MOVIE: one more word (okay, lots) on Horribly dissapointed

[Amanda Lewanski]

No: HPFGUIDX 21723

I forgot this, sorry. I also have to point out something that my husband
and I, and other friends, have discussed over the years when favorite
books became non-favorite movies (or sometimes favorites, quien sabe?).
The visual medium of movies is different from the text medium of
literature. Even if a moviemaker did a movie of some work, absolutely
faithful to every single jot and tittle of text, some things will be
altered; it's inevitable.

Bear with me, here. A scene taking place in a room, in a book, need only
describe the setting sufficient to set the mood, or maybe refers to only
one item or glance that is significant. Translating this to a visual,
even with slavish adherence, is going to provoke discussion, for now we
must build and furnish a room. Where are the windows? Does it say
anywhere? If there are no windows, can the mood we want still occur,
visually? What furniture is in there? Where is it placed? That lamp she
mentions, what's it sitting on? What are the characters wearing? What
time of day is it? What direction do the windows face, will they have
full or indirect sun? Etc., ad nauseam. If the author is available to
ask, they're going to be able to get more accurate details, because she
can provide more information as to how she "saw" the characters
standing, who was facing which way, what was on the bookshelves, if the
room was well-lit, etc. But even so....

The point here is that the answer to every single one of these questions
will be argued with by at least one, maybe more, dedicated reader of the
work. When the domino effect starts, and the answer to others of these
questions depends on an earlier answer (which readers believe was
Wrong), it gets worse. But movies build their atmosphere and direct
their emphasis in a totally different format than the written word; they
have to give you a whole world and then winnow it, where text gives you
only what you need and builds on it.

An example here from the trailer is the clearly NON-dungeon where Snape
says that purring line to Harry. We ALL know the potions classroom is in
the dungeons. No windows. Period. So in this instance, the movie is
inarguably WRONG. But. But. But. Watch the trailer and look at the angle
from which they introduce Snape. You're looking up at him, and those
windows (lovely, by the way, if inaccurate) backlight him so that he is
a towering, indistinct, threatening figure. Whose line parallels this in
its ambiguity--soft, calm, measured, but clearly powerfully threatening.
So I totally applaud this change; it took the "feel" that the books had,
and translated it into a faithful visual--faithful to the "feel," not to
the letter of the book.

Granted, it's iffy extrapolating a whole movie from a trailer or two.
But again, although details are altered, the whole "feel" or atmosphere
that comes across from the trailers is correct, perfect, much more than
I expected them to achieve. I would rather have a movie that is, well,
magical in its scope and cinematic sweep, and not entirely faithful to
all the little details, than a movie which renders each and every detail
perfectly, but which falls flat.

--Amanda, really have to stop pontificating now, I have to go buy shoes
for my boys....sigh