Harry and Sirius/New thougths

[susanbones2003]

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, Richard <hp at p...> wrote:

SNIP here of Richard discussing the leaving out of expository 
details in regards to "the stag":

That  it's an independent fact which has a serendipitous resonance, 
but isn't connected to the issues at hand in PoA. As I said at the 
time, the movie had two major items to reveal, which were integral 
to the narrative: Pettigrew was a rat (in more ways than one), and 
Sirius was innocent. The MWPP back-story was not directly relevant 
to those issues, except to add colour to the relationship: what was 
important was to show that a relationship had existed and how close 
it had been. This can be (and was, IMO) more effectively portrayed 
by some decent acting rather than through the recitation of any 
number of facts from the MWPP back-story.

Now me:
I understand the reasons for leaving out the connection between 
Harry and the stag but what seems to abrupt is that we readers are 
accustomed to the occasional emotional payoff in the series.  
Learning that his dad transformed into a stag would have been a 
sweet little emtional payoff (might have resulted in some decent 
acting too!)and it wouldn't have cost the film maker all that much. 
But I digress.

NEW THOUGTHS
I saw GOF yesterday and I wanted to share some new things that 
occured to me. First, I couldn't get a look at that tombstone
mentioned earlier. Tried but it escaped me. But the thing that did 
hit me,and do not laugh at me anyone of you all, but a central theme 
or motif seems to be that things are not what they seem. In so many 
ways!  It came to me when they discovered the real Moody in that 
trunk with so many levels. It paralleled the tent in the the 
beginning!! Harry looks at the tent and can't see how they'll all 
stay there and when he goes in, viola! A great big spacious 
wonderful place to stay. Then very neatly at the end, there is that 
trunk that opens up to be a tremendous space. Then I got to thinking 
how this theme can be used throughout the film, with people. Moody 
is not what he seems. DD in a way is not what he seems, the head, a 
person in control of things. Snape has never been what he seems 
exactly. Karkarov acts the part of the head of a school, but he's a 
death-eater. Lucius Malfoy is not a respectable member of society 
that he seems. I know this list can go on. Situations are not what 
they seem. The tournament is a cover for a plot to obtain Harry for 
the Dark Lord.  And I realize with delight that this is exactly what 
Jo had been trying to say in the written narrative. The film maker 
in his own way has done her a great deal of justice.

Another thing, in this dicussion of film economy (I don't know if 
that's a concept or not) but economy of action, exposition and all, 
it occured to me yesterday, watching DD and Harry together in the 
dorm, that when DD puts his hand to Harry's cheek, I hadn't noticed 
this before but Dan kind of leans into it just a little but enough. 
As if he relished the contact. (I do not recall DD ever touching 
Harry with that level of almost tenderness at this point) And it 
seems that this might be a stand in for the hug we all wanted 
(emotional payoff again) to see from Molly. The scene accomplished 
many things, why not that too? 

I am spent from all my many revelations. 
JenD