Random thoughts about the movie, etc. -- Cuaron

[Nia]

"GulPlum" wrote:
> As it happens, I have an ABSOLUTELY HUGE problem with McGonagall, 
of all people, giving the exposition of the Chamber legend. I can 
> understand that the producers didn't want to introduce yet another 
> teacher, but under the circumstances, I would have preferred it if 
> Flitwick had been given those lines (the fact that poor Warwick 
> Davies didn't have a single audible line throughout the movie 
should  have been reason enough!).
> The reason for my objection is that it makes a mockery of 
> McGonagall's status. Let me explain.
<snip> She's Dumbledore's second in command, and in view of the 
> first attacks this time, SURELY Dumbledore would have briefed her 
> about what had happened the last time, even if she didn't already 
> know about it? SURELY she knows about Hagrid's expulsion in 
> connection with the last opening? Then WHY, for goodness' sake, 
does 
> her exposition underline the Chamber's status as "legend"? Why 
does she fail to acknowledge that it is real and had caused trouble 
> before? 
<snip> 
> On top of all of all those canon objections, having her exposition 
> state that the Chamber exists, that it was opened 50 years 
> previously, and that Hagrid was suspected of having opened it, 
would 
> have made the movie's plot significantly clearer and could have 
saved 
> running time later on by removing further unnecessary exposition.
<snip> 

Now me:   This is a very astute observation!  But I think, Columbus 
and Kloves probably felt that Smith didn't have enough to do and 
neither of them has taken the book seriously enough to notice that 
glaring inconsistency. But there are some rational reasons for their 
choices: To have Smith tell the students the Chamber had been opened 
fifty years before would have meant they had to cut out or 
completely alter a scene they both liked (Harry going into the 
diary) and to alter that would have thrown off the rest of the story 
thread too. A lot of the story tension would have been destroyed. If 
McGonagall told the children about the Chamber, she would never have 
implicated Hagrid. To use Flitwick would have been the thing to do 
but obviously, they didn't want to snip any time from the featured 
action scenes to allow a better exposition of the story. This, of 
course, would have been the intelligent thing to do.  I am very much 
looking forward to Cuaron's direction and you have seen his work, 
which is why I can't understand your statement about Cuaron's style:

GulPlum: 
> On a stylistic point, if his previous movies are any basis for 
> judgment (I've seen three of his four major movies to date), we're 
> likely to lose Columbus's tired (and tiresome!) use of Hogwarts 
> flyovers as transition sequences, and he'll probably replace 
> Columbus's penchant for downward vertical pans with his own 
penchant for upward ones. :-)

Now, me:
Although I agree with your other comments about his creative 
storytelling, you make it seem as if Cuaron uses the pans as 
mindlessly as Columbus.  There is absolutely no rational or artistic 
reason behind Columbus' downward vertical pans other than he 
saw "Fellowship of the Rings" and copied its (original and creative) 
style.  Cuaron is a perceptive artist who carefully sets up scenes 
in a kind of visual shorthand.  He allows us to meet and understand 
the characters he is depicting -- he makes us see them as people, 
not just as 'types.'  His camera work is never as obvious and phony 
as Columbus'.  And, if you have noticed a leaning toward upward pans-
-if he can make the story ring true and make us feel and understand 
the characters' motivations, if he can create a film that finally 
respects all the carefully crafted emotional nuances of JKR's 
writing--does the way he accomplishes it really matter?
--Nia