What's wrong with the first two movies

[GulPlum]

Further to my post the other day about PS/SS, before I launch into CoS, I'd 
like to pick up from another conversation which is relevant.

There's been some debate about whether or not Harry's "outburst" in the 
Potions Class deleted scene was justified or not.

Although I really like that scene and think it should've been kept in, I 
suspect that it was deleted from the final cut not only because of time 
constraints (it adds only about a minute to the film's running time!) but 
because, as I said before, Harry's cutting retorts had been cut from the 
script completely and thus this one was somewhat out of place. The small 
change from book to screen (Harry taking notes and Snape saying that he's 
not paying attention) made Snape's behaviour even more unreasonable, but 
D.R. overdid the opening "Clearly" just a little and the effect was just a 
little *too* cutting.

However, Dan seems to have learned a lot and, as I've said before, his 
"I'll be upstairs..." retort to the Dursleys at the beginning of CoS was 
just *perfectly* delivered, with just the right mixture of fake humility 
and sarcasm.

That was just one of the things which came up when CoS was released, and I 
don't really want to repeat all the problems I had with the film. Back in 
December, I wrote a detailed list which spanned two messages of Things That 
Make Me Cringe about (messages 4466 & 4479).

I would, however, want to pick up on one of the things I listed, which I 
think is a good indicator of Columbus's shortcomings as a director and his 
unwillingness to deviate from the books in any way. I'm referring to THAT 
anagram - in the middle of a fast-written and fast-delivered scene, 
Columbus allows the pace to fall down completely by taking the time to have 
Riddle write his name in the air (taken straight from the book). I have 
suggested before, and I still maintain, that a much snappier way of dealing 
with the anagram would have been for Riddle to make the embossed letters on 
the diary re-arrange themselves. It would have been just as effective 
visually, but would've made the world of difference dramatically.

There's also something else I'd like to bring into the mix which I don't 
think I've ever mentioned before. *Something* about the crowd scenes always 
seemed "wrong" to me, but I couldn't actually put my finger on it until I 
did the screen captures for the widescreen/fullscreen comparison: Harry & 
Co are second year pupils. Regardless of anyone's views on the "how many 
students at Hogwarts" questions, this means that about one seventh of the 
"crowd" should be around Harry's size, around one seventh should be roughly 
smaller than him, and around five sevenths should be varying degrees of 
taller, going all the way up to *much* taller. The only pupils who are 
significantly taller than Harry are those older ones to whom we've been 
introduced (basically, the Quidditch team plus Percy); there's nothing in 
between, whilst the vast majority of any crowd are roughly the same height 
or smaller than Harry.

Whilst it doesn't bother me at all that Harry and Ron's relative heights 
might differ from the books, I do find it disconcerting that the subtly 
important message that these are very young kids is completely lost in the 
mise en scene.

Anyway, those are just small potatoes when it comes to my problems with CoS 
as an adaptation from the book. CoS is generally seen as the weakest of the 
four books to date, and whilst I can't speak for anyone else, the reason 
*I* think that way is because of the gaping plot holes. The movie *could* 
have resolved at least a few of these, but the direction (though the script 
is just as much to blame) exacerbates them instead.

Here are just four examples.

During the Duelling Club, it becomes apparent that Harry is a Parselmouth. 
Snape throws Harry a "shrewd and calculating" look (as per the book). Cut 
to the Trio in another room and the explanation that Parselmouth is Bad (TM 
& C, R. Weasley & H. Granger). How did they get out of the duelling room, 
filled with horrified students and at least two equally horrified teachers 
(not helped by the layout: Harry's on a podium and has to get past either 
Snape or Lockhart to "escape")? Why didn't Snape/Lockhart take any action 
(at the very least, for Harry's own safety from a mob of terrified 
students)? I would have expected that Harry should have been dragged by the 
scruff of the neck to Dumbledore for a little tete-a-tete.

Which leads me to the second scene. McGonagall *does* take Harry off to see 
Dumbledore very shortly afterwards (once Justin has been petrified). 
Dumbledore is said to be expecting him. Yet Harry has the chance for a 
fairly lengthy conversation with the Sorting Hat, and admires Fawkes for 
some time before Dumbledore says anything. Even so, the sum of Dumbledore's 
words is to reassure Harry that he's not under suspicion.

The thing is, unlike the book, the movie does not set up Harry as a 
credible suspect anyway (inter alia, we discover the petrified students 
with Harry), so that whole part of the plot is largely irrelevant. (OT 
comment: makes me think of the brother's screenplay in "Adaptation", which 
proposes a story in which the cop, the bad guy and the victim are all the 
same person.) :-)

I would therefore have put the Dumbledore scene in immediately after the 
duelling club, scrapped the Sorting hat sequence (give the Hat's lines to 
Dumbledore) and have Dumbledore propose his "you're a Parselmouth because 
Voldemort was one" theory during this scene rather than at the end. It 
would have given some kind of structure to the storyline, and given the 
scene some dramatic importance which it simply lacks. (It would have been 
expected that Dumbeldore would encourage to get Harry to tell him about the 
voices at this stage as well, which wouldn't *need* to cut the film short, 
although I'm not sure Kloves has the imagination to see any of the several 
ways out of that.)

The third major plot hole which the film makes no attempt to plug but 
instead makes more apparent is Moaning Myrtle. McGonagall (Deputy 
Headmistress, no less, not deceased History teacher) informs the class that 
many searches have been made for the Chamber but its existence has never 
been proved.

There are two elements to this.

Whilst it's possible that McGonagall is trying to save the children 
worrying by refusing to admit that the Chamber (and the "Monster") have 
made a previous appearance in recent Hogwarts history. It's possible that 
she was unaware of what happened fifty years previously, but that's 
extremely unlikely. So just *why* is she so categorical in denying the 
monster's existence?

My second worry is how come Harry is the first person to make the 
connection between Moaning Myrtle and the Chamber? All the pupils know 
about Myrtle's presence in the toilets, so I find it pretty much 
inconceivable that Dumbledore doesn't. Myrtle seems to imply that Harry is 
the first person ever to have demonstrated an interest in the circumstances 
of her death. Dumbledore was at Hogwarts at the time: why has he never 
investigated this avenue of inquiry?

(The possibility remains that Dumbledore actually has done that and knows a 
heck of a lot more than he's letting on, but barring some spectacular 
about-turns in the upcoming plot, I find it highly unlikely.)

There is the separate issue throughout the movie of the apparent inability 
of Dumbledore and his staff to do *anything* about the attacks and their 
apparent lack of any investigation *whatsoever*.  It would have made some 
sense if among the various comments about the school might having to close 
down, etc., *something* had been said *somewhere* about a renewed 
investigation into the Chamber's whereabouts.

This brings me on to a fourth plot difficulty. Dumbledore is reinstated 
towards the end because the Governors heard about Ginny's capture (how? - 
that's a *completely* separate issue) and thought he was the only person 
who could do anything about it. In the Chamber, we discover that Ginny has 
mere moments left to live. As far as we're aware, Dumbledore doesn't turn 
up until everything is over and done with. He's calmly sitting in his 
office with no apparent care in the world (true, he probably would've been 
aware of the sword's and the Hat's disappearance, but I would have expected 
him to try to try and find out *something*). The whole sequence of events 
makes limited (if any) sense.

And I won't even go into McGonagall's apparent complete capitulation faced 
with the unknown and her complete inability to run the school in 
Dumbledore's absence. I don't want to start a feminist debate, but this 
smells very bad to me.

As hinted above, there is a very, very vague possibility that these things 
aren't plot holes, but foreshadowing of things to come (specifically in 
terms of Dumbledore's relationship with Hogwarts and how much he knows). 
Discussion of that would be better conducted on the main list rather than 
here, as this list isn't concerned with such issues. Many theories have 
been put forward to allay problems with Dumbledore's characterisation in 
GoF (MAGIC DISHWASHER foremost among them) - as I've said before,  as far 
as I'm concerned, they don't really need explaining. However, Dumbledore's 
role in CoS is a major problem with me and I have yet to discover any 
coherent explanation of it.

This film famously had little input from JKR, so I'm very curious just how 
much of this mess is down to her original insistence not to change 
anything, and how much down to the incompetence of the director and screenplay.

I've started work on a third mega-post which is provisionally entitled 
"Where do we go from here?" about the potential pitfalls for the next 
book's adaptation. I doubt it'll be finished sooner than within the next 24 
hours or so.

--
GulPlum AKA Richard, whose new post started from wondering about whether 
Kloves or Columbus is more to blame for the mess they made of CoS....