[HPFGU-Movie] Re: the greatest difference

[GulPlum]

At 19:09 14/06/04 , Valerie Flowe wrote:

(erm... I'm getting confused here. Is "Valerie Flowe" just another name for 
"bewitchedbyHP"? The fact that so many people use non-standard quoting 
conventions on this group makes it difficult for me to keep up at times)

>I know that the book has to be trimmed to make a movie that doesn't go
>on for forever, but surely in the Shrieking Shack scene they 
>(lupin/sirius) could have explained all the stuff to Harry? I felt that 
>that scene was just too rushed.

My big issue with that scene, as written for the movie, is that Snape was 
very badly "written out" of the scene (and his return was even sillier - 
more on this topic in another post). As for explanations, it's clear to me 
that Cuaron was deliberately trying to keep away from long speeches of 
background exposition or flashbacks (for which I thank him).

I suspect (and this could be what he meant in the Entertainment Weekly 
interview) that Cuaron felt that it would be better for Harry to find out 
about Messrs Moon(e)y, Wormtail, Padfoot & Prongs from Sirius during GoF, 
once they've already got their relationship up and going, rather than 
diluting the impact of the news that Sirius is innocent and Ron has been 
unknowingly harbouring the real traitor. I can see a very good rationale 
for doing things that way, and in adaptational terms, there is no reason 
for the films to follow the books' revelations in the same order.

My BIG issue with the back-story is that it falls completely flat on Harry. 
During the bridge scene, when Lupin is telling Harry what a wonderful 
mother he had, Harry's face remains completely impassive. A small smile 
works across his face on the "talent for trouble" line, but otherwise there 
is absolutely no realisation on his part that someone is talking about 
knowing his parents! He's been given a load of misinformation about his 
folks in the past (died in a car crash, etc) and knows next to nothing 
about them or why they died (which he probably assumes is part of the 
reason he himself finds himself in his current predicament vis-a-vis Lord 
Thingy). This guy, the first teacher who treats him as a human being on 
equal terms instead of as a pupil, KNEW HIS PARENTS! Not only that, but he 
was a close friend of his mother's (and father's, but he doesn't make a big 
deal about that)! This is a MOMENTOUS piece of news and he just stands 
there, without any reaction whatsoever. Pur-leaze!, as the kiddies say. 
Surely Harry isn't THAT stupid? (regrettably, the book's not really much 
better in this regard)

I was really wishing for him to turn around and (hopefully) exclaim 
something like "You KNEW my mum and dad!? What were they like!? How did you 
know them?", etc., all tumbling out the way Ron (magnificently) tumbles out 
Scabbers' past in his family.

Ditto with the Marauder's Map: I didn't expect Sirius and Lupin to tell him 
the story behind it, but I *did* expect Harry during the post-Snape scene 
to ask, quite simply, how come Lupin knew it was a map.

>Why did Harry believe so suddenly that they should trust L&S about Scabbers?

He didn't. At least not before he saw Pettigrew transform. But what they'd 
said before Snape turned up was enough to give him reason to want proof 
before making up his mind either way. After all, he'd solved a mystery at 
the end of each  of the last two years where appearances had proved 
deceptive, so why not this time as well? ;-)

>How hard would it have been to have Lupin looking at the map in his 
>office; startled to see Sirius, Peter and the kids in the Shack, he runs 
>off; soon thereafter Snape arrives with the forgotten potion, sees the 
>map; realizes what's going down and runs off after Lupin. Cheap to film; 
>only 5 minutes added to the length of the film.

Yes, but completely ruining the pace. My own view is that all of that was 
unnecessary anyway - this film is a bit more subtle than the last two (and 
the book!): we've been told that the Map shows "everyone, everywhere, all 
the time", and Lupin has implied that he knows how to use it. We can 
therefore make up our own minds as to how and why he got there. As for 
Snape, whilst the movie completely did away with the Wolfsbane Potion, it 
did establish that Snape had suspicions about Lupin; he knew that Lupin was 
a werewolf and that it was a full moon. It would therefore be reasonable to 
assume that for both of these reasons, he was simply following him.

>Instead they just threw in Sirius yelling "Remus, did you forget to take 
>your potion?!"
>"Huh?! What potion?" I can hear the non-HP readers in the audience saying.
>Granted probably 75% of the audience are book fans, but still...

For the purposes of the movie, the details of the potion are ultimately 
irrelevant. It's a wizarding establishment, and having "a" potion makes 
sense. It's only the readers who know that the potion is significant, but 
seeing as it wasn't introduced into the movie, it's all a matter solely for 
the book readers.

>And I still would've liked the Harry/Dumbledore "denouement" at the end. It's
>tradition, after all. They had it at the end of SS (the "alas, earwax" 
>scene),
>and in COS (the Gryffindor sword scene, prior to Dobby and Lucius walking 
>in).
>That would've been an opportunity to have the new Dumbledore show a little
>grandfatherly compassion to Harry, that I feel was lacking.

Again, I can only surmise, but I assume that the main reason no 
Harry-Dumbledore exposition/tying up the ends tete-a-tete was included is 
because as Gambon plays Dumbledore very differently compared to Harris's, 
we needed to get used to him in the role before we had a one-on-one sequence.

In any case, he was unnecessary as all the important stuff was dealt with 
by Lupin anyway. I know that some people don't like Sirius having 
Dumbledore's "the people we love never leave us" moment, but I thought it 
was quite touching, and a hint that it was the thought of the ones he loved 
which kept him going in Azkaban.

In a way, that's what puts this film in a different category to the 
previous two (as per the title of this thread...): so much is done by 
hints, allusions and symbols rather than explicit statements. Some hints 
are just *too* vague to non-book-readers and some things which should be 
explained aren't, but that doesn't invalidate the film or its approach. It 
simply means that it's not perfect.

--
Richard AKA GulPlum, playing catch-up again!