Undeathly Hallows ?

[Carol]

Carol earlier:
> > 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.

Carol responds:
So far I agree with you, only I would say that the "halves" are by no
means equal in terms of page count.

bboyminn: 
> 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

Carol:
Well, yes and no. The central conflict remains Harry vs. Voldemort
(who maintains a presence within Harry's mind in both parts). Ron also
has his inner demons in Part 1, which he conquers through action, and
Harry is struggling with self-doubt and his loss of faith in
Dumbledore. But Harry's loss of faith, his inner conflict with DD,
continues into Part 2 and actually intensifies just at the point when
the ongoing conflict with Snape is resolved. But conflict is not
theme, which is what Heyman says he's organizing around. I think you
were closer to the mark with the first half being about Harry's
confusion and frustration and lack of direction, which I agree are
resolved by the choice of Horcruxes vs. Hallows (the mystery of the
Hallows having been previously solved). The second half, I agree, is
Harry acting on this resolution. The internal conflicts remain in some
form, resolved through "The Prince's Tale" and "King's Cross"; the
central conflict between Harry and Voldemort is resolved sequentially
through the destruction of the Horcruxes, Harry's self-sacrifice, and
the final battle, which, of course, is the climax of the film and the
series. So, yes, the primary conflict is external, but I don't think
that in itself would be a reason to divide the films there if the
externalization of the conflict didn't coincide with or follow
naturally from the resolution of Harry's doubts and confusion in Part 1. 

bboyminn: 
> 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. 

Carol:
Well, true, but that scene involves the resolution of *Ron's*
self-doubts, not Harry's. The mystery of the Hallows remains
unresolved until the visit to the Lovegoods, which follows Ron's
destruction of the locket Horcrux, and surely Luna's rescue should
occur in the same film as the discovery of her disappearance. And, as
we've both said, Harry's doubts are resolved with the burial of Dobby.
Surely *that's* the natural resolution of part 1, and Gringotts, the
theft of the cup Horcrux which sets off the climactic events of the
second half, is the logical place to begin the second film.

bboyminn: 
> 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.

Carol:
Why not put Malfoy Manor and Dobby's death in the first film, so that
the second film can begin in reality rather than "in earnest" with
Harry's "clear course of action"? In the book, there's an interlude of
about a month between Malfoy Manor and Gringotts. That's a natural
break in terms of time, plot, and theme. Why crowd the Snatchers and
Malfoy Manor (and the visit to Xeno Lovegood, which you've omitted)
into an already action-filled film rather than placing them in the
slower-paced, somewhat action-poor first half, in which they fit
thematically, in any case?

bboyminn:
> 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.

Carol:
Exactly. which is why it makes sense to me to begin the second film
with the first step in Harry's unwavering course of action. Wavering
and hesitation and confusion (and stupid moves like saying
"Voldemort") belong to the first half of the film. Knowing what to do
and doing it belong to the second half. IMO, of course.

bboyyminn: 
> 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. 

carol:
Exactly.

bboyminn: 
> 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.

Carol:
That's what I thought at first, simply because the destruction of the
locket Horcrux is an important event that occurs mid-book, but the
problem with that division, aside from crowding too much action into
the second film and omitting action from the first film is that the
scenes you suggest putting into the second film aren't directly
related to the defeat of Voldmort. They don't fit with the rest of
that film in terms of theme *or* plot, and they're needed in terms of
both plot and theme in part 1. The Xeno Lovegood scene solves the
mystery of the Hallows and sets up the Horcrux/Hallows choice that
ultimately resolves Harry's indecision and sets him on his course of
action. Malfoy Manor reveals the location of one of the Horcruxes,
making that decision easier. It also results in Dobby's death, which
enables Harry to see from a perspective of love and pity instead of
fear, confusion, anger, and vengeance.

I think your instintive sense of the thematic division between the two
parts of DH is right on the money, and I'll bet that both Heyman and
Steve Kloves ended up seeing that same dividing point once Kloves
started writing and talking about the script.

bboyminn: 
> 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. <snip>

Carol:
I agree, though I'm more concerned about changes involving Snape. I
also didn't like Neville's actively seeking vengeance or the Prophecy
(or half of it) being heard by everybody present. I did like what the
filmmakers did with Sirius Black (except for the way his death was
depicted). Film!Sirius is a much more sympathetic character than
Book!Sirius, who's too depressed and self-absorbed to be much of a
godfather to Harry. (Just my opinion. Sirius fans will disagree, I'm
sure.)

bboyminn: 
> 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 <snip> 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. <snip>

Carol:
Are you talking about HBP now? I've seen enough photos and interviews
to be satisfied that the Snape/Draco subplot will be fully developed,
and we'll get at least the essence of Tom Riddle's backstory and an
introduction to the Horcruxes. I don't like added scenes like the one
at the Weasleys, but most of the key elements (the cursed locket, the
poisoned mead, Draco's mission, the Unbreakable Vow, the cave, the
tower, the duel with Snape) are definitely there. Slughorn fans will
be happy even though he doesn't look like Mary GrandPre's sketches.

My feeling is that Yates is now aware of the places where earlier
scripts went wrong, changing too much or omitting scenes and
characters that turned out to be important. If he applies that lesson
to HBP and DH, I'll be happy.

Carol, actually happy that the inescapable two-year wait between films
is now between OoP and HBP rather than HBP and DH, part 1