[HPFGU-Movie] Re: Film Theorist Question

[Christin Gahnström]

I don't write to the list very often. But as I've been giving a lot of
thought as to why the first (and in parts the second) HP films turned
out rather bad, I thought I'd try to put theses thoughts in print. It's
pretty long, but here it goes:

First, I did enjoy HPPS as a novel. At least it was enough to make me
keep reading the following two that were out at the time. But I
remember thinking even then that filming the book might be difficult.
As many of you have pointed out, there isn't much of a storyline. But
then again a lot of things are going on that might be needed for events
later in the series.

The strength in the first novel lies partly in the irony and the very
realisticly described magical world. I find the magic in the movie
terribly overdone. Columbus has resorted to put blue light and smoke
all over the screen, which is a shame since the story is magical enough
in it self, it doesen't need to look like a cheap 80's fantasy film.

The production also feels rushed. I'm not only talking about the
frankly embarrassing special effects but also about the lack of
continuity, the (at times) very odd editing and the music that is
sometimes completely out of tune with what's happening on the screen.
Why, for example, didn't someone take the time to make Harrys eyebrows
and hair match from take to take? I realize that Dan Radcliffe grew a
great deal during filming, but that doesn't explain the hair and the
eyes.

There are times in the film where you almost get the feeling a whole
reel is missing. Think about the scene which ends with Dudley's
"daddy's gone mad" that cuts to the rock in the sea.
There's also a scene in which Harry picks up his first Hogwarts letter
from the floor. Listen to the music in that shot.

These are things hardly ever seen in big Hollywood productions, and it
surprises me that a film with such a large budget can look this bad and
still be released. Some more time spent with the editing, music and
special effects would have helped a great deal.

Then, of course, there is the narrative. The way Columbus tells the
story might have worked if he had three or four hours, or a whole tv-
series, on his hands. As it is, we get a story that wants to tell so
much it ends up telling nothing. Many people on this list have wished
for a longer film. That might have given us more live pictures from the
book. But if what we wished for was a better film, as a film, not as
moving illustrations, I'd say we'd be better of if the film were half
an hour shorter, with more focus on the main characters and actions
essential to the plot.

In the second film, however, I think much of the things that went wrong
in the first one are put right. The editing (though slighly abrubt at
times) works much better. The music interacts well with the action on
the screen and the special effects are flawless. Compared to two other
SF-filled films of the last year, The Two Towers and Spider-Man, I'd
say The Chamber of Secrets comes out as number one.

The storyline could have been more focused (and the film shorter). And
sometimes the direction, rather than the acting, is rather uninspired.
You'd think a broken arm would hurt a bit more than it seems to do in
the Quidditch-scene, and why Hermione reacts with such excitement when
Harry tells her he hears voices for the first time is hard to
understand.

But in all, the second film is a huge improvement and I enjoyed it a
great deal more than the first.

Of course, Hogwarts hosts the bunch of oldest looking twelve-year-olds
the world has seen ;).

As English is not my first language, and I have no access to a
spell-check or dictionary, I realize some words may be spellt wrongly,
or may not exist at all. I appologize. I would also like to thank you
if your're still reading. You are a very patient person ;)

Christin Gahnstrm