Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 -- temporary victory for evil

Director: David Yates, 2010. (PG-13)

"These are dark times, there is no denying. Our world has perhaps faced no greater threat than it does today." The opening words from Rufus Scrimgeour (Bill Nighy), the Minister of Magic, set the tone and mood for this film. And it is indeed darker, scarier and more mature than any in this franchise so far.

In making a film of the final book in the Harry Potter series the producers had a difficult decision to make:  to sharply reduce the almost 800 pages into one epic film, even if it were 3+ hours of run-time, omitting much of the dense narrative and characters; or to keep the story intact but divide it into two films. They chose the latter, which moved the bogey to David Yates. His problem was how to make a middle movie that has no real conclusion, little action and lots of character development. But he has done a surprisingly fine job here.

Yates imbues the film with a profound sense of doom and despair, isolation and loss. From the darkness of the opening scenes to the bleakness of the broody English countryside, this is a moody and atmospheric film. This is a world at war.

Despite the war, though, there is a lack of action sequences. What there are, are certainly done well. The opening sequence where Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) must be carried to safety by the members of the Order of the Phoenix, with volunteers morphing into multiple Harrys thanks to polyjuice, is thrilling. The ensuing aerial dogfight is reminiscent of Battle of Britain movies. There is a nail-bitingly suspenseful scene where Harry and Hermione (Emma Watson) visit Cedric's Hollow and face one of Voldemort's slithering serpents. And Ron (Rupert Grint) must face the horrors of one piece of Voldemort's soul while being psychologically battered by sensual visions of Harry and Hermione. But these sequences notwithstanding, the film is about character not commotion.

Unlike the earlier films, there is no trip to Hogwarts. So the film is not structured around the semester schedule of magical studies. Further, few of the teachers from the school show up, and those that do, such as Mad-Eye Moody (Brendan Gleeson) and Severus Snape (Alan Rickman), have little more than cameo appearances. But Dobby the house elf does appear again for a key purpose.

With Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) on the ascendance since the death of Dumbledore at the end of Half-Blood Prince, the order of the Phoenix has gone into hiding. Theirs is now a war of resistance, like much of occupied Europe in the 1940s. As he takes over the Ministry of Magic, putting his puppet minister in charge, there is a Nazi-like atmosphere prevailing, with ministry workers being pulled away for any excuse to suffer interrogation and Gestapo-esque torture.

When a momentary break in the tension via a wedding celebration is destroyed by the appearance of Death Eaters, Harry, Hermione and Ron leave all their friends to depart on a mission: to find and destroy the horcruxes. As readers of the book will know, these are objects that Voldemort chose to hide pieces of his dark soul. Difficult as they are to find, they are even more difficult to destroy.

The extended sequences of the three heroes wandering the English countryside or sitting in their magical tent, give them time to show their acting chops. They have come a long way since the first film in 2001. Here they have the chance to communicate the dark night of the soul. As they undertake horcrux-searching, they experience soul-searching and deep angst. As the characters themselves have matured under author J.K Rowling's pen, these actors have matured enough to be able to carry this task on their broader shoulders.

Along the way, a strange symbol, comprised of a line and a triangle captured within a circle, keeps showing up. Only later does Luna Lovegood's father explain their meaning: "The Elder Wand [the line], the most powerful wand ever made. The Resurrection Stone [the circle]. The Cloak of Invisibility [the triangle]. Together, they make the Deathly Hallows. Together, they make one master of death." Using a clever animated sequence, Yates explains the backstory to these hallows which form the core of this final story.

The final image of the movie shows Voldemort in a position of power, seeking to be master of death, holding his wand aloft. A powerful picture, it underscores the utter lack of hope in this film. Where almost all the previous Potter movies had hope of a savior as an interwoven theme, this is devoid of such.

The one biblical parallel in this film derives from this final image. It reminded me of the apparent victory of Satan over Christ at the cross on Good Friday. When Jesus hung there and the day was turned dark, he breathed his last, "It is finished" and "with that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit" (Jn. 19:30). The death of the Son of God gave promise to Satan that his victory was secure and his reign about to begin. A dark night of the soul it was indeed for Jesus disciples as they hung their heads and hid behind locked doors in Jerusalem. They had to wait two long days, believing their Savior dead and gone. Resurrection and hope was a long way off. It is here, too.

We must wait almost 8 months, not two days, to experience the hope of final victory over Voldemort. Meanwhile, we can experience true victory by choosing to follow Jesus, because in doing so his spirit will come to live in us (Jn. 14:15-16). When that is the case, "the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world" (1 Jn. 4:4).

Copyright ©2010, Martin Baggs

Divided We Fall (Musíme si pomáhat) -- selfishness and selflessness, lies and truth

Director: Jan Hrebejk. 2000. (PG-13)

Set in Czechoslovakia during World War 2, this Oscar-nominated film presents a moral dilemma that will cause viewers to stop and think. Like another middle-European drama, The Trap, this presents an almost unthinkable situation but leaves us with a more hopeful conclusion.

The film begins in 1937 with an idyllic scene. A car is driving through a green countryside when it stops for a moment of relief. Three men are present. Two play a trick on the chauffeur. These three will be at the heart of the story, as it moves ahead to war-torn Europe.

The introduction makes it clear that the three know each other. But David (Csongor Kassai) is a Jew. When the war arrives in Czechoslovakia he and his family are evicted from their large mansion and moved to an unseen holding facility before being sent to the concentration camps. Meanwhile, the chauffeur Horst (Jaroslav Dusek) has become a collaborator, helping the Nazis find and capture Jews. The other man, Josef (Bolek Polivka), remains in his tiny apartment with his wife Marie (Anna Siskova). He has suffered broken legs and refuses to work with his "friend" Horst helping the Germans.

With this backdrop, the film moves to 1943, and David appears back in the village, a furtive fugitive, a skeletal image of the wealthy man he once was. Josef faces a choice and makes the snap decision to bring him home, to hide him in the secret room behind the closet. The problem is that Horst continues to drop in unannounced to flirt with Marie. As a "good citizen of the Third Reich" Horst cannot be denied this, and both Josef and Marie understand.

By helping David this couple put themselves in grave danger. Like other stories of Europeans helping the Jews during WW2, this one shows the risks that such people faced every day. With those risks come great stress that play upon the family relationships of those risking their lives. Every knock on the door could be the one that hastens a trip to the gallows.

David and Marie's willingness to put themselves at risk underscores the selflessness of humanity that often surfaces at times of great duress. Jesus identified this as a sign of love: "Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends" (Jn. 15:13). Yet, humanity is complex, and selflessness and selfishness are kissing cousins, often being present in the same person. Horst is an example of selfishness, seeking to save himself at the expense of others.

To offset the risks, and to prevent Horst's almost daily visits, Josef agrees reluctantly to take a job working for Horst. In this sense, he is aiding and abetting a collaborator, making him almost one himself. In the eyes of his neighbors, though. he has become a German sympathizer and risks his reputation now as well as his life.

Josef's willingness to take on this role makes him a pariah. Like the lepers of old, his neighbors avoided him, treating him with disdain. Are we ready to sacrifice reputation and more if it would save the life of another? Or would we push the person aside, expecting someone else to help, as the priest and the Levite did in Jesus' parable of the "Good Samaritan" (Lk. 10:25-37)?

The dilemma, though, appears beyond the mid-point of the film. When Horst's eyes for Marie move beyond the academic to the physical, she rebuffs him. He is a selfish creep. But there is a price for this rebuttal. He seeks revenge by trying to move a German into their home. With this imminent danger, she tells a lie. The first thing that pops into her head becomes something that will eventually catch them out.  The lie forces Josef and Marie to contemplate and commit unthinkable acts. As one character says, in times of war "normal people do abnormal things."

Lying is a sin. The Old Testament declares unequivocally, "Do not lie" (Lev. 19:11). Paul repeats this in his letter to the Colossians: "Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices" (Col. 3:9). Yet in the context where the truth will not see free (Jn. 8:32) but will lead to execution for multiple people, perhaps the whole street, is it right to lie? The Israelite midwives lied to Pharaoh to save young lives (Exod. 1:19). But the truth is that one lie leads to another and to consequences we may have not imagined. And this is the case in this film.

At the end, as the village is liberated by the Russians, Josef finds himself facing yet another problem, the result of his earlier actions. And when the three men are brought together in one room, they each face a choice. Will revenge and justice win out? Or is there a spark of forgiveness that will provide redemption for those who don't deserve it?

Divided We Fall is a subtle film without action sequences. Yet it offers stirring performances of depth and humanity, contrasting selfishness and self-sacrifice. At its heart, it provides testament to the truth, that united we stand but divided we fall. And it leaves us with the hope that comes from new life.


Copyright ©2010, Martin Baggs

W. -- approval, disappointment and conversion

Director: Oliver Stone, 2008. (PG-13) 

Oliver Stone is not afraid to tackle controversial topics. His resume include two Viet Nam war films, Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July, as well as two on presidents, JFK and Nixon. But this is the first time he focused on an in-office president, George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States.

W. presents the story of "Dubya", switching between the backstory of his growth from undergraduate at Yale to Governer of Texas and the build up to the invasion of Iraq in 2002. Along the way we realize that Bush was the product of his father in more ways than one, and was a man who may have made it to the White House but seemed to be in above his head. Of course, this is a biopic and so includes fictionalized segments alongside real events, such as the infamous choking pretzel scene (which bookends the film).

The film opens with Bush being hazed by the "good old boys" of Yale. Semi-naked and standing in ice-cold water, he has whiskey poured down his throat, a reference perhaps to the practice of waterboarding that was forced on inmates of Guantanamo (or renditioned prisoners elsewhere). But as the young Bush (Josh Brolin) grows up we see the older Bush, Poppy (James Cromwell), manipulating things behind-the-scenes to help his wayward son: bailing him out of jail, taking care of a pregnant girlfriend, getting him a job. As he says to the younger Bush, "Partying, chasing tail, driving drunk. What do you think you are -- a Kennedy?"

This brings up one of the themes present in the movie: the legacy of a family name. The elder Bush is concerned that his family leave a legacy for future generations, and a good one at that. We all want to be remembered for something good. Poppy was no different, although he was a president and a successful patriarch. David, in the Old Testament, a patriarch and king wanted this for his family. Although most of his children and decendants turned away from his faith and were disappointments, one came as the Messiah. David's legacy was legendary. How is yours?

As Bush fails in one j after another, he finds one he enjoys: owner of a baseball team. We see him dreaming of being a player. But he has no talent for the ball-game. His talents lie elsewhere, and he begins to develop his political ambitions and accomplishments. Along the way, he meets Laura (Elizabeth Banks), and woos and weds her.

In the other storyline, Bush is surrounded by a cadre of political advisors. Here the film sizzles with outstanding actors. Jeffrey Wright is Colin Powell; Scott Glenn (Secretariat) plays Donald Rumsfeld; Thandie Newton is razor-sharp as Condoleeza Rice; and Richard Dreyfuss (Jaws) is a scintillating Dick Cheney, portrayed here as the villain pushing for invasion. And there is dimunitive Toby Jones as Karl Rove, the puppeteer behind the president. But at the heart of the film is Josh Brolin, giving an astounding performance as Bush, capturing his quirks and even sounding like the man.

Another key theme of the film is approval. Not the approval of the public, although the president needs to understand this when he is in office. Rather, the approval here is that of Poppy. Dubya has big shoes to fill, and he is constantly seeking the approval of his dad. Yet, he never seems to get it. How often do we men seek the approval of our fathers. Do we get it? When we don't it hurts our psyche. But even if our fathers fail us in this regard, our heavenly Father never does. He loves us unconditionally and unceasingly (Psa. 100:5).

Approval is one thing, disappointment is another. Rather than approval, Bush junior feels the disappointment that oozes from his father. Several times, Poppy verbalizes this to his son. How tough is that, for a man to know he is a disappointment to his father? As fathers, we must realize how fragile our sons' pysches can be. And if we are disappointed with them, we should determine how we can help them rather than hurt them even more. Poppy thought he was helping with his behind-the-scenes manouverings, and they did help politically. But what W. wanted more than anything was to hear his father say he loved him and was proud of him. Have we told our sons this lately? If not, why not do so today?

In the backstory of Bush's political emergence, we see him come to Christ. In a low-key scene, W. professes faith in Jesus. This is something his father does not understand or really acknowledge. Later, W. tells his pastor that he feels the Lord is leading him to be president. Although we see him as President concluding meetings with silent prayer, it is not obvious that Christ is the person directing Bush. Instead, Karl Rove appears to be that person, orchestrating Bush's rise to power.

Like George W Bush, we all face a decision to convert to Christ or not. Jesus loves us and wants us to come to know him. As the apostle Paul said, "now is the day of salvation" (2 Cor. 6:2). There is never a better time. Don't put it off any longer. And if you have already made that decision, then live it out daily following Jesus, seeking his guidance and approval.

One of the disappointments of W.  is the lack of insight into Bush himself. We see his exterior but not his interior. He remains a mystery, an empty enigma. Two scenes at the close of the film, both dream sequences, show us the continued disappointment and emptiness of the man. Yet Stone leaves multiple balls in the air, as Bush looks skywards wondering. The question at the end remains: who is W.?

Copyright ©2010, Martin Baggs

RED -- dealing with retirement and aging

Director: Robert Schwentke, 2010. (PG-13)

Retired. Most of us out of school give a glimmer of thought to the idea of future retirement. What will it be like? Days filled with fun activities? Slow and lazy days by the pool? Endless rounds of golf? Or perhaps a long, laborious descent into deteriorating health. Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) and his team of retirees show us different approaches to retirement, but reunite for a post-retirement blast of black-ops fun.

At the start of RED, we meet Frank, an early retiree from government work. He is clearly lonely and bored. He sits in his Cleveland home and tears up his retirement checks so he can call Sarah (Mary Louise Parker), his pension planner in Kansas and flirt with her over the phone. That is the highlight of his week. Apart from this he reads pulp romance fiction as conversation starters for his calls to Sarah. What a life!


But Frank's government work was as a CIA killer. So, it is not completely surprising when one night a team of wet-work assassins shows up at his house to kill him. Retired he might be, but Frank is no slouch. At 55 he can easily handle the odd killer or three. Even when the backups fire machine guns redecorating his house a la swiss cheese, he takes care of them and escapes. His concern is for Sarah, who he fears may appear on the killer's list, since he has called her so much.

With this beginning, Frank journeys to Kansas, meets and kidnaps Sarah, for her own good, and sets about regathering his old CIA team. All are retired, but in different stages of retirement. They, like Frank, are RED: Retired and Extremely Dangerous.

This team includes Victoria (Helen Mirren), the former British spy now turned into a Martha Stewart type of bed-and-breakfast owner; Marvin Boggs (John Malkovich, Secretariat), a paranoid recluse who trusts no one and carries a pink pig with him for protection; Joe Matheson (Morgan Freeman, Invictus), the kindly killer who is dying of cancer; and even garnering support from former Russian spy and enemy Ivan Simanov (Brian Cox). Of course Sarah, the newcomer who warms up to Frank, as expected. Set against them is current CIA agent William Cooper (Karl Urban, Star Trek) and his handler-boss Cynthia Wilkes (Rebecca Pidgeon). This is quite a cast of seasoned actors, which makes this lightweight film so appealing. There is even a cameo for Ernest Borgnine, himself 93 in real-life.


As superficial as this is, RED does bring up the issue of retirement and aging and puts it squarely into our consciousness. For a society that venerates the young, the old are a forgotten and often ignored demographic. So, what do we see?

Frank is bored. His life seems to lack purpose. His mission is accomplished, and now what? Without someone to love and something to live for, life becomes mundane and dreary. Frank's sole solace is Sarah and he does not even really know her. For those of us fortunate enough to retire alongside a loving spouse, we can enjoy the time we can spend together in our golden years. Yet, having a purpose can amplify this enjoyment in our waning days.

Victoria offers the perspective of a second career or vocation after retirement. She has energy to spare and is not prepared to descend into pulp fiction. She has found a purpose. For some, a second career may prove a critical necessity economically, and we see these people in blue shirts at Wal-Mart. But for Christians we might find retirement an opportunity to serve in missions work overseas, or even in a rescue mission downtown. Our spare time can be converted into useful service for those who have genuine needs. This is something Jesus would be pleased with.

Marvin and Joe offer more negative perspectives on retirement. With age comes mental changes, such as Alzheimer's (or Marvin's paranoia), or bodily breakdown, such as strokes and cancer (or simply the aches and pains of muscle loss and lack of mobility). These bring a dependency we have not known since early childhood. Here, too, is an opportunity, but one we may not welcome. It is the opportunity to see ourselves dependent on others and ultimately God himself. We learn humility in realizing others must do for us what we once did for them. We see parents diapered by their adult children. Any earlier pride will be broken through this. Though we are immortal in soul and spirit, our bodies are mortal this side of eternity.

The movie moves along in a fairly linear fashion, each
action sequence and character introduction leading to the next. There are no major twists and a somewhat loose and disappointing conclusion. But the journey is worth it. Frank may be Retired and Extremely Dangerous. But this film is itself RED: Ridiculous but Entertaining Despite this.

Copyright ©2010, Martin Baggs