Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Pottering about

Expand Messages
  • Steve Schaper
    ... Well, that Onion article had a -lot- to do about it. You don t hear that strain speaking out against Pullman, where there really is a case to be made. . .
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 27, 2001
      > Message: 2
      > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 10:21:05 -0500
      > From: "dianejoy@..." <dianejoy@...>
      > Subject: RE: Re: Harry Potter movie
      > Now I want to go back and read *Philosopher's Stone* again. (I'm convinced that if they'd kept the British name, we wouldn't be hearing nearly as much from a certain strain of evangelicals.) ---djb

      Well, that Onion article had a -lot- to do about it. You don't hear that strain speaking out against Pullman, where there really is a case to be made. . . The Onion people sure knew how to exploit that strain's unwillingness to -verify-

      > Message: 3
      > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 10:33:17 -0500
      > From: "dianejoy@..." <dianejoy@...>
      > Subject: RE: Re: Ian McKellen Q&A
      > I agree; my respect for McKellen has gone up several notches; I have a much deeper respect for those actors who feel that their job is to entertain rather than to present a message. "Learn your lines and don't bump into the furniture." A certain humility, which holds no specific form or genre in contempt, makes McKellen wiser than Guinness.

      I would have preferred the actor who played Dumbledore to play Gandalf - by a huge margin! I hate the way Jackson has deleted scenes and characters and then made up new scenes and characters. And new dialog. Tolkien could write, it would seem Jackson's people sadly -can't-. I fear that they may have ruined it!!! :-(((((
      ________________________________________________________________________

      > Message: 4
      > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:26:55 -0800
      > From: "David S. Bratman" <dbratman@...>
      > Subject: Re: Jane Chance
      >
      > I do not find her work particularly illuminating. It's full of critical
      > jargon, and shows a wobbly sense of what Tolkien is on about.

      Ah, that is good to know! Thank you for the report!

      >
      > Message: 6
      > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:15:59 -0800
      > From: "David S. Bratman" <dbratman@...>
      > Subject: RE: Re: Ian McKellen Q&A
      >
      > Eventually Guinness found the perfect Catholic solution. When people would
      > say "The Force be with you," he would reply, "And also with you."

      :-)))))

      >
      > First, Gandalf in the book doesn't complain about his bones aching. Rather
      > than humanizing Gandalf, this turns him into a different character than the
      > one Tolkien invented - one who takes the risk of becoming _merely_ a
      > querulous old man.

      Yes. The trailers come across that way. I think to myself 'that is NOT Olorin. Maybe Saruman (but not likely!), but NOT Olorin ;-('

      > Secondly, if McKellen can't act Gandalf's age, origin, and majesty, perhaps
      > another actor could. I thought that what you're calling the "distance" in
      > Guinness's portrayal of Obi-wan was a very effective way of conveying the
      > corresponding parts of that character. Didn't you?

      Yes. Exactly. I thought that Richard Harris got the combination of wisdom, sternness, 'realness', good humor, and all quite well. Quite a good Gandalf, actually.

      > Well, in a few weeks we'll know what McKellen - whose past work I've
      > admired a lot (including Magneto, though my favorite of his characters is
      > Amos Starkadder) - actually does with Gandalf. Though I can't say that the
      > trailer scene of a mad-eyed Moody, er I mean Gandalf, bursting in and
      > crying frantically "Is it safe? Is it safe?" gives me much hope.

      Yes, that is what disturbs me the most. That and combining his known activism with his comment about Gandalf 'Being fascinated with hobbits' gives me the shudders.


      >
      > Message: 15
      > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:05:02 -0800
      > From: Lisa Deutsch Harrigan <lisa@...>
      > Subject: Re: Harry Potter movie
      >
      > Basically, if it isn't the Bible they want it banned from Public Schools! Yes, PUBLIC Schools.

      That is an over-blown statement.

      > So their children can go to tax payer supported Christian Safe Schools. Heaven forbid they should pay for the private Christian Education they want for their children...

      And also at the same time pay for government schooling. It becomes very prohibitive, except for the rich.

      > By the way, we've seen HP once and are planning to see it again Real Soon.

      Me too!

      > Message: 22
      > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 20:51:20 EST
      > From: Stolzi@...
      > Subject: Re: Digest Number 750
      >
      >
      > > I'm not aware of any indication that they are married.
      >
      > It had to remain secret, perhaps!

      Ahhh. I don't know why, of course, but I could accept that. Miss Rowling could probably accept that, too. (she being a member of a Chesterton society in England (being mythopoeically on topic ;-) However, I don't recall any such hints in the books or the movies.

      Now, maybe they -should- have fallen in love and married some hundred years ago :-)


      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
      "A generation which ignores history has no past and no future."
      Robert Anson Heinlein

      http://www.users.qwest.net/~sschaper/
      sschaper@...
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.