[HPFGU-Movie] I think I understand...

[GulPlum]

At 15:31 18/06/04 , Valerie Flowe said:

>It bothers me that Cuaron changed the focus from main plot to sub plot. 
>The "coming of age" was such a minor part of the book. In fact, it is more 
>apparent in GOF, than in POA, what with Harry + Cho, Ron + Hermione, the 
>dance, etc.

erm... I used the term "rite of passage", not "coming of age". There is a 
vast difference, although some people use them interchangeably (as various 
other replies in this thread seem indicate). One of the differences in 
particular, is that "coming of age" is the culmination of a *series* of 
rites of passage - the HP series demonstrates this succession very 
well.  I'd love to go off on a major tangent and explain in detail for 
those who don't grasp the significance, but to turn around a Lupin line 
from the movie, "perhaps during the holidays; now I have to work". :-) In 
fact, I'd welcome anyone from a behavioural sciences background (far more 
than a liberal arts one) to go into detail on the various stages of child 
development (especially boys) and the rites of passage associated with each 
in modern western societies, with specific reference to the Potterverse. (I 
don't have time to do this right now, but I'm surprised that a quick web 
search has provided no analysis of this anywhere!)

Secondly, I find it interesting that the examples you provide for the 
"coming of age" theme in GoF are all romantic/sexual. A while ago, I went 
on a major whinge about how the modern media (and, regrettably, US media in 
particular) appear to limit "coming of age" exclusively to this element of 
human development, as if "loss of innocence" is ONLY loss of *sexual* 
innocence. The HP books (and GoF in particular) are about SO much more!

Furthermore, using the term "coming of age" so loosely in HP-related 
discussion is dangerous; it has a very specific meaning within the 
Potterverse, which not accidently, we meet for the first time in GoF.

Tying up all of the above points in a pretty bow, I'd like to point out 
that GoF is NOT a "coming of age" book, or in any case, the theme is very 
much that Harry has NOT come of age. Even at a very superficial level I 
would point out that it is not by accident that only those who have "come 
of age" are entitled to enter the Tournament: Harry manifestly is not of 
age, and participates under false pretences. That is symptomatic of the 
entire book and the theme is followed through on a deeper level into every 
aspect of the plot.

In fact (and returning to what we're meant to be talking about, namely the 
movies and PoA in particular), when writing the first paragraph above, I 
had a brainwave. I  think I understand why there is no mention in the PoA 
movie of who the Marauders were or why the stag is James's Animagus shape. 
If I'm right, it makes absolutely *perfect* sense (unless I'm just 
over-rationalising). Again, I have no time to go into this, but an analysis 
of adolescent development is the key. If I'm right, and if Cuaron has had 
the impact on the development of the GoF adaptation I hope he has had, 
revelation of the Map's authorship and identifying the stag as James's 
Animagus self should come from Sirius just after "Moody" takes over 
possession of the Map.

If don't have a chance to explain all of this in detail (and even if I do) 
in the near future, I hope someone reminds me of this post when Movie!GoF 
comes out - I'd like to know if I've been proved right or wrong (I can 
accept both). If I'm right, I don't want any of the kudos: I will, however, 
hail Cuaron as an inspired genius, with a scientific knowledge of the 
teenager as deep as his emotional one.

>Because of the popularity of the HP series, a director should not be allowed
>to take such liberal interpretations (IMO).

Well, as I said when starting this thread, there are two ways to approach 
adapting a popular book. Objectively, it is as valid to say that a mystery 
novel should be filmed *solely* as a mystery, as it is to admit that 
because the plot will hold no mysteries to most of the film's viewers, 
something *else* should take priority. I wholeheartedly admit that it is a 
matter of personal opinion and preference, and nothing more.

Both approaches are satisfying in their own way, and different people will 
have different problems with each approach. But that doesn't mean that 
either approach is inherently invalid.

>I would be curious to see statistics on how many people in the audience 
>actually read the book, and how many did not. There appeared to be a lot 
>of younger kids in most of my 3 viewing audiences. They probably have not 
>read the book, though their parents may have read it to them.

I'd be interested in that analysis going one step further: the percentage 
of those who had read the books who enjoyed the movie -v- the percentage of 
people who hadn't read the books enjoying it. I'm not talking about 
*understanding* the movie, I'm talking about potentially seeing it again - 
that is where the money is; it can be fairly safely assumed that in the 
first few days of release, the vast majority of viewers were book fans.

It's highly likely that WB did just such an analysis at test screenings, 
and I expect that the results of that analysis will determine whether or 
not future directors will be allowed the kind of latitude Cuaron was given. 
In other words, WB knows it's going to alienate some proportion of the 
audience, but because it's in the business of making money, not art, 
decisions will be made on a numerical basis of which element of the 
audience is alienated least.

 From what I've seen on various movie discussion forums in which I 
participate, those who hadn't read the books seem to prefer this movie to 
the previous two. The same seems to be true of fans, at least wherever I 
participate.

In numerical terms, a few stats:
On IMDb.com, POA is rated 7.8/10 (versus 7.3 for each of the other two)
On TheNumbers.com, 8.6 (PS/SS 6.3; CoS 6.88)
On Rottontomatoes.com (professional reviews), 7.8 (versus 6.9 and 7.2),
(or by their alternative scale 88% of reviews are simply positive, versus 
78% and 82% for PS/SS and CoS respectively)
On Yahoo!Movies, B+ (both critics and users), (B and B+ from critics and 
users respectively for each of the previous two).

I suspect that the main lesson which WB will take away from the fact that 
the best-received movie appears to be doing the worst at the box office (in 
the short term at least; Spider-Man 2 is going to take away a huge 
proportion of the repeat audience) is that HP movies will not be released 
in June again... Whether or not they decide that this has anything to do 
with the "free adaptation" route remains to be seen.

>I think the charm for many HP fans is seeing the books come to life; not
>take on a new life. Masses of people ADORE JKR's stories; they don't want to
>see Cuaron's story with shrunken heads and such. I just don't think one can
>be separated from the other.

Well, that's your opinion. :-) Looking around online, the main problem the 
fans have with the film is not the presence of the shrunken heads 
(personally, I'm neither disappointed nor pleased - IMO they're probably 
one of the least important changes), but the absence of the identity of the 
Map's authors and of Harry's Patronus. If those elements had been in the 
film, I'm sure that more fans would have been happy, regardless of the 
shrunken heads.

However, as I said above, despite my initial disappointment with those 
absences, it is highly possible that these revelations are being kept back 
for a very good  reason.

>I personally loved the book and also loved the movie (though wish I could've
>been in a test-focus group prior to release :-)
>But to address the movie on it's own merit (that's what you were asking for,
>yes?)

Well, not in this thread, I wasn't. :-) But input is always welcome 
regardless of where it comes. :-)

<snip comments I can't really disagree with :-)>

>I hope they continue making the movies as long as they can. My fear is that
>the public's attention and fascination will wane. (not mine, of course!)
>Then if it becomes unprofitable for WB, they'll stop making them.

"Unprofitable" is *such* a vague term - especially given Hollywood's 
creative book-keeping. :-) I think, strangely enough, that for once WB will 
be satisfied if the movies keep up a major "buzz" on their release, and 
will expect the box office receipts to drop from film to film as a matter 
of course. A significant proportion of their income from HP comes from 
derivatives such as the merchandising and DVD sales, so the buzz is 
potentially worth more to them than simple box office numbers. And if the 
remaining movies keep to a pre-Christmas (more particularly, 
pre-Thanksgiving for North America) release schedule, the merchandising 
income will remain high (I notice that there is very little PoA merchandise 
around, and suspect a lot is being held back for the Christmas market, to 
tie in with the DVD release).

In the long term, as well, the full series will be worth more to them (box 
sets, etc)  than an incomplete one would be.

>I also fear that POA will mark a turning point for viewing audiences. Because
>probably half(?) the audience is under the age of 10, and this movie is more
>scary than the other 2, I think the parents will not allow their younger
>kids to view GOF. In fact, it may even have to go to PG-13, if true to the
>book. So if half the audience doesn't go see the film it will certainly flop
>at the box office. A dilemma. I hope they don't "Disneyfy" the next HP
>movies, just to retain the younger viewing audience.

Amen to that. I don't know enough about US movie-going trends to know what 
impact a PG-13 certificate has in general (I do know that NC-17 is a 
complete no-go for distributors, whereas in the UK some distributors 
actively seek out the equivalent 18 rating). As long as, in UK terms, the 
HP movies can be kept to a 12A rating at most (i.e. kids under 12 must be 
accompanied), the movies will continue their box office success (12A movies 
include Spider-Man, Hulk, and LOTR 2 and 3). On the other hand, aiming for 
a PG rating will require too much to be left out or watered down.

I'm sure that WB have pondered these issues, but if a PG-13 rating has the 
effect you seem to be implying, perhaps WB are hoping to capture the 
teenage audience, which may well consider HP "uncool" - the increased 
rating may make them think they might enjoy these movies. From my knowledge 
of US movie-going demographics (which I admit is extremely limited), the 
teenage audience is the one everyone is out to get, even more then the kids.

--
GulPlum AKA Richard, who has no time for any more posts right now