Some Kid and the Half-Blood Prince
21/07/09 17:05 Filed in: Films
I have been wrestling with myself over how to write
my review of the recent David Yates movie, entitled
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince,
since I saw the film on Sunday. My major issue seems
to be that, after seeing the movie, I'm feeling,
well, despondent.
I am a huge fan of Rowling's seven Harry Potter books. I have also been favourably impressed with the movie adaptations of those books, even when they slowly devolved into mere "highlight reels" of the books, showing only the action sequences and little of the character development or plot complexity. Even then, the movies stayed true to the original and gave us a "Coles Notes" type review of Rowling's books.
Watching the film versions of Rowling's fourth and fifth books (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix) was, to me, like watching the highlights of a fantastic baseball game on the eleven o'clock news: you see the big hits, a defensive gem or two, just enough to get the general idea of what happened.
When a game finishes 1-0 with both pitchers in top form and little in the way of hitting, the TV highlights end up shorter, with more focus on the pitchers. But what do the film makers do when the author pitches a no hitter?
That's what Rowling has handed them in her sixth novel. A gem of a book for literary purists. The book focuses on how Dumbledore sets about preparing Harry Potter for the task of defeating, fully and finally, Lord Voldemort in the seventh book. It is filled with interesting scenes and great writing, some fun character development as the three main figures reach and react to their new-found interest in romance, and very little action.
In fact, in Rowling's book, there are only two real action scenes and they come, one hard upon the other, at the end of the book. The other six hundred or so pages represent well-written back-story and character development.
It truly is the equivalent of a no hitter. If you want action, you'll hate it. If you like to see the craft of writing at its best, to read interesting character development and fascinating scenes, then you'll love it.
Director Yates, screen-writer Steve Kloves and their movie studio apparently hate well-pitched games. So they took Rowling's sixth book and said, "Yikes," then basically chucked it out the window.
Oh, they start in the same place: the wizarding world has finally accepted that Voldemort is back and at full strength. And they end in relatively the same place, with a major character dead and a war breaking out.
But everything inbetween they make up on their own. Honestly. Everything.
They invent scenes (including the first two and one already controversial one in which Bellatrix Lestrange burns down the Burrow, screaming "I killed Sirius Black", an echo of the previous movie). They revise scenes that Rowling wrote so as to completely change the motivations, tensions and long-term impacts of those scenes. They change things that do not need to be changed to translate the book into film.
It's like they're the sports editors for the eleven o'clock news and, when presented with a no-hitter, they decide to insert a couple of home runs from other games, just to make the highlights more exciting.
I might have ruined the movie for myself by seething through scene after scene that is neither based on Rowling's writing nor true to the tone, themes and characters she has worked so hard to create.
I am despondent because this movie is NOT Harry Potter. If I had not expected it to be Harry Potter, I probably would be writing right now that it was a lot of fun, filled with action and romance, great gags and some fantastically beautiful images. I would probably be writing about the pacing of the story, the camera work and framing of the action. Because all of that was exceptionally good.
But it's simply not Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. It's Some Kid's Big Adventure.
If you are a Harry Potter fan and don't mind a few spoilers, I'm interested in your thoughts on the following points:
In the book, Harry hides his potions text in the Room of Requirement very carefully, so that he can find it back. He places it under a bust upon which he sets a strange tiara-like thing as a way to remind himself where he left it. This becomes very important in the seventh book because the tiara-like thing turns out to be the lost diadem of Ravenclaw and one of Voldemort's horcruxes. Harry finds it because, once he knows what the diadem looks like, he remembers seeing it. In the movie, however, it is made very clear that Harry does not want to find the book back, takes no steps to mark its place and, in fact, closes his eyes while Ginny hides it so that he won't be tempted to find it back. He never sees nor handles the tiara-like thing that turns out to be the diadem. So how will he find it in the seventh (or eighth) movie?
In the book, after they arrive at the top of the Astronomy Tower, Dumbledore takes a moment to immobilise Harry before Draco Malfoy bursts onto the scene. That decision by Dumbledore keeps Harry out of the picture as Dumbledore faces his fate but also allows Malfoy to disarm Dumbledore in his first act upon arrival at the top of the tower. Harry feels guilty later that Dumbledore chose to protect Harry rather than himself but this is part of the pattern that Harry (and later Voldemort) focus on: so many people have sacrificed themselves for Harry. In the movie, however, Dumbledore simply orders Harry to hide and not intervene. What does this do to Harry's level of guilt (now he could have acted but chose not to) and our perception of Dumbledore's character (he attempts to draw his wand later in the confrontation, in a much more aggressive move)?
And it is a key point in the six and seventh books that Dumbledore told Harry to involve Ron and Hermione in the Horcrux search, putting the three of them in a strong moral position to resist the interference of others. The filmmakers clearly make a conscious decision to leave Dumbledore's instruction to Harry out, making Ron and Hermione's participation in the Horcrux quest a voluntary matter. How will this impact the seventh movie?
There are many many more such issues but those are three that stand out for me. What do you think?
I am a huge fan of Rowling's seven Harry Potter books. I have also been favourably impressed with the movie adaptations of those books, even when they slowly devolved into mere "highlight reels" of the books, showing only the action sequences and little of the character development or plot complexity. Even then, the movies stayed true to the original and gave us a "Coles Notes" type review of Rowling's books.
Watching the film versions of Rowling's fourth and fifth books (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix) was, to me, like watching the highlights of a fantastic baseball game on the eleven o'clock news: you see the big hits, a defensive gem or two, just enough to get the general idea of what happened.
When a game finishes 1-0 with both pitchers in top form and little in the way of hitting, the TV highlights end up shorter, with more focus on the pitchers. But what do the film makers do when the author pitches a no hitter?
That's what Rowling has handed them in her sixth novel. A gem of a book for literary purists. The book focuses on how Dumbledore sets about preparing Harry Potter for the task of defeating, fully and finally, Lord Voldemort in the seventh book. It is filled with interesting scenes and great writing, some fun character development as the three main figures reach and react to their new-found interest in romance, and very little action.
In fact, in Rowling's book, there are only two real action scenes and they come, one hard upon the other, at the end of the book. The other six hundred or so pages represent well-written back-story and character development.
It truly is the equivalent of a no hitter. If you want action, you'll hate it. If you like to see the craft of writing at its best, to read interesting character development and fascinating scenes, then you'll love it.
Director Yates, screen-writer Steve Kloves and their movie studio apparently hate well-pitched games. So they took Rowling's sixth book and said, "Yikes," then basically chucked it out the window.
Oh, they start in the same place: the wizarding world has finally accepted that Voldemort is back and at full strength. And they end in relatively the same place, with a major character dead and a war breaking out.
But everything inbetween they make up on their own. Honestly. Everything.
They invent scenes (including the first two and one already controversial one in which Bellatrix Lestrange burns down the Burrow, screaming "I killed Sirius Black", an echo of the previous movie). They revise scenes that Rowling wrote so as to completely change the motivations, tensions and long-term impacts of those scenes. They change things that do not need to be changed to translate the book into film.
It's like they're the sports editors for the eleven o'clock news and, when presented with a no-hitter, they decide to insert a couple of home runs from other games, just to make the highlights more exciting.
I might have ruined the movie for myself by seething through scene after scene that is neither based on Rowling's writing nor true to the tone, themes and characters she has worked so hard to create.
I am despondent because this movie is NOT Harry Potter. If I had not expected it to be Harry Potter, I probably would be writing right now that it was a lot of fun, filled with action and romance, great gags and some fantastically beautiful images. I would probably be writing about the pacing of the story, the camera work and framing of the action. Because all of that was exceptionally good.
But it's simply not Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. It's Some Kid's Big Adventure.
If you are a Harry Potter fan and don't mind a few spoilers, I'm interested in your thoughts on the following points:
In the book, Harry hides his potions text in the Room of Requirement very carefully, so that he can find it back. He places it under a bust upon which he sets a strange tiara-like thing as a way to remind himself where he left it. This becomes very important in the seventh book because the tiara-like thing turns out to be the lost diadem of Ravenclaw and one of Voldemort's horcruxes. Harry finds it because, once he knows what the diadem looks like, he remembers seeing it. In the movie, however, it is made very clear that Harry does not want to find the book back, takes no steps to mark its place and, in fact, closes his eyes while Ginny hides it so that he won't be tempted to find it back. He never sees nor handles the tiara-like thing that turns out to be the diadem. So how will he find it in the seventh (or eighth) movie?
In the book, after they arrive at the top of the Astronomy Tower, Dumbledore takes a moment to immobilise Harry before Draco Malfoy bursts onto the scene. That decision by Dumbledore keeps Harry out of the picture as Dumbledore faces his fate but also allows Malfoy to disarm Dumbledore in his first act upon arrival at the top of the tower. Harry feels guilty later that Dumbledore chose to protect Harry rather than himself but this is part of the pattern that Harry (and later Voldemort) focus on: so many people have sacrificed themselves for Harry. In the movie, however, Dumbledore simply orders Harry to hide and not intervene. What does this do to Harry's level of guilt (now he could have acted but chose not to) and our perception of Dumbledore's character (he attempts to draw his wand later in the confrontation, in a much more aggressive move)?
And it is a key point in the six and seventh books that Dumbledore told Harry to involve Ron and Hermione in the Horcrux search, putting the three of them in a strong moral position to resist the interference of others. The filmmakers clearly make a conscious decision to leave Dumbledore's instruction to Harry out, making Ron and Hermione's participation in the Horcrux quest a voluntary matter. How will this impact the seventh movie?
There are many many more such issues but those are three that stand out for me. What do you think?