Undeathly Hallows ?

[Steve]

---  "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
> 
> Carol responds:
> Before I can answer that question, I need to know how Heyman
> defines "theme." ... I would say that Hallows and Horcruxes
> are not themes but motifs ...
> 
> A theme, OTOH, is a concept, often a controlling idea around
> which the writer structures the work or an insight that he or
> she is consciously trying to convey. ...

bboyminn:

Sorry to cut so much, but you have brought up an interesting
point. Though I don't know if I can officially call it 'themes',
but there are two distinct parts to the final book.

The first section is about Seeking, learning, and resolving a
mystery. The second section is about acting on that knowledge.

In a sense, by some definition, the first half is Mystery,
and the second half is Suspense.

>From this perspective, it seems the transition occurs when
Harry is burying Dobby. That is when he has resolved the
Mystery to his own satisfaction, and in doing so has set 
himself on a course of action. 

Up until that point Harry is in turmoil. He is torn between 
Hallows and Horcruxes. He is tormented because Dumbledore
expects overwhelmingly big things from him, but has left him
little to go on. There are many mysteries and frustrations
in this first half that Harry and the gang have to deal with.

>From another perspective, the first section is all about internal
conflict; the second section is about external conflict. The
battle with himself vs the battle against others.

Now, it is not completely cut and dried. Harry certain does
battle with other earlier in the book, and certainly has
internal battles in the latter part of the book, but on a 
broad and general scale, I think the internal vs the external
conflict divides the book nicely

Still, were to cut? I think possible Ron rescuing Harry and
getting the sword, and ending with Ron saying (paraphrased)
'well it sounds much cooler that it was when you say it like
that', and Harry repling to the effect that 'I've been telling
you that for years'. That concludes with a climax, and a bit 
of a wind down, and ends with a clever remark by both Ron and
Harry. 

When we begin the next movie, we start with Ron and Harry in 
the forest, perhaps with a slight replay of the last of the
previous movie, then the go to the tent and Hermione freaks
out on Ron. 

>From there, it is on to the Snatchers, Malfoy Manor, the
Rescue, Dobby's death, and then we begin the second movie
in earnest. From that point on Harry has made a choice and
his course of action is clear and unwavering. They break into
Gringott's to get the Cup, Harry has his vision, then it is
off to Hogsmeade and the first flairings of the Battle of 
Hogwarts begins.

Not knowing what they will keep and what they will lose, it's
hard to determine how that balances out in movie time, but
from a thematic point of view, Dobby's burial is the clear
transition point in the story. 

Of course, the transition in the story, doesn't necessarily
mark the transition point between the two movie. I think the
first movie needs to end before that transition point, so
that's way I say the 'finding the Sword' scene is a good
place to end.

I think Yates has tremendous potential as a director. I think
OotP was brilliantly constructed, but it was cut far too lean.
And there were some real mistakes made in it, that effected
my enjoyment. For example, the scene where Harry hands the
Prophecy over to Lucius should have never happened. To me,
that undermined everything.

I can't help wondering if Yates is trying his best to satisfy
the story, or if his primary objective is to satisfy the
studio? From my point of view, to satisfy the story, will do 
the best job of satisfying the Studio in the long run. But to
satisfy the studio in the short run will not satisfy the fans.

There is a story that needs to be told, and to satisfy the
fan, that story must actually get told. It is not enough just
to have Harry, Ron, and Hermione running around on screen for
a few hours. If this as a fan boy puff piece like the Jonas 
Brother's 'Camp Rock'. Where it is nothing but an excuse for
us to see our favorite boy-crush/girl-crush stars, then I 
think it will fail as a movie. 

Like I said, there is a story that MUST be told. I'm convinced
Yates will make it look good, I'm just not convinced of his
ability as a cinematic story teller. 

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bluewizard