twilight territory. They're dripping with teenage angst and increasingly dark and gloomy.

In fact, The Deathly Hallows, Part 1 was so into being dark and gloomy that at least one third of the film was practically unwatchable - the screen turning black for periods of up to 10 seconds at a time, and the sets and actors being so poorly lit you had to squint to see what was going on.

Pair that with a monumentally complex cast of characters and an increasingly difficult to follow plot and you've got a recipe for disappointment. While the book was vividly lucid, I kept finding myself losing the plot (literally) as I followed Ron, Hermione and Harry onscreen.

Why was that sword in the pond? Who's this cockney guy? Why is Daniel Radcliffe wearing a bra?

I understand that the complexity of The Deathly Hallows required it to be cut asunder into two separate films - but most two-part movies (Kill Bill, for example) turn each 'episode' into a self-contained story that can be enjoyed on its own.

That definitely does not describe The Deathly Hallows, Part 1. You'll need a masters degree in Potterology just to understand what's going on the moment the movie opens - and unless you've got a copy of the hardback sitting beside you, are likely to get thoroughly confused as the plot unwinds. Toss in a really unsatisfactory breaking point and anybody who's not a dyed-in-the-wool Harry Potter aficionado will be left scratching their head.

I mean, it's not that it's a bad movie - it's just so absurdly complex that it's impossible to adequately translate it to the screen. I imagine Potter fans will love it - but I was left a little bewildered.

Yet there's hope. I anticipate that the crammed first half of The Deathly Hallows will give the second movie a little narrative breathing room - and result in a much more satisfactory conclusion to the Harry Potter odyssey.

Harry Potter FTW

The Importance of Reading...

I recently discovered a blog called Texas Liberal, which makes for interesting reading.

One of the posts was about the Houston Chronicle publishing the answer to a question Texas Liberal had sent in - what were the last three books the presidential hopefuls had read?

The answers were quite interesting.

"Republican Mike Huckabee didn’t respond when asked by a newspaper reader, Neil Aquino of Houston, to list the last three books he has read."

Quelle surprise... It's such a bad cliché that evangelicals don't read (or, if they do, they limit themselves to books related to scriptural topics.) But by furthering that stereotype, I think it's a pretty poor showing for Mike Huckabee. He couldn't think of a single book he'd read recently? Jeeze, the guy could have at least thrown The Bible in there!

"But Republican John McCain said he had recently reread A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway and read, presumably for the first time, The Age of Turbulence by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and the Spirit of Churchill by Deborah Davis Brezina."

A Hemingway book? And a book about Winston Churchill? And then Greenspan's new book? If you ask me, these are clearly well rehearsed answers. Hemingway was the rough, tough, man's man. Churchill was the legendary warrior statesman. Greenspan is a legendary Republican policyman. If you were trying to reach out to a cynically targeted audience, I can think of no better answers than the ones John McCain gave!

But then again, McCain's only a little older than my father and he enjoys a good historical biography every now and then (I think he recently completed one about Horatio Nelson.)



"Clinton listed Ike: An American Hero by Michael Korda, The Bourne Betrayal by Robert Ludlum and The Appeal by John Grisham."

Even though Clinton comes across as a devious and cold political Machiavelli, I found her answer surprisingly earnest. Two of the three books she mentioned are populist and sniffed at by the literati, but would make very entertaining reading.

Even more so than John McCain, Hillary appears to actually be a reader and although snobs might disapprove of her choice of 'best selling schlock' it appeals to me because they're the kind of books I enjoy myself (nobody writes a courtroom drama like Grisham.)

"My 9-year-old, Malia, and I read all the Harry Potter books together,” Obama said.

Obama's answer was a bit too twee for me. Obama is a charming statesman, but even he can lay it on a bit thick. This seems like another answer specifically designed to appeal to his audience.

"Aww!" the potential voters gush. "He reads with his little girl! And he reads Harry Potter, just like me! Awww!"

And, besides, the billion-dollar bestsellers of JK Rowling hardly need a potential-presidential endorsement to sell more copies!

Reading Rocks

The importance of what presidents read can't be underestimated. Even back in the sixties, people were peering into the White House bookcases with surprising curiosity. The fact that John F. Kennedy listed From Russia With Love as one of his favourite paperbacks helped significantly boost author Ian Fleming's career - and made Kennedy seem that much cooler.

The books a president reads are important for various reasons.

Firstly, it's just important that a president does read. Somebody who enjoys reading will generally have a broader base of knowledge than somebody who doesn't. That's why Mike Huckabee ducking the question gave me another reason to distrust him.

Secondly, people express a lot of their own personality in the choice of books they enjoy. John F. Kennedy appealed to the original Playboy generation with his choice of a James Bond book. Clinton's choice of a Grisham novel suggests she enjoys taut pacing, a well detailed and beautifully researched 'real world' setting and difficult, thought provoking moral questions to ponder. McCain's choices indicate a man who's interested in history and economics and not too arrogant to pick up a book and learn more about them.

The Texas Liberal's question was brilliant because it stripped away a lot of the media hype and gave us a genuine peek into these politician's lives.

It also made me think about what the books I've been reading say about me.

Because Tina gets Advanced Reading Copies of upcoming books, I tend to read them as and when they arrive (making my choice of reading material rather random.)

The last three books I read were The Justice Riders by Chuck Norris (who endorsed Huckabee... The least Mike could have done in return was read Chuck's book.) Simplexity by Jeffrey Kluger (the book that's simply too complex to describe in one sentence) and Loose Girl by Kerry Cohen.

They don't really say much about my personality (my preferred diet of adventure stories and thrillers probably does) but I certainly feel reading those three books broadened my horizons.

What were the last three books you read? ...and if you were standing for President, what do you think they'd say about you?

Dumbledore is Gay

Harry Potter creator J.K. Rowling announced yesterday that beloved Albus Dumbledore, headmaster of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, was actually gay.

She was speaking to a packed Carnegie Hall in New York - and made the announcement after reading a short extract from The Deathly Hallows, the final book in the Harry Potter series.

The subject came up when a fan asked if there had ever been a true love in Dumbledore's life. Rowling revealed that wicked wizard Grindelwald, who Dumbledore befriended fifty years before Harry Potter entered his life, had been Dumbledore's one true love - and broken his heart when he went off to pursue his allegorically Hitleresque activities.

It's a fascinating revelation. Even more fascinating is why Rowling only chose to reveal this snippet of important information AFTER her series had concluded.

Clearly Dumbledore's sexuality has been fixed since the very beginning (Rowling even edited out a line of dialogue during one of the movie adaptations - which referred inaccurately to a past girlfriend of Dumbledore's.)

Cynically, one can only conclude that Rowling kept Dumbledore's sexuality private in order to keep the franchise's appeal as widespread as possible.

Aside from the ridiculous evangelical Christians in America's bible belt (who burn the books for promoting witchcraft) Harry Potter seems to have enormous widespread appeal. But while eugenics, conspiracy, murder, witchcraft, slavery and interracial relationships (Harry kisses a Chinese girl) are all touched upon in the books, none of them ever touched on sexuality as an issue (and rightly so - they're kid's books.)

Maybe an openly gay character (even one as benign, wise and positive as Dumbledore) would have incurred the wrath of the homophobes. While America pays lip service to equality (and features programs like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy on TV) I think a gay character in the world's best selling children's book series would be too much for America to take.

Instead of a few nutty Christians lambasting the books for promoting witchcraft, there might well have been thousands of angry parents harassing Rowling for promoting alternative sexuality (even though she actually made no mention of it in her books)

So I can understand why she decided to reveal this snippet of information only after The Deathly Hallows had hit the stores (and the checkouts.)

But it's rather sad. Such an interesting development would have been so much more significant if she'd been willing to throw it out before the last book had been published.

The effect such a revelation had on the book's sales would have told us an awful lot about the apparently open-minded society we live in.

Rowling sees Red: Gingerism in the Harry Potter books...

J.K. Rowling has been identified (by me at least) as a redhead. I think her usual media appearance, as a blond, is assisted by peroxide.

Perhaps her natural hair colour explains why the Harry Potter books are filled with gingers. The main family in the Potter saga (featured far more than Potter's relatives) are the Weasleys; and every single one of them is ginger.

Ron Weasley is relegated to second place (or third, behind brainy Hermione) in the Potter triumvirate. Although he seems to be an excellent chess player (as seen in The Philosopher's Stone) and a fairly good Quidditch keeper (as you can read about in The Half Blood Prince,) he is generally portrayed by Rowling as something of a coward and a mummy's boy. He's certainly viewed as less intelligent than Harry (who got better scores than him in their OWL exams.)

Although he comes through in the end, throughout the entire Harry Potter saga it's clearly suggested that Weasley is the weakest link in Harry's chain.

For that reason, I suspect the colour of Ron's hair was a deliberate choice by Rowling to illustrate his sidekick status. Ginger hair is typically used in fiction to identify characters who are weaker or more awkward than their more socially acceptable blond or brunette peers.

Likewise, the Weasley family (note how close the word Weasley is to Weasel) are poor and socially inferior wizards, coming from pure blood stock but generally at the receiving end of other Wizard's scorn (Mr Weasley, for example, seems to be the only poor employee of the Ministry of Magic.) What better way to instantly illustrate this than make the entire family ginger?

I don't think Rowling intends to portray any 'ginger' character in a negative light because of the colour of their hair (although treacherous Mundungus Fletcher is described as having red hair.) I think she simply took an accepted social stereotype (the nerdy ginger) and borrowed it for the occasion.

Rowling more than makes up for it, though. In the books, the Weasleys are portrayed as brave and loyal friends to Harry. The Weasley family pretty much adopts him and makes Potter feel one of their own. Ginny Weasley, Harry's love interest, is obviously ginger haired, but she's still portrayed as beautiful and attractive in the later books. (Sadly not the films, so far.)

In many ways, Rowling has done a world of good by portraying redheaded people in such a positive light. It's certainly done great things for the actor who portrays Ron Weasley on screen. Rupert Grint is now a bona fide ginger sex symbol.

In addition to that, J.K. Rowling acknowledged what ginger people go through living in England in her latest book. One scene in The Deathly Hallows particularly grabbed me. Ron, Harry and Hermione escape a team of Death Eaters (the baddies) and arrive in the middle of London late at night. While looking for a place to hide, a bunch of drunk muggles yell out to Hermione: "Oi! Ditch ginger and have a pint with us!"

Something I've experienced many times!

In fact, 'Ginger' is also used as derogatory term for Ron and his family throughout the books, both by muggles and members of the wizarding community (the evil ones, anyway.)

Considering that the Harry Potter series is so popular and important, it's really nice to see an issue that I feel passionately about brought to the attention of millions of readers. Whether it'll make much difference or not, I couldn't tell you. One thing's for sure, though. Ron Weasley and his family have really done their bit to finally make ginger cool.

Okay. Maybe not cool. But at least a little cooler.

Harry Potter and the Long Awaited Climax

So I've finally done it. Last night, I finished reading the final chapter of the Harry Potter saga and went to bed with a smile on my face. About two hours later there was a thunderstorm and I woke up convinced that Lord Voldemort had come to get me!

Mild coronary aside, The Deathly Hallows was an an immensely satisfying reading experience. I finished the three-inch thick book in about three days, which is probably slightly slower than the average Potter fan (but some of us Muggles have to work, you know!)

Hallows opens up right in the thick of things. Much like the last movie adaptation, The Order of the Phoenix, you'll be completely lost if you're not already familiar with the characters and events of the last six novels. Even I had to double check certain characters and their back stories on Wikipedia to refresh my memory - and I've read the whole lot.

The lack of introduction works in Rowling's favour, though. Within the first few pages the reader gets caught up in a fiery aeriel chase which sees two of Harry's famous companions shot down in flames. From that point on, it's impossible to put the book down. In pretty short order, Rowling shows us that the rules have changed and nobody in the Potter universe is safe this time around.

Despite being set over the course of a year, the book moves at a blistering pace. Harry and his most loyal companions, Ron and Hermione, set out to destroy Voldemort's Horcruxes; the secret objects that guarantee his immortality. As their quest reaches it's bloody conclusion, Harry begins to realise that his fate is inextricably linked to Voldemort's. But even as he comes to terms with his gloomy destiny, things unwind in a way not even the powerful Dumbledore could have foreseen.

This is J.K. Rowling's best book by far - although it would be nothing without the preceding six works. Through those books, she introduced us to an enormous cast of colourful characters, all of whom we know and care about. That makes the peril they face in the final book really effective. We share Harry's concern for his friends and mentors and grieve with him when they perish - and plenty of them do come to a sticky end. It makes the danger that much more effective because nobody knows what will happen. Nobody's safe - especially not Harry himself.

As Harry has grown up, so has Rowling's style of writing. Beyond the rip-roaring adventure of The Deathly Hallows, J.K. Rowling also presents us with an interesting back story to Dumbledore - Harry's mentor and the powerful headmaster of Hogwarts. In the past six books, he's always been seen as a wise old man. As Harry gets closer to the secrets of Voldemort's powers, he discovers startling evidence that suggests Dumbledore wasn't always the wise and beneficent figure that Harry considered him.

Lies, propaganda, spin and betrayal are all powerful elements in both Voldemort's and Dumbledore's grand plans. As Harry approaches his destiny, he starts to wonder if he's really the late Dumbledore's hero - or just his unwitting pawn.

The climax of the book - a thrilling battle at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry - ties up the loose ends of the past six books and answers many of the mysteries we've been scratching our heads about.

How does it end? Who lives and dies? Well, to answer those questions, you'll have to read the book yourself. I will tell you one thing... Despite the enormous hype regarding The Deathly Hallows, Rowling manages to conclude the epic tale of Harry Potter in immensely satisfying style.

Potter the Otter

I have a terrible confession to make. I haven't bought or started to read the latest Harry Potter book yet.

The truth is, I just haven't got around to it. They were selling them in Walmart for $20, but that seemed pretty expensive compared to the £6.57 editions they were flogging in Sainsburys, back in England. So although Bloomsbury have already shifted 12 million copies of The Deathly Harrows, none of them belong to me.

But I am totally behind it. What an incredible phenomenon Harry Potter is. Just yesterday, I was chatting to a colleague of mine who was clutching his copy of Harry 7 - he was 300 pages in.

"I never read a book," he told me, "until my girlfriend made me read Harry Potter."

And he's been an addict ever since.

Which is pretty incredible to me. J.K. Rowling has managed to seduce an entire generation into reading again. Forget iPods, the Internet, cable television and satellite radio... Right now, the coolest 'must have' gadget is a 700 page hardback book.

Here's one take on Potterdom from Owen Gieni and Chris Cosby's inspired webcomic Sore Thumbs.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

766 pages. Over 250,000 words. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is far and away J.K. Rowling's biggest work - and there's an awful lot of adventure packed between those pages.

Which must have made adapting the novel for the screen very difficult for 'Potter' Newcomer Michael Goldenberg. But he managed it, cramming Harry's fifth year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry into a neat two hours and twenty minutes.

The result is the darkest and most thrilling chapter of Harry's adventures yet. But be warned. From the moment the film begins, you're going to be thrown headfirst into thick, gooey Potter Lore and a familiarity with the characters and events of the previous three films is essential.

The theme of the movie is government conspiracy, featuring a crooked Minister for Magic attempting to cover up claims that the evil Lord Voldemort has returned. He attempts to accomplish this by installing an agent, the fiendish Dolores Umbridge, into the staff of Hogwarts.

Umbridge is played brilliantly by Imelda Staunton, who portrays her as blend of Margaret Thatcher and Hyacinth Bucket. But the pink and girlish facade doesn't disguise her megalomaniacal ambitions. When she starts enforcing 'security' with draconian student 'regulations,' you can see director David Yates is enjoying bringing J.K. Rowling's broad criticism of post 9/11 government to the screen.

The secondary theme to the movie deals with Harry's relationships, both with his Godfather, Sirius Black (indulgently played by Gary Oldman, clearly rehearsing for a Doctor Who audition) and evil Lord Voldemort, who seems to be developing a powerful and dangerous mental bond with Harry.

This bond becomes the crux of the plot, which leads to a blistering battle in the heart of London's Ministry of Magic and pits Dumbledore and Harry against a truly scary Voldemort, played with relish by a noseless Ralph Fiennes.

The frenetic pace of the film leaves the audience a little breathless at the end - and as hard as Goldenberg tries, important details have to be glossed over in favour of pacing. However, the final product is a deeply satisfactory movie and a wonderful adaptation of what some consider to be J.K. Rowling's best book.

NB - I'm not sure whether it was deliberate or inadvertant, but the funniest scene of the movie was when African auror, Kinglsey Shacklebolt (played by imposing British actor George Harris) watches Dumbledore escape the clutches of the Ministry in a stunning explosion of supernatural pyrotechnics.

"You may not like Dumbledore," he tells Minister Fudge in a deep, rich, 70's Blaxploitation movie style voice, "but you got to admit, the man has style."