[HPFGU-Movie] Snape's speech, clunky lines, dubious Snape/Draco moment

Tue Dec 11 04:22:15 UTC 2001

On Monday, December 10, 2001, at 09:38 PM, Tabouli wrote:

>> topped only by the cliché-ed "Quidditch is in your blood" by Hermione.
>
> Again, I feel unworthy suspicions about CC on the sentimental cliche 
> front.  He's been told that this is a low-key, English-style 
> production, with all all-British cast, emotional restraint instead of 
> emotional expressiveness, etc.etc.  and most of the time he's kept his 
> Mrs Doubtfire instincts under control, but every now and then the 
> schmaltz and overacting peeps through.
>
> Daniel is strikingly low-key and subtle (too much so for many, it 
> seems), but Emma seems to have been instructed to act in a way better 
> suited to the school stage productions they nabbed her from (eNUNciate 
> children, proJECT your voices now, dears...).  In the context of the 
> Hermione they've created, though, I can tolerate this line: it conveys 
> a sense of great self-importance in the sort of way an 11 year old girl 
> well might.

Perhaps this is simply because I'm American, and perhaps it's simply 
because I'm inundated with such schmaltz and deprived of a sense of 
subtlety, but to me this is overreaction in the extreme. The "blood" 
line *is* low-key. It makes sense, and it's so inconspicuous I did a 
double take reading this email to make sure I understood what was being 
picked on. I would entirely expect a friend to tell me that computer 
programming was in my blood (most of the men in my family are engineers 
of some kind). Does this line really bother you that much? It certainly 
didn't seem self-important to me. Just a friend showing a friend the 
most encouraging thing she can, especially considering the fact that 
Harry's parents are such a mystery to him.

> Emma Watson: You're a great wizard, Harry.  (suddenly straining to 
> shift from school stage production self-importance to warm, sincere and 
> admiring, accompanied by the most twee of glowing gazes and camera 
> shots)(BLEE!)

The kids have received what I would consider some scathing criticisms 
from several people on this group, and I really don't understand why. 
Sure, they're smart, talented kids, and we can expect great things from 
them ("Terrible, yes, but great..." ;-) ), but they're still *kids*. 
They're relatively inexperienced at doing *anything*, especially acting 
as masterfully as many seem to demand.
Besides, we have to keep in mind, it could be much, much, MUCH worse. 
Any time you find yourself disappointed with the kids in Harry Potter, 
just think back to Jake Lloyd in Star Wars.

> Both straight out of Hollywood family movies with moral messages.

I find this an odd criticism. Are the Harry Potter books not 
family-oriented, with moral messages?

> Ian Hart (who IMO was truly terrible): Trooooolll!  Trooooll in the 
> dungeons! (in ringingly unconvincing poky tones followed by one of the 
> most ludicrously hammy faints I've ever seen.  Yes, I know he is, in 
> fact, meant to be pretending in that scene, but please.)(URR!)

Again, I just don't see what the fuss is about. Just my saturation with 
ostentatious, sugar-coated movies, I guess. Although I will say I 
thought Hart played the final confrontation scene a bit too much like 
the quintessential James Bond villain as he took time out of his evil 
plan to connect the dots for Harry. Then again, this is how the book is 
written, so I guess I shouldn't judge Hart too harshly.

Alex

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com