The disdainful put-down "I don't understand" (or, if you really want to rub it in, "I really don't understand") has, I'm sure, been the prerogative of spiteful grandparents since at least the time of Socrates. "You ridiculous, inarticulate little twerp. You can't possibly expect me to attempt to take an interest in anything you say. Now go away and stop upsetting my small-minded view of the world." (And so on!) It's a way of preserving if not the authority of experience then at least the dignity of age by implicitly dismissing the interests and/or achievements of a younger generation as merely the toys and trifles of the immature - with an implicitly faux ironic disdain that places oneself securely above the uncomfortable tide of progress.
All oldies do it. Indeed, I dare say I've done it enough times myself. After all, why bother trying to remember the difference between a Pikachu and a Bulbasaur when you can just dismiss the whole thing as "terribly complicated" - whilst knowing full well that in reality Pokemon is shockingly simple and straightforward ('Gotta catch 'em all!') and designed to be followed by three-year-olds.
And so we come to the latest episode in the seemingly interminable multi-million dollar Harry Potter franchise. Despite having sat through it (and presumably having paid money to do so), Peter Hitchens insisted in his Mail on Sunday column 'I still have no idea what it was about.' And, to be fair, this wasn't storytelling at its best, by any stretch of the imagination.
The film itself, it has to be said, is not great. It's easily the weakest of the Harry Potter films so far. The inclusion of Johnny Depp at the end as Grindelwald, for example, has been criticised as a bit of a bum-note final reveal. (Once upon a time Grindelwald was an interesting/mysterious bisexual fallen-from-grace Darth Vader-type dark wizard and, implicitly, magical Hitler baddy. Now he's little more than a run-of-the-mill, one-dimensional shit villain for wankers #Shitvillainforwankers.) But Depp's is hardly the most disappointing performance of the film. Yes, his reveal is silly, and on a par with David Tennant's appearance at the end of Goblet. And yes, it's possible that Depp's performances have now degenerated into little more than gurning and eyebrow-waggling. (But were they ever much more than that?)
On the other hand though, after an utterly flat performance from the much overrated Eddie Redmayne (who seemed to spend the whole film trying to make Daniel Radcliffe seem good by comparison), boringly predictable set-pieces, and a stomach-churning amount of politically correct nastiness from J K Rowling (rescuing animals is good, Americans are "backward" - even though they have a black "Madam President", FFS! - and the death penalty and corporal punishment and "repressing" children - WTF? - are all EVIL), a disappointing reveal of a stereotypical, one-dimensional "dark wizard" (who, of course, is blond. blue-eyed and mittel-European - unlike Mr Depp, as it happens!) hardly ruins the film.
Unfortunately, no matter how not-very-good the film was, some of its critics have been a whole lot worse. This review from Bleeding Cool, indeed, is genuinely quite disturbing. The anti-White remark is unpleasant, but the allegations about Mr Depp are appalling. (Rape is illegal in America: if he's guilty he'll be locked up, otherwise he's innocent and his ex is a lying piece of ****.)
In my opinion the appearance of Grindelwald at the end just completes the film's descent from its promising beginning as an interesting expansion of the HP universe (into America - which is hardly a country devoid of its own magic) into its ending up as Harry Potter's answer to The Phantom Menace or the (literally unwatchable) Hobbit films.
But cheer up everyone! In ten years' time Michelle Obama will be back in the White House and everyone will be raving about Hermione's illegitimate half-black daughter in HP's version of 'Force Awakens'.
(You read it here first...)
No comments:
Post a Comment