MOVIE: Sorry for the Rant - PU to DH2

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 191280



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" <geoffbannister123 at ...> wrote:
>
>....
> 
> Geoff:
> ...
> 
> This (the climax) was not just any old scene; using your mountain
> analogy, this was the last, the ultimate peak to be reached. Six
> books and seven films were leading to this and it was not, in its
> conception meant to be a "Die Hard" finish. I am somewhat surprised
> that JKR, who has reportedly retained some authorial control over
> the films was in agreement to this ending.
> 
> But, to pinch one of your taglines, that's one man's view.
> ;-|
>

Steve:

For me it is not so much the climactic ending, but how they arrived at it. When only DH1 was out, I pointed out to people that there was a scene at Malfoy Manor upon which the entire series would hinge. One scene only a few seconds long upon which everything turned. 

Boy, was I wrong. Harry taking Draco's wand at Malfoy Manor should have been the great reveal and turning point, but in the movies, it was something of an after thought. 

And as a result, it is still not clear what actually killed Voldemort (which I have discussed before). The scene could have played out the same way but with more of a visual sense that Voldemort's curse rebounded on him. And why it rebounded would have made more sense with the context of the passage of ownership of the Elder Wand. 

Doe it really matter where they dueled? Or how the got to that location? I don't think so. But why they were there, and what it meant to the story line, all that seems to have been lost in he name of action/adventure. So, I certainly do see and feel your point. 

Other criticisms would be that the jump-cut from scene to scene, rushing the story along. There is never a pause to explain anything, or to allow sympathy for characters to build, or to build suspense. 

Another criticism is that due to directing, people frequently act in unnatural ways. Here are a couple examples, but the movies are riddled with them -

- In the scene where Dobby dies, Dan/Harry is doing a good job of acting, but when the camera cuts to Ron and Hermione, they are just at a distance doing nothing. Harry is calling to them, begging them to help, but they don't move forward, they don't gather around Harry, which I think would have been the natural response. To me, it cuts the dramatic impact of that scene substantially because it is jarringly unnatural. I think a degree of this is Yates TV background. 

- I saw Goblet of Fire last week, and in the scene where Harry and Cedric return to the Maze from the graveyard, and Cedric's father rushes down to see his son's body, the actor playing Amos Diggory is acting his brains out, but the scene is unnatural because anyone with that much anguish over the death of their son would have embraced the body. He would have held Cedric in his arms, refusing to let him go. That happens in real life. But in the movie, it seems to be all about the right camera angle, because Amos never touches the body. And I mean NEVER touches the body. The power of that scene was diminished because it was unnatural. It went counter to the instinctive responses of any reasonably person. Again, I think this is partly do to Yates being mainly a TV director. He is used to the small scene. 

Again, just two small examples, but the movies are filled with unnatural director choices. 

I think Yates has great potential as a movie director, and I think within a certain context, he did a good job. But in another context, he has a long way to go before he has the skill to make a movie that plays beginning to end in a real and natural way. 

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn