POA - spoiler alert - long

[clshannon at aol.com]

Spoiler Space coming.























Sigh. Well, I think my head is going to explode! Not only did I have the 
extreme pleasure of seeing the movie today finally, but I get home and there are 
tons of messages I want to respond to, but I also want to organize my thoughts 
and rebuttals and disagreements with the negative posts ;-)

First of all - Dumbledore.
I was never really fond of Harris' portrayal. I didn't mind him in the first 
film, but in COS, it was obvious that he was dangerously frail. My heart ached 
to watch him and listen to that tremulous voice - now I don't know for sure 
if he was 'doing' that voice on purpose or not. I know that part of canon 
Dumbledore is that he 'appears' to be a really old man, but is in fact, very sharp. 
Well, for me, in COS, he was just frail but with none of the strength or 
indeed, none of the manipulative cuss we came to know in OOTP. He is rather a 
mercenary in that book, which means that he has that trait in him from the start. 
Even he admits it in OOTP - he made mistakes, chief among them trying to 
preserve Harry's childhood by not bothering him with bad news - well, by OOTP, he 
realizes what a bad choice that was. Harry never had a childhood to begin with 
and Dumbledore wanted to give him one, belatedly, by letting him enjoy his 
time at Hogwarts. But gee, the kid fought Voldie in the first two years and 
almost died both times - was he really having a chance at an innocent childhood? I 
think not. So Dumbledore should have sucked it up and told the kid what he 
needed to know.
Sorry, got off track - but to get back on - I just can't see Harris' 
portrayal being that person who is wise and whimsical, yet also manipulative and 
cunning. 
Here's an example of how I measure this - remember when the first two movies 
came out and some folks were complaining that Dumbledore didn't start the 
feast with those nonsense words like in the book? Well, I was relieved that that 
wasn't in the first two movies because the way Harris was portraying him, it 
would have been jarringly incongruous for McGonagall to stand up and say, 'and 
now Headmaster Dumbledore wants to say a few words' to be followed by him 
saying things like 'bubblesqueak'. It just didn't fit. 
After seeing POA, I could imagine Gambon doing that in his opening speech and 
then a few seconds later, giving the warning about dementors and being stern 
and serious - convincingly. Maybe it's just different takes on different 
actors; it's just my opinion ;-)
 
Also, in COS, I always cringe when Harris stiltingly delivers those lines to 
Harry at the end, 'Harry, I want to thank you, Harry, for defending me in the 
chamber' - (maybe not totally accurate at the end of the sentence, but I want 
to point out the beginning). - It's Columbus' fault for not making him drop 
the second Harry - it's awkward structure and not at all natural sounding. It 
jars me every time I see the movie. Sometimes I think Columbus was afraid to 
actually 'direct' Harris ;-)
I liked Gambon's Dumbledore. He was more like the way I saw him in my mind in 
the books (not that that is my only criteria for liking something   in the 
films because I am one of those folks who clearly separates the mediums of books 
and films and the different techniques and requirements in both). But I did 
enjoy Gambon's take on a more energetic, fiesty Dumbledore. And for those that 
insist on something's similarity to canon as being the ruler for whether or 
not it can be good <g>, canon Dumbledore is a bit fiesty, a bit silly sometimes, 
manipulative, deceptive (he lies to suit the cause with no compunction at 
all) and a powerful wizard. I thought Gambon did an admirable job.

Whew, sorry, didn't mean to go on and on on   that one topic!

Anyway, I have noticed folks mentioning the pacing of POA and comparing it to 
COS, stating that COS was better paced. Now, I am confused - I was around 
when folks were criticizing COS for being plodding, which I agreed with. It was 
slow - the scenes were slow. I mean, did Herbology have to be that long or in 
fact, did we even need that class other than to show off the mandrakes? I 
didn't think so. Mandrakes could have been shown briefly later on to explain how 
the frozen students would be cured - if they couldn't give up making a cute 
animatronic special effect. Or why   show them at all, just mention that is what 
will cure the students. Personally, I could have lived without the whole 
herbology class scene ;-) This is just one example, I won't go into a whole thing on 
COS right now.
One person said that the pacing in the opening scenes of POA was too slow and 
others said it was too fast - I guess perceptions are individual ;-)
I read one comment where they were confused with the scene transitions in POA 
because it seemed like just one scene after another with no continuity. 
Funny, that was the big complaint about COS -and I think it was true of COS, but 
not POA. COS did seem like set piece after set piece with no real strong 
narrative thread. Remember all the discussion and complaining about how the scenes 
that were cut from COS EXPLAINED the plot and without them, we were left 
wondering what the heck was going on? 
COS was choppy to a great extent - no scene transitions, just scene from book 
followed by scene from book. I got no sense of what Harry was really going 
through, no sense of his pain from the ostracizing he suffered from the other 
students. And by cutting explanatory scenes like the one of the three kids in 
the hospital wing while they discuss the heir of Slytherin, etc, made it 
confusing. At least that was what a majority of folks discussed for the last 2 years 
;-)
Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy the first two films, but there were always 
moments I would cringe and wish for an editing machine or a chance to have an 
actor change a line reading, etc. 
POA has a strong narrative thread - there is one goal here, find Sirius and 
keep him from killing Harry. During the course of this, other things are found 
out and subsequently other things need to be done (teach Harry to protect 
himself from Dementors, Black is Harry's godfather and responsible for the 
Potters' deaths, or so everyone thinks and the ultimate revelation of the truth about 
Black, Pettigrew and Lupin.) The only subplot is Buckbeak, but even he is 
related to the main plot of saving Sirius. 
As for transitions in POA - just to take an example off the top of my head - 
I have only seen it once today and my brain is rather overwhelmed with it - 
they seemed to actually leave classes and then go somewhere. I know that sounds 
silly, but there is a fluidity to a lot of the action. It just doesn't stop 
after a point is made and then cut to everyone in a different scene thru -out 
the movie. It may do that once in a while just because the movie does take place 
over a year, not 2 hours in real time <g>, but on the whole, I had fewer 
jarring moments of scene changes in this movie - for example, when Ron and Harry 
leave Divination and walk out - we see them going down the spiral staircase (a 
real sense of place which I didn't really get in COS) and then when they find 
the ball, Harry says they should take it back, Ron says no way, Harry seems a 
bit put out when he says, 'fine' or whatever. He goes back - we follow him, we 
are with him - he goes back into the classroom, we are hitching a ride on the 
camera and it gives it an intimate feel. Then we have Trelawney startle him - 
no cuts, she comes into the scene and we are still there with Harry. She has 
her vision, he is freaked out and he leaves.   More fluidity, I don't know how 
else to explain it ;-)

Also, about Hogwarts itself. I really got the feeling that it is 1000 yrs. 
old, as it says 'in the books'. It looked lived in, shabby in parts, knicked 
furniture, floors rubbed smooth by thousands of feet, a bit worn at the edges. It 
no longer looked like the Warner Brothers version of Harry Potterland, newest 
amusement park. As much as I loved the colors in the first two, I think the 
washed out, muted colors are more realistic and used to great advantage in   
this movie. Harry is maturing, his world is no longer the idealistic, 'oh my 
look, I really am not a worthless orphan being raised by horrible people, I'm a 
wizard like in   fantasy books and here's the castle'. That was fine for the 
first two books, he was still retaining some of that innocence. 
But remember that the theme of POA is that the monsters aren't snakes and 
spiders and things that can be killed with swords, they are the demons inside and 
Harry's got plenty of demons ;-) Not only that, he is now a teenager, with 
all   the requisite anger and rebellion and questioning of authority and 
struggle to figure out one's identity. Harry is smack in the middle of what all 
teenagers go thru, but add to it all the extra baggage that being Harry Potter 
means and you have one messed up kid ;-) I hope there are wizard shrinks, he is 
gonna need one!

So, the look of the movie fit the theme. And I loved all the activity in a 
lot of scenes - the landscape is real, it's alive and like someone else pointed 
out somewhere, the magic is just inherent and matter of fact. Not something to 
point a camera at and wonder in wide mouthed astonishment at. Incidental, 
secondary actions in scenes involved normal magic -stirring coffee with a finger 
controlling the spoon, chairs putting themselves back onto the tables in The 
Leaky Cauldron, etc. 
The ghosts on horseback galloping thru the dining hall and the kids not even 
flinching and we aren't even supposed to be really concentrating on the horses 
because the kids are saying lines - we aren't directed to 'look at this 
magic' like in the first two. 
And like I said, it did work for the first two films because we were being 
introduced to the world (although I think it could have stopped after the first 
film and perhaps not been so much that way in the second). 
I liked the dirty clothes, the wrinkles, the palpable sense that these people 
really do live in this big, drafty, dirty castle.

I really need to wrap this up - sorry, but there is so much to say about POA, 
I was stunned, almost speechless, by the humor, the acting, the look of the 
movie, the mise en scene, so to speak. This was a film, a real grown up movie 
and I for once won't have that slight sense of shame in admitting I am a grown 
woman who loves HP and ownsthe first two movies ;-) 

Sure, there were plot points left out - there always will be. And I do wish 
they had just taken a few   seconds to explain the nicknames of the marauders a 
bit clearer and not have them uttered in the midst of that emotional shack 
scene. But Cuaron says in the newest issue of EW that he felt (or he and Kloves 
and Rowling or whatever) that the history of the marauders would better be 
explained in a later movie. So it's not abandoned, just delayed. 
Also, I love Alan Rickman's portrayal of Snape and several people have said 
he got shortchanged because we don't get his later scene in the hospital wing - 
well, I'm philosophical about those things. Sometimes scenes in books don't 
translate well to screen and Snape does get to rant quite a bit at the end of 
GOF, so maybe we'll see that ;-) 

I think they will have to somehow explain why Snape hates Harry to much at 
some point because Snape, ultimately, is a much more important character than, 
say, Malfoy, who I really believe was written as a one dimensional bully. Snape 
will have an impact on the ultimate battle in this book/movie series and if 
they want to pull off OOTP's Snape and Harry scenes with the Occulemency (I 
hope I spelled that right!), they will have to fill in some history for Snape and 
the Marauders.

Oh, by the by, I am watching this Cartoon Network thing with mini interviews 
with the cast and Dan just talked about scars that Harry gets while fighting 
the dragon in the first task of GOF - it sounded like he had already filmed it, 
which would confirm what he said in another interview that they are filming 
the ending of GOF first. He was excited about the gashes he gets from the 
dragon across his shoulder and back ;-)
Typical teenage boy,   uh - loves the blood <g>

Anyway...sorry for such a long post and I congratulate anyone who got this 
far! 
All   in all, I was blown away by POA. I never laughed so hard at a HP movie 
and the humor and delivery of lines was dry and witty, not juvenile and silly. 
Dan is quite the dry wit, I must say - his delivery of lines such as 'Thanks 
Ron' on the train, after Ron describes Sirius as a maniac out to kill Harry 
(or something like that), was very droll and well done. Ditto Harry's reaction 
to Ron's nightmare, Harry's response to Aunt Marge about 'oh, I was beaten 
every day' at St. Brutus School - very understated and funny. No mugging or 
vamping to get laughs for this kid ;-)
Ron's forecast in divination - 'you'll be suffering, but you'll be happy 
about it'. Perfect delivery, perfect reactions. 
I am sure I have tons more to comment on, but I definitely need to shut up 
now. 
Amazing film and I can't wait to see it again and I really can't wait for the 
DVD ;)
Cindy


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]