[HPFGU-Movie] Re: Prisoner's hopes and dreams

[TACtalk at adelanta.co.uk]

>Melissa wrote:

>>Steve Kloves: Well from the beginning she gave me tremendous elbow room but
>>when you're in the middle of a series like this it's important that I talk to
>>Jo along the way and she will tell me if I'm going down the wrong path.
>>
>>J. K. Rowling: I've given him more than I've ever given anyone else, which I
>>probably shouldn't say on screen or they'll kidnap and torture him, and we
>>need him.

Richard replied:-

>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.
>That JKR has not made a huge noise about the fact that Ron in CoS is an
>utter wimp and more than a little stupid is her affair.

I had a discussion along these lines a while ago with an acquaintance who
is involved in theatre. She brought up the very valid point that, once an
author has sold the movie rights to a book, he/she has *no* right to
interfere with, guide or expect any input into, the making of the movie.
JKR has *sold the rights*, which means that if the movie makers had decided
to set the HP movies long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, or had cast
a blond kid with a Texan accent as Harry, or had decided that Ron would die
in the chess game in PS/SS, JKR could have done nothing to stop them.

However, the HP movies are a rather special case, because the story is a
work in progress; no one, apart from JKR, knows how the story will unfold,
and how the books will end. The Lord of the Rings moviemakers had great
latitude to adapt the storyline, bring in characters out of the books'
chronology, and change the emphasis of certain storylines, because they
knew the ending of their story, and had a lot of background information
from Tolkien's appendices. If the HP moviemakers were to do something
similar, they would run the risk of making a nonsense out of something yet
to be published, which would also mean putting themselves into a very
tricky situation when making future movies. That's why they are consulting
JKR as much as they are, not because she has any power of veto on what goes
into the movies.

(I had also heard a rumour that JKR has not sold the rights to the
as-yet-unpublished books. If this is true, the moviemakers would be anxious
not to upset her too much, as she could refuse to sell them the rights to
the remainder of the series. If she did indeed refrain from selling future
rights, she's a smart woman).

The argument with my creative friend also touched on the quality of the
movie adaptations. I maintained that the movies were a fairly decent
adaptation of the books; certainly not as good as they might have been, but
definitely not as bad either. That's damning with faint praise, but
remembering such recent adaptations as 'Captain Corelli's Mandolin', 'The
Shipping News', and even the most extreme example, the chickflick
'Chocolat' (where the character of the villain, the basic storyline, the
character development and even the ending were all changed and tied up into
a neat, Hollywoodised package), I think that we got off pretty well with
what we did get in the HP movies.

My friend's argument was that the director had not taken enough risks with
the HP movies, that he should have been more adventurous with the
characters and the plot, instead of sticking so slavishly to the books. She
applauded directors who adapted the storyline and characters to give a new
slant on the plot. This is where the point about the author's input came
up, because I have met Joanne Harris, the author of 'Chocolat', and know
that she was not particularly happy with what was done with her book.

Although the author, having sold the rights to the book, cannot complain
about what Hollywood has done with it, the audience certainly can. They
have been led to believe that what they are going to see in the cinema
bears more than a passing resemblance to the book which they have enjoyed.
The movie makers use the book's title to lure them into the cinema; and if
they then fail to provide a reasonably accurate interpretation of the book,
they are in fact committing a deception. My creative friend thought that
this was nonsense.

While I agree that some more creativity in translating HP for the screen
would have been welcome, I am also horribly aware of what would happen if
things swung too far in the other direction, away from the canon of the
book. How happy would we be then?

And, never forget, Hollywood sees HP as a *children's* series. Whilst
adults may welcome some flexibility of interpretation, the younger fans of
the books, some of whom know certain sections *by heart*, would be
horrified to see any further divergence from canon. A teenage daughter of
one of my friends was very upset by the various differences from the book
in PS/SS; she would have been devastated by major changes. She's not
unique.

So; are the movies so far a perfect adaptation of the books? No way. Do
they bear a realistic resemblance to canon? Yup. Could it all have been
done with more flair? Oh yeah.

Regards,
Nicholas