Washington Post/more questions (MAJOR spoilers!)

[GulPlum]

Richelle Votaw wrote:


> I have watched
> PS/SS with various friends and relatives.  And every one of them 
> was left with a "huh?" after the movie.  Each time I spent a good 
> twenty minutes giving a brief review of the facts and filling in 
> the missing details.

I was left with only one "huh?" after PS/SS, which was: why on earth 
does Snape despise Harry? I bought the book on the way home from the 
cinema to answer that question, and absolutely couldn't understand 
why the screenplay didn't address it in the obviously incomplete way 
the book did. It needed ONE sentence from Dumbledore in the hospital 
scene.

Sure, the book fills in loads of other details, but the film is 
comprehensible on its own terms without them. Furthermore, PS/SS is 
clearly setting up the foundations for the series as a whole, and 
thus its more anecdotal rather than narrative-driven plot is 
excusable. CoS (the book) had a tight narrative but the film has been 
reduced to a series of major set pieces, each of which (as many 
reviews have pointed out) are given equal importance.

I therefore defend his complaints about the Whomping Willow scene 
(for instance) not on the basis that the tree is itself unimportant 
(which we know is not the case), but it is given an importance in 
*this* film which it does not warrant. The Willow gets more screen 
time than Colin, for instance, which is frankly wrong.

Many reviews I've seen have used terms like "boring", "plodding" 
or "pedestrian pacing" to describe CoS; Columbus (and Kloves) divide 
it (as they did PS/SS) into a series of four minute sequences and it 
is this insistence on surface balance which ultimately makes the film 
structurally *un*balanced. They have some kind of checklist of 
elements from the book which need to be covered, and give each of 
them its own sequence, instead of intertwining the various threads to 
create a coherent whole. Some elements are thus rushed, and some are 
slowed down or enlarged to give them their statutory screen time. 

It's film-making by numbers which is unsatifying and, frankly, 
patronising. In one of his interviews, Daniel came out with that word 
to describe most kids' films, in the context that most kids' live 
action films refuse to address "darkness". Yes, Columbus and Kloves 
didn't shy away from covering some of the more difficult elements of 
the storyline, but ultimately this is just reduced to a romp through 
a series of adventures rather than an attempt to correlate, for 
instance, Draco's behaviour to that of Riddle.

Another of my pet bugs is the duelling club scene - whilst visually 
entertaining for the kids, all they do is toss each other twenty feet 
into the air; it seems as if there's no difference between the 
various incantations. In particular, the "expelliarmus" doesn't 
actually cause Lockhart and his wand to part company! 

> <snip>
<Colin's role> 

> I must say that will be a disappointment to me as well.  The little
> fellow they had playing Colin was so utterly cute.  Maybe he can't 
> act worth anything, I don't know, but he sure is cute.

Yes, he's cute (he's also quite tiny). :-) I suspect that his role 
wasn't reduced because of any deficiencies on his part, but was 
written that way from the start.

In fact, his whole "motivation" has been changed: Film-Colin's role 
isn't to follow Harry around and pester him, but to be a kind of mini-
papparazzo, getting under everyone's feet. There are a few instances 
in which he puts his camera to his face to take pictures, but is 
stopped by the hand of people considerably taller than him (whose 
faces we don't see and thus can't identify them). 

> I think my point is that the movies are made based on a premise
> that 95% of people seeing them will have read the books.  The other 
> 5%, oh, well, that's their mistake.

Clearly, that is the case. However, it is a very, very shaky premise 
on which to base a movie, and considering most (adult) film critics 
will not have read the books, it is little wonder that critics might 
not like it. The fact that the audience may not have read the books 
is absolutely no defence for the film-makers being sloppy and unable 
to tell a story.

> > SP
> > OI
> > LE
> > R
> > SP
> > AC
> > E
> >
> > SP
> > OI
> > LE
> > R
> > SP
> > AC
> > E

> > Harry tells her to "get yourself out" (repeat of line from PS/SS).
> 
> I'm going to be an idiot again (hey, no comments!) and ask, where
> is that line in PS/SS?  I watched it again Monday night and didn't 
> catch it.  I *thought* it was after the chess scene, but Harry said 
> something like "Take Ron and get out, send an owl, etc."  I think.  
> Or is the repetition just similar, not exact?  

My fault. I had mis-remembered the line from the first movie (yes, I 
was thinking about the post-chess scene too). 

<snip>

> In the hospital wing when Dobby comes to talk to Harry, what 
> exactly wakes him up?  I mean, in the book it's Dobby sponging 
> Harry's face.  I can't quite see them doing that in the movie, 
> though.  

He's woken up by The Voices (although it's unsure whether he's 
hearing them or dreaming). It's done quite amusingly, because he 
weakes up, looks around and is interrupted by Dobby saying "hello". 
The jolt from the tone of the voices to his jovial welcome is one of 
the things done well. Returning to the more general comments above, 
what's REALLY infuriating about this film is that each individual 
scene is very well structured. It's putting them together that causes 
the problem.

> What about Colin?  He does actually get petrified, right?  

Of course. 

> Do they bring him to the hospital wing while Harry's in there like 
> in the book?

Yes. His arrival is what causes Dobby to disappear. He's frozen with 
the camera at his face, which was yet another nice touch. We get a 
closeup of his face underneath, which is just the way I imagined it.