The first busy weekend of likely several. Today you get my thoughts on the seventh Harry Potter film, Feed the Queue entry Midnight Express,

So, here is what I watched this weekend:

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, PART I

Next year marks the tenth anniversary of the Harry Potter film franchise. The Sorcerer’s Stone opened in 2001 and how fitting is it that the final film releases in the summer of next year (it would have been better in the fall since that’s when the original released, but that’s not important right now)? Yet of the seven Harry Potter novels inventively crafted by J.K. Rowling, there are eight films. Even though a number of the books could have been easily expanded into two parts, it wasn’t until this final film that Warner Bros. decided to squeeze out the last monetary bit of the franchise they could before it comes to an end. So how does a novel get split in two successfully? Apparently better than I expected.

By now, most everyone who is considering watching this film already knows the story. A baby, through the power of his mother’s love, is spared when the dark wizard Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) attempted to murder him in his crib. His parents didn’t survive, but he did and was put into hiding with his Muggle relatives on Privet Drive. Like his parents, the boy has the blood of witches and wizards flowing in his vein and in order to train him in the arts, he is sent off to Hogwartz School of Witchraft and Wizardry. Seven years and dozens of trials later, Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) cannot go back to Hogwarts for Voldemort has returned to full strength and he and his cult of Death Eaters are desperate to find the Boy Who Lived so that Voldemort can exact his revenge by killing him.

Harry is joined by his stalwart companions Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) as they attempt to find the remaining four Horcruxes, the magical devices into which Voldemort forged his soul in an effort to remain living even if he were to be defeated. Their goal is to destroy them all in hopes of being able to thwart Voldemort for the final time.

The tone of the film is set early. This is not your child’s Harry Potter. The world is dark and dangerous and Voldemort is completely evil. At a council in the home of Lucius Malfoy (Jason Isaacs), the Dark Lord learns of where and when Harry Potter will be transported to his new, safe location. We also learn of plans to infiltrate the Ministry of Magic as well as the fate of a Muggle Studies teacher from Hogwarts who is to be used as an example of what Voldemort plans to do once he is fully in control.

You can’t watch this film and not find some emotional jolt at various times. From the double death in the first chase scene to the late-film set up for the final chapter. This isn’t a movie of happy young witches and wizards learning their arts and getting into trouble. This is a rich, vicious film that doesn’t pull punches and knows just what the book series has needed and has infrequently received: a lesson in the harsh realities of the fight between good and evil.

Nearly every facet of the film is at a series-best level: the art direction, costuming, makeup, visual effects, sound effects, music and acting. Each aspect pushes the film from its humble cinematic fluff origins into an actual feature film that does more than just entertaining. It exposes the audience to difficult situations and doesn’t look to the silver lining as a guide for how to spin the tale.

When you are constantly surrounded by a master class of thespians, it’s no wonder Radcliffe, Grint and Watson are performing at the top of their respective games here. Grint has always been the weakest of the three in my eyes, but he has acquitted himself nicely in this penultimate film. Nearly gone are the whiny vacillations, the snarky comments and the deer-in-headlights glances. Grint now carries the full depth and direness of the role and the situation, delivering a performance that is mature and laudable. Yet, he’s still outdone by his compatriots. Watson has a decent amount of talent and she’s used it effectively in the last two films, but perhaps the dramatic heft of the narrative has forced her to buckle down and deliver as we haven’t seen her before. There is genuine sensitivity and compassion in her performance. Radcliffe has also displayed his talents in the previous films, but he improves on his past here. He has the ability to play comic and dramatic roles with equal weight. The scene where he must take on the physical affectations of six other characters when they are all changed into likenesses of him with Polyjuice Potion is brief, but captures his talent nearly perfectly, but its his scenes alone in the tent with Hermione and Ron where all of his vast tutelage comes to bare.

The cinematography is easily the film’s weakest element. In particular the excessive use of overly-shaky handheld cameras, is the least impressive aspect of the film. That’s not to say the stationary scenes aren’t perfectly lit, composed and shot, but when you have a hard time focusing on the details during fight scenes or can’t seem to follow what’s going on because you are distracted by the camera movement, there is a problem. I can only hope that technique is used minimally in the final film.

After director David Yates nearly destroyed my faith in the franchise with the sixth film, Harry Potter and the Snogging (since the Half-Blood Prince almost feels immaterial to the plot of the film), I was quite taken aback at how well the seventh film has done at alleviating those trepidations. We could have been given maudlin moments or unnecessary excesses, but for the most part the film does a tremendous job not only feeling faithful to the book, but in creating a renewed interest in the fates of these characters.

The pomp and circumstance of blockbusters is present. We have little doubt of what we are watching, but after 10 years, we are so enamored with these characters that even those on the periphery evoke strong emotional connections with the audience. And there is little doubt that the next film in the series will further play on that love and admiration, ripping our hearts out at each death and injury. Things are only going to get darker before the end and this film has efficiently set our expectations for the emotional final film next year.

MIDNIGHT EXPRESS

If you were in a foreign country, with a few bucks to spend, would you choose to purchase pounds of illegal drugs and attempt to smuggle them back to the U.S.? Most people would buy souvenirs, but Billy Hayes (Brad Davis) had apparently not heard about Turkish prisons when he decided to buy a large stash of hashish and tape it to his torso in an effort to sneak it out of the country. However, his inexperience and fear lead to his capture and his resultant poor decisions cause him to be incarcerated in one of the most notoriously horrendous prisons in the world.

In the 1970s, the illegal drug trade was a serious issue for the government of Turkey and in an effort to crack down on the desire to smuggle from their nation, they cracked down on traffickers and made examples of them. Billy was in the wrong country at the wrong time and doing the wrong thing. For his youthful ignorance, he was punished. Inside the prison, things like blankets and cigarettes were bartered and sold. You didn’t just get perks and when you broke the rules, as unfamiliar with them as you might be, you were punished, usually through the caning of bare feet. We are shown this procedure on a number of occasions. Midnight Express, a term for escaping the prison, is not a film for the squeamish. Although we never see the broken flesh, the threat and pain of the torture is accentuated. In trying to tell a true story, director Alan Parker is also telling a cautionary tale, attempting to scare young audiences into doing the right thing and not getting themselves into an inescapable position.

While in the prison, Billy meets an interesting array of characters. Randy Quaid plays Jimmy Booth, an excitable man constantly looking for a way out. Norbert Weisser plays Billy’s Nordic pal Erich who attempts to temper Billy’s anger and frustration. And Oscar-nominated John Hurt is the well-connected Max, a bespectacled, flamboyant inmate of seven years. He’s the longest serving person in the prison and knows the ins and outs, but is so frequently drugged out that finding out information is extremely difficult. The four of them provide support in an atmosphere of danger, crime and fear. The inmates are more afraid of the guards than they are of each other.

Billy isn’t focused on escape because he believes his lawyers will be able to get him out, but when that opportunity passes and his sentence is lengthened, his frustration begins boiling over and he begins looking for every chance to escape he can, even though he comes across only two.

This was Brad Davis’ first big screen outing and he does such a tremendous job with the role that it’s surprising that his career on the big screen never launched beyond Chariots of Fire three years later; for the most part, he remained a television hit for a few years before disappearing into obscurity before his untimely death in 1991. His performance conveys the hope, desperation, sorrow, insanity and calculation of Billy Hayes so effectively that you almost forget you’re watching an actor. Quaid has his moments, but Hurt is the true standout in support. His drug-addled role highlights his talent quite effectively.

The story is well written and plotted, never feeling tedious or lethargic. Nothing is taken for granted. We never have information forced down our throats. If it has one flaw, it’s the overbearing soliloquy Billy recites before the judiciary as he’s handed down his life sentence. The length is the issue, not the tone or passion used to deliver the speech. It just feels excessive, but it’s such a brief moment that it doesn’t distract much from the film surrounding it.

Director Alan Parker had only fielded one theatrical motion picture prior, but Midnight Express put him on the map. His Oscar nomination was richly deserved and he would later go on to direct two of my favorite films: Pink Floyd’s narrative feature The Wall and the big screen adaptation of the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical Evita. But even though I enjoy both of those films, this represents the best work behind the camera I’ve seen of his so far.

MCCABE & MRS. MILLER

The man who would come to be known for his big screen ensemble comedies, did his time as a dramatic director in the 1970s. One of those films was McCabe & Mrs. Miller, the story of a frontier settlement sprung out of the willpower of John McCabe (Warren Beatty) and which began to flourish under the guiding hand of Constance Miller (Julie Christie). Robert Altman knew how to handle big name actors and keep them rooted in reality, keep their excesses at bay and helping them meet the full potential of their talent.

The movie itself is as grounded as his thespians. The dismal, difficult life of those who went west in hopes of making something for themselves has been glossed over in many films and television shows. Although programs like Little House on the Prairie and Gunsmoke highlighted some aspects of frontier living, McCabe & Mrs. Miller nails the details and dangers. The dirtiness, dinginess and atmosphere of the film helps guide the audience in its belief in the characters who are struggling to survive. Mrs. Miller is a high class whore who knows how to run a whore house and promises McCabe that her choices will bring a boon to his town. Meanwhile, he is struggling with his feelings for the fair Miller and must face jealousy every time she takes on a client other than him. Yet even though he treats her like a whore, giving her money in exchange for her companionship, he and she both understand the dynamics of their relationship and use each other for those ends.

When a pair of representatives from a major mining operation come to town in hopes of buying McCabe’s hard work from under him, his desire to get the top price through negotiations leads the two impatient men to leave and send a hit squad to take care of McCabe and thereby allowing their company to swoop in and buy it all for a pittance. There are three assassins who arrive in town and they aren’t coy or quiet about their professions. One is an impetuous young gunslinger constantly looking for a reason to shoot his piece. One is a quiet, unassuming man whose intentions, decisions and purpose are unexplained. Then there’s the smooth talking leader of the group who carefully quizzes McCabe to assess his seriousness as a threat and decides quite quickly that he will be no match.

Altman’s film focuses entirely on the natural environment, its effect on the people and the relationships between the various people in the town. His narrative strengths are minimal after a length first hour, the film picks up the pace. By the end, as the film switches back and forth between the cat-and-mouse game between McCabe and his would-be killers and the town’s desperate attempts to save the burning church. These last sequence is so well edited that the lengthiness of the first half of the film is a bit mystifying. Certainly Altman wants to convey how slow things move on the frontier, but it keeps the film from feeling complete. The two sections almost feel like two different movies. And the whole abandoned plot with the lawyer seeking to strike out against the monopoly feels like the turning point between the slow slice-of-life section and the more quickly paced hunter-prey segment.

Even with its minor imperfections, McCabe & Mrs. Miller remains one of Altman’s stronger efforts. And for not sticking to the light humor shtick he perfected in M*A*S*H, he deserves some extra credit.

THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER

There are reasons Tom Hanks was often compared to James Stewart and it wasn’t because Hanks’ You’ve Got Mail was a re-write of this Ernst Lubitsch film, but because both actors have become known for playing slightly lovable everyman characters. They don’t seem more successful, or wealthy, or beautiful than the rest of us. They have the same foibles and fears as the rest of us. The Shop Around the Corner is probably the best film to highlight the type of movie Stewart was often known for.

In a small Hungarian department store, Alfred Kralik (Stewart) is a long-serving sales associate and one of Matuschek and Company’s top employees. The store’s owner and its namesake Hugo Matuschek (Frank Morgan) thinks of Kralik as a son. So strong is their bond that Kralik is the only employee who will stand up to Matuschek and tell him the truth. All of the others either agree with every word the boss says, go out of their way to weigh in, or spend their entire careers sucking up. The office place hasn’t changed a lot in the last 70 years since this film was made, which may be why it has endured so well since then.

The balance is tipped the day an out-of-work salesgirl, Klara Novak (Maragaret Sullavan) arrives looking for work. Despite being told by Kralik that she wasn’t likely to get a job, her skills with a customer easily impress Matuschek and she’s in. Novak and Kralik are constantly at odds. Kralik doesn’t like her impetuousness and Novak doesn’t like his rigidity. So, it comes as little surprise when the audience figures out that Novak and Kralik happen to be corresponding with each other secretly and have begun to fall in love through the written word.

Lubitsch doesn’t seem to have a flare for the dramatic. The film feels like a stagebound production wanting to keep the audience entertained with the absolute minimum of style. The movie feels a bit flat in places and the plotting is a touch slow. Yet, he doesn’t force the audience to see what’s going on. He often lets them make up their own minds. So while on the one hand, he directs the film like a contract player towing the studio line, on the other he trusts the audience will be able to watch and decide how they feel on their own without his assistance.

After You Can’t Take It With You, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and It’s a Wonderful Life, there isn’t much new or original int he role of Alfred Kralik. We’ve seen this performance time and again. It works well enough, but like Hanks after him, Stewart became typecast, stuck in the same style of roles for much of his career even though he tried on several occasions to branch out. Sullavan, an actress I’m far less familiar with, is adequate as Novak, but there are no sparks with Stewart. She seems almost subservient, despite the frequent story clues to the contrary. I don’t quite feel a spark between the two, which decreases the credibility of the film. Perhaps had they hired someone a bit more feisty, like Katharine Hepburn or Greer Garson, they might have had a more interesting dynamic in the film; however, they wouldn’t have had the mousy quality of Sullavan, which would have made this an entirely different film.

But, the film’s major faults may have been due to the adaptive nature of it. The film is based on a stage play, which may explain why the entirety feels forced. It’s a difficult challenge to make a movie feel like a living breathing entity when it isn’t developed and expanded beyond. The Shop Around the Corner has a number of charming elements and the secondary characters, despite falling into heavy stereotypes, are quite entertaining. Morgan and Joseph Schildkraut stand out best from the rest. They manage to coax enough charm and wit out of their characters that belie the underwritten nature of the parts.

A romantic comedy fan may find something to enjoy in this film, as long as they aren’t familiar with You’ve Got Mail or one of the other less famous adaptations, which might hinder some of their enjoyment of the film as they come to recognize the connections and become more distracted in seeing how they are alike and how they differ than trying to enjoy the film as it is.

And the film has one unintentional metaphor in it. In one scene Novak convinces a large woman that the cigarette box, which the customer believes to be a candy box, will actually help control her candy addiction. While the lady is a fan of the sweet confections, too many of them will not help her keep her weight down, so the constant chatter of the candy box tune will help make her aware of how frequently she’s partaking in the sweets and hopefully reduce her intake. The Shop Around the Corner is like a piece of chocolate. While it tastes good, you need the constant reminder that you’re watching your weight so you don’t overindulge.

PSYCH

The first five episodes of Season Three and the remainder of Season Two are now under my belt and while the show is still quite funny, the cases have become less interesting. And by “less interesting” I don’t really mean less involving, because they are still fun to watch, but they are less bizarre. The show seems to be choosing more meaningful cases, more realistic ones and ones that highlight the father/son, mother/son, friend/friend relationships better than the first two seasons. The dynamic between the characters has softened, which is a bonus, but it does call into question how well the show can continue to hold up and how long it will go before the interactivity is utterly crushed. However, I will continue to enjoy it as long as it stays funny.

GLEE, episode “The Substitute”

And so we have another decent episode for the season. Not as touching or as poignant as the season’s only other bright spots, but it’s a return to form for the show. A narrative-driven episode that doesn’t harp on the “acceptance of the different” meme. However, it does focus heavily on Schuster, which seems to be the season’s other weakness. Some of the best aspects of the show have been the relationship between the glee club members, yet so far it’s been the Will Schuster and Kurt Hummel show. I’d like to see more interaction and development between the other characters. Let’s make this a true ensemble production, not a one-to-two-man show.