Film Theorist Question (long answer)

[Alicia]

Matt wrote:

> I have read some dissent on Columbus' rendering of the story to the 
> screen.  As a person with a Bachelor of Science degree in Film 
> Theory, I would like to hear everyone's comments specifically 
> describing what they dislike about the films and how else it could 
> have been done.

Long-time lurker on the main HP4GU board visiting and deciding to 
delurk here for a bit


I'll start by saying that I enjoyed the 2 films so far, but
nothing more. Yes, it was nice to see Harry Potter's Greatest
Hits on screen, but I wasn't overwhelmed, and it wasn't
anything I couldn't already imagine anyway. I saw CoS not long
before I saw "The Two Towers": one was a pleasant evening out
and the other finished with the crowd bursting into applause at the 
end. And that just about sums up the Columbus experience for me:
he's a paint-by-numbers workman, rather than an artist with an
over-arching vision.

First off, I think Columbus faced the huge problem, not of his own 
making, of doing his films at the same time Peter Jackson has been 
giving a 3-film lesson in book adaptation. I realise that Jackson has 
about 50 years' worth of serious Tolkien scholars as well as the 
completed novels to draw on, while Columbus had about 5 years and an 
ultimately incomplete series that is regarded by the general 
community, and marketed, as children's fiction. But I don't
think that excuses the lack of an overall plan for the HP films.

I think Columbus took the fan expectation too much to heart. Every 
time a well-loved book is adapted to film, there are howls of 
outrage – a Texan to play Bridget Jones! An expanded role for
Arwen! It happened with HP too, and Columbus (and others involved in 
the films) went to great lengths to counter that and show how 
faithful they were being – mainly British actors, consultation
with JKR,etc. And I think too much of it filtered through to the 
script and direction; rather than allow some scenes to be expanded at 
the expense of cutting others in order to develop characters, they 
kept as much as possible, squeezing it all into the running time. One 
of the things that makes me hopeful about Cuaron's film is that 
he/Kloves/etc have obviously decided to make changes – no Wood
– that aren't necessarily popular for fans to hear, but may be
vindicated when we see a more developed film with stronger 
characterisation.

Regarding the overall vision of the films, I think 
Columbus/Kloves/etc were operating under difficulty not knowing the 
end of the story. In interviews they've mentioned foreshadowing
and JKR telling them to leave certain things in that will become 
important later in the series, but surely it's difficult to 
foreshadow anything when you don't know exactly what you're 
foreshadowing. This is particularly an issue, because I really
don't think of CoS and PoA as sequels to the first film, more as
a continuation of a longer story.

This is also a problem in the over-simplification of some aspects, 
especially in PS/SS, which will *force* changes down the 
track. Two examples here – Neville and Quidditch. By cutting 
Neville's scenes out or giving his lines to other characters,
they have eliminated the character development/viewer identification 
that will become important in the GoF film, when we find out about 
his parents
 if that element is left in the story. Similarly, the
reason there is no need in the PoA film for Wood's last chance at
winning the Quidditch Cup is that it was implied that Gryffindor won 
the Cup on the basis of that one game shown in PS/SS. 

Like everyone, I guess I have my own little dislikes: one of the 
decisions Columbus did make to change in PS/SS was to show Harry a 
Quidditch trophy with his father's name on it – now, I'm
fine with that, but why was McGonagall's name on it too? Unless
it was some sort of Gryffindor "team of the century", I
don't see how she and James Potter have played on the same team
– but it's in there now, for everyone to puzzle over. And I
won't even start on the age of the actor playing Moaning
Myrtle


This has already gone much longer than I meant. Basically, I wanted 
to say that I felt Columbus wasn't making adult films that
children can watch too. I also felt that he lacked 
confidence/ability/both to make the films to his own over-arching 
vision of the entire series and let it stand by itself, rather than 
to a checklist of Things That Must Be Included that has to be rushed 
through due to the running time. My impression of the films, 
especially the first one, was of one of those end-of-year letters 
people send with Christmas cards – we did this, and went here,
and this happened, love to all, the end. I realise Columbus was using 
his limited time to concentrate on Harry rather than the extended 
school community, but I don't believe he got the balance right.

Thanks to anyone still reading,
Alicia (going back to lurkdom with her long and wordy thoughts)