Out-of-character moments (was Misc. on CoS)

[skyw1ngs <holymotherofgod@hotmail.com>]

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Amy Z <lupinesque at y...>" 
<lupinesque at y...> wrote:

It was a small matter, but one that 
> irked.  I think they could've accomplished what they needed to 
with a 
> zoom/cut to a cuff that was pushed up enough to show that he was, 
in 
> fact, barefoot.  I.e., we need to see it; Lucius needs to see it; 
> Harry doesn't need to show it off.

I totally agree with this and many of your other comments. And 
although I too immensely enjoyed the film, there were many things 
about it that seemed to be there just for the laughs, this being one 
of them.

It's been out in Australia for about 5 weeks now, my bro tells me, 
and when we went to see it a few days ago, there was still a queue 
to see it. Granted, the theatre was not nearly as full as in the 
opening day, but it was comfortably full, and mostly full of grown 
ups who laughed in all those right places.

Even if I do cringe a little at all those for-the-laughs scenes, I 
still somewhat appreciate them because not-so-obsessed watchers of 
the movie seem to enjoy them. I can't say why the general people's 
opinion of the movie is important to me, but it is.
  
> DOBBY's little folding of the arms and cute "harumpf" nod at the 
end 
> also seemed anachronistic to me, as though I was in the vaguely 
> medieval world of Hogwarts and Roger Rabbit suddenly came bounding 
> down the hall.  This is hard to explain, because part of the humor 
of 
> the books is the anachronistic tensions among quills and parchment 
> and flying cars and MegaMutilation III; all I can say is that IMO, 
> JKR always gets the balance right, whereas this little bit seemed 
> Disneyish in a way that yanked me unceremoniously into 2002.

Absolutely right. Another moment that was there to please the 
general audience with a cliché. Even if I think HP is full of 
clichés, and practically based on them (come on, wizards in pointy 
hats and dusty robes, wands and cauldrons?), there is always that 
little twist of originality in it that makes it seem new.

I think JKR has blasted that age old stigma of only witches ride 
broomsticks out of the air. A few years ago, boys wouldn't think to 
ride a broomstick, but now, everyone does!
 
> HERMIONE.   But the 
> welling-up tears were bad, bad, bad.  Hermione, with rare 
exceptions, 
> is the kind of person who reacts to having her feelings hurt by 
> getting angry, not by going all quiet and teary.  The dynamic with 
> Draco through the books is definitely one where she's more ticked-
off 
> than wounded by his bigotry.
>      They gave her one of Dumbledore's lines too ("Fear of the 
name 
> increases fear of the thing itself"), which stood out mostly 
because 
> I thought it was badly acted, 

I just didn't like her saying it because it was one of Dumbledore's 
wise lines. The tears I didn't mind so much, really, since she gets 
tearful in the future with the stress and all. I mean, she _is_ just 
a kid and it is hard to put up with verbal and emotional abuse.

> RON.  .
>      They blew a great opportunity to lay the groundwork for Ron's 
> insecurity about his poverty and Harry's wealth, too.  It's right 
> there in the Burrow, and it's very simple:  instead of having him 
> say, "It's not much, but it's home," have him say "It's not 
much..." 
> and trail off and look at Harry.  Or have him say the things he 
says 
> in the book, if they can spare the seconds.  But the point is, 
he's 
> nervous about whether his friend will like his home and thrilled 
when 
> said friend does.  Why the hell did they turn it around?

This is a point I really wanted them to get as well. Ron's 
insecurity about his family's poverty is such a constant factor in 
the books it only makes sense to at least continue referring to it. 
In PS/SS they had the "No thanks. I'm all set." in the train scene 
but none in CoS. Sure, the Lucius comments and "We'll manage" in the 
Burrow were referring to their financial status, but not to Ron's 
insecurities. I really really wanted to have him be nervous about 
what Harry might think about the Burrow. People should've brushed up 
on their HP before each scene, methinks.


> 
> DUMBLEDORE, or whoever was responsible for the Hagrid lovefest.  
That 
> was awful.  But I could go on in curmudgeonly style for paragraphs 
> about filmmakers who think the best possible ending to a movie is 
> some kind of big graduation scene where we all get to clap, like 
Star 
> Wars or Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (they just saved 
the 
> universe!  Let's *clap,* everyone!).  It's as if they can't think 
of 
> anything more richly emotional than a bunch of people applauding--
> whereas, if they wanted to end on a We Love Hagrid note, IMO 
they'd 
> have done much better to cut immediately after Harry's hugging 
him.  
> Anyway, the whole thing is not only dumb, it's OOC.  Harry 
wouldn't 
> declare his feelings in front of the whole school if he could 
mutter 
> them privately to the person concerned; Dumbledore wouldn't listen 
in 
> and then start clapping.  Just ugh.

Yes. That was completely and utterly cringe-worthy. I suppose the 
only good thing was that it was just applause and didn't start as a 
SLOW clap. OMG. 

Also, as far as we know, only the 3 kids care about Hagrid! Neville 
didn't even say hi to him as he passed. Now, Hagrid's "Hi Neville" 
might've been added post which may be why Neville didn't answer, but 
then maybe it shouldn't have been added in the first place. Perhaps 
a few references to how important Hagrid is to the students wouldn't 
have gone astray. 

Speaking of which, Hagrid's appreciation for being taken out of 
Azkaban would also have meant more if we were told about the gaol 
and the Dementors. 

> The whole thing is making me worry about PoA, because PS/SS had 
fewer 
> OOC moments than CoS, 

Don't worry. Maybe the new director will pick up on those moments. I 
had always considered HP a grown up kids movie; not talking down to 
kids, being a drama rather than a comedy... Hopefully it will live 
up to that expectation and be a serious film as it should be. I'm 
not saying not funny, just made seriously. There is too much thought 
and talk about HP being a kid's book or movie. I really cannot stand 
it when I hear that, or when 14 year olds say that they're 
embarrassed about liking HP because they're afraid that they're too 
old. Please!

All I want is faithfulness to the books, the abolishment of the 
assumption that the audience is 5 years old or too dumb to read 
subtext, and not resorting to cheap gags in order to secure some 
audience satisfaction. As long as it is made seriously, it will be a 
great movie and definitely satisfactory!

skywings.