Phyllis's GoF Review

[Phyllis]

Richard:

<<As to the first, the answer was given in Voldemort's translation of 
Nagini's message: "The old Muggle caretaker...".>>

I didn't catch that - in fact, I found it very difficult to hear what 
Voldemort was saying in that scene.

Richard:

<<Do you know what a gleam of triumph in someone's eye looks like? I 
sure don't. Something like that is much easier to write than it is to 
portray on screen. How do we know that there *wasn't* a triumphant 
gleam?>>

My issue was more with the lack of an indication of the significance 
of Voldemort using Harry's blood to regenerate.  Because of the yet-
to-be-defined reason for the "gleam," there is apparently some 
significance with the use of Harry's blood.  The fact that there was 
no discussion at all between Dumbledore and Harry about Voldemort 
using Harry's blood and some sort of indication that this was 
meaningful to Dumbledore (whether through a gleam or some sort of 
other look) is what troubled me.

Richard:
 
<<(Completely incidentally, one of my objections to the book is that, 
as any psychiatrist/psychologist will tell you, one of the side-
effects of raging hormones in adolescent boys is that between the 
ages of about 13 and 16, almost all boys have a great deal of 
difficulty correctly identifying fairly basic facial expressions such 
as fear, surprise or sympathy - I know of at least 3 statistical 
studies which prove it beyond a doubt.>>

Were these studies done on *wizard* adolescent boys? ;-)
 
Me:

<<Where was Fawkes?>>

Richard:

<<Why did he need to be there? What was he going to add to the scene? 
Especially as we weren't in DD's office.>>

Again, I didn't explain myself fully - while if perhaps a non-reader 
would be expected to remember that, three movies ago, Ollivander told 
Harry that Harry's and Voldemort's wand cores came from the same 
phoenix, it's only in GoF that we find out that phoenix was Fawkes.  
I was objecting to this not being mentioned, as I can't see why 
Rowling would bother having the feathers come from Fawkes if that 
doesn't prove to become meaningful in some way before the series is 
over.

Richard:

<<Voldemort's identity had been established in the second movie, and 
the producers deemed this sufficient.>>

True, but it's not mentioned at all in the third movie (or book, for 
that matter), so I don't think it would be out of order for Voldemort 
to make some reference to his being named after his father at some 
point during the graveyard scene (perhaps when he admits that he 
killed him, which isn't mentioned at all in the movie).

Richard:

<<Did we need to be told? We had the Riddle tomb at the very 
beginning, and the camera move up to the house said all that needed 
to be said, IMO.>>

Is the Riddle name clear on the tomb at the beginning?  The only time 
I noticed it was in the graveyard scene.

Richard:

<<Well, Snape had shown us/Harry the Veritaserum bottle and it was 
the same bottle, so most attentive viewers would make the 
connection.>>

Apparently, my attentiveness was waning at that point - but given 
that Dumbledore didn't interrogate Barty Jr. anyway, I don't see why 
they bothered with the Veritaserum.  Things like this make me wonder 
just how much filming actually winds up on the cutting room floor.

Richard:

<<Sorry, why? To what dramatic purpose? (And please don't 
say "because that's the way it was in the book".)>>

I would personally be quite pleased if the movie followed the book in 
every respect, but that wasn't my reason for thinking that Harry 
should have been gagged in the graveyard scene.  It just seemed to me 
that a gag would have been a good way of keeping Harry quiet - as it 
was, Harry only said one thing ("Don't touch Cedric" or something to 
that effect) and it just struck me as strange that he would have kept 
so quiet without a gag (if it had been me, I would have been 
screaming).

Richard:

<<That's not the only Harry line to which I object, but this one is 
really a minor objection, as Harry needed to say *something* to show 
that he was prepared to meet Voldemort on his own terms, rather than 
cower behind a headstone. "Have it your way" is as good as anything 
else, I suppose.>>

I think the reason why this particular line bugged me so much is that 
I feel a very powerful rush of emotion every time I read the part 
about Harry's thinking behind his decision to emerge from behind the 
gravestone and fight Voldemort face-to-face.  Without dragging out my 
book, it's something like "...it was beyond fear or reason ... he was 
going to fight Voldemort, straight-backed and proud, like his father 
did ..."  Boiling all of that down to "Have it your way" didn't 
convey any of that thought process at all, which is why I think it 
bothered me so much.  It's the same thought process Harry goes 
through in HBP when Dumbledore is trying to get him to understand the 
difference between finishing Voldemort off because the prophecy is 
making him do it vs. because it's the right thing to do.   I think 
it's a distinction that's important to the series.

Richard:

<<I've always maintained that young Master Radcliffe has severe 
limitations as an actor, and that scene is a perfect example.>>

I guess that's it - I knew something was missing!  I also think POV 
is a lot easier to get across in writing than on-screen.

Richard:

<<I apologise in advance for any perceived offence: none is 
intended.>>

I'm not at all offended, you have been a perfect gentleman and I 
welcome the discussion:)

~Phyllis