facts, oddities, pluses and whines, big and small

[frantyck at yahoo.com]

s
p
o
i
l
e
r

s
p
a
c
e

s
p
o
i
l
e
r

s
p
a
c
e


A few fact-ish points:

# It's VoldemorT, not Voldemore.

# It was RJH King on the Quidditch award in the trophy case, not RJL.

# The house numbers on the tables in the Great Hall seem closer to 
Rowling's one thousand than to a logically-derived 300 or 
thereabouts. Better this way.


Oddities:

# Dan's eye tic, where his left eye often twitches in close-ups of 
his face while he's speaking. It adds something, makes him less 
perfect and more endearing.

# Richard Harris was obviously slightly uncomfortable in his heavy 
robes. In the hospital scene, he twitches his arm to shift the 
weight of the fabric. His robes in the Mirror of Erised scene end 
above his ankles, which makes him look a bit silly. Weird.

# What's with the incongruous medieval wimple on the nurse (Madam 
Pomfrey?) in the hospital scene? A bit jarring.


Pluses and whines:

# Snape is terribly cool. His robes swish so grandly, like some 
agent of Robespierre off on a mission to England to unmask the 
Scarlet Pimpernel. I don't like what they did with the bit 
about "stoppering death" in his introductory speech. He also doesn't 
look menacing enough for a putative villain.

# Rupert Grint has a great face, very plastic and very genuine. Some 
of his lines are too practised, though, it's not so funny if it 
loses its spontaneity. Rupert awaiting the blow of the chess queen 
(I agree with Barb) is wrenchingly effective. Rare stuff.

# Quidditch is *fantastic*, fast, vertiginous, torquey. It's a major 
reason to watch the film again. Broom swishing sounds are too loud, 
though. I would have liked to hear more adrenalin-charged shouts 
back and forth and less sound-effects swishing.

# Hurts to say this, but Dan Radcliffe is really not very good. He 
has the "stillness" which moviemakers seem to look for in child 
actors, and which Harry needs, but otherwise he's a bit wooden. 
Absolutely likeable, but not very interesting or revealing to watch.

# Emma Watson's Hermione is a bit ambiguous. Script should be partly 
faulted here. Her defining scenes are either cut or meddled with. I 
don't know who she is, at the end of the film.

# Almost uniformly convincing sets, props and locations.

# Some of the actors don't seem to believe in their roles, they wear 
them like a costume, and no deeper. Richard Harris is a bit of this 
(and he's not alone), but he's better than I expected. I agree with 
Barb, fault the script.


Big picture:

Very choppy editing. Bits-and-pieces story and uneven performances 
from the three main actors means that what really holds the movie 
together are the overblown and everpresent soundtrack and the lush 
sets and settings.

Somehow, I always thought Rowling's books were visualised in her own 
head as movies. She does say that she thinks visually, and write 
what she sees. They slip from scene to scene, and even in the books, 
the passing of time is not always expertly suggested.

What this movie looks like is a bunch of in some way unconnected 
characters wandering about in an overwhelming set. Almost closer to 
theatre (consider the lighting) than Hollywood film. But theatre 
demands commanding performances, one can't easily mask mediocre 
acting face-to-face with an audience.

Sets are too detailed and too grand. The strength and economy of 
Rowling's writing is that, saying little, she reveals a lot. This 
obsessive concern with detailed and "accurate" sets, which is in 
some ways a recent filmmaking trend, obscures what really makes a 
film worth watching.

Ultimately, is this film independent enough? Is our mental 
Harryworld expanded and fertilised? I don't really think so. It's 
too slavish and too serious and goal-oriented for the spark of 
throwaway irreverence that makes a film a creative event for both 
film creators and audiences.

Last whine: I tentatively dispute the assumption that Columbus is 
great at directing kids. _Mrs Doubtfire_ had basically awful acting 
by the children, except for the younger daughter (who's great in 
Roald Dahl's _Matilda_ as well), for whom I would not give Clumbus 
too much credit. And Robin Williams just had to do his regular thing.

Despite all this whining, I loved bits of the film. Watch it as a 
companion documentary to the books, not as an interpretation or a 
complete story on its own.