Kloves

[Petra Pan]

I really shouldn't post while almost 3 
weeks behind on the mainlist, but...

GulPlum:
> Harry's gift for sarcasm is one of 
> the major things that both PS/SS and 
> CoS lost *completely* and I simply 
> cannot believe that *every* instance 
> is down to Columbus editing Kloves, 
> or indeed the possibility that Dan 
> couldn't pull it off (judging by the 
> full Potions scene and his 
> appearances as himself, Dan doesn't
> seem to have any trouble at all with
> it).

Far from 'every'...but there are some 
instances, with the left-out potion 
scene being a good example.

> Ditto, I can't believe that excising 
> an important paragraph from 
> Dumbledore's exposition scene in the 
> hospital scene which establishes why 
> Snape hates Harry ("it's funny how 
> people's minds work...") is down to 
> Columbus. That paragraph is of  
> particular interest to me: it was in 
> the hope of finding an explanation 
> that I read the book in the first 
> place, as that question was at the
> front of my mind when I came out the 
> cinema. Had the paragraph been left
> in the script, I may well not have
> bothered reading the book (which
> then led to reading the others,
> etc, etc...) . :-)

Ah, then we were almost deprived of 
the pleasure of your company, m'dear.

> After I read the book, I simply
> could not understand why they left
> it out, and  who was to blame. Out
> of the two major suspects, I know
> which one I prefer. I don't suppose
> you remember whether or not it was
> in the script you read?

Yes, I remember that part very well.  
On pages dated Sept. 11, 2000, which 
should mean that these words are of 
Kloves' own choosing, in response to 
Harry asking if Snape hated James, 
McGonigal tells HHR that Snape and 
James were not compatible 
personalities...that James then did 
something Severus could never 
forgive...he saved Severus' life.  She 
goes on to tell the Trio that she 
supposed that Severus felt it his 
obligation to look after Harry that 
year.

Is this what you mean?

Another bit that was in the script but 
not on the screen is the payoff to 
having LV offer to bring James and 
Lily back to life.  Dumbledore makes 
the comparison between LV and the 
Mirror of Erised.  In response to 
Harry second-guessing himself and 
asking if in giving LV the Stone, LV 
could have brought his parents back, 
Dumbledore was to have replied that 
some people are like mirrors - they 
reflect our most desperate desire - we 
see what they want us to see.

> And are you *really* saying that
> making Ron out to be little more
> than a witless dork is entirely
> Columbus's work? Giving most of his
> best lines in CoS to Hermione was
> down to Columbus, or even shadowy
> script doctors? Whose idea was it to
> drop the reference to why he's
> scared of spiders?

Have yet to read the CoS script so I'm 
afraid I don't have the answer to 
that, not even a guess.  But I can 
tell you that on the pages of the 
PS/SS script, Ron is much more 'canon' 
than on screen.  For example, in that 
above scene, Ron asserts that now that 
Snape has squared things, Snape can 
hate Harry in peace.  McGonigal 
replies that Hogwarts teachers do not 
hate their students, no matter how 
taxing they may be.  Ron then provides 
the wry coda in "I think she's warming 
up to me."

Some of the Ron bits that Kloves had 
written are actually rather funny.  On 
the Hogwarts Express, Harry's query as 
to whether the Chocolate Frogs are 
real frogs is coupled with a shot of 
one frog leg wriggling out of Ron's 
mouth.

The love/hate relationship between Ron 
and Hermione is also better developed 
on the page as opposed to on the 
screen.  The script called for Ron to 
feel outdone by Hermione's 'oculus 
reparo' especially since it was right 
after she points out that his attempt 
to turn Scabbers yellow has failed.

On the 1st day of classes, hopelessly 
lost with Ron, Harry in frustration 
asks how many staircases are there.  
Guess who provides the actual answer 
to the rhetorical question by quoting 
Bathilda Bagshot?  As Hermione pass on 
by without helping them find their 
way, Ron states "I hate her."  All 
this of course better builds up the 
plotline showing how such petty 
animosity can turn into friendship 
through fighting a troll together.

Then there's that later scene with 
Neville under the leg-locker curse.  
As that scene unfolds, Hermione and 
Ron are bickering, as usual.  But the 
minute Neville enters, the two of them 
unite in identifying the curse and the 
curser.  Though this scene was shot 
(and is one of the bonus scenes on the 
DVD), the script did not (1) assign 
the lines identifying Neville's 
dilemma to Harry and (2) leave the 
audience with the impression of Ron 
and Hermione bickering (again) without 
countering it with their ability to 
put together an unified front when 
such is called for.

There are more, many more but I've got 
to run.  And BTW, the script DID call 
for Harry to have GREEN eyes.  <g>

> And please don't mistake me for a
> Clumbus apologist either. ;-) I 
> think each is as bad as the other. 
> The thing is, Kloves has sole credit 
> for the script and he bears full
> responsibility.

And therein lies the rub.  Kloves is 
deemed responsible by the audience for 
scripting the movies because he's 
received sole credit, but I doubt he 
wield the power to keep changes to his 
words from happening.  That LA Times 
article is the most recent one I can 
find that discuss this evergreen 
conflict between the film writers and 
directors over who's REALLY the 
author.  The Writers Guild and the 
Directors Guild fight over the phrase 
'A fill_in_name Film' every once in a 
while in this town the way that the 
weather pattern El Nino visits Los 
Angeles every now and then.

> I honestly don't believe that 
> *everything* is his fault, but as 
> far as I can tell, he's not done 
> anything else since embarking on the 
> HP bandwagon and it was his job to 
> supervise the re-writes

Every movie is different, of course, 
so just because I have never heard of 
such a thing means little...but...
where did you get the idea that Kloves 
gets to supervise the re-writes?  See, 
THAT would be too logical for the 
suits in the suites... <g>

> (apart from being the connection
> to JKR) so if he's as "into" 
> canon as you seem to suggest, he 
> should have put his foot down more
> firmly.  <snip>

If in doing so, the ONLY thing he'd 
accomplish is to put himself out of 
the running for working on the next 
adaptations, I can understand why he'd 
opt to 'fight another day.'  I don't 
like it but I understand it.

Yours truly:
> 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!

GulPlum:
> Sorry, but I think you're letting 
> him off too lightly. He is the chef 
> and he's signed the dish. He should 
> be prepared to take all the flak. 
> (His reluctance to address the
> "Irish Chappie" issue is, in my
> mind, very telling.) It's not as if
> after submitting the
> first/second/third draft of CoS he
> had more pressing obligations (other
> than to work on CoS) so he should
> have been available to ensure that 
> more of *his* voice was heard. 
> And it's not as if he had a lot on 
> his plate while CoS was going 
> through re-writes either.

It is entirely possible of course that 
Kloves simply couldn't be bothered.  
But it is far, FAR from the realities 
of Hollywood that such shots were  
Kloves' to call.

Though the screenwriter's name is on 
the script, s/he rarely have final 
script approval.  Nor do they often 
have control over changes made to 
their words on the way to being shot 
onto celluloid.  I read his response 
to the "Irish Chappie" issue as 
frustration over his lack of power to 
force the correction, not 
embarrassment from having his mistake 
pointed out to him.  Kloves 
immediately knew why I was asking him 
about it...that it's a Cerebus 
reference that on screen no longer 
refer to Cerebus as JKR intended.

This is my personal opinion but I 
suspect that many writers become 
writer-directors in order to gain more 
creative control.  The extra money 
doesn't hurt either, of course.  
Interestingly enough, both Columbus 
and Kloves are writer-directors in 
their own right.

IIRC, the wga.org site has much to say 
on the subject of credits and the 
writers' creative control (or rather, 
the lack of thereof) over work with 
his/her name on it.  The Writers Guild 
advocates on behalf of the writers' as 
a whole in disputes with the rest of 
the industry (especially credit 
arbitrations) so they certainly see 
the writers' side more clearly than 
the producers' or the directors'.  
Nevertheless, you might want to check 
the site out for more details.  For 
fuller coverage, you can also check 
out variety.com (note: they offer 30 
days trial subscriptions).

In short, I very much doubt that 
Kloves has the power to shape the 
script as he pleases and force 
Columbus to follow his vision closely.  
That lies in Heyman's hands 
ultimately.

Petra
a
n  :)

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