What matters (was James--Biggerstaff as Wood/Flight Scene)

[David]

Cindy the sphynx animagus wrote:
> I think deep down, I was hoping for 
> more "new material" and changes to the book.  For me, the book 
> exists, it is static, and it is what it is, for better or worse.  
> Seeing the setting come alive in the movie was new and exciting, 
> that's true.  But seeing the actors say the very same dialogue in 
the 
> books isn't very interesting to me.
> When I saw the movie, having the screenwriter add something to the 
> book made it more exciting and refreshing for me.  
*good examples snipped*
> On the other hand, to the extent the movie stuck to the book, it 
> sapped a bit of the excitement out of the experience for me

> Cindy (typecast in the role of Movie Group Oddball)

Well, Cindy, perhaps we can be oddballs together, because that's more 
or less how I feel, too.

When I go to a movie, I want to see something that works well *as a 
movie*.  If it happens to be an adaptation of a book I like, that's a 
guide, not an infallible one, but a guide nonetheless to whether I 
will like it.

Furthermore, I realised this morning that all the characters 
had 'snapped back' to the mental images I had from the books.  To me 
Hermione is the breathless bushy haired girl with the big teeth I 
have aways known.  The one on the screen is a good representation, 
but that's all she is, just as fanfic Hermione (in the limited 
reading I have done) is a different person who happens to share some 
history with her.

I think possibly what this means is that, for me, there is little or 
no *interpretation* in the film.  I think because the actors were 
given little opportunity to interpret by the need to be faithful to 
the book, and indeed in most cases little opportunity to do 
anything.  How many seconds did John Cleese get in toto?

Perhaps I'm being unfair, wanting the film to interpret the book and 
then complaining when the interpretation is not what I expect (like 
Snape not hating Harry, not just a Harry POV issue, IMO) - perhaps 
the book does not, after all, have sufficient depth to carry 
interpretations other than faithful reproduction?

Not really sure what I'm saying, here.  I did like it, though.

David