Cheers Harry! From a loyal Dumbledork!

It's taken me some time, but I've finally gotten my thoughts together about Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows, Part 2.

I must confess I was a little sad knowing this series in which I've invested not just ten years worth of movie watching, but over a baker's dozen going back to when I first started reading the books, was coming to a close.

My initial feeling was "WOW!" Followed by "they finally got it right." And these, I might add came to me long before the film ended. I could just sense early on this finale would not disappoint in the end.
Lastly, a specific and almost strange (and quite geeky) feeling came over me. In fact you might say it took hold of me like a spell during the final climactic battle between Harry and Voldemort.
I have my own little obsessions. I'm not a closet-geek, but I'm not out and proud with my nerd-fandoms either. I don't cosplay. I've never been to a con of any kind, unless you count stone and tile conventions or the World of Concrete (that was a doozy) back in my construction sales & marketing days. When I saw theater goers wearing robes and Hogwarts House scarves, I admit I judged. I scoffed at their silliness. But as the final moments of Deathly Hallows began to countdown, a voice whispered in my brain "this is my Star Wars."

Allow me to explain. There are many guys around my age give or take that are Star Wars fanatics. And not just the ones you see in the mall with the tinted glasses and ill-fitted fantasy t-shirts rolling 16-sided dice on Friday night. Professionals, salesman, lawyers, construction workers. The Lucas curse seems to infiltrate and infect all walks of Gen-X males (and quite a few females.) I worked with a guy who is in management at a multi-billion dollar International banking firm who looks as straight-laced as it gets, but mention the words "Jar Jar" and he's off on a twenty minute dissertation defending the prequels like the rebels defending the communications center on Endor. Or were they attacking it? I don't friggin' know.

See, I never got it. I enjoyed the original three when I was kid. Well the first one I actually found (and still find) kind of boring. (An audible gasp from the audience!) Cut me some slack I was 2 when it was released. I remember seeing the second film, or, well I guess it was what, # 5 or something . . . stupid Lucas . . . in a movie theater and being terrified of that little green gargoyle Yoda. I did really like the last one, with the Ewoks. Which of course, proves I'm not a Star Wars fan because as I understand it that's the least favorite among fan boys. Either way, I just never felt that connection to the franchise so many do. It didn't blow my mind. It didn't inspire me in any way. Other than, I suppose as an artist because I do love to draw weird creatures and aliens, and I suppose there's some Lucas-influence there.

And as for that other trilogy, the Rings deal. I really liked the first film. It could have stopped with that one and I'd have been relatively satisfied. But the second movie and the first 2/3rds of the last one are brutal to sit through. Butt-numbingly so! As Kevin Smith says, they're three movies about walking. I had no desire to strap on a helmet and wield a battle-axe after seeing them. In fact, I'm such a nerd the other way, my favorite scene, the one that sticks with me the most is from Fellowship of the Ring when Sir Ian goes to Bilbo's house in the very begining, and Lord Baggins offers the great wizard tea and cheese. Every time I see it I think "I'd like to live in that little house. Look at that big block of cheese he's eating there."
That's it. That's what the LoTR saga boils down to for me. A quiet little house in the ground with a big round door . . . and a wedge of old cheese.

With Potter, it was different. For starters, I was 4 books in before cameras even rolled on the first screen adaptation. The books, if you haven't taken the time, are brilliant by the way. It's not hype to say that J.K. Rowling is a master storyteller. What she has is a gift. There's no other way to say it. How she took what began as a children's book with fun adventures and fantastic creatures (admittedly with a dark undertone . . . I mean, it does start with a baby whose parents have been murdered) that crescendos into this mature, harrowing, epic with such a satisfying and emotional climax is beyond reason, except to say, again, that she posesses an other-worldly gift. When I closed the last book for the last time, I really felt like I'd been there with those kids all the way. I'd been there and back again, to steal from an aforementioned trilogy.
As someone who fancies himself a storyteller of some degree, I am not ashamed to admit I would kneel at her feet and swear my allegiance were I ever granted an audience. And she would no doubt call for security to have me forcefully removed from the premises.

The first 7 movies however had been kind of a mixed bag for me. I liked the first film, but was disappointed by how much was left out even if I understood the reasoning. I hated the second, Chamber of Secrets. I had read the book (albeit years before) and I was still completely lost. I couldn't fathom how anyone who hadn't read it could understand what was going on. Thought the third, Prisoner of Azkaban was nearly a masterpiece. Hated the Goblet of Fire. Thought Order of the Phoenix was better. Definitely loved seeing wizards using magic to kick a little ass at the end. Thought Half-Blood Prince was pretty good, although, as with that particular book, thought the title was at best a maguffin.
To be honest, I didn't even see Deathly Hallows Pt. 1 in a theater. With two young children, you don't get to as many movies outside the home as one would like. Not too mention, I'm getting older and much tighter with a penny. More often than not, I'm disappointed when I do make the small investment in a movie going experience. So I waited to rent the first half, and I'm glad I did. It was well-done, but not much happens as in the book. It is essential and sets-up the second act but it's kind of boring. If I'm being really honest, I dozed off about midway through.

But oh man! Part 2 delivers and delivers big! I love that it opens on the last scene of part 1 so that you could sit down and watch them back-to-back and it would be a seamless story. A very long story, but seamless. I was struck right away by the performances as well. It would be very easy for the actors to get lost in the fantasy and CGI and the goofy makeup. It takes a very talented actor to play a goblin seriously. To commit to it and say "this is a literary character, not a joke, and I will play it as such."
Warwick Davis gives such a subtle, dare I say nuanced performance as the goblin Griphook. I really watched his eyes, behind that latex, behind the black contacts. He wasn't playing a little monster or cartoonish creature. He was another character in the room, equal to those around him. I'm so glad he got to show his abilities in this part. Due to his size he's often thrown in these creature parts where he doesn't get to show his acting chops. They put some fuzzy mask over his head and say "dance!" (Hey, it beats sitting in a cubicle all day pushing papers around a desk!)
And most of the performances across the board are like that, especially in this final film. Those three main kids really came into their own over the course of 8 flicks. You can see in the first movie they're young and therefore green. It could have gone either way. Acting is a gift. Fortunately they all had it. Or we could have had 8 dreadful , 2 hour cue card reads.
Even the characters who get to be over-the-top, do it with such style that it's believable. Helen Bonham Carter almost seemed to be trying to over-do it, but it always worked. And as for Ralph Fiennes, well, what can you say that hasn't been said a million times over?
When reading the books, I was never really able to picture Voldemort. Ralph Fiennes along with some clever make-up designers created what is the definitive embodiment of that character. Perhaps I saw him as something larger, more brutish and physically intimidating in my mind. Fiennes does look a bit like some escaped, anemic mental patient, but it works. He manages to act through that make-up. You believe he's something no longer human, reborn from evil, down to his serpentine nose. Any distraction from when he first appears in the fourth film and your mind is trying to figure out what he looks like (it takes a minute) eventually melts away and you see him as the real Voldemort. In Deathly Hallows (both installments) he really brings it. Again, this part would have been so easy to take right over-the-edge. What makes him real, is how restrained he plays it. Most of the time, he's not loud or overly menacing. Voldemort's got no reason to freak out. He's winning. He's got the power. Everyone is terrified, even his followers. Life is good being that bad.

But perhaps the greatest performance in this movie, the biggest surprise, even when I knew it was coming, was from Alan Rickman. I love Alan Rickman. You tell me you've got a movie with Alan Rickman in it, I'm going to sit down and watch, whatever it is. Put Rickman in a Barney movie, I'm still in. But for most of the series, Rickman's performance as Prof. Snape the villain (or his he???) has been so dry it could be called one-note, or worse phoned-in.
If you ever watch Love Actually with the director's commentary track, Richard Curtis tells a funny story about having Rickman over for dinner and his children were begging Alan to read some Snape excerpts from a Potter book. Curtis said to him, "I've been reading it to them, but I'm afraid I'm afraid I'm just not putting my back into it."
Rickman allegedly replied; "That's alright, neither am I."
To some degree I might agree. It often seemed like he was showing up on set saying "Right, give me the wig, the cloak, and my paycheck and let's get this over with."
That is until this last flick. In a brief, but perhaps the most moving scene of the movie, we get to see the truth about Snape. And in those glimpses Rickman gives one of the most moving, gut-wrenching emotional performances I've ever seen, and most of it done with just a few simple (but oh so complex) facial expressions. We see the magic of Alan Rickman like never before. If you're someone who has been with these stories for over a decade as I have, and has known the payoff that was to come since the summer of 2007 and you don't roll a tear, you might actually be a Dementor.

If you've followed my blog in any fashion, you know I'm a horrible blogger. When I do post, I post the damn phone book. Blog posts are supposed to be short and sweet. Well, I could fill an entire year's worth of encyclopedias writing about Harry Potter (I'll explain to you kids what an encyclopedia was another time.) But I'll wrap it up.
When the movie ended, and thus did the entire series, the feeling was truly bittersweet for me. Spoiler alert: it has a happy ending. For those thinking "oh no, they'll come up with something. They won't let this cash cow die!" Don't expect a 9th movie. Rowling, in her genius included a perfect insurance policy against that. In the book, there is a line during that epilogue to the effect "Harry's scar never bothered him again." In other words, that was it. The dragon was officially slain. And thank God! Harry deserves to grow old in peace. I'd say he's earned a quiet normal life.
Now I'm not saying there won't be a return to the world of Potter. In the book, she does make a point to mention the child of the late Prof. Lupin and Tonks. So much so that I've always suspected we may see a new series someday about a young werewolf boy's adventures at Hogwarts.
But I'm pretty sure Harry, Ron, and Hermione are kicking back in a London "caf" reminiscing about how all that bad stuff happened once, but life is normal now. And I'm glad for it.

All the same, I couldn't help but be sad to see it end. It was like being a kid watching your best friend waving out the back of a station wagon as he and his family moved away. Or saying goodbye to your classmates after graduation, knowing you'll probably never see most of them again. I know that's dramatic, but these characters have been part of my life, and many peoples' for almost 2 decades. There won't be any more midnight trips to the bookstore (well, now there really won't) to get a copy of the latest book. No more opening weekends, hoping to see your lightning scarred hero knock those moronic Transformers out of the top spot at the box office!

I'm okay with that. Every good series has to end eventually. We need closure. Real life goes on and on. If books, movies, etc did the same, we'd go crazy. Or just become so frustrated we'd give up on them, which is exasperating as well. If ever there was a perfect way to end a series, I'd say this was it. Well done Warner Brothers, you really got one right. You did justice to Madame Rowling's creation. Now, please, I am begging you. Have some decency. Do NOT reboot the whole series in a few years. Recycle Batman all you want, I'll be there every time. Spend $200 Million dollars to make the same Superman story a third time. It's fine. But please, leave Harry alone. Let this work stand for a while. You ended with a bang. Be proud of that. We the fans are grateful.
But if you do remake it, I expect to see Peeves the poltergeist, and all the house ghosts subplots that were left out, and Hermione fighting for the liberation of house elves, and . . .

At A Crossroad: Jump Through the Hoop or Not.

In his memoir, A Pirate Looks at Fifty (one of my top 5 favorite, "desert island" books) Jimmy Buffett speaks of how he often wishes he didn't have to go on stage and be a human juke box all summer, playing same songs every college frat boy knows and loves to get drunk to. He says he would love to someday scale down to himself and another guitar player, sit in a club, and do the songs he loves, and the ones nobody (except us true Parrotheads) knows.

I'm paraphrasing of course but he essentially muses that he knows it's too late for that. At least it was a decade & a half ago when he wrote the book. He openly admits there came a point in his career where he had to make a choice: continue being a struggling folk singer, clutching desperately to artistic integrity and non-commercialism, and risk not knowing where the next paycheck (or meal) was coming from, . . . or jump through that flaming hoop the ringmaster was dangling in front of him and dive headlong into pure showmanship and spectacle.
At that moment, he chose to jump.

Does he regret it? I'd say look at his multiple houses, multiple personal airplanes, annual sold out summer concert tours, legion of adoring fans, and . . . yes, the balance in his bank account . . . and tell me if you think. I'd say that aside from occasional daydreams, he hasn't looked back much since.

Where is it written that art has to look like suffering anyway? Why is it that if you create with a smile, your considered a sellout? I would say to both, it is not. The only people who truly believe that are the ones suffering for their art, and struggling to make it happen.
I struggle with it sometimes myself. I am currently at a crossroads as to what to do next. I mean that in the bigger sense of "what action must I take to further this fledgling second life as a storyteller I so desperately want?" But I mean it more specifically too, as in "I don't know what to write next."

Notice I said storyteller, not specifically writer, although is from the pen (or keyboard) that all stories flow. Music, books, art, theater, film . . . all conceived first in the mind, then birthed on paper before being presented in the final medium.
I currently have about 6 books, 1 play, and 1 screenplay already sitting in my hard drive. Of those, 3 have full finished drafts. I have beginning, middle, and end for them. In theory they're only a few rewrites from being ready for public consumption. Are they good enough? Well, that's the rub. A couple definitely. A few, well, still working on that.

But the thing that's really holding me up right now is not which book do I want to write. The question is more what kind of writer do I want to be. For some reason, we as a society like to compartmentalize people. "This is what you do, and therefore you can't do something different."
And there's the issue of, am I writing what I want, and writing it for me, or am I just writing something I think/hope will sell? I'm working on a novel now that at one time I was completely in love with, but now I find myself in the rewrite process thinking "This is terrible. People won't like this. Why am I bothering? I should change the whole thing?"

Anyone reading this most likely has seen me shamelessly shilling my self-published young adult novel Balaam. Balaam was a short story I wrote 4 years ago based on an Old Testament character. To overly simplify it, Balaam was so stubborn God made his ass talk. No, not like Jim Carrey. I mean his actual donkey stood up and spoke. There was also this little incident where he, like Moses, saved the Hebrews from being slaughtered by an angry king, I mean, if you want to get specific and all. Anyway, I just decided to take this character and expand on his life. Truth be told, I never intended it to be published.

Of course I've always wanted to be a published author, but this was not the book by which I meant to introduce myself to the world. However early this year I learned about Kindle Direct where one could publish their work for free in the form of an ebook. I am a bit of a Luddite and have not embraced ebooks or ereaders, but am I not so ignorant to turn my back on them either. So I decided as an experiment, I would test it with Balaam. And in the first week I sold a dozen. I took the next step and made Balaam available in paperback through Amazon's p.o.d. wing Create Space. It's not free, but it is pretty inexpensive if you do it yourself. Again, sold a few right off the bat. Within a month I'd made the tiny initial investment back. And it continues to sell, little by little. But hey, it's selling.

If you only fail when you don't try, it must also be true that if your book makes money, it's a success. If so, I am a successful author. Just don't look to closely at the specifics. Actual numbers aside, if Random House had the percentages I've got on Balaam, they'd piss themselves with jubilation! They'd call it the salvation of the publishing business!
And I didn't publish the book the make money (lucky for me!) I published it because I'm a storyteller. It's all I am. It's all I want to be. And a storyteller who has no one to hear his stories is that proverbial tree falling in the forest. I just wanted to get my words out there, in the hands of readers. I wanted my stories to thrill and delight. And I've gotten a lot of feedback from readers saying it has. Again, this is success.

But, no good deed goes unpunished. I am still disappointed. I made a conscious choice to make Balaam my first, not simply because it was finished (although that helped!) I chose this particular piece because it's a family friendly story, and while based on a Biblical story it is non-denominational. I can be enjoyed by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Whatevertarians . . . ! That's the idea. Yet, ironically, one of the few literary agents I sent it to said to me in her response "I did like it, but it's too Christian to be commercial, and too controversial to be Christian fiction."
I wanted to jump all over her and say "Lady, it's not Christian fiction! Old Testament! Thousands of years before Christ was even born!"

Her words were probably the original inspiration to make me self-publish. I just wanted it out there, as is. I didn't want it compartmentalized. I don't even go overboard selling it as "Young Adult fiction." I honestly believe (and have been assured) many adults enjoy it just as much (and perhaps in different ways) than the intended demo. Plus I thought, screw what she said, I'll put it out there and push it on Facebook, Twitter, & LinkedIn. I've got over 700 friends on FB, surely I can sell at least 200 - 300 books without breaking a sweat.
Funny thing about life. When you really want to know who your friends are, ask them to shell out a couple bucks. You'll find out, and you'll usually be disappointed.

Maybe the religious/Biblical smell of the subject matter is too strong, and turns people off. I don't know. I approached it more like a fairy tale, to be honest. And I didn't want to omit the things known. And while I the point was to create a back story for character that wasn't given, and make it interesting, I didn't want to dilute or twist what was there. I wanted to blend them with more of fantasy and magic story, a mash-up of the Divine and Pagan traditions. Wow, that's a lot for a kids book! I've actually been asked when I'll write a sequel, but I just laugh and say sorry, but there'll never be one. I managed to write and publish this one without lightning from the sky striking me down. I'll leave the old boy wherever he is.

Maybe that's me. Maybe that's the writer I am. A foot in both worlds. Can an artist create exactly the work he wants to and still appease the masses? I think I'm lucky. I have such a wide array of interests that I can write almost anything and enjoy it. It's just the process of creation that I love. Some of them are hits (at least to me), some are stupid monsters, but I enjoyed sewing them together just the same.

Still as I work on another Young Adult project, there's a voice in my head saying "you're going to get pigeon-holed. It's like this little cigar-chomping monkey whispering "You screwed yourself putting out that last one. If they wouldn't buy it, they really won't buy this. "

I can't help it. I love writing for younger readers. You can tell exciting tales, and throw in a good amount of absurdity, and they don't care. I don't write down to them. I don't try to complicate it, but I do like to challenge them just a bit. Increase their vocabulary. Maybe throw in a philosophical conundrum here or there. It's good for them, trust me. It's good for me too! It is what excites me, even if it means I'll never be considered a "serious writer."

I have projects I'm developing that are the distant end of the spectrum. I'm working on a memoir of my years at a Christian college that you wouldn't dare let a kid read. I probably wouldn't let my wife read it! It's meant to be crass, funny, and shocking. And it will burn a lot of bridges! But it's honest. And it's damn entertaining. Might even get me on Oprah . . . sorry, on OWN. So do I crank the wheel, jump the center median, and speed off in the other direction?

I have a novel where the protagonist is actually pretty unlikable. He's slovenly, he does a pretty despicable thing for a living, and he's a drunk. And the whole thing takes place in Vegas. Scene one involves a tranny hooker. Do I go full-steam ahead on that one instead?

Nobody can answer those questions. Only me, I suppose. I guess that is the process. You have to make that decision for yourself and decide what kind of writer (insert your trade) you want to be. What stories you want to tell. And you have to make that decision, completely detached from the trappings of money, audience, etc. If you are a storyteller, you will tell the stories you have to tell. All else be damned.

So now if I'm to take my own advice, I guess there's really only one solution. I have to write all of them. That's my plan. Write them all. Put them all out there. Let the world decide what they want to read. The only real problem is, which one do I try to focus my ADD brain on to finish first?

That said, if anyone wants to hold out that flaming hoop for me, I may be all to happy to jump!
(Hey, I've got 2 kids and a mortgage!)

Cars 2: Electric Bugaloo or It Takes a Big Man to Admit When He's Wrong

I admit it. For the last few months since they first released an official trailer for Cars 2, I was not excited.
Understand, I love the first Cars. Not only does the Route 66 storyline & the theme of American history fading away touch my heart in a real way, I have a deeper, sentimental attachment to that flick. The first time I sat down and watched it end-to-end was in the delivery room while my wife slept between contractions. It's not poetic license when I say that just as the end credits rolled, the doctor came in and said "time to start pushing." Those moments stick in your brain forever.

And about 2 years later, Cars became that baby, my son's favorite movie. We have no doubt watched it close to one hundred times (ok, that may include some poetic license.) I can nearly quote that movie from start to finish . . . from "Speed, I am speed." to "McQueen and Sally parked beneath a tree, k-i-somethin' somethin' . . ."

And if you ever watch the "Making of" documentary on the bonus disc, about how the PIXAR crew took a road trip down the Mother Road, it will bring a tear to your eye if you're any kind of American! Shows you how important that movie is to it's creators, as well as the audience.

Point is, I love that movie. But after about the 73rd watching, maybe 74th, it did start to become tiresome. I was very much anticipating a sequel, just for the prospect of something new for us to eventually wear out in our DVD player.

But from the get go, the previews of Cars 2 and the whole International spy thriller concept just didn't resonate with me. Not as a sequel to this sweet little character driven piece about the passing of generations and culture in small-town America.
In fact, my immediate reaction was they are making a big visual movie with colorful new backdrops, chock full of new characters (to line Target, Toys R Us, and Disney Store shelves) with no plot and without the heart that made the first one great.

To be blunt, it looked like a money move. It looked like John Lasseter had finally sold his soul for a buck.

So the Monday after the initial opening weekend, I came home from work, threw on some shorts and flip-flops, and said "Son, let's go to the movies." Now, despite my concerns, I was determined not to spoil it for the 4 year-old who couldn't wait to see it. I put on my Lightning McQueen tee, as did he and off we went. Yes, we looked like goons eating our Sbarro in the mall food court but so what? I'm always willing to look silly if it makes my kid smile. I also decided to go in with an open mind because, despite so many critics and fanboys poo-pooing Cars 2, local legend Roger Ebert gave it a glowing review, even proclaiming he liked it better than the first. I'm not one who is always swayed by critics, especially with cartoons or comic book flicks, as those genres are generally not in their wheelhouse, whereas they are very much in mine! But if Rog said it, I was willing to give it a shot.

Let me say, here and now, for the record and posterity, I was wrong. Not only do I know my misgivings were incorrect, I knew it within the first 5 minutes. Cars 2 is a great movie!
Is it better than the first? No, of course not. But that's not really a fair question. It is completely different. It really is a stand alone movie. You really could watch Cars 2 having never seen the first and enjoy it just fine. It's an action movie. And it's really funny and exciting. And I mean for adults. There is some adult humor (well, for Disney) and I was surprised at the level of violence (I guess take that as a warning.) But my little guy stayed with it the whole time, never fussed, didn't get restless (at almost 2 hours it is a long flick for a "kid's movie") and at the end he proclaimed "that was awesome!"

I am truly, as Blackbeard would say "in a bewilderment" as to why it's getting panned so much.

The ending I will say seemed a little, I don't know, thrown together. And while I actually liked that the movie at least addresses the idea of alternative fuel, I admit it kind of leaves the subject without much resolution. In fact it sort of sets us back . . . well, never mind, I don't want to say much more for fear of spoiling it. By the way, what a pleasant surprise hearing the voice of the great Eddie Izzard!

Cars 2 is solid entertainment from beginning to end. I've heard a lot of talk about how this one is Mater's movie. No, it's not. This is Finn McMissile's movie. Michael Caine steals the show all the way through, and deservedly so. I can see a whole spin-off (spin-out?) franchise of Finn McMissile movies, and I would go see them too.

Also, there are some great little Easter Eggs throughout, my favorite being "Gastow's." I'll leave it to you to figure it out. And the tribute to Paul Newman is perfectly touching and a nod to the grown-ups in the audience. I would have preferred they did something similar to the great George Carlin as well, rather than recasting him with a cheap imposter, but oh well . . .

Overall, I'll say if Cars 1 was a 9.5 out of 10, then Cars 2 is a solid 9.25. I really enjoyed it, my kid enjoyed it, and I'm willing to pay to see it one more time on the big screen. That's saying something.

Once again, ignore the critics who lost their souls years ago. See it and judge for yourself. It really is like 2 hours in an amusement park. Well worth the price of admission and a worthy sequel that really isn't even a sequel . . . which is probably the best kind!