Kloves (was) Prisoner's hopes and dreams

[Petra Pan]

GulPlum:
> I have maintained since the
> beginning (well, since I read the
> books, post-PS/SS) that the
> character assassination isn't so
> much down to Columbus's direction,
> as much as Kloves's script. Harry is
> a reluctant hero, Ron is not a wimp,
> Dumbledore is eccentric. The script,
> rather than the direction, overthrew
> all of these, and no amount of
> clever direction would have been
> able to return the characters to
> their full glory. My doubts about
> Dan's ability to portray some of
> the subtleties the character 
> requires are just further grist to
> the mill.

I made a case against considering the 
movies to be canon in

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
HPFGU-Movie/message/4605

I won't repeat it all here but what I 
said then applies here in regards to 
who may be most at 'fault' in terms of 
the character assassinations: 

What we all saw on the screen/DVD is 
NOT exactly as Kloves had set down on 
paper.

That is to say, there seemed to have 
been a lot of changes and 
improvisations that were not 
thoroughly thought through.  Such 
changes were unlikely to have been 
effected by anyone but the director 
and the producer and script doctors 
(if any) hired.

I can only think of 1 fair reason to 
improvise on an adapted screenplay on 
the set and here's where we may agree: 
to compensate for the young cast's 
inability to make the scenes (as 
they're written) work and the 
director's inability to make the 
youngsters 'sing the right notes' so 
to speak.

> I am only hoping that the re-write
> Cuaron is rumoured to have
> instituted (referred to in Columbus
> interviews when CoS came out) are on
> that level.  <snip>

As do I!

> The Ravenclaw match will probably
> fall by the wayside - it's really a
> Draco moment - showing Harry's
> Patronus to be ineffective can be
> established in other ways.  <snip>

'Ineffective'?  I'm confused...

> Kloves's heavy-handed treatment of
> the characters makes me really fear
> that we will lose one of the
> highlights of the series: Harry and
> Hermione blowing their top at
> Snape. The two movies to date have
> already lost Harry's sarcastic
> snipes in his direction, so we've
> had no indication of Harry's more
> vicious side. <snip>

Remember the extra scene in potions 
from the DVD in which Harry snaps 
sarcastically back at Snape?  That was 
in the script and in fact was shot but 
edited out by the director (and 
producer?).  There are many other 
moments of characterizations in 
Kloves' script that never made it onto 
celluloid.

But mistake me not for a Kloves 
apologist.  I don't actually think he 
has done a great job in adapting the 
HP books.  Neither do any of his peers 
- he hasn't gotten any accolades for 
his work that I know of.  Especially 
in this year, there are at least two 
adaptations that outshine his in 
completely different ways: "Chicago" 
streamlined a legit stage experience 
into a completely cinematic one and 
"Adaptation" captured the essence of 
Susan Orlean's book without actually 
staying faithful to its 'plot.'

Wonder if Bill Condon or Charlie 
Kaufman may be interested... <g>  
Though, in my heart of hearts, I'd 
love to see Emma Thompson adapt the HP 
books.

I am not asserting that you are 
letting Columbus off entirely, of 
course, but Kloves may not be as 
culpable as your posts suggest.

GulPlum (in later post):
> Neither does it contradict what
> Kloves said about her correcting the 
> scripts after he'd written them.
> Kloves says nothing more than that
> she's telling him when he's going
> down the wrong path. He is NOT
> saying that she's ever told him what
> the right path is, or where it's
> going. That whole exchange can mean
> that her contributions go no
> further than "you shouldn't have cut
> out this scene" or "what you're
> implying in that scene is
> incorrect".  <snip>

I am not even sure that JKR's 
contributions go that far.  According 
to the "Written By" article:

"The only time Rowling said words like 
'don't' or 'can't,' Kloves says, is 
when he would tweak references made in 
book one to characters who would, or 
would not, appear in later stories."

None of the articles I've read that 
mentions the adaptation of the HP 
books have outlined the process 
step by step (more's the pity).  But 
I never get the impression from the 
"Written By" article (nor from the Q&A 
that I attended) that JKR corrected 
the scripts...if by that you mean 
something as complete as editing or 
proofing the entire script.

I think she should...but on the other 
hand, I don't want to wait any more 
than the normal course of her process 
for Year 6 and 7!

> The first two movies have shown that
> several characters have been turned 
> into something they are not in the
> books as a result of simplifying
> them.  <snip>  All I'm saying is
> that some elements have been 
> subverted.  <snip>

I agree that distortions have crept 
into the fanon that are the movies.  
But I suspect such distortions are 
several generations deep and some are 
more than a degree of separation from 
Kloves - there may have been too many 
cooks in the kitchen!

> If [JKR] felt able to open up a lot
> more to Kloves (or preferably a
> better screenwriter) about where the
> road is going rather than simply
> telling him what roads not to
> follow, he would have a much better
> idea of the relationship between the
> various plot elements and how to
> portray them cinematically  <snip>

But what if JKR is right in her 
suspicion that everyone who is privy 
to future plotlines could fall victim 
to kidnap?  <wonders if JKR herself is 
being guarded by Fluffy>

Petra
a
n  :)

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/