In the world of Potter fans, I'm no Emerson Spartz, Melissa Anelli,, or Steve Vander Ark. However, I've become known in our circle of friends as the Potter fanatic. One daughter has a Ravenclaw scarf and hat, knitted by a loving grandmother. My other daughter had her second annual Harry Potter Sleepover this summer, complete with cauldron cakes, licorice wands, pumpkin pasties, Bernie Botts Every Flavour Beans, and a game or two of quidditch. The seven-book series, plus its companion books (Fantastic Beast and Where to Find Them, Quidditch Through The Ages, The Tales of Beedle the Bard) and even a few books of commentary, occupy a place of honour in my bedroom. We have multiple copies of each book, softcover, hardcover, adult cover. I actually won myself a copy of Deathly Hallows by calling into a trivia show. (I mean, really, "What was the name of the Defense Against the Dark Arts teachers in each book?" That's the Potter trivia equivalent of "What is H20 more commonly known as?" The only trick is remembering that in Book Four it's Barty Crouch Jr. masquerading as Mad-Eye Moody, and not really Mad-Eye himself.) In a fit of boredom one day, I even wrote my own 43-question trivia quiz on the first six books. I tried to think up non-plot-related questions, so the answers couldn't be looked up easily. For example, Cornelius Fudge replaced Millicent Bagnold as Minister for Magic, but even I don't remember which book drops that little tidbit into our laps.
So I'm pretty well-versed in the Harry Potter canon, have the plots down to the minutiae, understand character, motivation, theme, and even the bit of symbolism that Rowling sneaks in here and there. But, unsurprisingly, I'm not a big fan of the movies.
Movies are seldom as good as the books. While the old maxim "Show, don't tell," would seem to work in a movie's favour, you can't "show" what a character is thinking, and this leads to boring exposition as they explain it out loud. Sometimes they don't bother to explain, and you're left with inexplicable actions that leave the viewers scratching their heads and asking, "Why did he just do that?"
Because I knew exactly what was going on and what would happen next, I enjoyed the movie. I think Radcliffe, Watson, and Grint all do a more than adequate job in their respective roles, and the supporting cast, the creme de la creme of British thespians, are usually brilliant. The scenery, cinematography, and special effects were all very well done. (It irks me, though, whenever they show wizards flying brooms right beside Muggles. Haven't the filmmakers heard of the International Statute of Secrecy?) However, I maintain that anyone who has not read the books will be lost. The first movies were made before the series was published in full; the filmmakers had no way of knowing what detail that may have seemed trivial in the book was, in fact, deeply important to the narrative as a whole. For example, in its first few minutes, Deathly Hallows shows Harry gazing into a piece of reflective glass. Readers know this is a piece of the two-way mirror Sirius gave Harry in Book 5, which Harry smashed after Sirius died. However, the mirror never made it into Movie 5; someone who never read the books has no idea what Harry is doing, and the movie provides no explanation. Likewise, in its attempt to "show" what the book "tells," the movie has a scene of Snatchers skulking past the trio's campsite, which the Snatchers can't see due to protective enchantments. Harry tells Hermione what they are, but there's no explanation of how he knows that, or what a Snatcher is. The casual movie-goer remains baffled. (Well you know they're no good because Harry doesn't like them, and they look like they're up to bad things, but what bad things, exactly, is unclear.)
I checked out the negative reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, and found exactly these complaints. Ironically, even positive reviews by people unfamiliar with the books sometimes missed the point. Roger Ebert, for example, thought the scence of Voldemort meeting with his Death Eaters was a meeting of the Ministry of Magic, most likely because Pius Thicknesse is there and Voldemort refers to him as the new Minister for Magic. He also saw the relationship between Harry, Hermione, and Ron, as a love triangle; he failed to see that the perception of a relationship between Harry and Hermione comes only from Ron's own insecurity. The kiss that Harry and Ginny share towards the beginning must have slipped right by him, (or he assumes Harry is playing the field), and he most likely forgot that Harry and Ginny had a budding romance in a the sixth film. Expecting viewers to remember all the details movie to movie is a big mistake; one reviewer I read asked how he was supposed to remember Dobby from a movie released in 2002.
Thus, sadly, I think the movie fails on the most basic level: attracting viewers who never read the books. While I would pay money to see both Bill Nighy and/or Alan Rickman read the London phone directory, I don't know that I'd pay money to see them act in an incomprehensible movie. The truth is, this should never have been a movie franchise, but a mini-series instead. Too much has be sacrificed for the brevity of the genre; a 500+ page book would be a days-long movie if every detail made it into the screenplay. Sometimes the wrong parts get sacrified, and nonsense is added in its place. That was the fate of Goblet of Fire, by far the weakest movie of the seven to date.
I will still go see the seond part of Deathly Hallows when it comes out next July, just as I went to see Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince in spite of the previous cinematic disappointments. And in truth, as I said, this one didn't disappoint me. But I'm not going to encourage non-Harry Potter fans to take in the flick; I'll tell them they're better off reading the book.
No comments:
Post a Comment