Movie rant - might contain spoilers

[juli17 at aol.com]

Neri wrote:

I've just been visiting TLC, and I took a quick look  at the new GoF
clips. What can I tell you -  I'm sooo glad I never had  any plans to
watch this movie. These clips are just horrible. Everybody  is
overacting. Haven't they heard that British actors are supposed to  be
better, not worse, than the average Hollywood actor? It looks like  the
director was going "hurry, guys, hurry! We have 150 scenes to  squeeze
into a single movie! There will be a fat bonus to the actor with  the
highest words per minute count!" all the time.


Julie now:
While I agree British actors are often better than Hollywood  actors
of the "matinee idol" variety (Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, et al)--and  that's
only my opinion!--I don't think they are as a group necessarily  better
than American "actors" (those who pursue acting more as the  craft--for
instance, Sean Penn or Mickey Rourke). But I think it's a bit  of a moot 
point when it comes to Harry Potter. There is *notning* subtle  about
the Harry Potter characters in the books, so why should the movies  be
different? In a sense they chew the scenery in the books (via  JKR's
heavy use of adverbs and adjectives--e.g., Snape speaks snidely, 
sharply, coldly, furiously, smugly, et al--he never simply "speaks"!). 
So I would expect the characters to be equally melodramatic  in
the movies. 
 
Neri again:
 Moody isn't deformed,
isn't scary at all, acts hyperactive  instead of paranoid (probably the
winner of the words per minute bonus), and  his magic eye looks, well,
like a plastic eye attached with a strap. Rita  Skeeter looks... cute,
actually. I wouldn't mind being shut in a closet with  her and tell her
all about my sad life <g>. Hermione's Cinderella scene  (which doesn't
exist in the book, but who cares about that anymore) looks as  if it
was directed specially for – well, I guess 12 yrs old girls *are*  a
large percentage of the target audience, but still... .  Snape  going
cuffing students and none of then seems to care the least –  say
goodbye to the legend of Rickman's charisma. And Hogwarts  looks
gloomier than ever. I don't think I'd ever want to visit the  place.

 
Julie:
Movies and the books they're based on are rarely identical.  Directors
often take liberties, partly because film demands certain  compromises,
and partly because they have their own visions of the story too (just  as
each of us does). Though I've always thought Hogwarts sounded  fairly
gloomy myself, and I've never noticed anyone but Neville taking  Snape's
attitude too seriously in the books. Which is par for the course in  the
books, as the WW seems to take a lot of things quite a bit more  lightly
than we would, especially potentially injurious activities like  Quidditch,
kids hexing each other, teachers cuffing students, etc. 


Neri:
I'd avoid this movie. At all costs.

Julie:
That's your right. IMO, the only way to really approach these movies
is as separate entities from the books. They're really  just additional 
interpretations to enjoy, if one is amenable to the concept  of different 
interpretations. I quite enjoyed watching PoA despite the departures
from the book, and I expect I'll enjoy GoF too. But then I think the 
acting is reasonably good, and the production values are  fantastic,
so that makes it worthwhile for me. It may not be enough for those 
who prefer a single canon interpretation of the story and  characters, 
which is certainly a fair view too.
 
Julie 








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