The dust at bookstores is beginning to settle. The highly anticipated finale more than lives up to the hype.
By ANDREW SARGUS KLEIN
Daily Arts Writer
Spoiler warning: A few minor
plot details are revealed in this
review.
With- Harry Potter
out a doubt Deathly
J.K. Rowl- and the
ing knows Hallows
what she's
doing. Scholastic
She has
methodically, surgically devel-
oped the arc of the Harry Potter
series across seven books, with the
last, "Harry Potter and the Death-
ly Hallows," a farewell to simple,
childish wanderings and a reaf-
firmation that, in the fantasy lexi-
con, everything is going to be OK.
Somehow. In Rowling we trust.
When it comes to fantasy lit-
erature, Rowling's world is not
the world of Tolkien. Her quaint,
humble premises are explored to
limits usually reserved for C.S.
Lewis and Roald Dahl (Tolkien-
influenced Robin Hobb is the clos-
est counterpart to Rowling).
The hype surrounding the
release of "Deathly Hallows" was
an almost perfect storm: a gen-
eral, sweeping obsession with the
series, "who-done-it?" melodrama
and the release of the fifth movie,
"The Order of the Phoenix" just
days before the release of the book.
There was plenty of elbow room
for the thousands of Potter theo-
rists (many of them sporting MAs,
PhDs and MBAs from embarrass-
ingly elite schools) to conjure pre-
dictions of the series's end with
fanatical precision.
With that amount of momen-
tum, an early victim in "Deathly
Hallows" comes out of nowhere:
Hedwig, the stalwart owl, who
brought Harry his mail and kept
him company on Privet Drive for
seven years. There was no question
that certain beloved characters
were going to die, but picking off
Hedwig so early was unexpected
to the point of sneaky. We care for
the bird, damn it, and we realize
its passing is a simple metaphor for
Harry, and the series, crossing a
threshold (one that would include
references to rape, real swearing
and the base responsibilities of
parenting).
Part of that threshold is the
marginalization of the majority
of secondary characters. Harry's
quest for the Greater Good takes
precedent over the actions we have
come to expect from the heroes
we've championed. Until "Deathly
Hallows," Rowling's plot develop-
ments were carefully layered and
manipulated, based around Privet
Drive and Hogwarts. From the
death of Hedwig, about 50 pages
in, "DeathlyHallows"hurtles itself
forward through myriad locations
and contexts, barely leaving time
for the characters around Harry
to deduce what's actually going on.
And that's what really separates
this novel from its predecessors.
The whole series has been told
through Harry's eyes, but subtext
was gained through interaction
with other characters.
Ron and Hermione are with
Harry to the end, of course, but
their contributions stay on the
peripheral. Other supporting
roles, such as Neville Longbottom
and Luna Lovegood, are given sur-
prising new dimensions. Rowling
is confident in her plot economy,
choosing when and where to slide
in a paragraph or a few sentences
to develop an almost forgotten
character.
This is not a bad thing. The book
might not be what every fan was
looking for (how could it be?), but
it triumphs spectacularly. By not
overextending her focus to every
character, Rowling establishes a
confidence in their identities with
the reader.
Was Rowling's rigid guideline
of seven books too constricting?
Perhaps. An eighth book might
have fleshed out several desirable
threads, but in the end it doesn't
matter significantly. Deathly Hal-
lows might not have all the vehe-
mently predicted page-ripping
deaths and it might be rushed at
times, but the astonishingly grip-
ping finale and the 19-years-later
epilogue more than match the
need for closure.
Yes, Rowling (Jo, as she prefers
to be called), has sighed once or
twice that another book based in
the Harry Potter universe might
show up 10 or so years down the
line. Whatever. This is a near-per-
fect cap-off. The series itself is a
milestone in popular literature, a
deserving player in the develop-
ment of a child's - or a teenager's,
or an adult's - imagination.
of the Conchords") possibly for the
sole reason that they share a far-
from-beauty-mark mole right above
eachoftheirlips.Whoknows,maybe
Jarrod's sharp chops and Michael
Bolton mullet enchant Lily. Regard-
less, Lily accompanies Jarrod on his
trip home to seek revenge on a bully
who tormented him in high school.
Lily appropriately describes the
movie in saying, "There are hard
bits and then there are good bits."
The awkwardness of Jarrod's self-
prescribed depression and his
training regiment deserve chuck-
les of appreciation. But, whatsticks
out most in "Eagle vs Shark" are
the arduous and painful stretches
that reveal character flaws inspir-
ing upset instead of hilarity.
ELIE ZWIEBEL
FILM IN BRIEF
Flamboyantly tired
and unfunny
"I Now Pronounce You Chuck
and Larry"
At Quality 16 and Showcase
Universal
"I NowPronounce You Chuck and
Larry" is a perfect example of how a
comedy can have so much going for
it and still fail. It combines some
chuckle-worthy comedians with
some of today's hottest talent and a
provocative storyline with so much
potential. But the movie comes up
far short of where it could be.
New York City fireman Larry
(Kevin James, TV's "King of
Queens") needs some way to
resolve his pension problem at
work. So naturally he comes to
the most politically incorrect and
morally questionable conclusion:
Convince his best friend, Chuck
(Adam Sandler, "Click") to agree
to a fake domestic partnership so
that Larry's kids are secure should
something happens to Larry.
Soon, Chuck and Larry are
in way over their heads as they
become heroes in the gay commu-
nity. Every homosexual stereotype
is thrown around in such a garish
fashion that it seems more like gays
are being laughed at, not with.
The film leaves audiences feel-
ing cheated and uncomfortable. It
beats us over the head with mes-
sages of tolerance, but forgets
how to make the message real and
funny. Maybe one day, someone
can figure out how to make a movie
out of the same subject material
but, oh yeah, make it funny too.
SHERI JANKELOVITZ
Inconsistent humor
yields discomfort
**
"Eagle vs Shark"
At The Michigan Theater
Miramax
Recent social trends encour-
age us to embrace our latent awk-
ward tendencies and enjoy comedy
accompanied by slight discomfort.
New Zealand-made "Eagle vs
Shark" indulges the "Napoleon
Dynamite" sense of humor in all of
us that revels in the socially odd.
But"Eagle vs Shark"does nothing
to advance the "awkward comedy"
genre mainstreamed by "Napoleon
Dynamite." The Kiwi movie barely
brings anything new to the table.
Instead of chronicling the cooky
exploits of one Idahoan, moonboot-
clad Jamiroquai enthusiast, "Eagle
vs Shark" brings two painfully awk-
ward oddballs together in a love
story that dabbles in a tale about a
delayed coming of age.
Lily (Loren Horsley) lacks direc-
tion in life. She falls for Jarrod
(Jemaine Clement, TV's "The Flight