Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
Okay, let's just get it out of the
way, "Harry Potter 2" is a good film. I know I thought
the first one was only so-so, but this second one
is much more acceptable. Two of the biggest positive
things are the near removal of Harry's aunt, uncle
and cousin (fat people are mean) from the story. We
do have to put up with them for about five minutes
at the start of the film but it's all over before
we get too angry at the sophomoric meanness of it
all.
The other plus is the handling of
the ubiquitous Quiddage (or however it is spelled)
match. This one, at least, has a reason to exist other
than to sell video games. There is some story involved
and it is quite exciting. Still, I have to ask; why
is it the wont of the author of the books and the
filmmakers here to include this deadly dull and insipid
sport in every "episode" of the series? It's freaking
pointless and stupid. It does go on far too long here.
Anyway, what I really want to discuss
here is some underlying themes of the film. But before
I do that I'd like to mention a couple of other thoughts.
This film is violent and scary.
Is it rated PG? How could it get a PG rating? This
film is far too intense for the average five-year-old
in my book. I think PG-13 would have been closer to
appropriate for this film.
And what must it be like to be a
kid these days and get to witness the amazing Special
Effects that films today contain. This film is CGI'ed
to the extreme. There is just one cool effect after
another. I wish I was a kid and got to experience
film-going in the new century as a cinematic virgin!
Can you even imagine it? The only film I can think
of from my childhood that seemed to be this amazing
to me was "Jason and the Argonauts." Remember what
it was like to see that film as a kid? That must be
close to what its like to be a kid today and see the
amazing effects in "Harry Potter 2." Wow.
Anyway, another random thought:
Much talk goes on about how "religious" folk balk
at the Harry Potter franchise (and what an amazing
franchise it is - there's so much possible history
and future in this story that sequels and prequels
will probably be around for 50 years or more). There
are a couple of scenes in the film where Harry talks
in "parcel-tongue," the language of snakes, which
are downright demonic. It's a bit too sinister and
creepy to not mention it. This makes it far too easy
for the religious do-gooders to seem right about the
devil-worshipping stuff. Why does director Chris Columbus
give them such fodder?
The point is this: This negation
of the value of the stories is a real shame. Because
this particular entry into the Harry Potter series
has an undeniable theme of tolerance that children
need to be exposed to. There is the issue in the story
of some wizards being pure-bloods and others not.
In this particular entry of the series, that idea
is introduced as a subtle reflection of racism. Hermoine,
Harry's girlfriend, who has Human parents (called
Muggles or something like that) is called a name by
another student. Harry has never even heard the word
and doesn't know what it means. It is explained to
him that it is a mean word for someone who is not
a pure-blooded wizard. To be more to the point, it
is explained to him much in the way a normal parent
might explain to a child what the "N" word (the one
used to demean brown-skinned people) is. This is a
beautiful and wonderful way for parents to introduce
the topic of racism to their children when seeing
the film and reading the books. The franchise deserves
massive kudos for doing this.
Tolerance is a key issue of this
film, it seems to me, since the evil Harry fights
here will possibly harm students with "mixed" blood.
Yes, this theme does get lost in the complex and convoluted
plot, but it is in there and explaining the story
to children will include mention of this. It is important
to note too that Harry also experiences a form of
exclusion based on a personality trait beyond his
control. Is it an accident that Harry is shunned because
it is revealed to the other students that he "talks
to snakes?" (Freud would say no. Hehehe). Tolerance
of others unlike yourself, and seeing the benefits
of what those differences might be is key to the film.
Bravo.
But the real point of the film is
entertainment and this entry of the franchise is more
entertaining, cooler, and more fun than the first.
Its subtle subliminal messages about tolerance and
the value of friendship are just some icing on the
cake.
I made it through this review with
no pedophile jokes and only one gay joke. That's a
sure sign that it's pretty good.
Note:
Returning cast includes Daniel Radcliffe,
Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Richard Harris, Maggie
Smith, Robbie Coltrane, Alan Rickman, Warwick Davis,
and Tom Felton, the later of which makes my gaydar
go ding ding ding!
New to the franchise: Kenneth Branagh
(who is hilarious here), and Jason Issacs.
Based on the Novel by J.K. Rowling.
It is said that Hugh Grant turned
down the role that eventually went to Brannagh.
The third film of the series is
due in 2004.
Viewed at The Gateway theater in
Austin at a promo sneak the weekend before the film
was released in November of 2002. Melissa went with
me but I didn't notice that the pass said "Admit One"
(and I only had one). When we got to the theater,
they were just about to let the line in, so I used
my "press" clout to get in without waiting in line
but the cute little female WB Rep didn't want to let
Melissa in without a pass. I got snippy and said,
"I guess Warner Brothers doesn't want me to see the
film" and we walked away.
I saw my friend Jan there and said
hello to her (she was about to go in with the front
of the line) and I told her what had happened. Someone
she had made friends with in line had an extra pass
and they gave it to us. Surprised and happy, we went
back to the Rep and I told her I had gotten an extra
pass. She told me that it wasn't an extra and that
she had given me back my pass. (In other words, I
was presenting the same pass again). But, of course,
she had not given it back to me. I explained to her
that this wasn't so and that I wouldn't do that to
her and she got snippy and said, "Whatever," and let
us in.
Melissa was mad, but I had to laugh
about it. I know what hell these Reps go through at
these things. The girl has always been very nice to
me and it wasn't that big of a deal to me to get in
and see this film. Melissa was pretty pissed. There
were two houses playing the film and there were some
empty seats here and there. I don't think anyone got
turned away.
I said hello to Jan again after
we got seats and thanked her. We talked for quite
a while. I went out to get some snacks and when I
went back to the theater, the Rep girl didn't even
speak to me, that did kinda piss me off.
Melissa made friends with the people
next to us who had two young sons. The boy, who had
a Tom Baily of Thompson Twins hairstyle circa 1984,
had went this Halloween as a punk rocker, they told
us. Another boy in front of us had a magnetic earring
that flickered purple neon. It was cool. We asked
him where he got it and he said, "At homecoming."
Also during the show, some kids
came back from the bathroom and walked down the aisle
in front of us, Melissa jumped and I jumped after
they passed. There was something on the floor! Was
it a rat? What the hell is that? It was a little kid
crawling on his hands and knees in front of us. I
jumped like a motherfucker and we laughed our asses
off. Kids are so funny.
Motorcycle Mike from the Austin
Chronicle introduced the film. This guy is scary.
There was someone from KASE Radio (pimping their morning
show as family friendly) and someone from the WB-TV
there as well. Melissa and I saw Corey of the "Reel
Deal" and a bunch of his cronies hanging out in front
of the theater after the screening was over.
