HARRY POTTER MOVIES
This evening I'll be heading out with a pack of my friends
to watch the fifth Harry Potter movie: Harry Potter and the Order of
the Phoenix. As a certifiable geek, I have the feeling that I should
be more excited about this, but that's just not happening. For stuff that
actually excites me, I'm a midnight-showing type of geek, willing to stay
up into the wee hours of the morning to see the next highly-anticipated
visual feast of speculative fiction. But I wouldn't even be seeing Order
of the Phoenix on opening day if it wasn't for one of my friends
putting together the plans.
And the problem here isn't Harry Potter. I'm already
planning for an afternoon siesta on July 20th and am in the middle of
re-reading the entire series in anticipation of picking up Harry Potter
and the Deathly Hollows at a midnight release party and then devouring
it before collapsing into bed late on Saturday.
The problem are the Harry Potter movies, which I
have not, as a general rule, truly enjoyed. And nothing about Order of
the Phoenix has raised my expectations in the slightest. Like Goblet
of Fire, they are attempting to cram a rather lengthy novel into a
relatively short running time. And they have hired an essentially
completely unknown director whose career consists of six feature films
directed over the course of nearly two decades and a handful of BBC
mini-series. I'm not going to judge David Yates sight-unseen, but his
resume is hardly something designed to get the blood pumping. (On the
other hand, if he knocks this film out of the park then I will be
anticipating Half-Blood Prince, since he's already been contracted
to direct that one.)
(And, actually, I need to slightly revise this statement:
Having just checked IMDB for David Yates' credits, I finally noticed that
the author of the screenplay has changed for this film. Although IMDB
claims that Steve Kloves, who adapted the first four books, will be
returning for the next two, this particular film is credited to Michael
Goldenberg. Goldenberg has a very short list of credits, but they include
the 2003 Peter Pan and Contact, both of which were really great
adaptations. So now I have at least some small glimmer of hope for
this film.)
But why have I not enjoyed the previous Harry Potter
films? Although their flaws have been varied, not one of these films has
truly raised itself above the level of mediocrity.
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone:
Where Chris Columbus succeeded with this film was in his absolutely
pitch-perfect ability to capture individual scenes, settings, and
characters. The film was not only visually gorgeous, but showed
such fidelity to the books that any fan could instantly pick out and
appreciate their favorite scenes. The casting not only assembled an
admirable cadre of child stars, but packed the film full of the most
extraordinary talents imaginable while still finding the absolute perfect
fits for essentially every character. The film may not always match the
images my own imagination conjures forth while reading the book (such a
task, of course, being impossible), but there is not a single moment where
it is untrue to the book.
The problem, unfortunately, is that while the film
captures every individual scenes with near-perfection, the individual
scenes don't necessarily tie together with the same careful, precise
plotting which is one of Rowling's primary strength as an author. As a
book, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is a truly masterful
mystery story. Harry, Hermione, and Ron are surrounded by numerous
enigmas, which they attempt to unravel with the true curiosity of children
through a haze of clues, red herrings, and deductions both false and true.
In the end, all of these enigmas resolve themselves into a single,
masterful solution.
As a movie, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is
a collection of favorite scenes, featuring characters who stumble from one
favorite scene to the next with little in the way of the connecting tissue
which constitutes the actual plot. As such, it ends up being something of
a visual Cliff Notes.
Now, all of that being said, I like Harry Potter and
the Sorcerer's Stone. I love the books, and watching such beautiful
visual renditions of some of my favorite scenes is an enjoyable way to
spend a couple of hours -- much like looking through a book of Alan Lee Lord
of the Rings paintings. But there is a fundamental failure here
insofar as the film should be a film in its own right, not merely a visual
Best Of list.
Harry Potter and the Chamber of
Secrets: My opinion of Harry Potter and the Chamber of
Secrets is essentially identical to my opinion of Harry Potter and
the Sorcerer's Stone. Chris Columbus brings the same strengths and
weaknesses to the table for this film as he did for the first.
In some ways, though, watching Chamber of Secrets
is more frustrating for me because, in this case, they came so agonizingly
close to restoring those ligaments of the plot which were missing. To take
one isolated example, the film actually shows Hagrid holding a dead
rooster. Later there is a completely bungled piece of editing in which an
insert shot focuses on the rooster-hating properties of basilisks, but
then has Harry repeat the same piece of information he had mentioned less
than a minute before. An extra thirty seconds of film (which was almost
certainly shot) could have fundamentally restored that most important
property of mystery stories: The weaving together of multiple clues to
reach a singular conclusion.
Chamber of Secrets also has another key bungle:
When Harry first hears the murderous voice of the basilisk in the film,
the first thing he does is press his ear up against the wall to hear it
more clearly. In the book, the realization that Harry is not hearing a
disembodied voice, but rather a voice traveling through the walls, is one
of the key insights which allows Hermione to solve the mystery. By
ham-handedly revealing this piece of information almost instantaneously,
the film not only disrupts its own narrative structure, but removes some
of the mystery surrounding the voice.
On the other hand, the film does make one significant
alteration which fixes what I consider to be a bungling by Rowling
herself.
When I first read the books, Chamber of Secrets was
probably my least favorite of the series. This was in large part due to
what I considered the entirely unsatisfactory nature of the book's
conclusion, which goes something like this:
--Harry, bitten by
the basilisk in its death throes, is dying from its poison.
TOM RIDDLE: Ha,
ha! You're dying Harry! I shall stand hear and gloat! Even your phoenix is
crying for you!
--The phoenix's
tears heal Harry's wound.
TOM RIDDLE: Oh
yeah, phoenix tears heal wounds. I've suddenly gone from being a cunning
villain to being an ignorant prat. Well, allow me to monologue some more
about how doomed you are, Harry Potter! You are doomed! Doomed! Doom--
Hey, what are you doing?
--Harry stabs the
diary. Tom Riddle dies.
There is a game called Before I Kill Your, Mister
Bond... which makes fun of the propensity for Bond villains to
monologue about their evil plans just long enough for James Bond to escape
and destroy them. If you've seen the first Austin Powers movie, you'll see
the same joke.
Now, villainous monologuing can certainly work if its
handled properly. Rowling herself does a masterful job of it when
Voldemort returns in Goblet of Fire: Voldemort not only needs to
destroy Harry, he needs his followers to see him destroy and ridicule
Harry. He's trying to eliminate any doubt that Harry was ever a true
threat to him, and re-establish the fear and awe which are the foundations
of his power. The plan, of course, backfires when Harry survives. But the
result is a strongly-motivated and powerful scene.
The problem in Chamber of Secrets is that Tom
Riddle never stops monologuing. His first session of monologuing,
which actually takes place before the basilisk fight, makes sense: He's
revealing his true nature to Harry, but he's doing it because he wants to
understand how Harry was responsible for Voldemort's destruction (so that
he can avoid repeating the same mistakes). Once he's got that information,
he immediately unleashes the basilisk to kill Harry. (Which, if we assume
Tom Riddle does not yet know the killing-curse, is probably the quickest
and most expedient way of killing Harry.)
But after the basilisk fight, Tom Riddle returns to his
villainous monologuing not once, but twice.
VILLAIN: Before I
kill you, Mr. Bond, allow me to explain my entire nefarious scheme for
conquering--
--James Bond
escapes and destroys half of the villain's base before being recaptured.
VILLAIN: Now that
I have recaptured you, Mr. Bond, allow me to explain my entire nefarious
scheme for conquering--
--James Bond
escapes again and destroys the other half of the villain's base.
The problem is that it makes Tom Riddle look like a
complete schmuck. And, since he forgets a basic property of phoenix tears,
it makes him look like a stupid and completely ineffectual schmuck.
Long story short (too late), it makes for an entirely
unsatisfactory conclusion to the book. (Particularly with the deus ex
machina of Fawkes, the Sorting Hat, and Gryffindor's sword.) And, in
combination with the relative ease with which Voldemort was dispatched in
the first book, did much to reduce Riddle's status as a Dark Lord. (He
came across as the type of "Dark Lord" that actual Dark Lords
like to make fun of.) It's to Rowling's credit that she has thoroughly
managed to rehabilitate him over the course of the subsequent books.
Which brings me, ultimately, back to the film which does a
brilliant job of fixing this sequence. In the film we get:
--Harry, bitten by
the basilisk in its death throes, is dying from its poison.
TOM RIDDLE: Ha,
ha! You're dying Harry! I shall stand hear and gloat!
--As a final,
valiant act, Harry stabs the diary and Tom Riddle dies.
--Ginny wakes up
and Harry, in a heart-touching moment, tries to get her to leave him so
that she doesn't watch him die.
--The phoenix
flies to Harry and her tears heal Harry's wound.
Brilliant. Tom Riddle gloating over a helpless and dying
Harry is perfectly in keeping with his character. Simply failing to
anticipate Harry using the basilisk fang as a weapon against the
diary is a very different and much more acceptable type of error compared
to Riddle literally providing the exposition of his own stupidity when it
comes to the healing properties of phoenix tears. And, on top of that, you
get a truly brilliant, albeit brief, scene between Harry and Ginny.
So, on the strength of that correction, I think I shall
say that I prefer Chamber of Secrets to Sorcerer's Stone,
although it's a close thing.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of
Azkaban: The third Harry Potter film was, of course, a
departure from the previous two, featuring the talents of Alfonso Cuarón
(more lately of Children of Men fame). This is, in my opinion, the
strongest of the Harry Potter films to date because, in short, it is the
only film which actually succeeds as a film. Most notably it
features a plot with not only a true beginning, middle, and end, but with
the complications and rich texturing which make a plot something more than
simply "A happens and then B happens and then C happens".
On the other hand, Prisoner of Azkaban fails to
evoke the same visual beauty and fidelity of the first two films. Instead
of capturing the heart of Rowling's work, Cuarón brought his own
sensibilities to the tale. This is not necessarily the worst thing for a
director to do when adapting a book to the screen, but in an ideal world I
would prefer to see Columbus' ability to capture the spirit of Rowling's
work paired with Azkaban's willingness to restructure the plot in
order to make the story truly work on the big screen.
I'm also faced with minor frustrations in Prisoner of
Azkaban, much like I was in Chamber of Secrets, in places where
I can see that spending an extra 30 seconds could have much improved the
structure of the film. The thing that stands out most clearly in my mind
is the failure to explain the meaning of "Moony, Padfoot, Prongs, and
Wormtail". Less than 30 seconds of dialogue explaining that could
have tied together the Marauder's Map, revealed important elements of the
backstory (not only for this film, but for later films), and explained the
significance of Harry's patronus.
On the balance, I enjoy Prisoner of Azkaban,
though. As I said, it's probably my favorite of the films to date. So why
do I still describe it as, ultimately, a mediocrity? Well, simply compare
it to Cuarón's Children of Men or The Fellowship of the Rings.
It's an enjoyable film, but if it wasn't a Harry Potter film we would
scarcely remember it at three years distance.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire:
This film is a complete disaster.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is actually one
of my motivations for writing out this lengthy essay. I saw the film once
in the theater and was completely turned off by its complete, utter, and
unmitigated failure: It failed as an adaptation. It failed as a film. It
failed as entertainment. It just... failed.
Nonetheless, driven by my completist collectorism, I ended
up picking up a cheap used copy at Blockbuster a couple of months ago.
Last night, in anticipation of Order of the Phoenix, I decided to
rewatch it. I only got halfway through it before shutting off the DVD
player, and I had only endured that long because there was some
intellectual curiosity to be satisfied in picking apart the film's many
failings. It's been a long time since I was subjected to such utter drek.
Even more than the first two films, Goblet of Fire
assumes that you have already read the books. The film is essentially
gobbledygook to anyone who doesn't already know what's going on.
For example, early in the film the director pans across a
large field and ends on a lingering glory short of a moldy old boot while
the music crescendos in a cascade of awe. The shot is completely
meaningless unless you've read the book and already know that the boot is
a portkey (and, even then, the awe in which this particular portkey is
held is bizarrely inexplicable). A little later, after building up to the
Quidditch World Cup, the film inexplicably skips the entire match in a
jarring jump-cut.
These are just two small examples, but the entire film is
done in essentially the same manner: The director shouts, "REMEMBER
THIS BIT? DO YOU? DO YOU?! DO YOU?!?!" And then jump-cuts to the next
bit.
Nor can one simply enjoy the film as an eclectic
collection of the Best Bits From the Book because the film is filled with
endless and pointless alterations. Now, I'm not a purist about such
things. As the rest of this essay suggests, I actually want a film
to make changes to the material it's adapting so that it can become an
effective film in its own right. (As another example, I thought Jackson's
handling of Arwen in The Fellowship of the Ring was a masterful
example of how to handle an insightful, yet faithful, adaptation.)
But if you're going to change something, there had better
be a reason for changing it. In other words, the change should make
for a better film than if you hadn't made the change. If it
doesn't, why are you making the change?
Perhaps the most inexplicable change in Goblet of Fire
is the constant rewriting of the dialogue. Rowling's dialogue is
repeatedly replaced with trite, banal, cliche-ridden filler. And even when
Rowling's words are preserved, they are often shuffled in a seemingly
random fashion until they've been rendered into utter nonsense.
For example, there's a point where Professor Moody says to
Neville that "Professor Sprout tells me your quite good at Herbology".
In the book, Moody is saying this specifically to reassure Neville after
has been shaken by seeing the cruciatus curse in class. In the movie,
however, this line of dialogue is nonsensically and jarringly moved to a
much earlier point in the conversation, before the curse has even been
performed. As a result, it serves no purpose at all -- its just Moody
saying something completely at random.
And the film's failure as an adaptation only scratches the
surface here. The director, Mike Newell, is a complete hack in this film.
(Which I found surprising, given how much I enjoyed his work on Donnie
Brasco.) The camera spins and twirls and rushes about with wild
abandon, but it never seems to find a compelling visual frame. And every
so often, Newell will pan quite randomly off the main action in order to
show us a secondary character sitting or standing nearby... doing
absolutely nothing and, frequently, barely reacting to what's happening.
Newell particularly likes to end scenes this way, which only contributes
to the herky-jerky feeling of the film, with scene after scene ending on
an awkward and inexplicable visual note.
Harry Potter and the Order of the
Phoenix: So, when it comes to Harry Potter and the Order
of the Phoenix, my hopes are not high. None of the films have truly
excelled, and Goblet of Fire -- with which Order of the Phoenix
has the most in common (long book to short film, unproven director, and so
forth) -- was a complete train wreck.
But, ultimately, I've got my fingers crossed. Because,
like I say, if I enjoy Order of the Phoenix there's a strong chance
that Half-Blood Prince will be good, as well. On the other hand, if
Order of the Phoenix is a disaster, there's little chance that I'll
see Half-Blood Prince at all.