Harriet Movie – Chekhov’s Gun versus “White Savior” Trope

Harriet Movie – Chekhov’s Gun versus “White Savior” Trope

I saw the movie Harriet recently and I was impressed by its scope and the power of its storytelling. I wanted to share some positive word-of-mouth to assist in it being a success, but discovered quite a bit of criticism against the movie on social media. This essay is not a review of the film, but rather a discussion regarding a few aspects of criticism I feel is unfair and a misreading of the film’s dramatic intent.

Before I begin, here is a fair warning to anyone who hasn’t seen the movie. There will be spoilers.

Also to give some background information about myself, I took two screenwriting classes at Wayne State University years ago. That trained me to understand the structures and functions of screenplays. I have a Master’s Degree from Sonoma State University as an Historian of Science, which gave me training regarding historical methods. I am also the author of two novels that are epic historic fantasies set in the time of Charlemagne and are adaptations from epic poems written over 500 years ago. Taken together, it means that I recognize the challenges faced with adapting source material with the concept of balancing historical accuracy with dramatic needs. This movie is not a documentary, but instead is a dramatization of the life of a real person and is closer to the genre of historical fiction which includes inventing dialogue, creating characters, and plot points to tell a compelling narrative.

There are many people who objected to the inclusion of Black bounty hunters in the movie, specifically the character of Bigger Long. He is not an historical figure, but instead a character added to this story by the filmmakers. Their criticism is based on his violence and suggesting this characterization adds to negative stereotypes of Black men.

I haven’t seen much discussion about Walter, another Black male bounty hunter in the movie.

I saw the inclusion these characters as adding complexity to the narrative. This time period is not my area of expertise, so I will defer to historians who say there were Black bounty hunters. They may not have been common, but they existed. Including them in the story demonstrates that both Blacks and whites profited from the cruel institution of slavery while at the same time there were Blacks and whites who aided in the liberation of those in bondage. It would not have been easy to recognize who was trustworthy and making a wrong choice could be deadly.  Introducing the uncertainty about whether or not someone will betray you, adds tension.

At one point, Walter approached Harriet Tubman and offered his help. He had helped track her down when she ran away, but had a change of heart and wanted to work to redeem himself by assisting her.

I felt unsettled when he offered to help, because it felt like a trap. Except it wasn’t. Tension helps the audience feel engaged in stories and wondering what is going to happen next.

The Bigger Long character never had any such change of heart. He was a cruel and violent man who earned his living by the high stakes/high reward field of being a bounty hunter for runaway slaves rather than being paid low wages for menial jobs relegated for free Blacks.

Another fictional character introduced to forward the story is Marie Buchanon. She was a free born Black woman who ran the boarding house where Harriet Tubman lived in Philadelphia. Marie may not have been an historical character, but she demonstrates the differences between Blacks who were and weren’t enslaved. She gave instructions to Harriet as to how to hold herself with confidence when she went back south on missions to lead slaves to freedom. Marie also handed Harriet a gun.

That introduces the dramatic concept of Chekhov’s gun. Anton Chekhov was a famous playwright who famously held “One must not put a loaded gun on stage if no one is going to fire it.” He felt that this type of prop created a dramatic imperative. (For anyone wanting to know more about this literary convention, there is an excellent short film on Youtube.)

It is known that the historical figure of Harriet Tubman carried a gun. She reportedly used it to threaten any fugitives if they decided to turn back, telling them, "You'll be free or die."

In the movie, we see Harriet holding the pistol many times, but she resists firing it. There’s a scene after the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act where her former master, Gideon Brodess, and Bigger Long are in the boarding house in Philadelphia where she lived. Harriet is hiding, but she sees the two men beating Marie Buchanon in an effort to get information out of her. Harriet is holding her gun and almost fires at them, but doesn’t. Marie winds up being beaten to death by Bigger Long.

Had Harriet used the gun in that scene, it would have ended badly. The pistol only had one shot and there were two assailants. Had she killed one, the other would have likely overpowered her. She would then have been hauled back to Maryland facing an uncertain, but bad fate.

Besides, the filmmakers did not want to change history by making Harriet Tubman into a killer. Instead, we see the internal conflict she has with wanting to intervene to protect her friend, but knowing she cannot safely do so.

In the climax of the movie, Harriet Tubman went back to Maryland to rescue her remaining family members and lead them to safety/freedom in the North. During the time she was gathering her family to leave, there were scenes interspliced with the local slave owners who were rallying together after learning she was nearby. They carried guns and torches. Gideon’s mother, Eliza Brodess, urged them to, “Find this thief and burn her at the stake!” That signifies for the audience what awaited Harriet if she was captured.

Harriet Tubman was a high-profile member of the Underground Railroad and in the slave masters’ eyes had “stolen property” from them. She likely would have had a bounty on her head and if caught, would be subjected to torture to extract details of the Underground Railroad. They would want to dismantle the Underground Railroad by learning names of people involved, places they lived and worked, as well as the identities and locations of former slaves who now lived free in the North. And then, she would be subjected to a public execution that be both would be cruel and unusual in nature. All to send a message to those still in bondage that their hero “Moses” was gone and that they should lose all hope of ever being freed. Being burned at the stake like Joan of Arc would have been one possible outcome, and she would have just as likely been lynched like so many other Blacks were in this nation’s history. Tubman’s violent death would have been inevitable if she was caught, and most likely would have been without the benefit of trial.

Those were thoughts that likely were running through Gideon Brodess’ mind. He needed to bring Harriet Tubman back alive. He would claim the bounty before her torture and death. He would also gain fame for being the man to bring her down.

At one point, Harriet realizes that Bigger Long and Gideon are gaining on her threatening her family’s escape. She entrusts Walter to get on the small boat and take her family to safety while she distracted Gideon.

Harriet ran in the forest and scrambled up a large rock to avoid being caught by Bigger Long. They exchanged gunfire with her shot causing his hat to fly from his head.

He became enraged and said, “You goin’ die, bitch!”

Gideon was on horseback and behind Bigger. He heard the threat and rather than try to calm his hired Bounty hunter, he shot Bigger in the head, killing him. “Alive, I said.”

That action is what is being described as a “white savior” trope by critics. Matthew Hughey, Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Connecticut, and author of The White Savior Film: Content,Critics, and Consumption, (Temple University Press, 2014), defined the term as “a white messianic character saves a lower- or working-class, usually urban or isolated, nonwhite character from a sad fate.” One example is The Blind Side starring Sandra Bullock as Leigh Ann Tuohy who brought the homeless Black teenager Michael Oher into her family, then helped him on a path to become an NFL player. Another example is The Help where the movie about discrimination against Black domestic servants in the 1960s south is seen through the eyes of a white author played by Emma Stone.

Given this definition, do I think this scene fits the white savior trope? No, I don’t. Gideon is not a messianic character, nor did he want to save Harriet’s life. He wanted her captured alive because bringing her corpse back would be far less valuable. A corpse could not be tortured to reveal secrets and there would be far less spectacle to serve as a lesson for remaining slaves.

This white man wasn’t trying to be her savior. In fact, by killing Bigger, he wouldn’t have to share the bounty.

And no one would really care about the reason Gideon killed a Black man. White men could kill Black men with impunity. There would be no punishment for his act of murder.

However, had Harriet died at Bigger’s hands, she would have had a more merciful death than what would have been in store for her had she been captured by Gideon.

The death of the fictional character Bigger Long, also allowed a climactic scene between the movie’s protagonist, Harriet Tubman, and antagonist, Gideon Brodess.

This was the third and final scene where these two characters interacted. In dramatic structure parlance there was a beginning, middle and end to the drama between these two characters. The beginning was when Harriet was still a slave and was then known as Araminta “Minty” Ross. Minty’s husband, John Tubman a Black free man, handed papers from a lawyer to Edward Brodess that according to a will from Edward’s grandfather, Rit Ross (Minty’s mother) should have been freed years before as well as all of her children. John and Minty wanted to start a family and wanted their children to be born free. Edward tore up the papers, ordered John to stay away, and swore that Rit Ross, her children, and any descendants would forever be enslaved. Later Edward told his son, Gideon, that he should sell Minty since she was troublesome.

Later, Gideon overheard Minty praying for the death of his father. “Oh, Lord. If you ain’t going to change that man’s heart, kill him, Lord, and take him out of the way.”

Gideon confronted Minty. He brought up her fierce faith and remembered her praying by his bedside when he was a child and struck with a fever. She refused to back down from her wishes for the death of his father.

Edward died soon afterward.

Gideon became unnerved by this sudden death of his father and decided to sell Minty. That was the reason Minty decided to run away from the Brodess farm. She had sisters who had been sold “down south” and never to be heard from again. She did not want to be separated from her family in a similar manner.

The second scene between Harriet and Gideon, (and still technically in the beginning portion of the three part dramatic sequence), was during her escape attempt when slave catchers trapped her from both sides of a bridge. She started making moves to jump into the river. Gideon tried using soothing tones to coax her into surrendering. He said he had changed his mind about selling her and wouldn’t punish her too much for running away.

She responded by saying, “I’m gonna be free or die.” This was right before she jumped in the river.

The middle sequence is when she saw Gideon and Bigger attack Marie Buchanon. Harriet saw them, but was quiet so they didn’t know she was there. It marks the dramatic middle of this antagonistic relationship.

The third scene, and the dramatic ending, is where these two characters interacted after the murder of Bigger Long. Harriet Tubman is hiding behind a tree and frantically reloading her gun while Gideon Brodess rode on horseback and slowly made his way up the hillside to her. He was relaxed and confident, while she was summoning all of her strength and faith to survive the upcoming encounter.

Gideon was surprised by Harriet who emerged from behind a tree and aimed her gun at him.

His rifle wasn’t in the position to defend himself. She commanded that he throw it on the ground. After repeating herself, he relented and threw the rifle on the ground. She shot, but didn’t kill Gideon. She wounded his hand. The concept of Chekhov’s gun worked. The prop in the story was used, but history wasn’t changed to make her a killer.

Harriet also ordered Gideon to dismount his horse. She then took his horse and rode off,

abandoning him in the woods to find his way back to safety.

She confronted a man who had controlled every aspect of her life and of her family’s life. She demonstrated how strong a person she had become and that her faith in God was sacrosanct.

Her final farewell to Gideon was saying, “God don’t mean for people to own people.”

This sequence may never have happened in real life, but it allowed for the closure of a toxic relationship and is an emotionally satisfying scene for the audience. She was the victor by not only escaping again, but by showing that God was on her side.

And then, almost as an epilogue, there’s a scene where Harriet Tubman is shown later in life as a  commander of Union Troops in the Combahee River Raid in Beaufort, South Carolina. After delivering a stirring speech to the troops, she sings a song that is the signal to the slaves that the time has come to be rescued, hundreds begin running toward the ships. Then their white masters follow in hot pursuit. It is then we see Harriet shoulder a rifle and say the word, “Ready” as the soldiers get set to shoot their guns at the rebels.

At that point, Harriet’s gun likely killed someone. So the literary concept of Chekhov’s gun was fully used, even if we never saw someone die on screen from the lead character’s actions. And, it is hard to criticize soldiers for killing their enemies in a time of war.

Overall, I simply disagree with the accusation that the film makers for the movie Harriet used the “white savior” movie trope. Instead, I find their narrative to flesh out the life of an historic character to be utilizing the literary concept of “Chekhov’s gun.”

Here is the official trailer for the movie to demonstrate a few of the lines I quoted above.

 

  Please let me know if you have any feedback. I would like to start a productive discussion regarding this topic.

Review of the movie Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part I

First some overall comments that do not include spoilers.

I thought this was one of the best adaptations of the series to the screen. I am glad they chose to split the story into two movies because the plot in the seventh book is so intricate that to try and condense it into a standard movie length story would oversimplify things to the point of eliminating the magic of the story.

If you have not read the series, the movie will probably confuse you. My husband has seen all the movies, but never read the books and he was confused by the movie. I had to explain some details about Horcruxes that I know were explained in the previous movie, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, (HPB), but that he probably forgot or maybe never really understood.

So if you are a casual fan of the series and have not read the books, I recommend seeing it with someone who has read all the books. They will then be able to explain things afterward to help you understand those things you missed.

Overall the special effects are wonderful and appear seamless. The tone of the movie is brooding and dark, but there are touches of humor to lighten the mood at times. There are odes to the darkness of World War II and attempts at race purification.

The acting is great and some of the stellar British actors involved in the series shine even when they have few lines and only a few moments onscreen. The child actors have grown into their parts and no longer appear uncomfortable in their roles.

After this point, I will be discussing aspects of the movie and for those who do not want to read spoilers, please stop reading this post now.

SPOILER Section

Movies by their nature as a visual medium are different than books as a vehicle for storytelling. Things that might need pages of description in a book can be conveyed with a few frames in a movie. There were many condensing of events to speed things along. For example, the death of Hedwig was done differently than in the book, but it worked and streamlined the narrative. Other examples of introducing information quickly was a line by Bill Weasley of being attacked by Fenrir Greyback, (since that event was not included in the movie version of HBP), and the radio news mentioning that Severus Snape was the newly appointed headmaster of Hogwarts.

I especially liked one of the beginning scenes where Hermione gave her parents a memory charm and erased her own image from family photographs. It was a sacrifice that moved me to tears.

The Seven Harry Potters scene included some great bits of physical humor. The twins, Fred and George, were only on screen for a short while, but they stole every scene they were in. I particularly liked Saint George quietly sipping his tea while watching his little sister kissing Harry Potter in the kitchen.

The scenes in Grimmauld Place were creepy as I expected. I do wish however, that we had been able to see the transformation of Kreacher after being given Regulus' locket. I thought that was one of the most touching aspects of the whole series.

Imelda Staunton gave another cloyingly evil performance as Dolores Umbridge. I also liked the casting of Nick Moran as Scabior. He looked dangerous and had a Bad Boy look about him which made him ever so watchable.

The one thing that bugged me about the sequence at the Ministry of Magic was the delay of the Trio leaving the building once their Polyjuice Potion disguises wore off. Yes, it was funny that Ron Weasley had a woman who thought he was her husband and she wouldn't let him leave. However, Harry was standing there without anything covering his face and didn't try to disguise himself. Really? Come on. He's Undesirable #1, he's in the belly of the beast and is just waiting for his friend to extricate himself from a woman's arms? Really?

I had to re-read that passage and realized that the effects of the Polyjuice Potion held until after they left the Ministry. :shakes head: So that's one scene I don't really understand the different choices made by the screenwriter and director.

I mean, the Trio should be practicing CONSTANT VIGILANCE. Harry should have covered his face and pretended to cough. He should cough enough to get people to want to avoid him, but not enough to bring unwanted attention to himself.

The splinching worked, but my husband was wondering what "splinching" meant. I had to whisper the explanation to him.

I liked Xenophilius Lovegood, his strange house and the animation sequence telling the story of the Three Brothers. I thought that worked well. The animation reminded me of the Tim Burton style.

I loved the scenes in Malfoy Manor where Lucius Malfoy looked like a broken man. His choice years ago to become a follower of Voldemort had taken its toll. He was now a prisoner in his own home with unwanted guests that he could not evict.

Tom Felton as Draco also looked as if he regretted becoming a Death Eater. He had followed his father's footsteps, but there were signs that he did not like what was happening. The Evil was just a bit too much for him. Or so it seemed.

I was glad to see Dobby once again. He had been a part of other books, but this was his first reappearance in a movie since Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Dobby was one of my favorite characters. He was odd, but fiercely loyal to Harry Potter. The one thing I did not understand was the clothing he wore. Dobby was a free elf. He should have been wearing something other than a nasty pillowcase. He could worn a flower print shirt, a strange necktie, and paisley printed shorts. Instead they just gave him clunky shoes to wear to designate his free elf status. Bah! Dobby was free, he deserved clothes.

Beyond that minor wardrobe related criticism, I loved the scenes with Dobby. He was a great character who helped rescue Harry and his friends. The death of Dobby was something that made me cry both in the reading of the book and in the movie. His sacrifice on behalf of Harry Potter was touching.

I am glad that the movie ended there as well as Voldemort grave robbing from Dumbledore's tomb. It shows where both sides in the war are at this point in time. It will also allow for the action/adventure sequences of Gringotts, Aberforth's confessions about Dumbledore, Snape's death and deathbed memories, the sacrifice in the Forbidden Forest as well as the ending duel to be shown in detail for great cinematic glory. Part II should be a wonderful ending to a marvelous series.

For those who are just fans of the series, I would love to hear your thoughts on the movie in the comment section.

SHIPPING Thoughts from a recovering Harry Potter addict

Now onto the matter of Harry and Hermione's relationship in this film. For those who were not a part of the online Harry Potter fandom, you will not understand how a movie scene that was not in the book could be potentially controversial.

It is only because I was a part of the fandom and participated in the online debates that I realize the dance scene could be like chum to sharks. It is likely to set off a feeding frenzy. The most vituperative subject of debates in the online fandom dealt with romantic relationships, also known as "shipping."

I looked at it as a communal attempt at in-depth literary analysis. It was not the passive writing a paper for a professor and hoping to get a good grade. No, it was putting forth your thoughts in public and having others challenge your assumptions and then offer up their own theories. Sometimes it was just getting kudos or cyber stinkbombs sent your way.

I argued on behalf of the Harry/Hermione ship. I also argued that I welcomed a Love Triangle between the Trio. That was something many Ron/Hermione shippers simply did not want to contemplate. They thought it would be too painful and that Harry wouldn't want to risk hurting his friend Ron.

I feel that love triangles can be powerful dramatic constructs. It has inherent conflict in its structure. There had been so many other love triangles used in the series that having a love triangle between Harry/Hermione/Ron seemed inevitable.

As it turns out, I was right. Jo Rowling used a Love Triangle within the Trio and it worked well, both in the book and in the movie. Ron was certainly jealous at the thought of Harry and Hermione becoming a couple. It showed on his face with black circles under his eyes when he wore the cursed locket around his neck and saw them talking together. Later, when he was challenged by Harry to destroy the Horcrux his fears were demonstrated by the torturous images shown by a piece of Voldemort's soul depicting his friends in a compromising position. Something that would drive him mad and perhaps make him use the sword against Harry and not the locket.

All of that was in the canon. However, there was a scene in the movie that was not in the book and it surprised me.

The Dance Scene.

Ron stormed off and left Harry Potter for his search for Horcruxes, Hermione chose to remain behind and not leave with Ron. Harry and Hermione are alone in a tent and are listening to music on a radio. Harry coaxes Hermione to join him in a dance. At first it is a light and breezy dance, a little awkward in the steps, but it ends with them in an embrace.

They could have easily kissed at that point. Hermione looked as if she considered kissing Harry then deliberately avoided succumbing to that temptation.

As I was sitting in the theater, I could not help but think how upset the Ron/Hermione shippers I had debated all those years ago would be with that scene. All it would have taken was one kiss and then the pairings Would Have Changed Forever. Harry would have realized that the woman for him was not his best friend's little sister, but his other best friend who had been by his side through countless adventures. A woman who had saved his life several times and had shown unwavering loyalty and sacrifice on his behalf.

There are countless number of Harry/Hermione fanfics that are nothing more than finding some kind of excuse to get them alone together so they can discover that they are attracted to one another. One kiss and then fade to black or possibly NC-17 territory. It all depends on the fic writer and what their intent is on writing the story of them becoming a couple.

In this case, if they had kissed it would probably have led to them being in bed together. These were two teens with raging hormones were alone together where no one could hear them, see them, or find them. They were also under the ever present threat of being found, captured and killed. That kind of wartime stress has led to many quick romances. In this case it would have been for two best friends discovering their attraction to one another. It would have changed the romantic pairings forever. It would also have been Ron's greatest fear when he destroyed the locket: Hermione had chosen Harry over him.

Another thing that surprised me about the movie was seeing Jo Rowling's name in the credits as a producer. She could easily have had that scene removed from the movie if she wanted. She had given a note to the screenwriter in HBP when there was a bit of dialogue of Dumbledore reminiscing of a long-lost girlfriend that said, "Dumbledore is gay." That nixed those proposed lines.

Rowling allowed the dance scene showing the possibility of Harry and Hermione becoming a romantic couple to remain in the movie. Why?

Was it a bone for Harry/Hermione shippers?

Or was it included because it was good drama?

I believe it was the latter, because I believe in the power of drama.

I am also certain that some stalwart Ron/Hermione shippers will find that scene offensive because of their years of arguing against H/Hr. That would make them not want to see even subtle hints of that romantic pairing.

Jo Rowling admitted in an interview published in Melissa Anelli's book Harry: A History that it could have gone Harry/Hermione.

"Now, the fact is that Hermione shares moments with Harry that Ron will never be able to participate in. He walked out. She shared something very intense with Harry. So, I think it could have gone that way." Page 266

Precisely. We were not delusional at all. We saw the romantic potential that could have been.

And now, there is even a poll (totally non-scientific) by MTV to see whether or not people wished it had gone H/Hr over R/Hr.

As I am writing this, H/Hr is winning.

Last night my twelve year old son asked me why Jo Rowling went with Ron and Hermione as a couple when he thinks that Harry and Hermione would have made a better couple. I sighed and then had to try and explain to him that Jo Rowling was using literary alchemy as the underlying framework for her story. Therefore Harry's girlfriends had hair color that went in the following sequence: black, white, red. (Cho, Luna - they did have one little date in HBP, Ginny) This was supposed to reflect the three stages of alchemy in order: nigredo, albedo, rubedo.

Hermione had brown hair, so she didn't fit in that schema.

Instead, Hermione was supposed to represent the element mercury and Ron was sulphur, both are needed in the alchemical formula to create gold.

For those shaking their heads, I point you to my friend John Granger's capable hands in understanding the usage of alchemy throughout the series. It was something I didn't want to acknowledge as constraining Rowling's dramatic choices, but as it turns out: John's original assumptions and predictions of Harry/Ginny and Ron/Hermione were spot on because those pairings work alchemically.

In case you were wondering, my son shook his head at my explanation. It wasn't what he wanted to hear.

What are your thoughts of the movie? Did that dance scene delight or bother you?

http://lcmccabe.blogspot.com/2010/11/review-of-movie-harry-potter-and.html

The Lightning Thief: My Review

I have read some online reviews from fans of the book who are savaging the movie makers by deviating from any aspect of the book. I do not share that criticism, although I do think there were some alterations that I would not have made.

Yes, the movie is different from the book. Duh. All movies that are adapted from novels have to change to meet the needs of the medium.

The storyline was streamlined from the book, and there were some changes, but overall it stayed pretty faithful to the story.

Yes the actors are older than the characters in the stories, but I always thought that a twelve year old battling the Minotaur was more than should be expected of a child. Demigod or not. Having Percy and Annabeth being older seems more believable.

My son thought Annabeth should have been blonde and with a ponytail as she is described in the book. :shrugs: Not a big problem for me.

I am going to try and be light on spoilers that would reveal plot twists for those who are interested in seeing the movies or reading the books.

To me, it appears that the filmmakers are unsure as to whether or not they want to make any further movies in this series. The box office haul will probably determine whether or not any sequels will get the green light. Therefore certain plot elements were eliminated which I think should have been included because it minimized the overall meaning of the Most Evil Plot of stealing Zeus' master lightning bolt.

Bummer. The implications of that theft and what it Could Have Meant to Western Civilization and to the Fate of the World as We Know It is what drives the rest of the series. Until the end of Book 5 (The Last Olympian) when that Most Eeeevil threat is finally defeated for once and for all.

It also means that it would be the fulfillment of a vague but ominous sounding Great Prophecy that was given probably about fifty years earlier by the Oracle of Delphi.

That Great Prophecy was not mentioned, nor even alluded to in the movie. Instead there was a different explanation as to why the Greek gods and goddesses did not have contact with their demigod children. Personally, I found that explanation given at the end of the movie by Poseidon to be lame.

Because it also contradicted a few of the underlying aspects of the story as established in the books, such as the demigods going to Mount Olympus at the Winter Solstice which is when the theft occurred.

So no explanation of how the theft occurred is provided in the movie. Just the revelation of who the culprit really was and a paler reason as to the motive was behind the theft than what was in the book.

The moviemakers also did not include the Oracle of Delphi being a strange resident in Camp Half-Blood. If any sequels are made, then the Oracle will have to be included and the omission of it in the first movie will not be really seen as a gaping plot hole.

Without the Oracle, there was no prophecy given for the quest that Percy went on. Instead, he set out on his own with two friends who insisted on going with him. They sought help from another camper who gave them a map, a shield, flying shoes, and a plan to find magical pearls to use in the Underworld. Magical pearls which in the book were given to Percy in another scene by other immortal beings.

I was not bothered by that difference, but I did not like the stage design for the cabins at Camp Half-Blood. Especially the cabin for the children of Hermes. In the book, that cabin is described as being overstuffed with campers to the point there aren't enough bunks for everyone, so sleeping bags are strewn around the floor.

In the movie we only see Luke in that cabin and he's playing high tech video games. I did not understand why they chose to make that difference other than there were fewer extras used in that scene.

I liked that they changed one action/adventure sequence from the Arch in Saint Louis to being at the Pantheon in Nashville. That was pretty cool having a Greek temple in the movie rather than an arch.

I thought showing letters moving around was a good visual for audiences to understand how dyslexics have difficulty decoding the written word. That was easier for filmmakers than the author to get across in his books.

I also liked Hades having an Alice Cooper look about him. He was compared onscreen to Mick Jagger, but I think Alice Cooper was more appropriate. Hades was still funny as he was in the book, but for different reasons.

There was also no showing of the Isles of the Blessed or Elysium Fields. This made the Underworld look like unrelenting hell. They also missed out on showing the EZ Death lines. I preferred the updated today version of Charon in the book to the more classic version of Charon which appeared in the movie.

There was something that did bug me. A continuity error.

Persephone should not have been in the Underworld when Percy arrived. She wasn't there in the books because it was the Summer Solstice and she would be above ground.

So the screenwriter changing some aspects of how Percy escaped should have seen the fact of why she was not there.

Because her presence there at that time of the year is not compatible with Greek myths.

However, if they really wanted her there, they needed to give a justification as to why she was there. They could have had a line inserted with Persephone giving some kind of explanation of why she was there, but there wasn't.

And I don't recall Annabeth calling Percy "Seaweed Brain." Not once. Bummer. I like that term of endearment/derision said to our hero.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie and the humor. I hope it does well, and we will purchase the DVD as soon as it is available. I will also look forward to going to see The Sea of Monsters should it be filmed.

Oh, and for those going to see the movie, please do not leave as soon as the credits start to roll. There is another scene which is worthwhile staying for about a minute into the credits. It does vary from what happened in the movie, but...it is GREAT.

My Love for Percy Jackson and the Olympians

I love Greek Mythology.

I have loved it since I read my first book on the subject when I was about nine years old.

The stories were larger than life. I enjoyed the drama and the tragedy.

I read as many books on Greek mythology that I could find. After awhile, I recognized that even though different authors told the same stories that they weren't identical. There were variations in the details.

It was then that I started cultivating my own preferences in regard to the legends. I tried reading Edith Hamilton's books, but I found them dull. She bored me, even if she is thought to be a great authority on the subject.

I much preferred D'Aulaire's Book of Greek Myths. It was the first book that made me stay up late into the night reading. I was in sixth grade and read until four in the morning. I have since bought that book several times over. I have given it as gifts, and have bought replacement copies when my loaned copy never came back.



The aspect that I liked best in their telling was introducing each god, goddess and hero separately with their own story. Then as you finished with one god, the narrative thread pulled you to the next story. I still love that book, and used it to introduce my own son to Greek mythology.

I find the stories in Greek myths to be rich with honor, drama, hubris and pathos. Unfortunately, I have been greatly disappointed with movies trying to tackle this wealth of dramatic potential. It is as if the screenwriters and filmmakers do not know how to utilize the power of these stories and find themselves adding extraneous subplots that ruin the stories.

I hated the Harry Hamlin/Ursula Andress version of Clash of the Titans. I can't remember much of the plot, but I remember shaking my head repeatedly going, "No, that's not how it went." I also remember that the special effects were clunky and only slightly better than Godzilla versus the Smog Monster.

Then there was Disney's Hercules. I couldn't force myself to watch the whole thing. Hercules was somehow or another involved with Pegasus. Pegasus!

Ahem. Hercules had nothing to do with Pegasus. It was Bellerophon who rode on the back of Pegasus.

And then Disney had Hades shown as a comical character with minions of Pain and Panic.

ARRRRRGH.

Are you kidding me? Give me Deimos and Phobos any day. And make them fearful characters, not comic relief.

I found the story so painful I had to shut it off.

Given those bad experiences of attempts to translate Greek mythology into movies, I was reluctant to wade into those waters again. I knew what I liked, and pretty much left it alone for years.

Then came Percy Jackson.

The first time I became aware of the Percy Jackson and the Olympians series was in a bookstore and saw the cover of The Battle of the Labyrinth.




It was the word labyrinth which caught my attention. My friend Cindy Pavlinac loves labyrinths. Thinking of Cindy, I picked up the book and read the back cover. It is the fourth installment of the Percy Jackson series, which meant to understand what was going on in it I'd have to read three other books first.

And, well, reading the summation that the series dealt with Greek mythology was actually a turn off for me. Because of my previous bad experiences with movie adaptations of Greek myths. I was afraid it would be handled just as poorly.

I saw that book on several different occasions and I resisted buying it.

It was only when I saw a listing of the awards given to the first book in the series that I decided to give it a try.





I started reading the book with my son, and after about a week or so, I began reading ahead.

I read all five books in quick succession.

I will admit that the beginning of the first book seems a bit rushed and clunky, but once Percy Jackson is given the iconic Call to Adventure the story really takes off.

Rick Riordan chose to set this series in modern day with the premise that the Greek gods are real and that they follow Western civilization.

Greece is no longer the focal point of Western civilization, so Mount Olympus has moved.

The home of the gods is now atop of the Empire State Building in New York City. The 600th floor to be exact.

Likewise, the entrance to the Underworld has changed as well. It is under Los Angeles.

After having lived in Los Angeles for a few years, I have to say that was an inspired choice.

Riordan set up the idea the monsters from Greek myths were without souls, so they cannot really ever die. Instead they are archetypes that when given enough time can re-form. That allows Riordan the freedom to recycle the Biggest, Baddest Meanies of Greek myths in his stories. He uses the Minotaur, Medusa, Polyphemus and more.

Riordan weaves different stories from Greek mythology together in a manner that should inspire children to want to learn more about his source material. He obviously read up on the subject and even used some lesser known figures and stories.

My favorite part of his series was trying to puzzle out who different gods, goddesses, monsters and characters from the legends before they were positively identified in the text. There was once when I was reading to my son that I shouted out "Echidna!" two whole pages before she was named in the story.

It made me feel like a Greek myth trivia whiz.

Another aspect of enjoyment for me was how Rick Riordan saw the various gods and goddesses. Riordan and I seem to have similar affinities for the deities. I have always been drawn to Athena and her character is treated with respect and deference. Aphrodite? Not so much. Neither is Hera.

Ares the God of War is shown as a punk. Apollo is cool and wears sun glasses.

Poseidon dresses a lot like Jimmy Buffett.

The god who surprised me the most was Riordan's treatment of Hades. I never expected him to be that funny. And, Hades was being unintentionally funny. A difficult trick to pull off.

And now a movie has been made of The Lightning Thief. The previews look fabulous, even though the actors are much older than the characters from Riordan's stories. Riordan had Percy as being twelve in the first book and turning sixteen in the last volume.

Logan Lerman who plays Percy Jackson was seventeen, not twelve.

As a mother, I find it easier to believe that a seventeen year old could battle the Minotaur rather than a child around my son's age.

So that difference does not bother me. I also know that the filmmakers might want to appeal to teenaged audiences as well, so have an older teen will probably sell more tickets. Whatever works. Just be sure to keep the humor intact as well as the action in these stories.

Right now, I am looking forward to seeing the movie next weekend with my son who will be proudly wearing the handmade Camp Half-Blood t-shirt I made for him.










Trailer

Review of Disney Earth

Last night we saw Disney's Earth.

It was a feast for the senses.

The movie showed the Arctic, the Antarctic, forests, rain forests, mountains, deserts, savannahs rivers, waterfalls, and the ocean.

There were gorgeous shots that panned over vast expanses of land.

James Earl Jones provided the narration. He has such a wonderful voice and the narrative lines were at times very light and humorous. Other times the reality of the effects of climate change on the lives of animals caused a more serious tone to be adopted.

It was beautiful. Well worth the cost of admission to see areas of our world that unless you had aerial transportation and an unlimited personal budget you might not otherwise ever see.

One of my favorite parts was seeing various exotic birds of paradise in the equatorial rain forest and their mating dances.

It was spectacular to see slow motion photography of a great white shark jumping out of the ocean water and consuming a seal in one snap of his jaws.

There is also a slow motion chase by a cheetah and a night vision scene where a pride of lions goes up against a herd of elephants. I did not realize that lions working together could take down a full grown elephant.

Yikes. It serves as a reminder of just how powerful the Queen of the Jungle can be. (I say this because lionesses are the ones who actually do the killing. Ye Olde King of the Jungle is waiting until the food is brought to him and then he eats first.)

One more thing, be sure to stay and watch the credits. You will be rewarded by seeing some of the camera crews getting various shots. Some are in the Arctic, others in the ocean and one has a close encounter with his helium balloon and a baobab tree.


The movie is suitable for all ages. Even little ones.

And a quick announcement before I end this post. I am guest blogging on my friend Lee Lofland's blog again. Today's topic is gardens and art in Paris. Please feel free to stop by there, take a look at some beautiful travel photos and say hi!