In defense of POA
Dec. 5th, 2004 10:31 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
emmagrant01I 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?
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?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 09:38 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 09:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 09:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 10:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 10:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 11:25 am (UTC)I guess I don't think Harry, Ron, or Hermione are intended to be role models for kids at all. They make mistakes, misjudge people, treat each other badly -- in short, they're normal kids. Sometimes, there are consequences for their behavior and choices. Sirius's death is in some ways Harry's fault, a result of Harry's stubborness and shortsightedness, and his refusal to trust the adults around him. Harry isn't a role model; he's a child put in a horrible position, and he's coping the best he can. He doesn't always do it very well, but that's what makes the story so interesting and compelling, IMO.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 11:36 am (UTC)But I know that I was talking to one of my younger brothers (age 10) about that scene and he said that it was ok because, "She's a good guy and he's a bastard." And I tried to say that he wasn't a bad guy and I just got "the look".
They view them as role models, and I'm not saying that the characters should be sculpted accordingly. What bothers me is that if she had called Draco a pureblooded prig and he had hit her tons of people would have been screaming about it. It's the double standards for the Gryffindors and the Slytherins that bothers me. You aren't a bad guy because of where you grow up. Back in the forties there were thousands of pleasant Germans who weren't Nazis. There are many people in the Slytherin House that are good or simply mislead and will find their way back to the path.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 12:15 pm (UTC)I understand your point here, though I think it's pretty natural for people to read that good vs. evil bit into the series. JKR has made very few attempts to portray Draco or any of the Slytherins as anything more than two-dimensional caricatures of bad guys , and I think she's doing it on purpose -- because it's the way Harry sees them. We all know that everything we see in the books is filtered through Harry's eyes, and it's not surprising that he sees those people as being nothing more than stereotypical bad guys. Most kids do. Hell, most people do, including the current president of the US.
I hope JKR has plans to let Harry learn that the world (and people) aren't so black and white, eventually. It would be a powerful lesson if it happened, I think. I'm not sure if she will; her interview comments aren't indicating that, unless she's being intentionally obtuse about it. If not, there's always fan fiction! ;-)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 12:22 pm (UTC)Draco needs to do something amazing by the end of the book, I swear. She wouldn't leave children looking bad... would she? I think he'll do something like almost die saving Hermione. Maybe I'm confusing "think" with "hope:.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 12:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 01:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 01:13 pm (UTC)