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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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*

[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.

[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]

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)

[burningchaos.livejournal.com]

Love the Icon btw:)

[azure-k-mello.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I was just a wee bit angered by the whole thing. What are we teaching our kids? That if someone's rude to you, you're allowed to attack them?

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

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

[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!

[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?

[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? ^_~)

[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 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.

[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!!!

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

I'm assuming this incident bothered you in the book too? (Yes, it was a slap and not a punch, but the intention was the same in both cases.)