In defense of POA

[emmagrant01]

I watched the DVD of POA last night for the first time (since seeing the film in the theater). I LOVE this film -- it's my favorite of the three made so far. When the film was released, I skimmed all the posts slamming it and wondered why people hated it so much. It was so clearly a better film than the first two, IMO. I've hesitated to post my thoughts before, but with the DVD release, many people seem prepared to begin listing all of the things they hated about that film all over again. Am I the only one who thought it was brilliant?


Possibly. But I won't let that stop me from telling you what I loved about it.

Many people were troubled by the "canon errors" in the film. And I'll be the first to concede that some important things were only hinted at, and others were omitted altogether, and this did occasionally annoy me. But it didn't ruin the film for me because I don't view the film as a representation of the book. I view it as fanfic of sorts, as a loose interpretation of the book. In order to make a two-hour film, sacrifices were going to have to be made. The screenwriter and the director made certain choices. Many of us would have made different ones, but we didn't get to pick. I have no problem wih that, though I recognize that others do.

From a filmmaking perspective, I think POA brilliant. It's brilliant in many of the same ways that I think The Empire Strikes Back is (and is the best of the Star Wars saga). It's visually stunning, with big swooping owl-like (or dementor-like) views. It's grainy, dark, and quiet in all the right places, building a sense of tension and gritty reality that was sorely lacking from the first two films. Cuaron's vision of the wizarding world is darker and grittier than Columbus's was, and I think it more accurately reflects the reality that JKR intended. Columbus's presentation of the wizarding world was fantasy-like, but Cuaron's is so real that I could feel it. We get glimpses of people and their lives in the "real" world, rather than just the world of Hogwarts. The wizarding world doesn't look as shiny and pretty as it did in the first two films, and I, for one, am glad for it.

The shots are longer and more complex, something that is difficult to do in a film with so many children. My favorite scene in the film is the one in the Leaky Cauldron in the beginning in which Mr. Weasley takes Harry aside to tell him that Sirius may be coming to kill him. The complexity of that shot is truly impressive: some thirty actors are involved, and everyone is carefully placed and choreographed. The pub is dark with lots of little alcoves and the camera is constantly moving, but the actors move seamlessly, hitting their lighting marks perfectly, creating a sense of movement and intensity -- and everyone else is carrying on around them, normally, in a way that Harry will never be able to do. It's an amazing shot!

The acting is so much more subtle than it was in the previous two films, particularly for the Trio. The kids have finally learned how to show emotions by feeling them first and then letting them show, rather than by pulling cute faces. Dan's Harry is a little unstable, just like a 13-year old should be. He's angry and frustrated; he overreacts to things in wince-worthy ways; he's hesitant-yet-hopeful around Remus, easily irritated by Ron, and unconsciously comfortable around Hermione. When Remus gets angry at him, Harry's shame at having disappointed the only adult he really trusts is painfully plain on Dan's face. Rupert has, for the most part, been reined in; his acting is the most natural it's been in these films. Emma's Hermione seems less confident (or cocky) than she was in the first two films; she's painfully self-conscious, yet not willing to back down. Her Hermione is just on the verge of dealing with the angst teenage girls face: the constant tension between being sexual and being strong, between pleasing others and doing what's best for themselves. I honestly don't know how much of this was acting, and how much of it was the actors just being themselves. In any case, kudos go to Cuaron for getting such nuanced performances from three actors who are -- honestly -- above-average, at best.


So that's a bit of what I loved about the film. I know it isn't just me. Anybody else want to tell me what you loved about the film?

Comments

[ms-mindfunk.livejournal.com]

I have yet to see the film. We never made it to the theater, and I haven't had time to rent the DVD. I can't just go out and buy it, because I think it's the only idea my husband has for my Christmas gift. lol

I'll see it within the next couple of weeks for sure, and I'll let you know what I think from a first timer's perspective. Then I'll probably watch it 327 times after that in 2 days, and see if my first impressions hold up.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Wow, you haven't seen it! I look forward to hearing what you think, then.

[cheshyre]

In the first two films, the magic was all "gee whiz" If something magical was happening, it was center stage. Often, only the paintings closest to the trio would move; no effort was made for the peripheral.
Here, as you said, there are all these background acts going on, totally unremarked by the main characters, such as the Leaky Cauldron scene you mention.
Think of our first view of the Weasleys' house in CoS vs. the first view on the Leaky Cauldron here.

Now, from a story POV, the first two movies, Harry was new to the wizarding world, so it might be understandable that everything is so gee-whiz. And now that he's had a little more experience, and can be more blase' about it.

Still, that was something that really stood out for me.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

there are all these background acts going on, totally unremarked by the main characters

Right, that level of detail is exactly what I loved so much! It made everything come alive for me in a way it hadn't before, in the previous films. I hadn't thought of comparing the depictions of the LC and the Burrow before -- now I'm going to have to go watch COS again!

[lazy-daze.livejournal.com]

I love love the film too (saw it 7 times at the cinema, hee), and actually I saw quite a lot of PoA!love around, as well as PoA!hate, when it came out. You can't please everyone, but I think a lot of people did really like it. Anyway, I totally agree with everything you said :D except I wasn't too impressed with Emma's Hermione.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

I guess it was a case of squeaky wheel for me -- I didn't see that much love for the film! What didn't you like about Emma's Hermione?

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

The WW is such a strange mix of freakshow and medieval and present day and this movie combined all three

Yes! Great description. The previous films had made out the WW to be such a beautiful, lovely place, even though we all know it isn't. I adored the fact that Cuaron made it just a bit uncomfortable for us. It was much closer to the feeling of the books, IMO.

I thought the werewolf was a little (okay, a lot) pathetic

I like the phrase "chihuahua on steroids" that I saw in a print review. :-P I figured they were trying to make the werewolf and Padfoot look as different as possible. The werewolf could have been better, but at least it was original!

And I liked Harry's goggles! I thought they were nicely old-fashioned, in a Red Baron sort of way.

[grackles.livejournal.com]

I loved it too. I liked how dark it was. Also the art direction was wonderful, and the score was excellent. The first movie had the most annoying soundtrack ever, and the second one seemed kind of disjointed to me.

I always look at any movie made from a book as a separate entity and try not to compare, it makes for less disappointment. The only complaint I had is there wasn't enough Snape, but that's always a complaint I have, since I'm mildly obsessed with Alan Rickman.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

I agree that it's best to regard them as two different ways of telling the same story, and nothing more.

[storyteller.livejournal.com]

I loved this movie much better than the first two just because is was so much more aesthetically pleasing. The location of the shots were gorgeous (the forest, the lake, near Hadrid's hut, Hogsmeade), and the filming was gorgeous. Like you, I noticed the perspective of the scene where Arthur confides to Harry about Sirius.
Another of the things that I was very impressed with was the Dementors. They were terrifying, and I think were done much better than say the ring-wraiths from LotR. I liked how they could fly, and the way everything around them froze and died (loved the window freezing on the train -- again, aesthetically beautiful). I didn't like that they didn't have to necessarily have to kiss Sirius to take away his soul (which would have really scared me), but that's not a major complaint.
About the only real complaint I had with the film was Hermione's portrayal, which I feel is becoming increasingly out of character. But, this isn't enough to make me dislike the film. It was done brilliantly, and I much prefer Cuaron to Columbus.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

I also liked the effects associated with the dementors. I thought it was a great visual way to get across the way they're described (in the books) as physically affecting people.

I'm trying to get to the bottom of the issues people seem to have about the way Hermione is protrayed. What specifically didn't you like?

[souliesoul.livejournal.com]

I loved how it didn't come across as all 'Hollywood polished' like the first two, and yet it was a hundred times more detailed (or felt that way at least). Cuaron's vision of the wizarding world is darker and grittier than Columbus's was, and I think it more accurately reflects the reality that JKR intended. Columbus's presentation of the wizarding world was fantasy-like, but Cuaron's is so real that I could feel it. We get glimpses of people and their lives in the "real" world, rather than just the world of Hogwarts. The wizarding world doesn't look as shiny and pretty as it did in the first two films, and I, for one, am glad for it. I guess I really agree with that :D
There were parts I didn't so much like, but really, those were minor and I think that Cuaron's understanding of the story and his abilty to represent the feelings involved overrides any of those minor niggles about the movie and on the whole it is a very good film.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Yes, details! I loved the details, and it made the film work on such a different level for me than the first two did.

[jexay.livejournal.com]

Finally a good review. *grins* I agree with you about everything. I loved this movie. It just seemed more human... more real. Like the boys dormitory with them goofing around. All the scenes where the kids have their uniforms all messed up (i.e. folded sleeves, loose ties). The people shopping at Hogsmead seemed more real than Columbus' Diagon Alley that was too choreographed.

The cinematography was wonderful. I also am impressed with the Leaky Cauldron scene. Very difficult to do but it came out so flawless.

The acting by far is the best. The trio vastly improved since the first 2 films. I am hoping they continue on with any upcoming films (provided JKR hurry up and give us book 6 and 7!). The Y Tu Mama Tambien reference, IMO is charming.

As for comparing it to the book. Nobody should expect it to be verbatim. I think of the movie as a companion piece to the book. Nothing else.

Overall I loved it.

P.S. Have you seen the cast interviews on disk 2? *dies*

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

There are so many little deatils that I adored, and you mention a bunch of them above. Yes -- the messy clothes! That really was a lovely touch. I mean, geez, these are kids, you know?

I haven't had a chance to watch the cast interviews yet! What is it that's killed you? *is all curious*

[sabrinagb.livejournal.com]

Since seeing this in the theatre I, too, thought that it is the best of the series (to date). I was quite disappointed that Cuaron is *not* doing the next ones, but I can only hope that the new director continues in the same dark, gritty vein. I have only seen it once, so need to get my hands on the dvd. Thanks for reminding me.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

I hope so too!

[azure-k-mello.livejournal.com]

I loved the film, but I was also very stoned when I saw it as that was my birthday gift. I thought it was much better than the other two as they didn't try to fit everything in. They made it a movie in its own right instead of turning the book into a film.

We were in the front row because we got there late. And when Hermione punched Draco the whole cinema cheered and we ended up screaming "Slytherin rules!" It was fun.

I think a lot of it had to do with the kids having grown up. They're better actors now. I'm upset that the next film is having yet another director.

[burningchaos.livejournal.com]

Love the Icon btw:)

[burningchaos.livejournal.com]

I liked the little touches we saw, like the boys dorm. I think it added more depth to the movie and it was nice to see parts where thet were lauging and having fun. I also liked how the were dressed more like normal kids. It made the movie feel more like a snapshot of life(if that makes sense lol)

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Yes, exactly!

[sorion.livejournal.com]

From a filmmaking perspective, I think POA brilliant.

This is exactly why I love the film!
Great script, great actors, great directing, great effects... What more can you ask of a film?

And I don't think the canon "errors" are actually errors... A film has to tell the same story as a book, but it's not a book on screen (or you'd just have to keep the camera on the book and turn the pages every few minutes...)
Pictures have a different feel on a big screen than on the pages of a book, every reader pictures the characters differently, you could never make a movie on Harry Potter adapting everything... etc.

The film as a film is brilliant. Never compare a film to a book, it's a different kind of medium and cannot be compared...
I'm a bit sensitive on that subject... I love movies too much.

My two cents. (Does it show that I loved it? ^_~)

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

I agree completely! Telling stories is always a tricky business, and translating the story from one medium to another is inherently difficult. We all have our own version of the story in our mind, and it would be surprising if a film matched up to that for everyone.

[brightsun301.livejournal.com]

I really liked the movie, and can't wait to see it again. I've been on a Snape-loving kick for a while, and when he saves the trio from EvilWerewolf!Lupin it proves that he can be something other then a snarky git. But back to my point, the wolf was a total let down. Scary yes, but what -is- that thing??

Plus lack of background concerning the Marauders. That irked me, and it didn't help that I had to spend near half an hour after the movie explaining to my little sister, who hasn't read the books, who 'Moony Wormtail Padfoot and Prongs' were. It was sad.

*cheers 'Mione for punching Malfoy* Honestly people, if your children don't know right and wrong by the time they're 13 then.. yeah. He deserved it, and she knew it. :p

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

The Marauders thing didn't bother me, and here's why: This film had to work for two completely different sets of audiences simultaneously - those who had read the books and those who hadn't. I saw the movie several times in the theater, and with four different people who haven't read the books. I questioned them about the Marauder's Map afterwards (because I wondered how that came across), and they all said the same thing: they hadn't thought anything of it.

One person told me that it hadn't occurred to him that the Map would be unique or special. In fact, when Lupin told Snape it was probably a joke item, my friend thought that was probably true. After all, Harry is constantly being presented with new and amazing things in the WW. For all my friend knew, there were a few maps like that floating around and people were aware of their existence. Perhaps they were just rare, like an invisibility cloak. But a teacher would likely know one if she or he saw one, and maybe even how to operate it. Nothing fishy about it at all.

And I think my friend got exactly the impression Cuaron wanted non-readers to get. It works in that way for people who haven't read the books, and at the same time, those who have read them understand the deeper meaning of it all. Again, the filmmaker had to make a lot of choices to get the film made. It would have been like opening Pandora's box to explain all of that stuff in this film, and it would have detracted from the bare bones of the story that Cuaron wanted to tell, IMO. Cuaron stated in an interview that he intentionally left the Marauders' background vague because it would be better addressed in the next film. He didn't think it was necessary for this film to work. I think he was right.

[littleroo27.livejournal.com]

I did enjoy it very much as a film, however I was also kinda ticked at how much they left out entirely. I felt that they really could have made it a touch longer without killing the attention spans of their younger audience. I think as a film, the use of color and camera angles was amazing. The kids are obviously older and more experienced and this shows in their performances. Mostly I got cranky cuz they cut out the whole firebolt thing with hermione being completely ignored by the boys because she just HAD to stick her nose in. The fact that the firebolt showed up at the very end when they already knew who it was from just kinda seemed cheesy to me. But hey, it didn't stop me from buying the DVD the day it came out!!!

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

My perspective is that the film was made for a very wide audience, not just fans of the books. I'd bet a large sum of money that most people who saw that film had not read the book. Cuaron had to tell a story that would work for those folks as well as those who'd read the books. It had to work for kids and adults, for fans and non-fans - that's quite a tall order! He also had to fit it into two hours. I think he (along with the screenwriter and JKR) mercilessly cut out anything extraneous or anything that could have been delayed until a later film. The result was a story that is astonishingly clean and focused, IMO.

Of course I would have loved to see more! I would happily have sat through a four-hour film, but a tiny minority of the filmgoing public would have agreed with me. As someone else has remarked above, films and books are such different media that it nearly doesn't make sense to compare them. Much of what people think is sorely missing from the film is actually there, in images and flashes, if you just look closely. Cuaron put it in there for those of us who knew to look for it, but he didn't overwhelm the viewers who didn't. I think he did an amazing job of balancing all of these competing interests.

[deadly-ivoryy.livejournal.com]

I absolutely agree with you. The POA is definately the best of three. It's more real, it's darker. The performance of the Trio is way better.(Though I still have my doubts about Dan's peformance. I don't think he'll be succesful as an actor after HP). Cuaron's vision of HP appeals to me much more than Columbus's. I was absolutley disappointed though, with the way 'they' portraited Draco. Like a some chickenhearted dumbass fool. I liked his performance in 1 and 2 way better :( Maybe it's just me though I've probably romantisised(??) him too much :P

[burningchaos.livejournal.com]

oh I am so with you, I just can't see him whinnig and as shuch a coward, the way they changed the scene at the shack irritated me.

[tvillingar.livejournal.com]

Am I the only one who thought it was brilliant?

Nope. I loved it. The music, the images... and thank goodness, not so much quidditch.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

I thought the Quidditch scene in POA was the best yet. The game itself wasn't such a huge part of the plot, for once, and I thought they did a great job with it.

[142978.livejournal.com]

Dumbledore. Harris, may he rest in peace, was too frail to fully capture the enigma that is Albus. I watched the first two movies thinking, If Voldemort came to Hogwarts right now, he could blow Dumbledore over like the little piggy's straw house. Huff, puff, and there goes the wizarding world."

Gambon played the character with so much more strength in a much more subtle way. Yes, he's old, yes, he's eccentric to the point of comedy sometimes; but he really is intelligent and strong and witty. Someone Harry should trust, even if later that turns out to be a potentially dangerous thing.

Everything else you've totally nailed, I think.

The one part I personally would have changed, and this is a result of seeing it with people who have never read the books, people who have no background of the wizarding world - I would have explained the Marauders. And I would have put that explanation in place of Remus' little speech about Lily, which doesn't make sense to me on any level.

And people have probably posted before me about these exact things, so I'll duck out as gracefully as I can a this point.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

I agree completely about Gambon's portrayal of Dumbledore!

I commented here (http://www.livejournal.com/users/emmagrant01/99538.html?thread=1880274#t1880274) about why I think leaving the Marauders' background out of the film was not problematic.

[altiloquent.livejournal.com]

I think you're right about the squeaky wheel because this is the first positive, non-professional critic review I have read. And so eloquently done to boot.

Personally, I absolutely ADORED POA. Though I am coming from a very different perspective. The first time I saw the movie, I hadn't read any of the books, so I had no idea what canon pieces were missing or misrepresented. On that first viewing I thought it was one of the most visually stunning movies I had ever seen. The acting was vastly improved. The kids are really doing great. I, for one, LOVE Emma's Hermione, which I know a lot of others don't, but I think Emma has managed to capture an awkward part of being young that JKR has just glazed over. On all subsequent viewings (twice more in the theaters and three times on DVD) I had read the books, but the canonical "mistakes" seem minor in comparison to all of the good in the movie.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Re: missing canon, I think this is the point I was trying to make above (http://www.livejournal.com/users/emmagrant01/99538.html?thread=1880274#t1880274)! I agree with you that the missing bits of canon aren't as distracting as many fans seem to think.

And someone else thinks Emma did a good job! :-D

[deora-mystic.livejournal.com]

Oh, POA reminiscence. I should warn you that I've seen the movie (three times) in the summer and my memory is the weakest of all. Still, I liked it so very much and I'll try to remember my favorite parts.
I agree with everyone about Cuaron's artistry in this film making; the movie in my opinion seemed more mature, less for children, than the first two. There were many scenes, some focused on the landscape (the Whomping Willow's branches, the flowers wilting due to the passing of the Dementors) and were very poetical, IMHO. Also, there was an obvious age gap between 3rd year students and say, 2nd year students and this made it more than a kids' movie.
Cuaron's vision of the wizarding world is darker and grittier
I agree, everything in the movie presented magic as something dark and not so much as kids-only, but in a very subtle manner. The song chorused at the banquet of a new year, the dark settings of public spaces that were lit in the centre, but whose corners were shadowy and foreboding. And the humor was a lot more witty.

But to the slasher that I am, and such a shallow girl, I may add, the most significant scenes were, of course, the slashy ones. And Ho-ho! there were a lot of those.
->Harry/Draco (these I memorized carefully after watching the video tape, rewinding, playing, stopping, rewinding, stopping,...) - the scene by Hagrid's hut, before Care of Magical Creatures, where Draco walks up to Harry and !checks him out!, before faking a Dementor attack or something to scare Harry. But that scanning was so meaningful. Also, the little note sent during DADA with Snape *melted* and *goes on ranting*
->Hermione/Ron (to my femslashy distressed soul) were even more obvious.
->Sirius/Remus. Now that was 100% slash. Snape's witty remarks about their relationship ("arguing like a married couple" or something of the sort) - maybe Severus knows more than us ^_^. And when Lupin transforms (okay, so maybe the werewolf wasn't that great), Sirius is by his side, trying to ... oh, well, the movie speaks for itself.
Anyway, Cuaron made a great movie and I'm glad it isn't just my obsessed opinion. Will see how good the next director will be...

[awaywithpixie.livejournal.com]

No need to defend the movie from this quarter:) I loffed it too much. (does 7 cinema viewings, including an IMAX viewing half way around the world sound a little obsessive).

I'm not terribly good at explaining what I like about a movie - too many years of studying mise-en-scene have spoiled me forever, but this was one movie that I could never get sick of.

Yes, you will always have detractors who claim that a book must be made verbatim into a movie, but that could never work. Just look at Lord of the Rings. Jackson did it perfectly, yet the canon Nazi's hated him. Cuaron has got the measure of JKR's world perfectly too, and I hope that Mike Newell has as well, but I'll pass judgement on that when I see GOF.

The fact that the entire movie just seemed "natural" and "gritty" made it more real. Not to offend any of my American friends, but it had the look and feel of one of those BBC produced movies, not some slick Hollywood blockbuster. It seemed more 'British' British, and not 'American view' British. I was waiting for half the cast of EastEnders to be hanging around the Muggle entrance to The Leaky Cauldron (even though it isn't in the East End of London, it's just got that feel about it).

My favourite scene? That's hard... The divination scene was perfect, but then again, Emma Thompson can do no wrong. I did enjoy the slashy subtext, and now that I think of it, the whole Aunt Marge sequence right up until the Knight Bus was just fabulous. I really 'felt' for Harry and truly wanted to slug that woman as well.

And Sir Michael Gambon was definitely more 'my' Dumbledore than Richard Harris. Harris was too frail for the part, and Gambon will be more energetic when it comes to the Ministry duel in OOTP. I loved his eccentricities - much more like the Dumbledore I imagined when I first read Philosopher's Stone.

My DVD should be in today's mail, so I'm sitting here waiting, waiting, waiting :) productivity will be 0% until I can watch it!

[loony-moony.livejournal.com]

I loved the movie too from the first time I saw it, and I felt I could see it again and again on cinema, and was genuinely sorry to have missed it going offscreen while I was abroad this summer.

Basically I squealed everytime Alan Rickman was onscreen, because I'm a rabid fangirl of his and I think his Snape is just getting better and better. I was very disappointed to see the scene where Snape loses it in the Hospital Wing cut from the script. It could've added so much to the movie's atmosphere and the tension.
I loved seeing Hogwarts in PoA. It felt not only like a school that is special and not so special at the same time, but also it felt like it existed hundreds of years beforehand in the same state, a thing that was missing in the previous films. I also loved seeing the scenes at the Dursleys, because they were handled so much better this time. The entire setting was done to a much more believable extent, not to mention the great characterization of the Dursleys themselves and Harry too. I loved the fact Cuaron made me laugh when Aunt Marge started bloating, unlike in CoS when Dobby dropped the cake on that woman's head, which wasn't handled so well comically.
I loved Harry in this movie. Dan really has gotten better at doing his part, even though I still felt at times that he couldn't emote that well and also sometimes that he couldn't handle the burden of carrying the movie on his shoulders, however understandably young they are.
I loved the fact the Gryffindors and the Slytherins played bigger parts and were actually given personalities this time! Seamus CAN talk without blowing things up his face! And Neville DOES have emotions under his decidedly left handed manieres. I love seeing the Slytherins camped. I think it added to the whole "come on, they AREN'T little devils however JKR tries to make them seem" air. :)

Gah, enough! :D

[libel.livejournal.com]

For me PoA has been the best movie to date.

I was upset that Dean's line were given to someone else. If you check out teh special features when they are getting ready to face the boggart Dean delivers the lines.

After reading your post, I got to thinking (always dangerous). Although we know Voldemort is "around" in the first films, I can't help but think that the publication of OotP might have made this movie diiferent. With the darker images and everything.I would just hate to think that Columbus totally dropped the ball on with the tone he sat. So now that I have confused myself I will shut up.

[ias.livejournal.com]

I think it captured the spirit of the books far, far better than the first two films, and, as a piece of film-making, was far more interesting than the pedestrian efforts by Columbus. I would have preferred if it were 15-30 minutes longer just to squeeze in some more of the back-story about the previous generation (the map was never explained, nor was the reason given as to why Harry's patronus was a stag), but this are relatively minor complaints about a good film.

I am eagerly waiting until Christmas when I get my own DVD copy :)

[souls-tamer.livejournal.com]

I didn't completely hate it but I didn't completely love it either. My main beef with it is that it seemed like all the big parts were just smushed in and they didn't show enough in between happenings.

[ashkitty.livejournal.com]

I love it, too. :) And when I have a computer again and have caught up on things, I'll probably gush. In the meantime will just say, yay, me too!