Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (parts 1 and 2)–an Ideal Review.

Here at the Platonist, where thousands of readers come to get their diurnal dose of idealism, and to fortify themselves in their pursuit of that scottish-latin ideal, transire beneficiendo (to go through the world leaving it better than when you left), we have a hallowed tradition of reviewing epic-genre movies, since epics are the ones in which Platonic ideals such as the Good, Truth, Justice, and Beauty are foregrounded.

So let’s get right to it.   The review of HPDH that I like the best so far is that of Salon’s andrew o’hehir, since he points out that Part 1 was a far better movie than part 2 (which is why we’re reviewing it now together with 2).   Many don’t seem to realize this, but the director and screenwriter made Part 1 as their ‘baby,’ their ideal of what would have happened in book 7, and they then, in a rather workmanlike fashion, stuck almost directly to the book plot in Part 2, delivering a rather standard but curiously morally and emotionally hollow boom-bang endup.  Predictably, the average audience and critic excoriated part 1, while they gushed about part 2.  This simply proves Plato’s notion that most of humanity remains in ‘the cave.’

Part 6 was already quite good; it’s my second favourite in the whole series.  The opening scene, and the magisterial music, with dumbledore’s hand on harry’s shoulder, just after the appearance of voldemort in the ministry finally signals to fudge that he’s been a chamberlainian dupe, sets a fabulously serious tone; slughorn functions as a fantastic exploration of ‘old boy’ hogwarts; his “all hands on deck, granger” as he spills butterbeer onto the table in front of hermione being one of the best lines in the series.  The elegaism is wonderful throughout, since it’s really the main theme of the series, and it is beautifully foiled by the theme of ‘young love’ which we really get to explore here.  The harry and hermione tower stairs scene being crucial.

So then onto Part 1; where suddenly, nothing is safe.  (And the score is also phenomenal throughout–the best music yet in the whole series).  

Read Full Post »

Review of ‘star trek’ (2009)

So, almost everyone who is about my age and who has a philosophical bent is a fan of Star Trek, the Next Generation.  I even went to school where a cast member’s father taught, and it was at the height of the TNG’s success, and the father was worshipped like a god for their offspring’s success. 

So, why are philosophy people so into Trek?  Why are there books out like ‘the philosophy of star trek,’ etc.?  Well, because Gene Roddenberry created a show on purpose which would deal with ‘big picture’ issues, which delve into the major problems in Western history, and, very often, which grapple with one of the more important myths, or topoi, of Western culture, including the Garden of Eden; and the whole point of each episode is that it’s supposed to grapple with some major ethical dilemma.   Of course, most people can watch the show and not realize this, which is why it enjoyed any success.  But their inner souls do get it – and that’s also why the show is popular.  Specifically, it’s why the show has become one of the major contributions of c20th culture to the Western canon, along with Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings.  They all deal with those central myths, those ‘clashes of good vs. evil’ which belong properly to the genre known as ‘epic.’   So Star Trek was intentionally epic from the outset. 

Read Full Post »