Never again

[carolynwhite2]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "kneasy" <arrowsmithbt at b...> 
> wrote:
> 
> I do agree with Kneasy here (hear the sound of hell freezing 
again?) that movie is almost always best thought of as a vision of a 
book.  
<snip>
> But Rowling's work, IMO, doesn't lend itself so nicely to that kind 
> of poetic reimagination.  It's too fundamentally about the 
> storytelling--so if you botch that, you botch the real depths of 
the thing.  
<snip>
 I doubt there's enough in the movie of originality and beauty, 
enough space filled in by the visual aspects of the film (as music 
does for the literature-operas), to redeem the failures to the spirit 
of the original.
> 

Carolyn, adding to the odd climatic conditions by not only responding 
to, but tentatively agreeing with Nora <g>:

IMO, this is part of the problem, but it goes further. The movie 
certainly mangles key plot elements, but it does so really badly 
because of the audience it is aimed at. It's a kids's film, despite 
Cuaron's track record. Sanitised, globalised, trivialised.

POA is many people's favourite book because it is where the adult 
stories take off; the times that Shrieking Shack scene has been 
picked over are beyond counting; the theories which have been built 
around it; the gaps she leaves for the imagination to fill in...

It's not necessary to include every plot detail of a book in a film 
adaptation, and any amount of artistic licence can be acceptable, as 
long as the spirit is there, but that's what's missing, IMO. I had 
stupidly hoped for an edgy, complex, more-or-less adult understanding 
of the book, especially with actors like Gambon and Rickman involved, 
but alas, no such luck. 

Yes, of course, lots of the set details were good - so they should 
be, on that budget - but they were just that, stage-sets, window-
dressing. Stuff like the big clock, the jazz track in the Boggart 
scene, just tantalising glimpses of what Cuaron might have been able 
to do with the movie, given a chance.

But, to my mind, this is all just part of the ruthless control-
freakery that extends to many areas of the HP franchise/fandom, and 
to a certain extent may include JKR herself. There is a 
determination, in short, that these will be clean, decent, simple 
books about children growing up and nobly battling life's problems, 
winning the good fight etc etc. Terrific role models, nicely-wrapped 
packages of morality for use by parents and educators around the 
world. The films are designed to fit slap bang into this world view, 
not least in order to maximise sales.

However, witness many furious battles on HPfGU, a tiresome subset of 
more robust adult minds find this interpretation not only boring and 
insipid, but unconvincing. That's the group that are still waiting 
for the grit, the uncertainty, the grey areas, the meaningful 
characterisation, the wit, the resonance..all the trivial little 
details that add up to a great film.

But, mustn't disappoint the kiddies, eh? 

Carolyn
Assuming hell's getting back up to a nice rolling boil again.