[HPFGU-Movie] Re: PoA MOVIE DISCUSSION

[Nightbreed]

From: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Carol
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 11:36 AM
To: HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-Movie] Re: PoA MOVIE DISCUSSION

 

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.) 
He took Ron & Hermione to the hospital wing, Ron's leg was broken.


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.

Lupin moved to get between Harry and the boggart before it changed, as if it
suddenly occurred to Lupin that the boggart might become Voldy, not as if he
saw it and then was just too stupid to realize the difference. The point was
that Harry feared, fear worse than anything else and that Lupin was wrong
thinking it would be Voldy.


> 
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.)

In the books they wear "jumpers" (sweaters) and "trainers" (sneakers)
obviously Muggle attire. Plus, with a good deal of the children not being
"pure blood" it stands to reason that a good deal have at least one muggle
parent. Since Columbus did not address the Dudley clothes early-on it
couldn't suddenly be an issue in the third film. Also, it stands to reason
that since there is a way to trade wizard gold/silver/bronze from muggle
cash that Harry would buy his own damn clothes, actually annoyed me that JKR
didn't have him do that, why wouldn't he??? The people that wouldn't be
caught dead dressing like a muggle are usually older wizards, plus Harry is
raised by muggles, Hermoine is born to muggles and Ron's dad is obsessed
with muggles, so at least on those three it makes sense. Plus the "school
uniforms" under the robes are MUGGLE CLOTHES!!! If anything I think it was
JKR that was inconsistent and the films made things a little more logical.

 

As for JKR I believe it's on a behind-the-scenes on a DVD for the film that
she talks about the heads. It was YEARS ago when the film came out now, I
read articles all over the place at the time you can't expect me to remember
where I read everything I read several years ago. Either way, I'm certainly
not lying, thanks for respecting that if I say I read something I'm not full
of BS.


> 
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.)

 

Who gives a crap about whether it's "English?" Not me.


> 
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? 

Are you talking about the blur of people as they time-travel? It's all stuff
that happened in the three hours before they got there, so who cares what it
is. Also, it stands to reason there is more faculty than even JKR writes
about.

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.) 

I don't have complaints about how it was written, I just liked that the
movie made everything they did relevant and by showing the scenes from
different perspective, I think it's the sort of thing that works better
visually than in writing and I think Cuaron made that visual experience
clear and interesting. I like the rock-throwing because it's funny, and
Hermoine's "is that really what my hair looks like from the back" comment. I
felt that in the book it was just the next chapter where in the film the
overlap was obvious and it showed that them in the future had effect on
several moments in the past.



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

The only thing I took issue with CGI is the werewolf looks nothing like man
or beast, but some third bastard offshoot. Don't understand why? In the book
they "ran" with him, but in the movie he's not very animal at all.

 

md





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]