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 10:41 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 11:06 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 11:33 am (UTC)I can see that. But everyone I saw it (who wasn't familiar with the potterverse) with was like, "Why is his patronus a deer? What's a deer going to do to those things?"
And it really wouldn't have taken very long to put in a short dialogue about it between Remus and Harry.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 01:14 pm (UTC)In that scene Remus is bequeathing two gifts to Harry from his parents: James' "talent for rule-breaking" and Lily's "ability to see the beauty within." These are far more important gifts than any invisibility cloak or the Marauder's map. It also ties in with Sirius' later comment that those who love us never really leave us. A speech about the Marauders would simply have been backstory, info dump. But the speech we got instead ties directly into the theme of the movie and the characters.
From the perspective of the book, perhaps that scene doesn't seem necessary, but from the perspective of the movie, that scene was central to the whole film. And beautifully acted, by Thewlis but especially by Dan.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-06 03:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-06 11:54 am (UTC)Dumbledore, to me, as always stood for stability in Harry's life (until of course the fifth book, when Harry begins to doubt him). If there's one thing he can count on, it's Dumbledore. Which is why Dumbledore needs to seem strong, even if he isn't. It isn't until the fifth book that Harry really sees how frail Dumbledore might actually be, isn't it?
And I totally agree with your comment about Dumbledore having his head in the clouds - but Gambon made me rethink that image. What if he's deliberately acting as though he's clueless, in order to make a point?
So I suppose it's really more of a different perspective than it is an enigma, but either way.