PoA MOVIE DISCUSSION

[Carol]

Cabal wrote:
>
> Well, if you're okay with subtitles I recommend Cuaron's other works, he's a character not a plot director and it seems like most of your issues are plot ones (Harry's tears being the exception).

Carol responds:
Yes, and plot is crucial to the books. I wouldn't call my complaints "issues," BTW. They're matters of taste and preference. I'd prefer "more matter with less art," as Gertrude says to Polonius. And, of course, I don't like plot holes. (What *was* Snape supposed to be doing while Harry ran after Padfoot and Werewolf!Lupin? At least, in the book, there's a reason why he didn't cast his own Patronus. He was out cold. Ditto for Lupin and the map.) 

The Dementor Boggart "issue" (problem?) is not a question of plot. It's a question of the special effects people not paying attention to the script. Either that or Lupin, seeing the Dementor Boggart in the earlier scene and expecting it to turn into Voldemort, is seriously in need of glasses. And did he somehow think that the other students didn't see that Dementor (which is just as terrifying as Voldemort, frankly). At least, in the book, Harry never has a chance to step in front of the Boggart. The moment Lupin realizes that it's Harry's turn, he banishes the Boggart, which never has a chance to sense his fear and transform.
> 
Cabal:> 
> Here's the thing about what Cuaron did, he moved the films from being plot driven to being character driven and the from the boring, limp visual style of Columbus (my nominee for the lifetime Razzy award!) and made it a cinematic experience. The first two movies looked like Hollywood  cash-in films but POA looks like a work of art.

Carol responds:
You're expressing a perfectly legitimate preference--film as art over film as canonical retelling of JKR's story. I'd have preferred a little less gratuitous art (the Fat Lady singing, the "talking heads") and fewer plot holes. And there was no reason to make the kids dress like Muggles beyond giving them school uniforms under their robes. (We wouldn't have wanted to see Ron dragged by "the Grim" wearing nothing but a school robe and underwear.) But where does Harry get Muggle clothes other than Dudley's castoffs? Where does Ron, whose parents are wizards with no idea how Muggles dress and not much money, get them? And what about Draco, who never steps outside the WW and wouldn't be caught dead dressing like a Muggle? "Art" should not replace the consistency and logic of JKR's world (where that logic exists--I realize that she has inconsistencies of her own). And that includes foreign elements like shrunken heads with very un-English accents. (Can you link me to an article stating JKR's approval of that uncanonical and unnecessary addition to the story? Why not leave Stan and Ernie as they're written? BTW, the shrunken heads seem to me like an intrusion by the director into the scriptwriter's territory. I doubt that Steve Kloves would have added shrunken heads with Jamaican accents had he not been asked to--and, possibly, he didn't write those lines himself.) You like it. I don't. No point in arguing because neither of us will change the other's mind. You might as well try to argue me into liking caviar. It's hopeless. (JKR insisted on British actors. Maybe she should have insisted on British directors, too. Then you wouldn't be complaining about Columbus and I wouldn't be complaining about Cuaron.)
> 
Cabal: 
> I wish the film was longer because I liked the it but did want a couple of things like the map explained in the film.
> 
Carol:
Yes, it should have been longer and the map should have been explained, particularly Lupin's connection to it. At least they could have shown him discovering that it was a map or Harry confessing it and telling him how it worked. Otherwise, we jump from a supposed Zonko's product (do filmgoers even know what Zonko's is) insulting Snape to Lupin holding the still folded map and knowing what it is and how to work it--and Harry not raising an eyebrow.

BTW, I do understand why they had Harry see Pettigrew on the map and telling Lupin about it. It simplified matters. Lupin would have been watching the map and would have seen what he saw in the book. But Snape's presence is unexplained. He should have been bringing Lupin the potion as he did in the book. Either make the film longer to include those important details or cut some of the silliness (Madam Rosmerta lecturing Fudge about Dementors, shrunken heads, Fat Lady singing) for "matter" over "art."  

Cabal: 
> Rowling loved the shrunken head and the inclusion of the clock-tower (not in the book) so it's her world, I accept any change / addition so long as she's on board and she was.

Carol responds:
I have no complaint about the clock tower, which was an effective addition. And even if JKR accepted the shrunken heads, for some fans, including me, they're a distracting and *un-English* intrusion into JKR's world. (Yes, I know that Hogwarts is in Scotland, but most of the teachers and students are English.)
> 
Cabal: 
> I thought Cuaron made the time-turner ending work in ways the book didn't, it begs you to watch a second time. 
> 
Carol responds:
If only what happened in the background had been clearer and more easily interpreted, especially in a theater where you can't slow the action down. What's going on with the other guy (a student?) in pajamas and other, unrecognizable adults (faculty members who never appear anywhere in the books or the film???) after Snape and Dumbledore leave? Why isn't that patient still in the hospital wing, which is deserted except for Ron and their departing selves when Hermione and Harry return? 

Do you have any specific complaints about the way the scene was written and any specific improvements to note in the filming? (The rock throwing seems pointless to me. Hermione knows that they left. Also, the Patronus is not clearly the same as the shining stag, which doesn't return to Harry as in the book. I think that a filmgoer would be confused and think that the Patronus is just a shining light shield.) 

Cabal: 
> The only complaints I ever hear about POA are from book fans, where I think the one film to complain about from the POV of  book fan is GOF, that's the butcher job! <snip>

Carol responds:
Book fans are the ones who know what's missing! I do wonder, though, whether people who didn't read the books were confused by some of the details, including the glitch with the Dementor Boggart, which is or ought to be evident to any viewer. (Huh? Lupin *saw* the Dementor Boggart. How could he think it would turn into Lord Voldemort?)

BTW, I agree with you that GoF is " butcher job," but I assume that we'll be discussing that film in a week or two. PoA (and OoP and probably HBP) also sacrifices or alters important plot elements, just not so obviously because the plot elements are more neatly interwoven.

Carol, who had high hopes for PoA based on the trailer and still likes parts of it, including the music and some of the CGI