Post by Jeff on Nov 18, 2005 23:39:54 GMT -5
I thought that I would write up a quick review of the new Harry Potter movie. It’s alright, a bit long but pretty good.
Well, maybe a few more words…
Despite doing much of the imaginative heavy-lifting, Chris Columbus gave us two very dull HP films. Oh they function well enough as studies in the mechanics of the world and Rowling’s clunky idea of storytelling, but they are overwrought and lifeless. I think Cuaron and now Newell realized the defects of these films and attempted to address them in two very different ways. Cuaron imagined the Potter world in a carefree manner, emphasizing wonder, humor and light sentiment. A characteristic shot for me begins the scene where the students face the boggart. The camera emerges from a mirror and the world flips 180 degrees. This visual prelude exists for no reason really. But it’s a wonderfully disorienting reminder that we are in a world where magic is real. Newell on the other hand has given us HP as an action film. He paces the story much faster, so much so, that it marred Jenn’s experience of the film. Newell’s camera never lingers. The director gets what he wants and moves on, like Rita Skeeter. This technique feels much like the one Peter Jackson adopted for his rendition of LOTR. One can imagine Goblet with near total emphasis on action, it sure makes the screenwriting easier, but that is not the way I imagined it. Stuff gets lost and in a different way than in Cuaron’s Azkaban. In the latter there were many complaints that crucial material was omitted, e.g., the identities of Padfoot, Moony, Wormtail, and Prongs. Where it was not completely obscure, the film often pointed outside itself. Newell’s Goblet leaves out stuff, too. But he omits the sighs, the quiet moments, the fancy of scenes like Ron roaring and Harry turning into a train whistle after they eat their magical candies. I think Cuaron’s Azkaban is the most cinematically satisfying of the series so far. When I think of it, I think of all the wonderful flourishes, like the ice crackling under Ron’s hand as the dementors approach the Hogwart’s Express. On the other hand, Newell achieves some scenes with real power. My two favorites are Harry’s fight with a dragon on the rooftop of Hogwarts and his encounter with You Know Who.
I am slowly learning how to like the HP series. It has been a tough sell for me. Rowling’s writing is so cliché-riddled. And I just hate the way she lifts ideas for creatures and situations straight from other (superior) works of mythology and fantasy. She makes her universe feel like freak show: The curtain opens. “Here’s our unicorn.” New curtain. “And here’s our werewolf.” New curtain. Etc… People talk about Rowling’s great imagination. I’ve just never seen any evidence of originality.
What is finally winning me over, as much as I can be anyway, is the fact that HP is a work entirely without subtext. As I was watching Goblet today I kept thinking of a bit of dialogue from Whit Stillman’s wonderful Barcelona ( www.imdb.com/title/tt0109219/quotes ):
FRED: Maybe you can clarify something for me. Since I've been, you know, waiting for the fleet to show up, I've read a lot, and--
TED: Really?
FRED: And one of the things that keeps popping up is this about "subtext." Plays, novels, songs--they all have a "subtext," which I take to mean a hidden message or import of some kind. So subtext we know. But what do you call the message or meaning that's right there on the surface, completely open and obvious? They never talk about that. What do you call what's above the subtext?
TED: The text.
FRED: OK, that's right, but they never talk about that.
Maybe the text was childhood, and Rowling is not telling us anything else. Well, that’s not so bad. In the words of REM: “That’s sugarcane that tastes so good / That’s cinnamon / That’s Hollywood.”
Jeff
Well, maybe a few more words…
Despite doing much of the imaginative heavy-lifting, Chris Columbus gave us two very dull HP films. Oh they function well enough as studies in the mechanics of the world and Rowling’s clunky idea of storytelling, but they are overwrought and lifeless. I think Cuaron and now Newell realized the defects of these films and attempted to address them in two very different ways. Cuaron imagined the Potter world in a carefree manner, emphasizing wonder, humor and light sentiment. A characteristic shot for me begins the scene where the students face the boggart. The camera emerges from a mirror and the world flips 180 degrees. This visual prelude exists for no reason really. But it’s a wonderfully disorienting reminder that we are in a world where magic is real. Newell on the other hand has given us HP as an action film. He paces the story much faster, so much so, that it marred Jenn’s experience of the film. Newell’s camera never lingers. The director gets what he wants and moves on, like Rita Skeeter. This technique feels much like the one Peter Jackson adopted for his rendition of LOTR. One can imagine Goblet with near total emphasis on action, it sure makes the screenwriting easier, but that is not the way I imagined it. Stuff gets lost and in a different way than in Cuaron’s Azkaban. In the latter there were many complaints that crucial material was omitted, e.g., the identities of Padfoot, Moony, Wormtail, and Prongs. Where it was not completely obscure, the film often pointed outside itself. Newell’s Goblet leaves out stuff, too. But he omits the sighs, the quiet moments, the fancy of scenes like Ron roaring and Harry turning into a train whistle after they eat their magical candies. I think Cuaron’s Azkaban is the most cinematically satisfying of the series so far. When I think of it, I think of all the wonderful flourishes, like the ice crackling under Ron’s hand as the dementors approach the Hogwart’s Express. On the other hand, Newell achieves some scenes with real power. My two favorites are Harry’s fight with a dragon on the rooftop of Hogwarts and his encounter with You Know Who.
I am slowly learning how to like the HP series. It has been a tough sell for me. Rowling’s writing is so cliché-riddled. And I just hate the way she lifts ideas for creatures and situations straight from other (superior) works of mythology and fantasy. She makes her universe feel like freak show: The curtain opens. “Here’s our unicorn.” New curtain. “And here’s our werewolf.” New curtain. Etc… People talk about Rowling’s great imagination. I’ve just never seen any evidence of originality.
What is finally winning me over, as much as I can be anyway, is the fact that HP is a work entirely without subtext. As I was watching Goblet today I kept thinking of a bit of dialogue from Whit Stillman’s wonderful Barcelona ( www.imdb.com/title/tt0109219/quotes ):
FRED: Maybe you can clarify something for me. Since I've been, you know, waiting for the fleet to show up, I've read a lot, and--
TED: Really?
FRED: And one of the things that keeps popping up is this about "subtext." Plays, novels, songs--they all have a "subtext," which I take to mean a hidden message or import of some kind. So subtext we know. But what do you call the message or meaning that's right there on the surface, completely open and obvious? They never talk about that. What do you call what's above the subtext?
TED: The text.
FRED: OK, that's right, but they never talk about that.
Maybe the text was childhood, and Rowling is not telling us anything else. Well, that’s not so bad. In the words of REM: “That’s sugarcane that tastes so good / That’s cinnamon / That’s Hollywood.”
Jeff
