I think I understand...

[huntergreen_3]

GulPlum AKA Richard wrote:

>>Am I wasting my time here?

I thought that this group was set up for the discussion of the HP 
movies on an adult level. Not just as adaptations (although of course 
that too), but as MOVIES. I spent the whole of Tuesday and most of 
yesterday (until I suddenly and unavoidably had to go out) trying to 
discuss the movies as cinematic entities and have had no reaction. 
That worries me, and it saddens me. I'm not saying that I necessarily 
expected praise or criticism of my comments, but I did think there'd 
be some kind of reaction. The only reaction I had to was to some of 
my nit-picky comments (to which replies will hopefully come 
shortly).<<

You are certainly not wasting your time here. I, and the few others 
who have already responded, do appreciate your posts. There were a 
few I didn't respond to because I simply could not add anything to 
it, without disagreeing or adding new thoughts, there's little 
discussion. I think this list might be the closest thing you'll find 
to discussion of the movie, from what I've seen with other messege 
boards, (on those) pretty much most of the board is used up by people 
listing the differences between the book and the movie and going on 
about "how dare they do that?!" and so on. The fortunate thing about 
this list, is that everyone stays rather mature with their comments 
and there are more people who want to discuss the movie as a movie 
not just as an adaptation.

>>Once I've done that, I'm going to disappear into the ether again, 
as people don't appear to be interested in an in-depth discussion of 
PoA as a MOVIE purely on its own terms without reference to the book. 
[snip] I thought this was a discussion forum, not a place for posting 
essays, so I'm off.<<

Its up to you if you want to leave, but remember the movie JUST came 
out. When OotP first came out the list erupted in posts and it took 
some time for things to calm down and good discussions to take place. 
In a few weeks things will calm down around here, and it won't be so 
easy for posts to get swallowed.

>>In the meantime, here's a thought which I am surprised only 
occurred to me last night as I was falling asleep. I think I finally 
understand the main difference between PoA the Movie and PoA the 
Book, which has caused a polarisation of the fandom. Actually, it's 
not so much that I understand it (it's pretty obvious), but I have 
finally realised how to put it into words.

The book is essentially a mystery story. 
[snip]
The movie, on the other hand, downplays the "mystery" elements and 
becomes a rites of passage/character study - Cuaron has admitted as 
much, and changed the focus from the mysteries to Harry and Co 
hitting adolescence.
[snip]
Personally, I see the change as Cuaron's masterstroke (his, not 
Kloves's: I do recall reading that when he was first engaged to 
direct, he got Kloves to re-write the whole thing). The way I see it, 
his approach was that most viewers will have read the book (and 
analysed it in great detail) and thus presenting the denouement as 
the resolution of a mystery is pointless: everyone already knows how 
the story ends, and building the movie around a plot twist doesn't 
make the movie inherently interesting to that audience.
What he did was to delve into the sub-text of the book's plot and make
*that* the focus of the movie.<<

Of course, I liked the movie, so I can't speak for those who didn't, 
but I completely agree with you that changing the story structure was 
for the best. The thing that annoyed me about CoS was that while 
leaving the plot of the book in, the mood and overall feeling of the 
story was ignored (there's no setting paranoia over the school, Harry 
barely questions himself, there's no real sense of fear that the 
school may actually have to close), and it wasn't replaced with 
anything else. I suppose a lot of fans liked it because the story was 
still there, but that's all there was. It wasn't much as a film, it 
was just an adaptation. PoA was done as a *film*, which I welcomed. 
Cuaron made the focus not just the story but Harry being thirteen, 
and him being angry for the first time because the heart of the film, 
as opposed to the plot (which, as you said, most fans already knew 
anyway). 



>>Talking of which, one specific comment I'll make, on a subject 
which has recently been dissected: I *like* the freeze-frame at the 
end. At least it's better than Columbus's utterly cliched reverse 
zooms.<<

I was one of the people who mentioned not liking the freezeframe, and 
for me its more a matter of personal preference. I don't ever 
freezeframes, they always feel cheesy to me (I have a similar opinion 
about slow-motion, it very rarely feels like its being used 
effectively).

>>I'm on record as saying (several times, perhaps to the extent of 
being boring) that the reason I read the books in the first place was 
that after first seeing PS/SS (knowing *nothing* of significance 
about the plot), I came out wondering why Snape hated Harry but was 
prepared to save him. I saw that as a major weakness of the film, and 
I've said before that I see the non-explanation of the MWPP/Snape 
relationship and authorship of the map to be weaknesses with PoA. I 
have now realised that these omissions are deliberate - like Harry, 
we're set up with a situation which we have to accept, but we don't 
know the background. All of that background, I am sure, will come 
tumbling out at an the opportune moment when the plot twists related 
specifically to that background will be explained (presumably, 
book/movie seven). As I've said before, there is no intrinsic
reason why the resolution of individual questions and mysteries HAS to
follow the books' order.<<

I read the books after seeing the first movie as well, which might be 
why I can enjoy the books and movies separately. Although I don't 
think the movies have to reveal things at the same rate as the books 
(not telling who wrote the map was fine to me, because those who read 
the books know who wrote it, and those who didn't can just assume 
that 'trouble-maker' James came across it the same way that Fred and 
George did), but I disagree that we are being left in the dark 
cinematically. You said above that the directer took into account 
that most people going into the movie know what's going to happen, so 
that has to come into play here too. Clearly the audience isn't being 
put in a situation in which they don't know the background unless 
they haven't read the books, which is not typically the case. 
Certain background points aren't necessary to the plot, but revealing 
why Snape hates Harry (or at least addressing it), was a failing of 
the movie. It just doesn't make sense that Harry would spend the 
whole movie building Snape up as a villian in his mind, find out he's 
not, then not be confused about any of it. Hmm, now that I think of 
it though, they did change the initial potions scene so that it looks 
like Snape might have cause to pick on Harry, so maybe as a movie it 
works that Harry doesn't ask about Snape at the end. In PoA though, I 
think that there was enough background there to follow the plot. As 
I've said before, it was hinted at, so when the flashback scene comes 
up in OotP (if its even left in), there's enough there that it 
doesn't come out of complete left-field. 

>>The change in focus therefore was the foundation of the changes to 
the book's plot, and not an effect of any changes to it. *Perhaps* if 
Cuaron had decided to stick to presenting the movie as a mystery, he 
might have made a film acceptable to those who wanted to have the 
mysteries resolved in the same way as they are in the book? *Perhaps* 
those people would have felt the same satisfaction and surprise at 
seeing the plot twists they know so well resolved in the same way.<<

But that would have been a rather boring film. Chamber of Secrets was 
already changed into a pale re-telling of the book, personally I 
welcomed the changes. I've read PoA 3 or 4 times, watching a movie 
that didn't deviate from it at all would be boring, and the movie 
would always be a stand-in for the book, not a movie on its own.

>>As the saying goes, "you can't please all of the people all of the 
time; the best you can hope for is to please some of the people some 
of the time". Personally, I think that Cuaron has decided to please 
himself rather than the "literalists", and he certainly pleased me.<<

He pleased me as well. There will always be two schools of thought 
when it comes to book adaptations. There are those that think the 
book should be changed as-little-as-possible, that the movie is just 
a visual reading of the book, and there are those that think the 
movie should take the book as a blueprint and make a film *based* on 
it. I fall on the second side, but I'm a movie fan as much as a book 
fan, so perhaps I'm looking at it differently.

>>Interestingly, Mike Newell is on record as saying that he sees GoF 
as a thriller. It's a fair comment and perhaps will mean that those 
who dislike PoA's change in structure from the book may well be 
appeased...<<

I'm very curious to see what he'll make of it, seeing how its the 
longest book, and he's both the first directer without any previous 
children's movies and the first British director (its odd that 
they've only had North American directors so far for a British 
series, isn't it?). I'm curious, what's your take on the movie being 
made into a single film as opposed to two? (which, according to the 
recent Entertainment Weekly article, was Cuaron's insistence).


-Rebecca.