I think I understand...

[Mandy]

Richard:
> 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).

  I mostly lurk and don't usually post, but your post put me in a 
typing kind of mood. I agree that too much time has been spent 
discussing (well arguing,really) the merits of the book vs. the 
movie. It was appropriate when the movie came out to discuss what 
was left out and what was different, but as this is a list that is 
supposed to be about the movie, it is also appropriate to move on 
from that and talk about the movie. Your post was very well thought 
out and well written. I would write more in that regard, but you did 
such a good job, I'll move on...

> 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.

  I think it would be a loss to this list if you 'disappeared into 
the ether.' You make valid and thought provoking post. I hope to 
read more of them.

> I think we've pretty 
> much exhausted nitpicking the adaptation and I see little point in 
sticking 
> around for more of the same.

  I couldn't agree more. 

 
> 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. Several mysteries are 
introduced 
> and it is those mysteries which drive the plot. The conclusion of 
the book, 
> is, therefore, the resolution of all of those mysteries: why's 
Scabbers 
> behaving so strangely and why did he suddenly fall ill? Why won't 
anyone 
> tell Harry what's going on with Sirius Black? Who is Lupin and 
what's he 
> about? How does he know about the Map? Why is Hermione so frazzled 
and why 
> does she appear in strange places out of the blue? There are 
several 
> others, but I'll stop there.
> 
> 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.
> 
> In fact, the film completely dismisses or overlooks some of the 
mysteries. 
> Just one example: there is no subtlety about Lupin's Boggart: it 
is *very* 
> obviously the moon. The Hogwarts "lockdown" is cut with an image 
of the 
> full moon and the sound of howling, just after we've been informed 
that 
> Lupin is unwell. The werewolf lesson is painted in such broad 
strokes that 
> the viewer would need to be a moron not to catch on. Other 
elements of the 
> "mystery" are similarly "unmysterious".
> 
> The only major revelation left for the end is who did betray the 
Potters; 
> the way things are set up (and regardless of the way some reviews 
were 
> written), Sirius is *so* heavily painted as the bad guy throughout 
the 
> movie (just as Snape was during PS/SS) that it's clear to anyone 
with more 
> than a couple of functioning grey cells and any knowledge of 
storytelling 
> that there's something wrong with the assumptions.
> 
> And I think that the loss of the "mystery" is the main fault line 
(although 
> there are others) along which the fandom has split.

  I'm not sure I agree completely as I think that it isn't just the 
loss of the 'mystery' that has some of the fans disliking the movie. 
>From reading posts, it seems that they also miss the 'feel' of the 
movie. The first two movies were cleaner, golden/warm toned, more 
innocent, and seemed to include much more from the books than POA. 
While I understand why the fans who prefer SS/PS and CoS prefer them 
over PoA, I felt that this movie was a good view of HWarts and the 
WW as it was more realistic to me. I loved the silver tones of the 
movie. I totally agree that Cuaronchanged the movie from a mystery 
to more of a comming of age story. 

> 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.

  This I agree with. I don't want a regurgitation of the book. I can 
read the book for that. I want the movie to show me something I 
can't get from the book. Cuaron does this for me in a good way.

> (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 agree. I felt CoS ending was very cliched and drawn out. The 
freeze-frame might not have been very original, but it was short, to 
the point and ended the movie on an up=note which is the way the 
book ends, so I have no problem with it.

 
> 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 *perhaps* Cuaron decided not to say "I'm going to assume that 
nobody 
> knows what happens in this story and expect them to jump in 
surprise when 
> things are explained", but say "I'm going to assume that most of 
the people 
> who see this movie have read the book and none of the plot will 
surprise 
> them, so I'll give them a few *different* surprises".

  Which to me makes a more enjoyable movie. When I go to a movie 
that was adapted from the book, I know it's not going to be the same 
and as long as the movie is faithful to the book, then I'm good. 
That's my opinion and I know that some people on the list wanted the 
movie to be more faithful to the book and you are of course intitled 
to your opinion, I just don't agree with it.

  Thanks for your thought provoking post.

  ande