Clues 'n' stuff

[Richard]

Replies to a couple of separate threads.

1. Lauren:

>for the Priori Incantatem, why were Harry's parents older than they have 
>been when we have seen them in earlier films?

I don't think they appeared that much older. In any event, five years have 
passed since they filmed the bits for PS/SS and time certainly hasn't been 
kind to Adrian Rawlins (who actually looks very different to his appearance 
as James). I've had a "thing" (ahem) :-) for Geraldine Somerville since 
before Cracker and since PS/SS she's had a baby (one of the reasons why 
she's not been working) which I understand was quite difficult. The 
ethereal effects didn't do their appearance any favours, either.

>What was the deal with the mermaid in the stained glass window that
>was animated in the prefects bathroom?

She had several functions. As other people have pointed out, she had a 
narrative role in the book, and was a clue here, but she also had a 
symbolic meaning. One of the continuing themes of the series (and GoF in 
particular) is that reputations and the legends that grow up around them 
can be somewhat different to reality: here we have a traditional beautiful 
mermaid with flowing hair, but when we see what mermaids actually look 
like, they're fearsome, ugly creatures. Also, Harry doesn't have any 
trouble being undressed in front of her, but it's a different matter with 
Myrtle.

>I loved the second task, my only quibble with it is the "precious things" 
>to be saved.  They looked a little scary, like they were dead or 
>something.  I didn't even recognize Hermione, or Cho.

I agree. Although others have made valid excuses for what they might look 
different under water, I think the SFX team simply did a bad job on the 
models.

2. JenD:

>One of the difficulties in the films is thaty clues are given but the 
>narrative that makes them huge and important is missing and I think the 
>film makers and screen writers try to keep important things in but 
>connections are lost. Then the faithful audience of readers has to say "oh 
>yeah!" rather than information
>being explicit. It seemed to be the worst with POA in the Shrieking Shack 
>and when Harry saw the patronus on the lake. A few simple lines of 
>dialogue added here and there could have made those scenes so much better 
>connected to the narrative.

As I've said before, there is no reason for the movies to offer the same 
clues or in the same order as the books, or to reveal their significance at 
the same moment in the narrative. For instance, GoF has one purely 
cinematic running clue which couldn't work in a book: the fact that both 
Barty Jr. and Mad-Eye have a nervous tick with their tongue (which Barty 
Sr. notices just after the second task, and is why Jr. has to kill him). 
Similarly, in PoA there's the stone hitting Harry on the head and the 
wolf-call, which are explained little later on.

As for the significance of the stag (and authorship of the Map), I said 
when PoA came out that this could be dealt with in GoF during a Harry-Sirus 
bonding moment (in fact, it could have been the basis of their bonding). 
However, in retrospect, Harry-Sirius bonding was really unimportant to 
GoF's narrative while the Harry-Sirius relationship is central to OotP 
(duh!), as is the Patronus (if not its form), this would be a good place to 
bring up the issue. Similarly, I remember when PS/SS came out, some people 
were up in arms that we didn't get find out how Ron acquired Scabbers: it 
wasn't necessary, but it *was* mentioned in PoA where it *was* important.

Because *everything* in the movies is important, the clues (and red 
herrings) cannot be presented in the same way or given the same weight. I 
would also point out that most of the smaller clues in the books are only 
recognisable as such on second and subsequent readings: why should the 
movies be any different?

--
Richard, glad the list is quieter on Sundays