“New Yorker,” Part 2: Ludicrous Pretension and “Harry Potter”

harry potterin his review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2. David Denby poses a puzzling question. When the movie ended, the boy told his father, “That was great!” This exchange triggered in Denby this thought:

…I also wondered, with all due homage to the series, if he’ll [the young boy] be able, in ten years, to sit still for a movie without special effects and magic, a movie in which a man and a woman face each other across a table and merely talk. Or will any film without horcruxes and hippogriffs seem lifeless and dull?

Are you kidding me, David? You’re talking about a child! My guess is that this boy is a typical kid who  has seen film animation, a la Disney’s Aladdin, computer-designed films such as Toy Story, and live-action films like Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

In a word David, your rhetorical question is absurd, nay, a joke.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s