On nothing

Nothingness is a curious feeling.  You can easily argue for or against whether or not feeling nothing is feeling something that is nothing (mind you, I'm not writing about feeling numb).  It is a sensation I experience more and more as recent time has passed.

I'm unsure whether or not this is a blessing or a curse.  Being able to be faced with a situation and feel nothing can be advantageous.  It may allow for clearer thinking when a decision must be made.  It may allow you to pass through some kind of danger unharmed.  Beyond those to ideas, I can think of no other advantages.  

Disadvantages seem obvious.  You aren't feeling.  There is no high, no low, no happiness, no saddness; there is nothing.  You could argue such a feeling can be described as "flat."  I'm unsure if flat is what this is.  Perhaps it is, but I can't recognize it well enough to be confident in a description of "flat."

When analyzing this not feeling, the question arises of how is it possible to not feel?  I don't think it is  Using me as an example, I know do smile, laugh, seem happy, etc., but if I dive into introspection the quesiton becomes am I actually [insert emotion]?  Doubt will always appear, especially if you cannot remember any events of true elation or the like.  Perhaps Descartes would relish in this line of self examination.  Though I won't use a circular argument to come to a conclusion.

Why even write this?  A friend of mine had a moment of emotion today.  I could feel no empathy.  I knew I could feel it, because I think I have before.  Now one ought not empathize with everything they observe, but the problem comes when one tries to empathize, but cannot, despite having the experience that would allow them to do so.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2: A review of sort

I've been debating for about a day what I intend to write for my next couple of posts.  If you don't already know, I keep strict control over what people know about the inner workings of my mind.  Even though I do ramble, I'm always aware of what I'm saying.  Perhaps I do this to a fault.

The matter at hand:  Potter.

I'm going to provide my review in two ways.  One is what most people should gather from the film.  Then I'll take the same review and put it through the lens of what I actually experienced.

The movie was well done.  I elected to see the 2-D version at 12:01 Friday morning.  I'm thorougly unimpressed with 3-D movies.  The technology is nifty, but its attraction doesn't go beyond that.  The score was well-composed; however, it wasn't present through much of the movie.  Usually when I see a film like Potter, I can hear a movie through the score as well as watch the movie.  This wasn't the case with Part 2.  It seems like an average Hollywood movie where the music is simply there as support, rather than a story within itself.  I found myself plugging in musical holes in my head with Sheherazade (Rimsky-Korsakov).  The ending music was appropriate and enjoyable.

I have no criticism of the effects in the movie.  Unlike Twilight and Saw, the effects were complementary to the movie, rather than trying to command the audience's attention.  There were a few times where fire occured, and I thought that was well illustrated -- not corny, but the fire seemed to act in the way fire should (even magical fire).

The performance of the actors was acceptable.  Even Rupert Grint has finally learned something about how to act.  Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson were fine as always, and the rest of the regular cast did their parts well.  The dialogue was a bit predictable for me.  The theater erupted in applause and other outbursts at the appropriate times.  The times where these occured were during either comical scenes or scenes of power, and unfortunately these had a staged feel to them.  There were a couple of scenes with Neville Longbottom where this occured.  I understand why such dialogue and scenes are there, but I'm more interested in being affected  by the story, than being manipulated by dialogue tricks -- which I'm immune to most anyway. 

On this same subject is Ron, Hermione, and Severus Snape.  I will not give away details, for their story is integral to the film, but I will say this.  They have a few moments that are obviously made for their characters (hence the previous paragraph); however, I do not levy the aforementioned criticism to them.  They were appropriate, tasteful, and, in my opinion, were as close to the reality of the human condition as you could see.  The audience responded in kind with cheers and tears as appropriate.  

If you are a book purist, you will find some factual errors -- as you will in all of the films.  They do not ruin the film, but there are a couple noticeable enough for me to mention their existence.  I will not say what they are, for I fear that may be spoiling information for some.  You'll only notice them in the back of your mind, again they do not ruin the movie.

The movie was a fine work overall, and I highly recommend its viewing.  I hope it fares well on Rotten Tomatoes.

The review though my lens is mostly the same.  The only difference is that I felt nothing through the film.  I felt no happiness nor saddness--there was nothing.  This is not a criticism of the film at all; it is a criticism of me.  The reality of this bothers me, but it is my reality nevertheless.  I wanted to experience the same cheers and tears as my fellow audience members; however, it is beyond me.  The cheers were easy to mimic, for I know how and when to do them appropriate.  Tears are beyond my abilities to recreate--they cannot occur when you feel nothing.

I know why this is, and that knowledge is not germane to this post (hence the first paragraph).  The reason I mention this inability to feel is this.  As much as I love everything about the Potter series, I was curious if seeing this film and knowing that it markes the end of cinema fantasy for me, would cause me to experience some kind of emotion.  Clearly, it didn't.