[HPFGU-Movie] Re: A challenge for people who really liked the movie

[GulPlum]

At 00:49 06/06/04 , alina at distantplace.net wrote:

<snip>

>... knowing that Peter somehow betrayed the Potters doesn't
>explain what exactly he did that constitutes a betrayal. Personally
>I find it important that he divulged their location to Voldemort,
>because if you think about it, simply being Voldemort's servant can
>constitute as a betrayal in and of itself. Telling Voldemort, "My ex-
>best friends whom you want to kill live there," is a quite a bit
>more grievous an offense.

It was made clear that the betrayal consisted of telling Voldemort where 
they were. McGonagall says that this was Sirius's presumed crime, and in 
the Shack, Sirius and Lupin make the same point about Peter.

>It was also not mentioned that Pettigrew murdered 13 muggles to
>escape Sirius, which I think portrays him in an entirely different
>light than that in which he appears in the movie.

I'll be honest. I find it difficult to express my pleasure (if that's the 
right word) at the fact that the 13 Muggles have been written out of the 
back story. On loads of different levels, of which two follow.

Something I dislike about most modern action/horror/killer/thriller movies 
is that too much importance is put on numbers of victims. It's resulted in 
most Hollywood "killer on the loose" type movies being ONLY about serial 
killers, as if one grueseome murder isn't crime enough - it's got to be 
six, seven, or, 13...

The fact that this movie has "relegated" Sirius's presumed crime to one of 
betrayal and because of *THIS* he's one of the most feared and fearful 
wizards alive, underlines this aspect of the plot. After all, the story IS 
about trust and betrayal, NOT murder.

I would, perhaps, have liked an extension of the resolution of what 
actually happened to the fact that Peter was prepared to frame one of his 
would-be best friends into the bargain, but even that is enough to dilute 
the importance of the theme of betrayal, so perhaps it shouldn't have been 
raised.

Furthermore, I'm very glad that the Fidelius wasn't brought into the 
equation either. Because that implies some kind of special betrayal, which 
removes it one step further from reality. The straightforward betrayal of 
one's friends to the "enemy", regardless of the circumstances and the level 
of secrecy involved, is crime enough and needs no further elaboration. And 
THAT is enough to be thrown into a dark hole, which I fervently believe not 
only in the context of PoA or even the Potter series as a whole, but as a 
basic premise of real life.

>I've seen people argue that even if it wasn't explained in POA,
>they'll just put it into GOF, but if they have to fill up GOF with
>POA explanations, how are they going to find space to explain GOF
>events?

I do agree with you on that one, though. Incidentally, I've seen that 
statement in a few places now, but can somebody actually show where it came 
from ("Cuaron said it" is not enough. I'd like to know where and when, and 
to whom) - only then will I take it on board.