Order of the Phoenix is my favorite of the Harry Potter books (so far). I know many people would disagree with that, but I found it the most tightly plotted and I really enjoyed the on-the-sleeve emotions of the teenagers. (Yes, even CAPSLOCK Harry and all his yelling.)
I even, just for fun when the book came out, tried to break it down to see what it might look like as a movie. So I do realize what a massive job it is to condense a book with so much plot, so much emotion, and so many set-ups that matter for later parts of the story into a 2-ish hour movie.
Ultimately, the movie they ended up with is basically a trailer. A very long trailer for a very long book.
And when you think about it, that's actually not too surprising. If one were to translate the 850 page book into screenplay form without any but the most obvious of cuts, my guess is the screenplay would run about 1200 pages. That's a 20 hour movie. So if you want, think of Order of the Phoenix-The Movie as a trailer for that 20 hour movie we'll never see.
Given that, it's understandable that the movie zooms past us without any time to breathe. It's understandable that whole chapters (e.g., "Snape's Worst Memory") are skimmed over in 60 seconds. It's understandable that entire subplots (Quidditch!) are cut out. And it's understandable that my son leaned over to me about 10 minutes into the movie and whispered, "Doesn't this seem to be going awfully fast?"
I have no idea who someone who has never read the books would even begin to comprehend the movie. Whole chunks of it would make absolutely no sense, including Occlumency, Kreacher, and especially Veritaserum (I've heard from people who know the books inside and out who didn't catch Umbridge doling out the Veritaserum in the movie).
A lot of the emotional resonance and build of the movie is lost this way. Episodes that are repeated during the book -- Occlumency lessons, Harry's detentions with Umbridge -- show up only once or twice during the movie, losing their emotional impact. We who've read the books will add the emotion we know is there -- but again, what of the non-reader?
My guess is that this is why so many of the reviews have been so tepid. It's clear from the reviews I've read that the critics in question have only seen the movies and have not read the books, so no wonder things aren't making sense for them.
So given all that, if we look at the movie as a trailer, what did they get right?
Well, for one thing, a lot of the performances. Gary Oldman is the best he's ever been as Sirius, and in many ways is the emotional heart of the movie. Imelda Staunton is delicious as Umbridge. Evanna Lynch is eerily perfect as Luna Lovegood. And the trio, especially Daniel Radcliffe, give much stronger, much more centered performances than they ever have before. Of course, some of this is due to their growing up and gaining more experience. But given the overall heightened level of performance in the film, I think we have to credit director David Yates with some of that as well.
As for the disastrously miscast Michael Gambon as Dumbledore... Well, he sucked less in this movie than in the previous two. But he is still not Dumbledore. He slouches, he grumps, he glowers -- he proves in every frame that he has not a notion of the wise, well-mannered, twinkling, powerful wizard he is playing. (One wonders if he has ever bothered to read the books, given his boasting after Azkaban that he hadn't.)
There is some nice filmmaking here. I liked the use of the Daily Prophets to shorthand things going on in the wizarding world. I also very much liked the intercutting of Dumbledore's Army with Umbridge's reign of terror -- a really well-done montage. And I appreciated the subtle ways in which Yates tipped us little hints about Ginny for future movies (ways you wouldn't catch if you didn't know what was happening next) -- both in making sure we see her reaction to Harry and Cho, and in showing us glimpses of what a powerful witch she is turning into, both in the Dumbledore's Army scenes and in the Ministry of Magic.
Given the trailer nature of the film, scads of stuff is missing. I would have loved to have seen Harry and Cho at Madam Puddifoot's. I was so looking forward to our tour through the Department of Mysteries, which got woefully shortchanged (No Time Chamber! No Thought Chamber!). And while the twins' confrontation with Umbridge got one of the biggest responses from the audience, I longed to see the Portable Swamp, to see the twins shout "Accio Brooms!," to give them their moment of glory.
Bottom line? As a full movie telling the story of the books, it's a disappointment. As a trailer for the book, it's a complete triumph. I guess it's all in how you look at it.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Janet,
I completely understand what you are saying. But frankly, I gave up on non Harry Potter readers being a factor in whether or not I like the movies. My husband is one of them. He certainly has access to the books and the audio books of the first five, he's around enough when the rest of us are discussing them--we long ago gave up trying to not give away the story when he's around. It's just silly stuborness on his part.
He was slightly lost in POA and more lost in GOF, so if he never goes to Order, I don't care. That's his fault for not reading the books.
So since I'm ignoring the people who only see the movies (not very nice, I suppose--but that was the most ridiculous review by Ebert, and I didn't read the rest), I loved this movie. I caught all the little things and the audience I was in seemed to also. Granted, before the movie, most people were reading a Harry Potter book or discussing the books with others. So it was an informed group at midnight.
I thought Luna was perfect, and Umbridge. And I totally agree with you about Gary Oldman. I had become rather annoyed with Sirius in the book, for his rash behavior, but I loved him in the movie.
I didn't mind the lack of Quidditch--there would have been another 5 to 10 minutes that were better spent elsewhere.
I was OK with the Snape's worst memory being put in as part of Occlumency, but we did need Lily there to rescue him and chastise James.
And while I'd like to have seen more of the Ministry, I don't think they could have done without making it longer--which would have been fine.
For me, the changes they made worked, because I felt like they really captured the essence of the book. Too bad Gambon can't pull off Dumbledore (I'm really worried for HBP), but as Travis at Sword of Gryffindor said, Yates made a wise decision by minimizing his chances to screw up Dumbledore. And I noticed that other people were given some of Dumbledore's lines and the message was there.
I really wanted to see, however, the jet of green light getting swallowed up by Fawkes, as it is such a powerful image of good defeating evil--and they sadly, left that out.
I saw the movie again on Friday during the day when I was wide awake, and liked it even better, and saw more of the details. I'm amazed at how well Tonk's character came across considering what a short amount of screen time she had. And there were just moments that I really really liked--especially between Harry and Sirius (so I didn't mind that he gave Harry the photo of the original Order--it gave them further time to show their closeness). One of my favorites though was when Harry first arrived at Grimmauld Place (where we could have spent a bit more time, to show Kreacher hiding things), when Sirius gives Harry a hug with Lupin looking on. Nice. Thewlis was great in the Ministry scene as well, as he is in every scene.
Anyway--I really liked it, much better than any of the others, except that the first one, though not as well done as a movie, will always be rather special because the kids are so young, and because it was the first one.
Pat
Yeah, I agree with you, Janet, and with Pat above - the two moments I missed most were Fawkes' catching the Avada Kedavra for Dumbledore and the moment of the Twins' Triumph. I thought they really could have afforded an extra two minutes there.
One thing that came off very well on the screen - though not from the book - was the way both the Death Eaters and the Order of the Phoenix seemed to be able to move by turning themselves into flowing powder/smoke - that looked really amazing!
Great review on all counts. I especially missed the Fawkes swallows the death curse moment (mostly because I shouted aloud when I read it, it was such a powerful image), but upon further reflection (and a reread of the battle in the Ministry) I see why they altered it and have decided I (mostly) like it.
Out of curiosity, Janet, which is the most successful film adaptation of the series, in your opinion? I lean toward the third movie, more because it felt more like a movie than the first two and the fourth is so rushed, but I have Harry Potter fan friends who vehemently disagree with me. What are your thoughts?
Linds--
I think I agree with you about the 3rd movie being the best as a film... The level of the filmmaking and acting is so solid in this most recent one that it might challenge "Prisoner" as the best film, but I think I'd need to let some time go by before saying that categorically
Btw, click on the link to Sword of Gryffindor to see Travis Prinzi's excellent review, and on the link to Fantasy Fiction for Christians to see links to several reviews...
Hi Everyone,
I guess I am in the minority. I find OotP on film to be woefully lacking in story. And part of that is due to the changes that Yates and Goldenberg made. I wanted a hyped up, angry Harry. The twins mild rebuke of Harry for his shouting seems out of place and lost its humor, because he hardly raised his voice. (Maybe my standards of raised voices are different than others) Secondly, I disliked the merging of the Cho and Marietta Edgecombe characters. I understand why they did it, and agree in principle. Minor characters can and often should be combined in writing. One combined and interesting character is better than two who are weak on their own. I think as a plot point, however, it adds a nasty level of betrayal to the volatile cocktail of psychological things Harry confronts. It lacked the elegance of Rowling's own plotting regarding Harry's initial foray into dating and love. Finally, when Harry handed over the prophecy, I just felt sick. Surely Harry understood that the prophecy was the lone bargaining chip, and that by handing it over he was signing their death warrants. It just hit me as terrible scripting. Why change that? I wrote this in my review of the movie on my blog:
"[N]ear the end of the film, the Death Eaters have Neville, Luna, Ginny, Ron and Hermione and Lucious is threatening to kill them if Harry doesn’t yield the prophecy. Neville says “Don’t do it, Harry.” And in a moment of post modern anti-heroism, Harry does it. The Harry of the books knew full well that yielding the prophecy marked them as dead, anyway. This one - gullible, naive, foolish - gives up the only chip he had. He didn’t even say let them go first. He just sold them out, sold out the order of the Phoenix, sold out everyone, and handed it over.
"If as the stories proclaim, it is not who we are born as, it is our choices, then Harry chose to yield to evil over good, chose to do what was easy instead of what was right. The film Harry repudiated everything good and noble and wonderful about Harry Potter."
A bit harsh, especially in the light of a few days thoughts. The film is exceptionally well made, but left me cold. It is particularly difficult for me to separate the vision of the book as film that I have in my mind created. Perhaps somewhere along the way a fuller cinema or small screen treatment can be made, but these films are but trailers, as you say, Janet, wonderfully produced trailers, whose plots wander easily into incomprehensibility.
Can't believe no one has mentioned the missing locket seeing as this was big discussion fodder on the net. Yates was asked to put kreacher back in so I suppose they can somehow explain the locket if it turns out to be a horcrux.
I thought that the way Luna was presented was interesting, she comes across almost like an angel I beleive that is foreshadowing.
Also the D.A. came across as being much more aggressive than I recall from the book almost like they were usurping the Order. Again I think this is foreshadowing.
My wife and I really enjoyed the movie but as everyone has noted without knowing the book you wouldn't have a clue.
re: Harry handing over the prophecy...
"[Bellatrix] turned and gazed up at Harry. 'Now, Potter, either give us the prophecy, or watch your little friend die the hard way!' Harry did not have to think; there was no choice. The prophecy was hot with the heat from his clutching hand as he held it out. Malfoy jumped forward to take it."
The arrival of the Order prevents Malfoy from actually taking the prophecy, but it seems to me that Harry's choice is the same as in the film. And isn't that what makes Rowling so interesting? Even her heroes sometimes choose wrong - disastrously wrong. And we can learn from that, too.
On an unrelated note, Jan, thanks so much for mentioning Ginny. I couldn't agree more, and I'm really looking forward to her work in HBP!
Totally agree with you re the trailer/rushed aspects. It wasn't that long... man, an extra 20 minutes would REALLY have helped. More empashis on Harry's persistent corridor dreams, more emphasis on his anger, more emphasis on the failed occlumency. Because I think his connection with LV is going to turn out to be absolutely critical in HP 7 and in this film it is just... barely.... there....
Agree w/Pat regarding the hopelessness of Gambobn as Dumbledore. How on earth they're going to be able to make HP 6 with him in place is beyond me. As is, what happens on the Tower in that book is going to seem more like a relief than a tragedy :-(
Julie H, chicago
Loved the movie...I totally agree we got a great trailer for the story, but for those of us who know the book, the movie was an excellent appetizer for Book Seven.
But please permit me to stray off topic a tad with this...I think Fiona Shaw is an excellent Petunia.
One of my all time favorite movie quotes is delivered by her character in Three Men and A Little Lady...and what a delightful comedic performance she gave in that film. I was floored the other morning when it hit me...the same actress plays Petunia Dursley!
I stand humbly corrected, well not really corrected, more like I see that my recollection was more positive of Harry. Thanks, Sharon!
Plus, the scar is killing him basically on every page of the book, but hardly at all in the movie.
Post a Comment