POA - Movie Review - Does Contain Spoilers

[a_reader2003]

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "Krissy" <surreal_44 at y...> wrote:

> --- In HPFGU 
Movie at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003"<carolynwhite2 at a...> wrote:
> <snip>
> >>What slightly worries me is that Jo is apparently very pleased 
with the way this film stays close to the emotional truth of POA, 
when it seemed to me to skim very lightly over the top of it. 
> 
> 
Krissy:
>  Why in the world would it worry you that the author of the series
> that we all adore so much is happy with the movie? > 
(snip)
> If she is happy with the movie, I think it's silly and selfish of
> people to nit-pick the hardwork that many people have put into 
trying to  visually create the world of Harry Potter. Just because it 
isn't what -you- envisioned doesn't mean that it's wrong. 
> 

Carolyn:
You have misunderstood my point. Jo is obviously entitled to her 
opinion, the same as everyone else & more so, since she is the 
creator. Her endorsement of the movie was depressing to me because it 
stressed yet again, how she wished her books and characters to be 
viewed - fairly simplistically, if the evidence of this movie is any 
guide. 

As a writer yourself I understand you may have strong views on this, 
but IMO a reader/viewer's interpretation of what they are presented 
with is just as valid as the creator's. The genie is really out of 
the bottle once a work is made public. Authorial intent is 
interesting to know about, but becomes just part of the jigsaw that 
adds up to an ongoing response to a particular work (which can change 
over time).

As an adult I found more in POA than I found reflected in this film, 
and so I am disappointed. Jo's reported opinions form part of that 
temporary disappointment for me, but in a curious way just add to the 
appeal of the larger series. We appear to have a writer who is trying 
to control the interpretation of her works, faced by millions of out-
of-control readers with their own widely-diverging opinions. A very 
21st century media phenomenon.

As to whether it is right to criticise all the 'hardwork' that has 
gone into the movie, perhaps it is worth remembering that the one and 
only reason WB have created the film is to make truckloads of money 
out of a largely captive global audience. If anything, this means 
their efforts should be more closely scrutinised, not less.

Carolyn