PoA MOVIE DISCUSSION

[Carol]

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" <montavilla47 at ...> wrote:
>
> > 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.)
> 
> 
> Montavilla47:
> 
> Um.  But shrunken heads aren't "un-English."  They are a magical item from the Caribbean, which was partially colonized by the English and very much part of the British Empire.

Carol responds:
Caribbean culture may have a few British elements, but it's chiefly African. Other influences are Spanish and Native American. The result is a culture like no other--and certainly like nothing native to the British Isles. We might as well say that Inuit culture is English  because Canada (where some of the Inuit live) is part of the British Empire. By that sort of logic, any nation or region that was colonized by Britain could be considered English. we might as well say that Iroquois and Zulu customs are English, too, and be done with it.

At any rate, the (silent and sinister) shrunken heads in Borgin and Burkes have no relation to the smart-mouthed, Jamaican-accented heads in the PoA film. Consider them "English" if you like, or part of a more extensive WW than is depicted in the books and films, but also think about what shrunken heads really are and why they were made--the heads of dead enemies to capture their spirits. Dark objects with no element of comedy, IMO.

In any case, the Jamaicans (who did and sometimes still do practice folk magic) never made shrunken heads. They were made by warlike Native American tribes in Ecuador and Peru, neither of which was part of the British Empire at any time.

Montavilla 47:
> JKR's endorsement of the shrunken heads appears in the DVD extras.  She gives a joint interview with Cuaron and says that she wishes she'd thought of them.

Carol responds:
What can I say? She *did* think of shrunken heads and placed them where they belong, among the Dark objects sold by Borgin and Burkes. Comic shrunken heads speaking in Jamaican accents would have been out of place in the books--as they are, IMO, in the PoA film. (Notice that none of the other directors followed Cuaron's lead in including them.)

Montavilla47: 
> .... Incidentally, I don't much care for them either.  Or the whole Knight Bus sequence.

Carol:
I thought that Stan Shunpike's role was well cast, well written, and well acted. It was odd, though, to see him struggling with Harry's trunk like a Muggle! The part with the Knight Bus being squeezed between two Muggle buses wasn't exactly canonical, but it fit reasonably well with the way the that MoM cars managed to Magic themselves to the front of a line of traffic. And, fortunately, we didn't have any other stops (or a carsick Madam Marsh) to delay the story. IOW, I would have liked the Knight Bus sequence if it hadn't been for the shrunken head and Cuaron's sense of humor (which, clearly, has little resemblance to mine).

Montavilla47:
  But that's because I read the books and I'm impatient for the plot to begin.  For the same reason, I could do without that extended "Monster Book" sequence.

Carol:
I suppose the Monster Book of Monsters sequence serves a small purpose, setting up more slapstick humor when Neville doesn't hear the part about stroking them. But I agree; it serves no real plot purpose in either the book or the film (except to illustrate Hagrid's incompetence as a teacher and fuel the inimical relationship between him and Draco). I suppose that Cuaron thought it was funny, but the time would have been better spent developing elements necessary to the plot.

> Montavilla47:
> 
> The rock throwing thing is vital, because Future!Hermione has seen that Past!Hermione (and Ron and Harry), aren't leaving Hagrid's hut as they are supposed to do.  So, she throws the rock to alert them that the Minister is on his way.
> 
> It links what she and Harry are doing to what happened earlier--and makes the time turning most important to the plot--which just makes it better.

Carol responds:
The way I understand it, the Time-Turning *always* happened. It didn't change anything; it just made things turn out as they did in terms of the rescue of Buckbeak and Black. But I don't think that the rocks made HRH move or alerted them that the Minister and executioner were coming. Hermione *knows* that they left or she wouldn't be where she is. (You like it. I see it as superfluous.)

Montavilla47: 
> I remember finding the time-turning part of the book really confusing--especially the stuff about where Hermione and Harry were during the Dementor attack and how that worked and how it was that Buckbeak didn't die the first time round. I thought the whole concept was better in the film.

Carol:
I agree that the book was confusing the first time around, but it made sense to me the second time since I understood that Buckbeak never died. They only thought he did, but Harry and Hermione had already saved him.
 
> Montavilla47:
> 
> We see the boggart turn into a bunch of things.  I don't see why it couldn't turn into Lord Voldemort after being a Dementor.  Even in the books, the boggart turns into all the Weasleys just for Molly. 

Carol:
But it turns into a Dementor as Harry steps up for his turn. It's clear that the Dementor is *his* Boggart--and we see later that it is. I just think it's an annoying glitch--and probably confusing for viewers who haven't read the books. And it makes Lupin look either blind or stupid. (How could he not see that Dementor and know that it, not Voldemort, was Harry's Boggart? Now if he'd realized that that particular Boggart was *just as terrifying* as Voldemort, at least to Harry, and would require more than a Riddikulus spell to tame, his reaction would make sense. But the first scene doesn't fit with the second.)

Montavilla47: 
> I'm not saying that's not a plothole.  But it's different watching a movie than reading a book and the brain doesn't have time to ask as many questions.  

Carol:
Not a plothole, just an inconsistency that filmgoers who pay attention to details would notice (unless he or she has read the book, knows that Harry's Boggart is a Dementor, and ignores or is unbothered by the illogic and inconsistency of Lupin's behavior). I noticed it even though I'd read the books, and I think that viewers who haven't read the books would notice it, too, and be confused. How can Lupin think that Harry's Boggart would be Lord Voldemort when his eyes tell him otherwise? It makes no sense.
>
Montavilla47:
  Most people turn logic off if they are enjoying a film.

Carol:
Do they? Maybe that's why I'm not a film fan!

Montavilla47: 
> But, of course, one major problem with enjoying a book adaptation is when the story veers away from the book.  So, I completely understand why this plot hole bugs you.

Carol:
Well, it's not really a plot hole, unlike the question of how Lupin knows what the Marauder's Map is and how to work it or the badly botched matter of his potion. It's just a glitch. Lupin is neither blind nor stupid, and if he saw the Dementor Boggart, as he did in the film before Banishing it, he simply could not have thought that it would turn into Lord Voldemort. Besides, he had *seen* Harry's reaction to a real Dementor with his own eyes--not just the normal terror and loss of cheerfulness and cold but catatonia. His reaction in the film makes no sense.

Carol, who probably tries too hard to impose logic on everything