Reviews Written By: A16QODENBJVUI1provided by Amazon.com |
 | ||
![Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban [HD DVD]](product_images/no_image_thumbnail.gif) | Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban [HD DVD] | |
 | "Easily the finest of all the Harry Potter films" | 2009-10-30 |
| There are two reasons that HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN is the best of all the films in the series. First and foremost, the movie was headed by one of the finest directors working in the world today, Alfonso Cuarón, directed of one of the greatest films of the 21st century, THE CHILDREN OF MEN, as well as the celebrated Mexican film Y TU MAMÁ TAMBIÉN. The first two films frequently suffer from pacing and rhythm problems. Things just frequently feel "off." Too many scenes don't work or are too abbreviated. But the worst thing about the first two movies is that they focus on the most lamentable parts of the relevant books and then drag them out. Cuarón is, unlike Chris Columbus, a genius. Second, THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN is the last book in the series that can be moderately summed up in a film. THE GOBLET OF FIRE was the first of the Harry Potter books that could be considered a very long book. So THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN contained most of the highlights of the novel without seriously abbreviating the story. But I don't want to exaggerate things. THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN works as a movie less because it summarizes the events of the book than because it gets at the heart of the story and repackages it into a new medium. Ultimately THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN works not because it is a good adaptation of a movie, but because it is a great movie on its own merits.
That really does sum up why this is the best of the Harry Potter movies: it is the only one of the films that stands on its own. All of the other of the movies play as if the director/writer has an eye on the movie from which they are derived. Too their credit, subsequent movies try to follow in the path of AZKABAN and several of them are entertaining. But what is lacking is the great script of this film and the impeccable talent of Alfonso Cuarón. One of the most impressive things about the series of films as a whole is the extraordinary array of acting talent. The main three improved tremendously after the first two movies and they were constantly surrounded by an amazing group of actors. In this film such excellent actors as Robert Hardy, Emma Thompson, Timothy Spall, Julie Christie, and David Thewlis join the cast. It is amazing that actors of this quality join and already impressive group of performers. Sadly, another great actor, Michael Gambon, joined the cast under sad circumstances. After the death of Richard Harris, who played Dumbledore in the first two movies, Gambon took over as head of Hogwarts. I loved Harris and I regretted his loss, but Gambon stepped into the role and didn't miss a beat. While I've loved the subsequent Harry Potter movies, none of them have come up to the level of this one. In fact, in an objective list of the great fantasy movies ever made, this is the one entry from the series that could make such a list. By any standard, this is a great movie. Sadly Alfonso Cuarón declined offers to direct subsequent films in the series. Well, kinda sadly. How can you regret that the movie he made instead of THE GOBLET OF FIRE was THE CHILDREN OF MEN, which is quite possibly the greatest dystopian movie ever made? As I said, that movie would feature in any discussion of the very greatest movies made in the last decade. Still, while I love that movie dearly (if you haven't seen it, you should make a point of doing so immediately), I'm sorry that he couldn't have continued with the Harry Potter series. Heck, I wish he could have made all of them. Frankly, I am shocked that they were able to get an actor of his stature involved with this series to begin with. Even though he did not continue with the series, he at least elevated the tone from the first two films. Thanks to him the rest of the series aspired to be more, even if later directors did not always succeed. | ||
 | Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets | |
 | "Not bad if you can moderate your expectations" | 2009-10-05 |
| This is a fun movie even though it suffers from some of the vices of the first movie in the series and not participating in the virtues of the subsequent films.
There are some things that are better in this film than the first. In particular, Daniel Radcliffe evidences enormous improvement as an actor. And because there is less set up in this one than in the first film, they are able to delve more directly into storytelling. And as in the first film, Hogwarts is rendered memorably. Still, the film is in many ways a disappointment. Chris Columbus's direction was as weak in the second as in the first and either he or the film's editor had to take responsibility for the terrible pacing in many of the film's scenes. On every level, all subsequent films would be better directed and edited. One might quibble over the script, but not the direction and editing. Future films would not drag in individual scenes like in this one. I do, however, have a lot of problem with the script for this film. Any adaptation of a novel by a movie has to make compromises. Still, ultimately the script has to function as an independent entity. The problem here was the abrupt and inelegant shifts from one scene to another, with no foreshadowing of what would come later or thematic repetition. Few parts of the screenplay resonate with other parts of the screenplay. Now, this very possibly is not the fault of the screenwriter. Directors and editors can radically alter screenplays during the course of filming. so unless we could see the original screenplay and to what degree it was preserved in the filming it is hard to blame the screenwriter. We blame the director. If what was filmed was the writer produced, a writer should have been brought in to fix it. I suspect that the director made changes. Who can say for sure. But one thing is for sure: the film has almost no narrative flow. And as an adaptation of a novel is does a poor job of maintaining its key themes. Luckily, the movies got much, much better. THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN is by any standard a great film, the best directed film in the series, while the later films were buoyed by very substantive stories. The movies are not nearly as good as the books. That is pretty much par for the course. There have been very, very few movies in the history of film that were better than the novels upon which they were based, except in cases where the novels were not very to begin with. One of the more humorous sidelights of the film was that some Russians took offense at the film, imagining that the elf Dobby was intended to look like Vladimir Putin. Some Russian lawyers for a while even contemplated taking legal action. There appears to be little justification for such an action. Whatever resemblance between Dobby and Putin would be strictly physical and Dobby in no other way would appear to refer to Putin. I personally think the easily offended lawyers needed to bash their heads a few times on their desks as penance for their silliness. | ||
![Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets [Blu-ray]](product_images/4936000/4936764-harry-potter-and-the-chamber_thumb.jpg) | Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets [Blu-ray] | |
| "Not bad if you can moderate your expectations" | 2009-10-05 |
| This is a fun movie even though it suffers from some of the vices of the first movie in the series and not participating in the virtues of the subsequent films.
There are some things that are better in this film than the first. In particular, Daniel Radcliffe evidences enormous improvement as an actor. And because there is less set up in this one than in the first film, they are able to delve more directly into storytelling. And as in the first film, Hogwarts is rendered memorably. Still, the film is in many ways a disappointment. Chris Columbus's direction was as weak in the second as in the first and either he or the film's editor had to take responsibility for the terrible pacing in many of the film's scenes. On every level, all subsequent films would be better directed and edited. One might quibble over the script, but not the direction and editing. Future films would not drag in individual scenes like in this one. I do, however, have a lot of problem with the script for this film. Any adaptation of a novel by a movie has to make compromises. Still, ultimately the script has to function as an independent entity. The problem here was the abrupt and inelegant shifts from one scene to another, with no foreshadowing of what would come later or thematic repetition. Few parts of the screenplay resonate with other parts of the screenplay. Now, this very possibly is not the fault of the screenwriter. Directors and editors can radically alter screenplays during the course of filming. so unless we could see the original screenplay and to what degree it was preserved in the filming it is hard to blame the screenwriter. We blame the director. If what was filmed was the writer produced, a writer should have been brought in to fix it. I suspect that the director made changes. Who can say for sure. But one thing is for sure: the film has almost no narrative flow. And as an adaptation of a novel is does a poor job of maintaining its key themes. Luckily, the movies got much, much better. THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN is by any standard a great film, the best directed film in the series, while the later films were buoyed by very substantive stories. The movies are not nearly as good as the books. That is pretty much par for the course. There have been very, very few movies in the history of film that were better than the novels upon which they were based, except in cases where the novels were not very to begin with. One of the more humorous sidelights of the film was that some Russians took offense at the film, imagining that the elf Dobby was intended to look like Vladimir Putin. Some Russian lawyers for a while even contemplated taking legal action. There appears to be little justification for such an action. Whatever resemblance between Dobby and Putin would be strictly physical and Dobby in no other way would appear to refer to Putin. I personally think the easily offended lawyers needed to bash their heads a few times on their desks as penance for their silliness. | ||
 | Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets (Widescreen Edition) | |
| "Not bad if you can moderate your expectations" | 2009-10-05 |
| This is a fun movie even though it suffers from some of the vices of the first movie in the series and not participating in the virtues of the subsequent films.
There are some things that are better in this film than the first. In particular, Daniel Radcliffe evidences enormous improvement as an actor. And because there is less set up in this one than in the first film, they are able to delve more directly into storytelling. And as in the first film, Hogwarts is rendered memorably. Still, the film is in many ways a disappointment. Chris Columbus's direction was as weak in the second as in the first and either he or the film's editor had to take responsibility for the terrible pacing in many of the film's scenes. On every level, all subsequent films would be better directed and edited. One might quibble over the script, but not the direction and editing. Future films would not drag in individual scenes like in this one. I do, however, have a lot of problem with the script for this film. Any adaptation of a novel by a movie has to make compromises. Still, ultimately the script has to function as an independent entity. The problem here was the abrupt and inelegant shifts from one scene to another, with no foreshadowing of what would come later or thematic repetition. Few parts of the screenplay resonate with other parts of the screenplay. Now, this very possibly is not the fault of the screenwriter. Directors and editors can radically alter screenplays during the course of filming. so unless we could see the original screenplay and to what degree it was preserved in the filming it is hard to blame the screenwriter. We blame the director. If what was filmed was the writer produced, a writer should have been brought in to fix it. I suspect that the director made changes. Who can say for sure. But one thing is for sure: the film has almost no narrative flow. And as an adaptation of a novel is does a poor job of maintaining its key themes. Luckily, the movies got much, much better. THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN is by any standard a great film, the best directed film in the series, while the later films were buoyed by very substantive stories. The movies are not nearly as good as the books. That is pretty much par for the course. There have been very, very few movies in the history of film that were better than the novels upon which they were based, except in cases where the novels were not very to begin with. One of the more humorous sidelights of the film was that some Russians took offense at the film, imagining that the elf Dobby was intended to look like Vladimir Putin. Some Russian lawyers for a while even contemplated taking legal action. There appears to be little justification for such an action. Whatever resemblance between Dobby and Putin would be strictly physical and Dobby in no other way would appear to refer to Putin. I personally think the easily offended lawyers needed to bash their heads a few times on their desks as penance for their silliness. | ||
 | Memorex 100PK DVD-R 16X 4.7GB SPINDLE ( 32025641 ) | |
| "Nice improvement in redesign of discs" | 2009-10-04 |
| I've always been sceptical of low reviews based failure rate. I've used Memorex discs on three or four occasions (by that, I mean that I've purchased three or four 100 Pack Spindles -- I buy what is cheapest either on Amazon or at my local Staples). I have found none of the problems with failure that some other reviewers have noted. I am not saying that they haven't had those problems. I can only assert that I have not had the same experience.
I have, however, had some complaints with Memorex discs in the past. I do not bother to make labels for the discs that I burn -- I don't want to spend the money either on the printer ink or for labels. I write on the discs using DVD markers. Until recently Memorex's discs were all silver, but covered with a number of irritating dots. You could write over them, but the surfaces weren't as marker-friendly as other discs, like those made by TDK or Sony. So, my only complaint against Memorex has disappeared. This may, however, only be academic. Amazon is now producing its own brand of blank DVDs. I've been extremely happy with both the DVD+R and DVD-R discs that Amazon now makes. And their prices so far have been below $20 for a 100 Pack Spindle. If Amazon maintains those prices I'm unlikely to buy anything other than Amazon discs in the future. But if Amazon raises its prices and if Memorex puts its disc on sale, I would definitely feel comfortable buying them in the future. | ||
 | Memorex DVD+R 16x 4.7GB 100 Pack Spindle | |
| "Nice improvement in redesign of discs" | 2009-10-04 |
| I've always been sceptical of low reviews based failure rate. I've used Memorex discs on three or four occasions (by that, I mean that I've purchased three or four 100 Pack Spindles -- I buy what is cheapest either on Amazon or at my local Staples). I have found none of the problems with failure that some other reviewers have noted. I am not saying that they haven't had those problems. I can only assert that I have not had the same experience.
I have, however, had some complaints with Memorex discs in the past. I do not bother to make labels for the discs that I burn -- I don't want to spend the money either on the printer ink or for labels. I write on the discs using DVD markers. Until recently Memorex's discs were all silver, but covered with a number of irritating dots. You could write over them, but the surfaces weren't as marker-friendly as other discs, like those made by TDK or Sony. So, my only complaint against Memorex has disappeared. This may, however, only be academic. Amazon is now producing its own brand of blank DVDs. I've been extremely happy with both the DVD+R and DVD-R discs that Amazon now makes. And their prices so far have been below $20 for a 100 Pack Spindle. If Amazon maintains those prices I'm unlikely to buy anything other than Amazon discs in the future. But if Amazon raises its prices and if Memorex puts its disc on sale, I would definitely feel comfortable buying them in the future. | ||
 | Batman - The Animated Series, Volume One (DC Comics Classic Collection) | |
| "Almost two decades later, still an enormously impressive series" | 2009-10-04 |
| When my daughter was extremely young, I would record BATMAN - THE ANIMATED SERIES on our VCR and after picking her up at the babysitter, she and I would watch that days episode. I was careful as a parent not to expose her to junk and anxious for her to see only the best entertainment suitable for kids. I also loved watching BATMAN with her because it was such an incredibly impressive show. The animation in almost every shot is carefully thought out and beautifully designed. Almost every shot is suitable for framing.
Rewatching these recently for the first time since viewing them as they came out for the first time I was delighted to see that I found them as good as ever. These were the cartoons that started DC's remarkable string of shows that have continued into the present (Marvel has dominated feature length films, but DC has been far more effective on the animated front). And they remain among the finest animated cartoons ever made for television. | ||
 | Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (Book 3) | |
| "A pivotal book that signals the transformation of the series into a grand epic" | 2009-10-03 |
| The first two novels in the Harry Potter series were fun and entertaining, but they hardly indicated just how very good the series was going to become. THE SORCERER'S STONE and THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS both had more in common with older kid's adventure stories like the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew than anything. I cannot possibly communicate my admiration and respect for J. K. Rowling for not being content with producing merely a superior adventure story, just another yarn. In a review I recently wrote about the Harry Potter movies, I said that the first two movies, like the first two novels, were rather simple in their structure, pretty much of the "Gee! Let's have a neat adventure!" variety. But beginning with THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN Rowling began to transform her series into something difference. The series shifted from being a series of "Neat Adventures" to being a grand epic reflecting the struggle between good and evil. While THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN doesn't reach the heights of THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX and THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE, it definitely marks a dramatic step forward both in quality and in ambitions.
There are very few series in the history of literature where you see a similar improvement in quality. The first two books were good, but THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN was very good, THE GOBLET OF FIRE even better, and THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX and subsequent books truly great. But this is the key novel. It introduced a seriousness and depth lacking in the first two books. In case there are any human beings who have read only the first two novels but not this one and are wondering whether or not to push forward, be sure to keep reading. The books in the series truly do get better with each subsequent book. | ||
 | Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban | |
| "A pivotal book that signals the transformation of the series into a grand epic" | 2009-10-03 |
| The first two novels in the Harry Potter series were fun and entertaining, but they hardly indicated just how very good the series was going to become. THE SORCERER'S STONE and THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS both had more in common with older kid's adventure stories like the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew than anything. I cannot possibly communicate my admiration and respect for J. K. Rowling for not being content with producing merely a superior adventure story, just another yarn. In a review I recently wrote about the Harry Potter movies, I said that the first two movies, like the first two novels, were rather simple in their structure, pretty much of the "Gee! Let's have a neat adventure!" variety. But beginning with THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN Rowling began to transform her series into something difference. The series shifted from being a series of "Neat Adventures" to being a grand epic reflecting the struggle between good and evil. While THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN doesn't reach the heights of THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX and THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE, it definitely marks a dramatic step forward both in quality and in ambitions.
There are very few series in the history of literature where you see a similar improvement in quality. The first two books were good, but THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN was very good, THE GOBLET OF FIRE even better, and THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX and subsequent books truly great. But this is the key novel. It introduced a seriousness and depth lacking in the first two books. In case there are any human beings who have read only the first two novels but not this one and are wondering whether or not to push forward, be sure to keep reading. The books in the series truly do get better with each subsequent book. | ||
 | Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban | |
| "A pivotal book that signals the transformation of the series into a grand epic" | 2009-10-03 |
| The first two novels in the Harry Potter series were fun and entertaining, but they hardly indicated just how very good the series was going to become. THE SORCERER'S STONE and THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS both had more in common with older kid's adventure stories like the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew than anything. I cannot possibly communicate my admiration and respect for J. K. Rowling for not being content with producing merely a superior adventure story, just another yarn. In a review I recently wrote about the Harry Potter movies, I said that the first two movies, like the first two novels, were rather simple in their structure, pretty much of the "Gee! Let's have a neat adventure!" variety. But beginning with THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN Rowling began to transform her series into something difference. The series shifted from being a series of "Neat Adventures" to being a grand epic reflecting the struggle between good and evil. While THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN doesn't reach the heights of THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX and THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE, it definitely marks a dramatic step forward both in quality and in ambitions.
There are very few series in the history of literature where you see a similar improvement in quality. The first two books were good, but THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN was very good, THE GOBLET OF FIRE even better, and THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX and subsequent books truly great. But this is the key novel. It introduced a seriousness and depth lacking in the first two books. In case there are any human beings who have read only the first two novels but not this one and are wondering whether or not to push forward, be sure to keep reading. The books in the series truly do get better with each subsequent book. | ||
 | Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - LARGE PRINT #3 by J. K. Rowling, ISBN 0786222743 | |
| "A pivotal book that signals the transformation of the series into a grand epic" | 2009-10-03 |
| The first two novels in the Harry Potter series were fun and entertaining, but they hardly indicated just how very good the series was going to become. THE SORCERER'S STONE and THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS both had more in common with older kid's adventure stories like the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew than anything. I cannot possibly communicate my admiration and respect for J. K. Rowling for not being content with producing merely a superior adventure story, just another yarn. In a review I recently wrote about the Harry Potter movies, I said that the first two movies, like the first two novels, were rather simple in their structure, pretty much of the "Gee! Let's have a neat adventure!" variety. But beginning with THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN Rowling began to transform her series into something difference. The series shifted from being a series of "Neat Adventures" to being a grand epic reflecting the struggle between good and evil. While THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN doesn't reach the heights of THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX and THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE, it definitely marks a dramatic step forward both in quality and in ambitions.
There are very few series in the history of literature where you see a similar improvement in quality. The first two books were good, but THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN was very good, THE GOBLET OF FIRE even better, and THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX and subsequent books truly great. But this is the key novel. It introduced a seriousness and depth lacking in the first two books. In case there are any human beings who have read only the first two novels but not this one and are wondering whether or not to push forward, be sure to keep reading. The books in the series truly do get better with each subsequent book. | ||
 | Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban | |
| "A pivotal book that signals the transformation of the series into a grand epic" | 2009-10-03 |
| The first two novels in the Harry Potter series were fun and entertaining, but they hardly indicated just how very good the series was going to become. THE SORCERER'S STONE and THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS both had more in common with older kid's adventure stories like the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew than anything. I cannot possibly communicate my admiration and respect for J. K. Rowling for not being content with producing merely a superior adventure story, just another yarn. In a review I recently wrote about the Harry Potter movies, I said that the first two movies, like the first two novels, were rather simple in their structure, pretty much of the "Gee! Let's have a neat adventure!" variety. But beginning with THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN Rowling began to transform her series into something difference. The series shifted from being a series of "Neat Adventures" to being a grand epic reflecting the struggle between good and evil. While THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN doesn't reach the heights of THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX and THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE, it definitely marks a dramatic step forward both in quality and in ambitions.
There are very few series in the history of literature where you see a similar improvement in quality. The first two books were good, but THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN was very good, THE GOBLET OF FIRE even better, and THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX and subsequent books truly great. But this is the key novel. It introduced a seriousness and depth lacking in the first two books. In case there are any human beings who have read only the first two novels but not this one and are wondering whether or not to push forward, be sure to keep reading. The books in the series truly do get better with each subsequent book. | ||
 | Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban | |
| "A pivotal book that signals the transformation of the series into a grand epic" | 2009-10-03 |
| The first two novels in the Harry Potter series were fun and entertaining, but they hardly indicated just how very good the series was going to become. THE SORCERER'S STONE and THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS both had more in common with older kid's adventure stories like the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew than anything. I cannot possibly communicate my admiration and respect for J. K. Rowling for not being content with producing merely a superior adventure story, just another yarn. In a review I recently wrote about the Harry Potter movies, I said that the first two movies, like the first two novels, were rather simple in their structure, pretty much of the "Gee! Let's have a neat adventure!" variety. But beginning with THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN Rowling began to transform her series into something difference. The series shifted from being a series of "Neat Adventures" to being a grand epic reflecting the struggle between good and evil. While THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN doesn't reach the heights of THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX and THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE, it definitely marks a dramatic step forward both in quality and in ambitions.
There are very few series in the history of literature where you see a similar improvement in quality. The first two books were good, but THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN was very good, THE GOBLET OF FIRE even better, and THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX and subsequent books truly great. But this is the key novel. It introduced a seriousness and depth lacking in the first two books. In case there are any human beings who have read only the first two novels but not this one and are wondering whether or not to push forward, be sure to keep reading. The books in the series truly do get better with each subsequent book. | ||
 | Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (Full Screen Edition) | |
| "A weak beginning to a series that would get much better" | 2009-09-29 |
| I find it interesting that both the books and the movies in the Harry Potter saga got much better as they went along. The book did not have to go as far as the movies to become excellent, but both of them got good with HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN. The difference in quality between the first two Harry Potter movies and the third is vast. Most of it was due to Alfonso Cuarón's amazing direction in the third film, after Chris Columbus's rather timid direction in the first two films. Alfonso Cuarón raised the standard in the film series to an entirely new level, and subsequent directors (Cuarón turned down offers to continue directing films in the series, instead opting to make the absolutely extraordinary CHILDREN OF MEN instead, easily one of the best films of the past decade) took THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN as the model to follow, instead of the lackluster first two films.
The first film especially is hurt by the inexperienced lead actors. Daniel Radcliffe especially would improve as an actor in later films, but in this one he is often painful to watch, especially in the many shots in which Harry grins hugely, with the director holding the shot way beyond anyone's reasonable comfort level. Those in charge of casting might have wondered after the first film if they had done a wise job, but with each movie the three leads got better and better in their roles, to the point now where they are actually very good actors. Whatever gamble there was in casting the three definitely paid off. The general opinion at the time of the first film was that some or all the three young actors would need to be replaced by the time the final films were going to be made. Thankfully, they were able to complete all the films while the actors were young enough. Still, as good as they have become in later films, they were all, especially Daniel Radcliffe, difficulty to watch in this first film. But the real weakness in the film remains the incredibly bland direction. The first two films seem to have been made with 10-year-olds in mind. There is no darkness and they proceed from one gee-whiz moment to another. Still, the film is not without its merits. While the three young leads had not yet grown into their roles, the casting for most of the other roles was exceptional. Richard Harris before his death made a very fine Dumbledore. And how perfect is Robby Coltrane as Hagrid? The casting of the great Alan Rickman was prescient, since at the time of the first film it hadn't yet been made clear how important Snape would be to later installments. But as great as all of these people would be (and through THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE the supporting characters have been persistently brilliant), for me the single most delightful supporting actor is Richard Griffiths as Harry's utterly absurd and completely delightful Uncle Dursley. But still, too much of the film is nothing but set pieces and special effects and the like. There isn't much substance. Most kids that I've talked to seem to enjoy THE SORCERER'S STONE; almost all adults that I have talked to find it pretty dull. The best thing, however, is that the movies get much, much better as they go along. THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN is easily the best of the bunch, but all of the films released after it were much stronger than the first two. My big hope now is that the final two films (which will recount the final novel) will be as good. | ||
 | He, She and It | |
| "The of the two best novels on Cyborgs that I have ever read" | 2009-09-27 |
| I don't mean the title of my review title lightly. I truly do believe that this is the best novel on cyborgs or robots that I have ever read, along with Philip K. Dick's masterpiece DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SLEEP? Both books explore the question of personhood not merely by examining a central character who is a artificial human, but by looking at artificiality in human beings as well. Yod is a cyborg who has been constructed by a scientist in an independent Jewish enclave in the late 21st century. But the people in the novel are equally artificial. Some have been technically augmented to such an extent that they can't easily be considered human. Others have been altered in appearance by plastic surgery in order to conform to the latest aesthetic standards. Even the book's major character, Shira, has received multiple enhancements. Early in the book she is able to read the time off ocular implants and she, like most of the characters in the book, can go onto the Net by plugging into a plug attached to her brain. By the end of the book it isn't clear how sharply the line can be drawn between people and machines.
HE, SHE AND IT (originally titled BODY OF GLASS) is both an updating and retelling of the Golem of Prague story. In the past century this story has been communicated most famously in the Paul Wegener film (who also played the Golem), where the Golem is portrayed as more a monster than anything (though not a very good movie, it is visually unforgettable, and was one of the major influences on James Whale's FRANKENSTEIN, especially in the portrayal of the monster). Golems have appeared in a number of books, TV series, and computer games (e.g., Terry Pratchett's Discworld novel FEET OF CLAY introduces a Golem who becomes a member of the Night Watch; an episode of THE X-FILES features a Golem; and golems have features in a number of games, such as the MMORPG Asheron's Call). In Piercy's novel the parallels between the Golem of Prague and Yod are underscored in many ways, not least in Malkah's telling to Yod of the story. Just as the golem Joseph was created by Rabbi Loeb to protect the Jewish ghetto in Prague from pograms, so Yod is created to protect an independent Jewish enclave from encroachment from one of the vast corporations that control the planet. Yod is one of the most fascinating cyborgs in literature. Many novelists have struggled to depict robots and cyborgs in convincing ways. Most novelists end up making the cyborgs pretty much indistinguishable from people. Others make the robots so mechanical as to be silly and unbelievable (I find this fault with almost all of Asimov's robots). Yod is less mechanical than Asimov's automatons, but more than inhuman. The story isn't completely immune to one of the most absurd assumptions ever made about robots and cyborgs: that they would be normally be made incapable of hurting people. The silly notion that robots would be incapable of hurting people was the fault of Asimov and his laws of robotics, some of the most nonsensical tripe ever put forward. Even a couple of seconds thought would be sufficient to make anyone realize that robots would initially be primarily created to hurt or kill humans. Most of the initial research on robots was done under the funding of DARPA, a branch of the Defense Department. Virtually all of the current research in robotics in the United States is funded by DARPA. And the U.S. military has thousands of robots on active duty. Ironically, PackBots are used in huge numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan in both armed an unarmed versions, and are made by the iRobot corporation (the makers of the Roomba vacuum cleaners), a corporation named in honor of Asimov's famous collection of short stories, stories in which he developed the silly notion of robots that would not hurt people. The most obvious use of robots is military situations where the danger to human life (at least to one's own soldiers) is minimized. The world that Marge Piercy assumes is a fascinating one. The United States has always been characterized by an almost unreasoning fear of government. At the same time, there is far less fear of companies and corporations. I'm the opposite. I'm terrified of the moral stance of the corporate world. Interestingly, the so-called founder of American conservatism, John Adams, was, like Adam Smith (who felt that those who participated in the market should play no role in government), leery about the influence that market forces and merchants would have on democracy. He feared an economic elite and felt that the most important role of the executive branch was to resist the formation of such an economic elite. So I've always found my country's belief in a benevolent corporate world to be odd at best. While Adams was, I think, wrong in hoping that the executive branch would act as an effective deterrent to corporate influences, I do think that we in the middle class are better off pegging our hopes on government as a deterrent to the corporate world than the corporate world as a deterrent to government. Most Sci-fi writers tend to view the corporate world with a sceptical eye. In Kim Stanley Robinson's great Mars Trilogy the bad guys are the transnational corporations who control the various national governments, and who see Mars as an asset to be exploited. In Piercy's novel, any semblance of either state or national government is nonexistent. Corporations have taken over the world. Or what is left of the world. The novel reflects the predictions of scientists of what will happen if something isn't done to reverse the effects of global warming. Coastlines are receding; people cannot go out into sunlight without danger to their health; water and air quality is dire; cities are intensely crowded. Corporations control everything and their pursuit of the small independent enclave that Yod protects is based partly on their desire to acquire the research they have been engaged in (primarily Yod himself), but mainly on their outrage of a village that exists outside of corporate influence. This is a marvelously rich and deeply textured novel. Marge Piercy is not primarily or even especially a Sci-fi writer, even though William Gibson has credited her earlier novel WOMAN ON THE EDGE OF TIME with directly inspiring the birth of Cyberpunk. The problem with many Sci-fi novels is that they usually don't hold up as novels. They often contain many fascinating elements, but they usually do not compare well with the best mainstream novels with the quality of their prose or with character development. This novel is simply a fine novel, not merely a Sci-fi novel. The book has generated a significant literature by feminist literary critics and is frequently cited as an important work in the discussion of cyborgs (Piercy cites Donna Haraway's important essay "A Cyborg Manifesto" as an influence on her book). I believe that this should be read by anyone who loves books in general, but in particular by those interested in superbly written Sci-fi novels. It will also appeal to those who are interested in dystopian literature or by books that explore questions of gender in a Sci-fi context (it compares nicely with Atwood's THE HANDMAID'S TALE in this regard). And if you are interested in great books on cyborgs and robots, this has to be on the shortest of short lists, even if that list has only one or two items. | ||
 | The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution | |
 | "An excellent, if overly polemical, explanation of the logic of evolutionary theory" | 2009-09-23 |
| I found this book somewhat frustrating. On the one hand, it is a brilliant and clear explanation of evolution and why it takes a huge failure in logic to deny its reality. (I write, by the way as a Christian. Like a huge number of religious individuals, as Dawkins notes, I see no necessary conflict between evolution and Christianity.) Dawkins frequently does a great job of explaining the logic of evolutionary theory and gives a good idea of the overwhelming amount of evidence -- on a number of different planes -- for its truth. On the other hand, Dawkins is a polemicist. It seems to be hardwired in his personality and he always chooses to write not only for the benefit of being understood but also to be in debate with someone. This combativeness does not mitigate the truth or accuracy of anything he writes, but it does give the book a certain tone that some might find off putting.
At his best Dawkins does an extraordinary job of explaining clearly and eloquently. And I learned a great deal from his recounting. For instance, I was not really aware that the fossil record is not really important and played no role in the development of the theory of evolution. Neither Darwin nor Wallace based their theory on the fossil record nor have subsequent scientists. Dawkins brings this up in discussing those evolution deniers who point to a supposed gap in the fossil record as evidence against evolution. But Dawkins points out that since evolution was never based on the fossil record, this is no point against it; on the other hand, all of the fossil evidence as it currently exists provides overwhelming support to the theory. He also does a marvelous job of both explaining the logic of many ideas such as the rather silly "missing link" as well as what it means to say that panthers and rabbits both have predecessor species in common. As I said, a great deal of the book is polemical, but while I find the combative tone somewhat exasperating, it also provides a great deal of understanding. For instance, he points out that so many things in animal physiology do not point towards any kind of intelligent design; much design is quite unintelligent. The inefficiency of the human spine makes no sense from the standpoint of intelligent design, but makes a great deal of sense if you assume the reality of evolution. In other words, evolution can explain a host of vagaries in animals where intelligent design fails. I loved about 90% of this book but I was flabbergasted by one absolutely absurd assumption that Dawkins makes throughout. He repeatedly states that 40% of all Americans deny evolution and believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old. I know that there are many, many people who deny evolution, perhaps even the 40% that Dawkins cites. But it is simply and outrageously absurd to state that 40% believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old. It is a preposterous assumption. I grew up in Little Rock, Arkansas, raised in a Southern Baptist church. I grew up surrounded by fundamentalists and in fact could have been considered a fundamentalist myself until college. That college was a Southern Baptist college and I later spent a year in a Southern Baptist Seminary before pursuing graduate studies elsewhere. I served as a music director or a youth director in several Southern Baptist churches, though I later left the SBC after numerous gestures of utter stupidity by the denomination (such as declaring that women were to be subservient to men). In other words, I've known a host of fundamentalists and evangelicals, many of whom deny the reality of evolution. But in that entire time I've known only one person who believed that the earth was only six thousand years old. It is simply ridiculous to believe that 40% of all Americans believe the earth is that young and are therefore the "history deniers" that Dawkins writes so vociferously against. How did such an intelligent man as Dawkins get this so wrong? I'm not completely sure, but he does state a false modus ponens: either you believe in evolution or you deny it and also believe the world is only 6,000 years old. I am quite confident that his 40% figure as regards people who do not believe in evolution is correct, but I am implacably certain that assuming that the same 40% believe the earth is only a few thousand years old it complete bunk. How a man as smart as Dawkins could believe such an absurdity is beyond my capacity to explain. It is like believing in unicorns or centaurs. Now, I can grant that it may not be logical to believe in an old earth and to deny evolution, but I believe that this is nonetheless the situation with most evangelicals who deny evolution. Their position may not ultimately make sense, but it doesn't mean that they willingly embrace a larger absurdity. I'm sure more people believe that the earth is only 6,000 year old than believe that the earth is flat, but I am pretty confident that the number of people who so believe is closer to the number of flat-earthers than the 40% Dawkins cites. Evangelicals really don't believe in huge numbers in a young earth, even if many do deny evolution. All in all, I heartily recommend this book to anyone wanting to understand contemporary science more fully. It also does a good job of exposing - as if it needed further exposure - the baselessness of intelligent design. I do, in fact, unlike Dawkins, believe in God as creator of the universe. But that isn't what "intelligent design" holds. It is a name for a competing view of the fact of animals species that is intended as a competitor for evolution. The problem is that it really isn't a scientific theory. Evolution looks at the scientific data and draws conclusions from it. Intelligent design starts off with what it wants to conclude and then goes off looking for evidence. That simply is not the way science works. And as a Christian who believes that science makes sense because God created the universe with logical principles that we, as created in the image of god, can discover, I want to see my fellow Christians give up well-intended but ultimately un-Christian theories. God does not love untruth and Intelligent Design is no true. Dawkins would not agree with anything in this paragraph, but he does cite Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, and Pope Benedict as two people who would agree with what I've just written. On a side note, I bought my copy of this book in a Borders on a shelf that also displayed an audiobook version of the book. I was interested to see that it was read by both Dawkins and his wife Laila Ward. Fans of DOCTOR WHO may remember Laila Ward as Romana, the companion of the Fourth Doctor, played by Tom Baker, to whom she was briefly married (obviously, before she was married to Richard Dawkins). | ||
 | Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone | |
| "A wonderful beginning to a great series -- and it is great on a rereading!" | 2009-09-20 |
| I am currently rereading the Harry Potter books for the first time since J. K. Rowling concluded her series. What most impressed me about the series the first time through was how much better it got as it went along. The first two novels in the series -- THE SORCERER'S STONE and THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS -- were fun and interesting, but not great. THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN, however, I did think qualified as great, and the subsequent books were even better. I tremendously admired Rowling in all this. I'm sure that she had absolutely no idea that the books would become the phenomenon that they did. She could have coasted and produced several more novels on the same level as the first two, but instead she worked extremely hard, improved her craft, and kept faith with her readers. The quality of the first novels compared with the later novels is immense. Whether or not the series deserved the degree of hype it received early on can be debated, but by the time Rowling completed her saga it definitely warranted all the praise that it had received.
Nonetheless, even though THE SORCERER'S STONE is nowhere as good as the later books would be, this is a better book than I remembered. Rowling does a tremendous job of setting up the overall situation, imbuing her story with primal elements that perfectly appeal not merely to child readers, but any reader. Many of these elements are similar to what one finds in classic fairy tales: a child with a hidden destiny and unacknowledged worth is abused and debased by uncaring foster parents. This is as basic a set up as they come. And the details that Rowling develops as she chronicles Harry's life with the Dursleys are exquisite. There are times when she almost goes over the top and the neglect of the Dursleys become absurd, but all in all the effect is delightful. The contrast between Harry's nightmarish life with the Dursleys and his exciting, if sometimes dangerous, life at Hogwarts is immense. The closest thing I have to a complaint to the first novel is that the overall story is simply not very strong. What makes up for this is the frequently delicious description of Hogwarts. The places, traditions, people, and entities she describes are consistently marvelous. Diagon Alley, Haggrid, the Hogwarts Express departing from Platform Nine and Three Quarters, the Sorting Hat, the four houses of Hogwarts, Nearly Headless Nick, and numerous other details are simply superb. And Rowling creates a wonderful cast of characters. Harry, Ron, and Hermione are a truly great trio, as is Dumbledore and Snape and all the denizens of Hogwarts. As I said, I think the dramatic arc of this novel is the weakest part of the book, but the world she creates is nearly perfect. The subsequent novels would exploit this wonderful world to create a great overall story. Now I'm going to say something controversial and will probably make some people mad, but I want to write an honest review. For me the one really false note that runs through all of the Harry Potter books is quidditch, which is improbably described as the greatest game in the world. I find almost nothing interesting and appealing about this game, even if people could ride on brooms. One could point to a host of minor problems with the game, but the biggest would be the absurd number of points assigned to the catching of the Golden Snitch. Catching the Snitch garners so many points as to render the rest of the game as nearly irrelevant. Apart from the fact that the game is played by people who are flying, I found almost nothing interesting about the game. And as much as I came to love the series in the later novels, I never came to like anything about quidditch. All in all this is a fine start to a great series. The main achievement in this first book is the wonderful, literally magical world that Rowling creates. While the stories would get better, the initial set up could not have been more perfect. I look anxiously forward to the next book in the series. | ||
 | Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (Book 1) | |
| "A wonderful beginning to a great series -- and it is great on a rereading!" | 2009-09-20 |
| I am currently rereading the Harry Potter books for the first time since J. K. Rowling concluded her series. What most impressed me about the series the first time through was how much better it got as it went along. The first two novels in the series -- THE SORCERER'S STONE and THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS -- were fun and interesting, but not great. THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN, however, I did think qualified as great, and the subsequent books were even better. I tremendously admired Rowling in all this. I'm sure that she had absolutely no idea that the books would become the phenomenon that they did. She could have coasted and produced several more novels on the same level as the first two, but instead she worked extremely hard, improved her craft, and kept faith with her readers. The quality of the first novels compared with the later novels is immense. Whether or not the series deserved the degree of hype it received early on can be debated, but by the time Rowling completed her saga it definitely warranted all the praise that it had received.
Nonetheless, even though THE SORCERER'S STONE is nowhere as good as the later books would be, this is a better book than I remembered. Rowling does a tremendous job of setting up the overall situation, imbuing her story with primal elements that perfectly appeal not merely to child readers, but any reader. Many of these elements are similar to what one finds in classic fairy tales: a child with a hidden destiny and unacknowledged worth is abused and debased by uncaring foster parents. This is as basic a set up as they come. And the details that Rowling develops as she chronicles Harry's life with the Dursleys are exquisite. There are times when she almost goes over the top and the neglect of the Dursleys become absurd, but all in all the effect is delightful. The contrast between Harry's nightmarish life with the Dursleys and his exciting, if sometimes dangerous, life at Hogwarts is immense. The closest thing I have to a complaint to the first novel is that the overall story is simply not very strong. What makes up for this is the frequently delicious description of Hogwarts. The places, traditions, people, and entities she describes are consistently marvelous. Diagon Alley, Haggrid, the Hogwarts Express departing from Platform Nine and Three Quarters, the Sorting Hat, the four houses of Hogwarts, Nearly Headless Nick, and numerous other details are simply superb. And Rowling creates a wonderful cast of characters. Harry, Ron, and Hermione are a truly great trio, as is Dumbledore and Snape and all the denizens of Hogwarts. As I said, I think the dramatic arc of this novel is the weakest part of the book, but the world she creates is nearly perfect. The subsequent novels would exploit this wonderful world to create a great overall story. Now I'm going to say something controversial and will probably make some people mad, but I want to write an honest review. For me the one really false note that runs through all of the Harry Potter books is quidditch, which is improbably described as the greatest game in the world. I find almost nothing interesting and appealing about this game, even if people could ride on brooms. One could point to a host of minor problems with the game, but the biggest would be the absurd number of points assigned to the catching of the Golden Snitch. Catching the Snitch garners so many points as to render the rest of the game as nearly irrelevant. Apart from the fact that the game is played by people who are flying, I found almost nothing interesting about the game. And as much as I came to love the series in the later novels, I never came to like anything about quidditch. All in all this is a fine start to a great series. The main achievement in this first book is the wonderful, literally magical world that Rowling creates. While the stories would get better, the initial set up could not have been more perfect. I look anxiously forward to the next book in the series. | ||
 | Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (Harry Potter (Paperback)) | |
| "A wonderful beginning to a great series -- and it is great on a rereading!" | 2009-09-20 |
| I am currently rereading the Harry Potter books for the first time since J. K. Rowling concluded her series. What most impressed me about the series the first time through was how much better it got as it went along. The first two novels in the series -- THE SORCERER'S STONE and THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS -- were fun and interesting, but not great. THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN, however, I did think qualified as great, and the subsequent books were even better. I tremendously admired Rowling in all this. I'm sure that she had absolutely no idea that the books would become the phenomenon that they did. She could have coasted and produced several more novels on the same level as the first two, but instead she worked extremely hard, improved her craft, and kept faith with her readers. The quality of the first novels compared with the later novels is immense. Whether or not the series deserved the degree of hype it received early on can be debated, but by the time Rowling completed her saga it definitely warranted all the praise that it had received.
Nonetheless, even though THE SORCERER'S STONE is nowhere as good as the later books would be, this is a better book than I remembered. Rowling does a tremendous job of setting up the overall situation, imbuing her story with primal elements that perfectly appeal not merely to child readers, but any reader. Many of these elements are similar to what one finds in classic fairy tales: a child with a hidden destiny and unacknowledged worth is abused and debased by uncaring foster parents. This is as basic a set up as they come. And the details that Rowling develops as she chronicles Harry's life with the Dursleys are exquisite. There are times when she almost goes over the top and the neglect of the Dursleys become absurd, but all in all the effect is delightful. The contrast between Harry's nightmarish life with the Dursleys and his exciting, if sometimes dangerous, life at Hogwarts is immense. The closest thing I have to a complaint to the first novel is that the overall story is simply not very strong. What makes up for this is the frequently delicious description of Hogwarts. The places, traditions, people, and entities she describes are consistently marvelous. Diagon Alley, Haggrid, the Hogwarts Express departing from Platform Nine and Three Quarters, the Sorting Hat, the four houses of Hogwarts, Nearly Headless Nick, and numerous other details are simply superb. And Rowling creates a wonderful cast of characters. Harry, Ron, and Hermione are a truly great trio, as is Dumbledore and Snape and all the denizens of Hogwarts. As I said, I think the dramatic arc of this novel is the weakest part of the book, but the world she creates is nearly perfect. The subsequent novels would exploit this wonderful world to create a great overall story. Now I'm going to say something controversial and will probably make some people mad, but I want to write an honest review. For me the one really false note that runs through all of the Harry Potter books is quidditch, which is improbably described as the greatest game in the world. I find almost nothing interesting and appealing about this game, even if people could ride on brooms. One could point to a host of minor problems with the game, but the biggest would be the absurd number of points assigned to the catching of the Golden Snitch. Catching the Snitch garners so many points as to render the rest of the game as nearly irrelevant. Apart from the fact that the game is played by people who are flying, I found almost nothing interesting about the game. And as much as I came to love the series in the later novels, I never came to like anything about quidditch. All in all this is a fine start to a great series. The main achievement in this first book is the wonderful, literally magical world that Rowling creates. While the stories would get better, the initial set up could not have been more perfect. I look anxiously forward to the next book in the series. | ||
 | Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets | |
| "Completes the introduction to the Harry Potter universe" | 2009-09-20 |
| The first two books in the Harry Potter series really function as an introduction to the final five novels in the series. They are also the least sophisticated. THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN introduces a depth and sophistication almost completely lacking in the first two books, which while fun are really more books for kids than books for kids and adults.
THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS essentially repeated the first novel. At the end of the novel one would safely have assumed that a formula had been established. Virtually every segment of the first novel had an analog in the second. But to her great credit, in the third novel she broke the apparent formula at several crucial points, with delightful results. From the third novel on, nothing about Harry Potter was predictable. There isn't really anything wrong with the second novel; it simply doesn't add a great deal to the mix. Of the seven novels, it is the least innovative, the least adventurous. It is the least exceptional and least exciting. The fact that it breaks no new ground -- apart from the introduction of some new characters and some nice details -- is what causes me to call it part of the introduction to the series, along with the previous book. Within those limitations, the book is a delight. There are numerous truly funny moments and a host of delightful details. When the series of books was coming out, many critics complained at this point that the series was somewhat superficial, that the books lacked any real sense of evil, of danger. I think there was a certain validity to that. Voldemort was more of a cardboard villain, twirling his mustache. All of this changed in the third novel. It added a level of depth and seriousness previously lacking, and there were so many surprises that one could no longer take the story for granted. Bad things could and did happen. As in the best long narratives, a body count built up. Had the series ended with this novel we probably wouldn't have continued to be fascinated with Harry Potter, Hogwarts, and Dumbledore. Luckily, the series got much, much better, and sooner than we could have hoped. | ||
 | Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Book 2) | |
| "Completes the introduction to the Harry Potter universe" | 2009-09-20 |
| The first two books in the Harry Potter series really function as an introduction to the final five novels in the series. They are also the least sophisticated. THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN introduces a depth and sophistication almost completely lacking in the first two books, which while fun are really more books for kids than books for kids and adults.
THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS essentially repeated the first novel. At the end of the novel one would safely have assumed that a formula had been established. Virtually every segment of the first novel had an analog in the second. But to her great credit, in the third novel she broke the apparent formula at several crucial points, with delightful results. From the third novel on, nothing about Harry Potter was predictable. There isn't really anything wrong with the second novel; it simply doesn't add a great deal to the mix. Of the seven novels, it is the least innovative, the least adventurous. It is the least exceptional and least exciting. The fact that it breaks no new ground -- apart from the introduction of some new characters and some nice details -- is what causes me to call it part of the introduction to the series, along with the previous book. Within those limitations, the book is a delight. There are numerous truly funny moments and a host of delightful details. When the series of books was coming out, many critics complained at this point that the series was somewhat superficial, that the books lacked any real sense of evil, of danger. I think there was a certain validity to that. Voldemort was more of a cardboard villain, twirling his mustache. All of this changed in the third novel. It added a level of depth and seriousness previously lacking, and there were so many surprises that one could no longer take the story for granted. Bad things could and did happen. As in the best long narratives, a body count built up. Had the series ended with this novel we probably wouldn't have continued to be fascinated with Harry Potter, Hogwarts, and Dumbledore. Luckily, the series got much, much better, and sooner than we could have hoped. | ||
 | Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets | |
| "Completes the introduction to the Harry Potter universe" | 2009-09-20 |
| The first two books in the Harry Potter series really function as an introduction to the final five novels in the series. They are also the least sophisticated. THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN introduces a depth and sophistication almost completely lacking in the first two books, which while fun are really more books for kids than books for kids and adults.
THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS essentially repeated the first novel. At the end of the novel one would safely have assumed that a formula had been established. Virtually every segment of the first novel had an analog in the second. But to her great credit, in the third novel she broke the apparent formula at several crucial points, with delightful results. From the third novel on, nothing about Harry Potter was predictable. There isn't really anything wrong with the second novel; it simply doesn't add a great deal to the mix. Of the seven novels, it is the least innovative, the least adventurous. It is the least exceptional and least exciting. The fact that it breaks no new ground -- apart from the introduction of some new characters and some nice details -- is what causes me to call it part of the introduction to the series, along with the previous book. Within those limitations, the book is a delight. There are numerous truly funny moments and a host of delightful details. When the series of books was coming out, many critics complained at this point that the series was somewhat superficial, that the books lacked any real sense of evil, of danger. I think there was a certain validity to that. Voldemort was more of a cardboard villain, twirling his mustache. All of this changed in the third novel. It added a level of depth and seriousness previously lacking, and there were so many surprises that one could no longer take the story for granted. Bad things could and did happen. As in the best long narratives, a body count built up. Had the series ended with this novel we probably wouldn't have continued to be fascinated with Harry Potter, Hogwarts, and Dumbledore. Luckily, the series got much, much better, and sooner than we could have hoped. | ||
 | Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets | |
| "Completes the introduction to the Harry Potter universe" | 2009-09-20 |
| The first two books in the Harry Potter series really function as an introduction to the final five novels in the series. They are also the least sophisticated. THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN introduces a depth and sophistication almost completely lacking in the first two books, which while fun are really more books for kids than books for kids and adults.
THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS essentially repeated the first novel. At the end of the novel one would safely have assumed that a formula had been established. Virtually every segment of the first novel had an analog in the second. But to her great credit, in the third novel she broke the apparent formula at several crucial points, with delightful results. From the third novel on, nothing about Harry Potter was predictable. There isn't really anything wrong with the second novel; it simply doesn't add a great deal to the mix. Of the seven novels, it is the least innovative, the least adventurous. It is the least exceptional and least exciting. The fact that it breaks no new ground -- apart from the introduction of some new characters and some nice details -- is what causes me to call it part of the introduction to the series, along with the previous book. Within those limitations, the book is a delight. There are numerous truly funny moments and a host of delightful details. When the series of books was coming out, many critics complained at this point that the series was somewhat superficial, that the books lacked any real sense of evil, of danger. I think there was a certain validity to that. Voldemort was more of a cardboard villain, twirling his mustache. All of this changed in the third novel. It added a level of depth and seriousness previously lacking, and there were so many surprises that one could no longer take the story for granted. Bad things could and did happen. As in the best long narratives, a body count built up. Had the series ended with this novel we probably wouldn't have continued to be fascinated with Harry Potter, Hogwarts, and Dumbledore. Luckily, the series got much, much better, and sooner than we could have hoped. | ||
 | Preludes and Nocturnes (Sandman, Book 1) | |
| "My all time favorite long graphic series" | 2009-08-27 |
| I have just begun a re-reading of all of the Sandman volumes. I'm purchasing the current printings of the standalone volumes after having made what I now consider a mistake. I had gotten rid of my earlier Sandman books to buy the volumes in THE ABSOLUTE SANDMAN series. Big mistake, with emphasis on "big." I found that the volumes were, while quite beautiful, simply too heavy to use. They were so heavy that I could not find a comfortable way to read them. So, after having sold my original individual volumes so I could buy the larger collections, I sold the first two ABSOLUTE SANDMAN books so I could go back and get the newer editions of what I had previously gotten rid of. The result is that I've ended up buying Sandman three times. What I wish Vertigo had done was produce volumes that corresponded precisely to each individual original volume. I loved how great the pages in the ABSOLUTE SANDMAN looked, but it simply wasn't practical to use.
The Sandman series definitely got better as it went along, but even so it started marvelously. I had forgotten some of the things in this first volume, like the very brief appearance of J'onn J'onzz, which had completely escaped my memory. As I remembered it John Considine had not played as big a role as he did. Gaiman started off definitely wanting to locate the book in the DC universe. What we most love about the Sandman series, however, are the things that Gaiman brought to it. I loved this volume, but it really takes off for me with "A Death in the Family," in which we meet the Sandman's sister Death for the first time. I'm quite excited about getting back to the later volumes. Without any question, this is, along with FABLES, my favorite long series ever created. | ||
![Star Trek The Original Series: Season Two [Blu-ray]](product_images/4980000/star-trek-the-original-series_t-4980764.jpg) | Star Trek The Original Series: Season Two [Blu-ray] | |
| "A massive influence on popular culture " | 2009-08-24 |
| It is almost impossible to estimate the influence that STAR TREK has had on our culture. Nearly every aspect has managed to permeate society or the language of science fiction or even the language of science. And Season Two of STAR TREK is in the opinion of many, the best of its three. With the addition of Chekhov, the cast of the show was finalized. It is pretty well known that Walter Koenig's character was introduced to attract younger viewers; specifically he was supposed to remind people of Davy Jones of the Monkees. In his first episode (in order of being filmed, though not in order of broadcast), he sports one of the most absurd hairdos in the history of TV. They immediately toned down the hair and he took on the appearance with which we are all familiar. The season also finalized most of what we know about Vulcans (we hear "Live long and prosper"). And the season contains many classic episodes, including "Mirror, Mirror" (in which some of the crew of the Enterprise switch places with members of a Nazi like alternative reality), "Journey to Babel" (in which we meet Spock's parents), and "Amok Time," in which Spock is seen in the midst of his Vulcan society. There is also the episode that I most vividly remember from seeing all of the series in first run, "Who Mourns for Adonais?" I'd never seen anything like it, even on THE TWLIGHT ZONE. The show still isn't as developed as the STAR TREK universe would become (just look at the Klingons, who in no way resembled the Klingons of the future), but it is the first year where the show has all the earmarks of what we think of as STAR TREK.
The season also contains what is easily the most famous STAR TREK episode, "The Trouble with Tribbles." I have to confess to not caring for this episode. I didn't like it upon seeing it when it was first broadcast, I haven't cared for it on subsequent showings. I suppose the episode turns on whether you find it funny. I don't. I frequently find the show funny, but mainly when it isn't intending to be, primarily the very weird decisions that William Shatner makes as an actor. But in this episode, where he is supposed to be funny, I didn't find him funny at all. My favorite episode of Season Two -- and in fact my favorite STAR TREK episode ever -- was the great episode, "Assignment: Earth." The guest casting was brilliant, Robert Lansing as Gary Seven and a very young Teri Garr as Roberta Lincoln. We also saw, albeit very briefly, Vitoria Vetri, as the human form of the cat Isis. The episode was great in part because William Shatner, who may well be my least favorite major actor in the history of television, played an unusually minor role. Most of the action focused on Gary Seven, a mysterious human who had been trained by an unknown alien planet to intervene positively in American affairs. The episode was intended as a backdoor pilot to a new series. Personally, it breaks my heart that the show didn't go to series. It would have been a concept with absolutely no precedent in American television. And there were so many wonderful little quirks! For me it stands as one of the great could have beens of all time. And as a cat lover (though I'm equally fond of dogs) I absolutely adored Isis. She would have unquestionably have been the finest cat character in the history of television. And let me add that I have two black cats, sisters, who could be twins of the cat who played Isis. The main reason that I've never had a great love for STAR TREK is William Shatner. Since he plays what is clearly the central character on the show, if you hate him, you are going to struggle with the show. I find his frenetic, overstylized acting style to be off putting and distracting. I like Spock. I like Bones. I like Scotty. I even like Sulu and Chekhov and Uhura, but even as a child watching the show in first run I couldn't stand Shatner. I do find him hysterical as an actor for his bizarre mannerisms, but that pretty much kills the mood of what is supposed to be a serious show. Still, the importance of STAR TREK is huge. For one thing, it is the show that pretty much defined the notion of "fandom." For the first several decades of TV Studies, there was no real discussion of the content of shows. The narrative content was too minimal and in very few instances was there much of substance to discuss. During these decades there was no discussion of the narrative content of STAR TREK, nothing like textual analysis. But there were numerous discussions of STAR TREK's fan base. The birth of textual analysis of TV series is actually extremely recent. It was only with shows like TWIN PEAKS and THE X-FILES that TV scholars began anything like a textual analysis of shows. But it was BUFFY that caused the textual analysis of TV to really take off in a big way. Interestingly, to this day almost all academic discussion of STAR TREK has remained restricted to its fandom. With STAR TREK we saw the birth of the cult television series. We saw the birth of conventions focused on a particular show. These are cultural changes that we are still feeling. I rewatched both Season One and Season Two recently. I watched Season One on Blu-ray and Season two on DVD. I honestly think the show views better on DVD. The problem with Blu-ray is that the show is shown in detail that it was never meant to be seen in. In Blu-ray you can often see the join between Spock's real ear and his prosthesis. The phasers look like junkie little hunks of painted wood. You more or less see the details of the make up. I enjoyed Season Two more for the lack of detail, Season One less because of its there was too much of it. I will confess that I probably am not giving STAR TREK its due. Part of it stems from my deep abhorrence of William Shatner. Part is because of the lack of the development of television. Part of it is because of the way that too many elements of STAR TREK became clichés in other shows ("Shields down to 20%!"). Part of it is because of the limitations of television at the time. I watched a great deal of television as a child in the sixties, but as I matured I found television to be increasingly less satisfying. While I remained a fan of a few shows, like THE PRISONER and MONTY PYTHON, and later in the seventies and eighties with shows like TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY and THE SINGING DETECTIVE and BRIDESHEAD REVISITED. But it was only in the nineties with shows like TWIN PEAKS and THE X-FILES and NORTHERN EXPOSURE that I started getting interested in television again. BUFFY was the major turning point and after that I started watching television in a way that I hadn't since I was a small child. What pulled me back in was the long narrative format. Sixties, seventies, and most eighties television bored me to tears because there was virtually no ongoing narrative. Each episode pretty much ignored everything that had happened before on the series and didn't play heavily into episodes that followed. STAR TREK falls completely into this category and it is the main reason I've never been able to love it like I love a large number of other shows. Still, the original series brought a level of belief and commitment to its story that we'd not previously seen in a television Sci-fi series. For all Shatner's weaknesses as an actor, he is courageous and obviously is fully committing himself to what is taking place on the screen. And without STAR TREK we'd likely not seen so many of the shows that I later came to love. My all time favorite show, along with BUFFY, is the new BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, which was intended as a near complete rebuttal of everything that STAR TREK had introduced. Without STAR TREK, it would not have had it as a model against which to reinvent television Sci-fi (no aliens, no shields, no phasers, no "magic science"). And although it doesn't look terribly good today, for the time it was utterly unique. The sets look silly, but for the time the overall artwork was amazing. And there is one other aspect to STAR TREK. It did more for representing African-Americans and women in a more positive light than any other show of the sixties. The makers of the show thought nothing having an African-American actor play a great scientific genius, as in "The Ultimate Computer." So although STAR TREK was not enough to keep me interested in television due to the limitation of its episodic narrative format, I have to acknowledge everything it accomplished as a series. | ||
 | The Radicalism of the American Revolution | |
| "Perhaps the single most essential work on the American Revolution" | 2009-08-21 |
| I am currently reading, as part of Amazon's Vine Program, a prepublication copy of Gordon S. Wood's latest work, EMPIRE OF LIBERTY: A HISTORY OF THE EARLY REPUBLIC, 1789-1815, the latest volume in the Oxford History of the United States. I believe that it will go down as perhaps the finest, most essential work covering that period of American history. Excepting the particular historical details, there is little, however, in that work that is not already contained in embryo form in THE RADICALISM OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. I have for some time believed that Wood's book on the American Revolution is one of the great historical works in scholarship, one that provides as much insight into the founding of the nation as any book ever published. If you want to understand our nation, if you want to understand what is unique in the founding of the United States, this book is not only on the shortest of short lists, it is the first book on that list.
As Wood points out, many have regarded the American Revolution as a conservative one (not in the sense, however, of political conservativism), because many of what many have assumed were essential marks of any revolution were missing, such as class conflict, drastic poverty, and violent reconstruction of society. But as he carefully notes, the American Revolution was truly radical, in that it reshaped American society in the most extreme ways imaginable. Wood lays out in profound detail all the way the world was before, during, and after the Revolution. He explains both the ideals of the Founders and the ways the nation developed in ways that the Founders not only did not anticipate but did not -- at least those who lived long enough to see the new changes -- entirely approve. Wood's story is built around three competing views of the political construction of society: monarchism, republicanism, and democracy. The shift from monarchism to republicanism was immense, but the shift from republicanism to democracy was as huge and as radical, though it redefined the nation in ways that few of the Founders could approve. The shift from monarchism to republicanism Wood represents through spacial metaphors. In a monarchy individuals in society understood themselves in terms of vertical relationships: their roles in society were defined by those who were immediately above them and those who were immediately below them. They had a place in society that they did not, could not escape. Relationships were determined, from above, by a system of patronage. In republicanism people came to understand themselves not vertically, but horizontally, as one among equals. Nevertheless there was a strong sense of citizens being first among equals, of individuals arising to a natural elite. This is where the Founders differed from what came afterwards. Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, Adams, even Jefferson and Madison, imagined a society in which a natural elite would help lead the government. As Wood remarks, the most famous of the Republicans (not to be confused with the later Republican party -- the early Republican party later because the Democratic Republican party, and thereafter the Democratic party under the leadership of Martin Van Buren, while the Federalists died away, many of them helping to form the Whig party, which collapsed in the 1850s, with many Whigs going on to join the new liberal political party, the Republicans -- the story of how the Democratic party started off as the liberal party, became the American conservative party, and then became the more liberal party again is another story, just as the transformation of the Republicans as a liberal party under Lincoln later became a conservative party under Taft, Harding, and Coolidge), Thomas Jefferson, became increasingly despairing in his later years as uneducated, barely literate, and utterly everyday individuals came to lead the country. But the overall change in society -- from a vertical society in which paternalistic relationships dominated, to a horizontal society in which everyday individuals predominated could not have been more profound. Gordon Wood cannot be surpassed for his knowledge of the Revolutionary generation or the early republic. All of his books are important for an understanding of that period, but along with his new entry in the Oxford History of the United States, THE RADICALISM OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION is perhaps his very best. | ||
![Star Trek: The Original Series - Season 1 [Blu-ray]](product_images/4969000/star-trek-the-original-series_t-4969171.jpg) | Star Trek: The Original Series - Season 1 [Blu-ray] | |
| "Perhaps the definitive presentation of one of TV's seminal series" | 2009-08-16 |
| I frankly had not watched these episodes in very, very long time. I had seen all of them several times each as a kid, but I never really qualified as a Trekker. I never understood the obsession the show drew for many of its fans. So I was curious to see what my reaction to them would be as a more experienced, adult viewer. I suppose the best way to express my reaction is that I'm aware both of the show's many virtues and many flaws, its achievements and shortcomings. It is true that it is more impressive once you factor in what other American shows at the same time were doing, but despite that it compares rather poorly with what was happening in movies at the time and it has not managed to age very well. A great deal of this stems from the fact that TV had not yet matured as a medium in the late 1960s, partly for technological reasons and partly because of the limitations that the networks placed upon the kinds and complexity of stories that were permitted. Story arcs were always expected to be wrapped up entirely in a single episode, which prevented any kind of sophisticated long term story telling. It was only in the 1990s that networks and studios allowed the kind of extended narrative story telling that makes watching quality TV today more rewarding than seeing even the best movies, while only in the late 1990s did the full range of technologies develop that makes contemporary TV so wonderful (steadicams, stunt techniques depending on wire work, high def video, and a wide range of CGI programs). So yeah, it is great for its time, but it is still very much a product of its time. One of the most interesting things about rewatching the early episodes is how STAR TREK had not, at that point, become STAR TREK. McCoy is just another character. Sulu is a minor character. Uhura is completely undeveloped. Scottie someone who isn't clearly going to be important in the future. Chekhov not even a part of the show. Gradually the pieces start to fall into place. While Kirk and Spock were almost instantly the characters we associate with them, only gradually did the others become the crew of the Enterprise that we know and in some cases love. The one thing that stands out to me in rewatching it for the first time in ages is just how outrageously awful William Shatner is as an actor. He carries off the role with great aplomb, but his acting technique is so bizarre that the show can easily - if you choose to see it this way - a comedy. Shatner's business, the timing of his lines, his physical posture. Shatner's outrageousness as an actor can be observed in almost every episode. Heck, almost any line! My favorite moment might be in an early scene in the famous episode "The Arena," where Shatner has to run across an open field. His dodges and feints as he runs are among the funniest things I've ever seen on TV. And let's not even talk about Shatner's bare chest! Though I want to ask, was there some contract signed somewhere stipulating that Capt. Kirk had to either appear without a shirt or with a seriously ripped one each episode? And who wanted to see him in such a state? Potential female viewers? Guys? (Oh my. After saying that we shouldn't talk about Kirk's bare chest, we went ahead and did it.) I will confess that Shatner is so utterly horrible as an actor that he actually passes over into the realm where he is funny as hell. In fact, at times he is so funny that I have to tune his antics out so that I can focus on the more serious events in the show. The show is famous for breaking a number of barriers on TV. They originally wanted Majel Barrett to be the second in command, and would thereby have given a woman a leadership role unseen in the previous history of television except for Annie Oakley and Emma Peel in THE AVENGERS. Even as it is, the show had women in a number of positions that previously would have been held only by men (though women were not allowed to wield phasers). The ethnic diversity was unheard of. Blacks, Asians, Indians, various Europeans, and all of those both male and female. And in Season Two one of the most prominent characters was a Russian, and this at the height of the Cold War. There was still some latent sexism, such as the function of women as military noncombatants and the appalling miniskits all the female crew had to wear, and the women who threw themselves on Kirk each week. Still, given the era, the role given to women outstripped almost everything that had come before. And this was all in a season before the one in which television's first interracial kiss took place. The writing on the show was extremely limited by the episodic format that dominated the age. My personal belief is that television didn't really begin to come of age before the development of the serial format in the 1980s and its perfection in the 1990s. There is only so much that you can do in a format that limits all that you are able to do with the narrative to 50 minutes. With that limitation, the writing on the show is as strong as you could hope. Many episodes are regarded as "classic" but really don't hold up very well. Many others are just so-so. Some - like the abominable "The Alternative Factor" are miserably awful. But there are a number that still hold up quite well and are a lot of fun to watch. Again, they are not great by today's standards, but they hold up pretty well. I'm not a Trekker (nor the more derogatory Trekkie) and frankly didn't become a fan of TV Sci-fi until serial narrative shows started to make their way onto TV (ST DS9, B5, and especially FARSCAPE, FIREFLY, and the new BSG). So I've never been emotionally or imaginatively invested in the world of ST, even though I've seen the shows. Still, I had a great time rewatching these after so many years. | ||
 | Superman - The Animated Series, Volume One (DC Comics Classic Collection) | |
| "An above average children's show" | 2009-08-08 |
| I watched the animated BATMAN with my daughter when she was a small child, when it was coming out for the first time. I recently watched the Justice League cartoons that were done by largely the same people. I should have watched SUPERMAN before watching JUSTICE LEAGUE and JUSTICE LEAGUE UNLIMITED, and so should you if you haven't seen them all yet. SUPERMAN, like BATMAN, is not at all a bad show. It is, in fact, a very decent one. The problem is that the Justice League shows are extraordinary and they make all of the others look weak in comparison. On the other hand, watching SUPERMAN after JUSTICE LEAGUE really brings how brilliant the latter truly was and how much both the writing and the animation techniques improved as they worked on it. Still, SUPERMAN is all in all a pretty decent cartoon series. While the writing isn't nearly as strong or as innovative as the writing on JUSTICE LEAGUE would be, it was still quite above normal for children's programming and the voice talent, like all of the DC cartoon shows, is top notch. It is all quite watchable, but I never, ever got the sense that I was watching something remarkable as I did with JL. I also did not care much for the general "dumbbing down" of the DC stories. And some of the revisions of traditional DC storylines were unnecessary and arbitrary. For instance, they do a Green Lantern origins episode in Season Three, several traditional elements are changed. Abin Sur is shown as having been pursued by Sinestro, whereas in most origins stories Abin Sur is deeply upset at the death of his colleague. And Sinestro is shown already a fully blown bad guy upon the selection of the earthling Green Lantern for Section 2814. The successor of Abin Sur is in this version Kyle Raynor, while there is a bizarre nod to the original Green Lantern, Hal Jordan in the episode. Why Kyle Raynor instead of Hal Jordan? Perhaps because Jordan's back story as a test pilot is too well established, while it was easier to work with Raynor? It was all just odd and I'm confused at nearly all of the narrative choices in this particular episode. But the same kind of oddness afflicts several episodes. Not to beat too often on the same drum, but these kinds of changes were much better handled in the later JL series. I don't recommend skipping this episode, but I definitely recommend watching the three DC series in the order that they were made, BATMAN, then SUPERMAN, and then JUSTICE LEAGUE. While the first two series are of a similar quality, the third grew into something truly special. | ||
![Heroes: Season 3 [Blu-ray]](product_images/4981000/heroes-season-3-blu-ray_t-4981272.jpg) | Heroes: Season 3 [Blu-ray] | |
| "A late season rally might portend better things to come" | 2009-07-31 |
| There is no way around it: the first half of Season Three of HEROES was as bad as Season Two had been. And there was little hope that it was going to get better. But then it did. Much of the improvement might have been the result of one of the greatest tragedies of the 2008-2009 season, ABC's cancellation of one of the best shows in the history of television, PUSHING DAISIES. But one show's tragedy is another's great fortune. Bryan Fuller, who had been a consulting producer for HEROES in its first and promising season (he was given writing credits on what is to this day by far the greatest HEROES episode ever, the brilliant Season One episode "Company Man," was suddenly freed from PUSHING DAISIES, and was made the new show runner for HEROES after several producers and writers were released from the show. The improvement in the show was not instantaneous, but it was close. By the end of the season the show was as interesting as it had been in flashes in Season One.
Whether it was Fuller or not, the show had by the end of Season Three begun to have a direction once again. Both Season Two and the first half of Three had seen the show go down a series of confusing and generally unpleasant directions. One story arc had minimal connection with what had gone before and all indications were that they were just making things up as they went along. And what they were making up simply wasn't very good. Has the show finally turned around? If the difference has indeed been Bryan Fuller's involvement, it is entirely possible. I just know that by the end of Season Three I was actually looking forward to each episode again. For ages it was simply something I watched because I had been watching CHUCK. There has been a lot of debate about what went wrong with HEROES, about why it failed to fulfill the potential it displayed in its first season. My own opinion is that the show never took its own name seriously. The truth is that despite its title there were very, very few heroic characters. Having superpowers does not make someone a hero. Being heroic does. But most of the characters were not heroic and most of them struggled more with their own pettiness. And the writers kept taking characters down the most outrageous paths. Like the nerfing of Peter Petrelli, leaving him a defanged puppy. Or making a mess of every character that Ali Larter has played. I don't know what to anticipate for Season Four. While Season Three may have had much to do with Bryan Fuller returning, he unfortunately has left HEROES once again to develop a new, as yet unannounced, series. My lone reason for hope is the widespread belief that this once promising show has failed to meet its initial expectations. Some talented people remain attached to the project. Hopefully they will pool their resources and produce something worth our time and effort. Last comment: the retail price for the Blu-ray is absurd. I buy most of my shows on Blu-ray these days. I'm struggling internally as to whether to buy HEROES in DVD or Blu-ray. I don't think any series can justify asking us to spend over $45 for Blu-ray. I'll make my decision just before it comes out. If the price drops to around $45 I'll get it on Blu-ray. If not, DVD. | ||
 | Crash : A Novel | |
| "A brilliant but unlikeable work of genius" | 2009-07-20 |
| I found this to be a relatively unlikeable work of genius. CITIZEN KANE is persistently regarded as the greatest movie ever made, but I have always found it to be a movie easier to admire and respect than to love. There is a coldness at the heart of KANE that keeps me from caring deeply about it in any but the most cerebral fashion. Nearly every frame is impossible not to find impressive, but at no point is my heart engaged. It is hard to care about the fate of Charles Foster Kane and that is the film's flaw, to the extent that such an amazing film can have a flaw. I have much the same reaction to J. G. Ballard's CRASH. It is, in my opinion, a masterpiece, but one that is almost impossible to love. For me the novel has no heart, even though it also has no head. The book does not operate on the level of logic. No one would ever equate cars and violence and sex and Western civilization (the only street mentioned consistently in the book is named Western) in any deep fashion. The automobile is sometimes credited with the rise of teen sex as giving the young a place that they could be alone, but I personally have never conflated sex and the automobile as expressing the latter's essence. This novel is a work of genius not on the level of ideas, but on the level of imagery. Ballard creates his own mythology in which sex and cars and violence are intimately. This is expressed in the novel over and again in his language. Almost every aspect of the car is described both sexually and violently. Features of the care are both phallic and dangerous. The imagery makes not sense, except in terms of the linked visual aspects of the novel. CRASH ends up a weird blend of CAR AND DRIVER meets PENTHOUSE LETTERS meets CRITICAL INQUIRY meets 120 DAYS OF SODOM meets PEOPLE Magazine meets Guy Debord's THE SOCIETY OF THE SPECTACLE. Lack of self-control and physical injury and sex are constantly conflated. All of the characters are subject to uncontrollable compulsions. The characters in the novel do not possess any self-control. They embrace danger and sex because they cannot refuse to do so. Ballard depicts our involvement with cars are central to our culture, and this involvement is deeply masochistic. The characters are obsessed with cars and car wrecks as a form of S&M. They are turned on by the danger, by the deadliness of the technology that has taken over and controls our lives. Ballard's characters as passive, almost bystanders, and deeply voyeuristic. The characters are scarred - literally - by the technology by which they are obsessed. They are overwhelmed by the sheer inhumanity of the technology. The cars are persistently described in cold, hard, artificial terms. Chrome, metal, molded, completely manufactured, they are contrasted with humans, who are scarred, damaged, and completely biological in orgin. The cars emit exhaust, oil, and grease, while the humans give out blood, urine, semen, and sweat. Ballard is relentless in carrying out this imagery and the persistent with which he does it is incredibly impressive. Ballard is, in short, nothing short of a genius. Only, his final product is not a likeable one. In describing a world that has become completely detached from all things human, he has created a novel that is too remote from humanity to love. CRASH is both one of the most impressive novels that I have read in a long time, and also one of the most unlovable. | ||
| © 2009 GoSale.com (S1) |