You know, there may be something to this Harry Potter book thing. After all, you really aren’t going to get that much out of the movie adaptation unless you’ve read the books. Fortunately (or unfortunately) for me I’ve consciously decided against reading the books. While that may make me a rare individual this weekend, it also kept me from enjoying the movie.
Believe me, I know it’s kind of an embarrassing admission to make. I’ve never read the Harry Potter books. It’s not because I’m not interested. I’m affirmatively unwilling to read them. And as much as I appreciate being in with the "In-Crowd", I would simply prefer not to. I know that this means I’ve closed off a cornucopia of allusions that I can use at dinner parties, but I just can’t do it. I’ve seen too many people, normal people mind you, transformed into the literary version of crystal meth addicts. No thank you, I say. I’m trying to stay clean.
Now, I have seen all the movies up until this point, but even there, I’ve only watched half-heartedly. Get it? Half-heartedly. Consequently, I can’t remember anything about the last movie except that Gary Oldman died. Oops. I hope I haven’t spoiled anything for the one person who hasn’t seen it or read the books. So it was probably one of the most bizarre social experiments whereby I went to see this new movie along with four other avid Potter-philes. I mean, it’s very rare that I’ll actually turn down a trip to the movies, and this was with some coworkers that I happen to like very much, so I went along to bond.
Let me just say this right out of the gate. I’ve read at least one review from someone who claimed to have enjoyed the movie without having read the books. This person is either lying or caught up in the mob mentality. There are certainly things about this movie that are enjoyable, but ultimately this movie is way too long and doesn’t explain itself enough to make it a complete, enjoyable movie going experience. Forget dependent upon the books, this movie is also totally dependent upon the previous movies. It’s a sequel’s sequel. Nothing really happens in it and then it leaves you with a cliffhanger that doesn’t really matter.
Unless you’ve already been indoctrinated into the world of Harry Potter, in which case you’re pissed off that you have to wait until 2010.
The woman sitting next to me actually cried at the end of the movie. I’m not criticizing; I just felt left out. Oddly enough, from my removed position, the most sympathy I had was for one of the demi-villains, Draco Malfoy. I mean here’s this guy who has been a total jerk for like ever, his father was either killed or placed in prison, and he’s "chosen" for a really heavy task that may or may not be too much for him. I know I’m supposed to feel sympathy for him, but not as if he were the main character. In contrast, our hero, pretty much walks around like a tool. And his mentor? While he might have been kindly and wizened to the faithful, he appeared manipulative and aloof to me. He totally doesn’t earn the "God" moment he’s given at the end. Trust me, you’ll know it when you see it.
Of course, I know that by saying this I’ve opened myself to a bunch of the book fans defending the movie because they love the characters therein. Maybe they’ll even insult me for being close-minded. And I speak from experience, that’s actually happened to me before. I keep expecting someone to sneak into my house while I’m sleeping and place the first book next to me a la Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
Look, I’m not knocking the book. I’m just saying that this movie is going to be one of the emptiest blockbusters ever because it doesn’t take time to develop characters or conflict. Things just happen and then the movie ends. I’d love to be able to point out some of the deeper meanings and how Harry is like Luke Skywalker, and Snape is like Agamemnon or Hamlet, but I can’t. It’s not in there in this movie.
That’s not to say that the three leads don’t do a wonderful job. They have to balance a lot of different tone shifts throughout the movie. They also benefit from us having literally watched them grow up through the course of these movies like some fictional version of Michael Apted’s Up series. I tend to credit actors a lot because they’re often trapped by the writing of a movie, but I don’t think I’m giving them extra credit. Whether it’s the fact that playing these characters has probably imprinted on them as they developed their adult personalities during this movie or they’re just good actors, I think they did a good job and they deserve credit.
The undercurrent in the film is teen angst, and the parts of the movie that work are focused on these coming-of-age moments. Sure it’s a little ham-fisted in places, but it’s not like I was going to get Summer of ’42 at Hogwarts. The plot developments between the young, would-be lovers are about as sophisticated as . . . well, plot developments between real young, would-be lovers. So, I guess that’s why that worked for me; that and the actors playing the leads seem to be mature enough to understand that. So, they did a good job.
The remaining British cast members are all British. Anglophiles will think they transformed this material into Shakespeare. Rabble, like myself, probably won’t. But truth be told, only Jim Broadbent had anything to really do in this movie. Now, I loved Alan Rickman in this movie, but I can’t quite shake the suspicion that I did so because I brought some Alan Rickman love to the movie. There’s just not a lot there to say these folks are good are bad. However, they are British, so I feel confident saying that.
The visuals are stunning and they really capture this whole imaginary world, like the first Star Wars did for space. But there are spells cast and people cursed that I knew nothing about, and these things were never explained to me in the movie. This left me with the feeling that part of the reason for the lengthy running time was included detail meant appease the Potter faithful. As an outsider, I’ve watched the lengths of the books get larger and larger, and I’ve developed the belief that Ms. Rowlings desperately needed someone around her to edit things out. I think the fact that this movie probably left a great deal out and still didn’t explain anything or go anywhere suggests to me that my suspicion on that point is correct.
The ending, for example, demonstrates perfectly how uncommitted the movie-makers were to allowing this movie to stand on its own. It’s a cross between Empire Strikes Back and Wrath of Khan. There’s the cliffhanger like Empire (they even kind of steal the final shot from Empire), and there’s elegiac feeling of Khan. But it can’t make up its mind what it wants to be, so the movie just sort of ends. There’s an "I feel young" beat like in Khan that gave you some sense of thematic closure (and maybe even uplift), but there’s no orchestral swell like you found in either movie. I suppose this is to make the audience feel how small the characters are, but it seemed a little muddled to me. I think that’s because neither of the templates this movie uses were predicted to be followed with other movies. With this franchise it’s a foregone conclusion, so there’s no need to even "end."
I have no doubt that Potter fans will think this is one of the best movies of the bunch. It’s not poorly made. It moves along as pretty much any TV show. Nothing is out of place. But it suffers from the inverse of what’s usually the problem with adaptations. This movie isn’t one where you say the book was better and the movie ruined the book. This movie actually needs the book for you to enjoy it. If you’ve read the books, I’m sure this movie will vividly capture your memories of the story as surely as if you were seeing it in a pensieve. If you’re li
ke me, however, such magic will probably be lost on you.
I’ve read only the first book, and I’ve seen all of the movies. I enjoyed the book. I thought it quite imaginative, and on the Tolkien-Lewis level in that regard, but intellectually and in writing style it is fairly pedestrian. Overall, quite likable and rewarding though not on the Tolkien-Lewis level. Not many are.
I’ve enjoyed all the Potter movies. Near the beginning of Half-Blood Prince, Harry says to Dumbledore, “I’ve learned just to go with it.” I think that’s good advice for those who are watching the films without having read the books or having much interest in the overall mythology: Just go with it.
Taken in that way, I think the Potter movies are quite appealing and enjoyable. Profound, brilliant–no. But not superficial or overblown, either. In all, the Potter films have proven to be an exceedingly well-done middlebrow movie series.
I’m probably odd man out here, but I have read – and enjoyed – the Potter books (more so than the movies).
As for comparisons, I think it’s fair to compare Rowling with Tolkien and Lewis in terms of creating a consistent mythology and consistent fictional world – less so with writing styles. As a writer, she develops tremendously from book 1 to book 7. You can see this at the end of 7, as the style of the “epilogue” is the same as book 1 – I believe she wrote that epilogue before she wrote anything else in the series. From the heroic style of the rest of book 7 to the much simpler style of book 1 gives some idea of the distance she went. De gustibus, as others have observed here, but I confess it’s to my tastes.
No, it is I who should give the mea culpa. I went back over my response and I must apologize. I think in my rush to pat myself on the back, I acted very presumptuously. I’m really sorry, for that. Really, I just wanted to make the point that I often feel the same way you do about “pop,” but I try to figure out why it’s so popular and whether that says something about where society is or what it appears to value. Not saying that’s a preferrable approach, just something I try to do.
And I agree with you that comparing Rowlings to Tolkien or Lewis is . . . well, not a good comparison. But who knows, maybe centuries from now they’ll see things in Harry Potter that we had no idea were in there. She does spin a good yarn, though, at least according to the reviews I’ve read.
But it is nice to know that I was able to pick up on something that the folks at bighollywood did, however obliquely.
There is an interesting post at Big Hollywood that presents the idea that these movies aren’t being made for folks who haven’t read the books. The entire HP film series, the brief post argues, are “really cult films.”
As to my stating that the HP books are not art, I’ll admit that was a bit off the cuff. Notably withdrawn. Mea Culpa. They are as much art as the Serials I noted as well as the works of H. Rider Haggard, Edgar Rice Burroughs & Robert E. Howard. But putting Rowling on the same level as Tolkien or Lewis or Williams? Nope, not going to go there.
Indeed, Mike, there is no accounting for taste.
But I do think that Daniel is spot on when he compares these books to the serials. And Daniel, there’s nothing wrong with that, I mean, who am I to say that there is? I’ve personally always likened the books to Star Wars for the next generation. I mean, Rowlings does the same thing that George Lucas did. (I think there’s even a website that compares the franchises.) That’s why I pissed off all my reader friends when I told them before Deathly Hallows book even came out that Harry would die and be ressurected and Snape would turn out to be tragically noble. There was always only one way these stories could go. It’s all about the archetypes, right?
And that’s not to say any of this is bad. I have no idea what is or isn’t “art,” but I try to look for really popular movies to see if there’s anything else going on, to figure out why people like these things so. Whatever you want to say about Harry Potter, it has truly captured the imagination of a generation, and that’s worth examining. (And how cool is it that the next generation’s Star Wars was first and foremost told through language instead of visual effects?)
That said, what disappointed me about the movie is that it’s almost not even a movie, it’s more of a visual supplement to the book. I think movies deserve the same care as books do when they are made, so it’s frustrating that the folks behind this looked to me like they took for granted that everyone has read the books.
Snape is a great example. If you haven’t read the books, he should look like a total villain at the end of this movie, but Yates and Kloves already know why he does what he does, and so does most of the audience, and they know that, too. So in the end I don’t feel the twist in Harry Potter that I did in Empire Strikes Back. It’s like watching Empire after Episodes 1 through 3. You know Darth Vader is Luke’s dad, so you aren’t all abuzz at the end of the movie waiting for the next one to answer the questions. In Harry Potter’s case, I’m interested in seeing how this turns out, but I’m not on the edge of my seat. I don’t know how they could have fixed that or if I’m just taxing Yates and Kloves for the media saturation that they had to work with. I just felt that it didn’t really work as a movie, but it probably would have if I’d read the books.
But what do I know, I liked the remake of Dawn of the Dead.
I will admit to reading the books, and will also admit that the meth analogy is accurate. Once you start it is very hard to stop.
My biggest beef is with folks who think Rowling is today’s Tolkien. I got into it with one guy who actually thought she was superior that particular Inkling.
I’ve thought of her books as the equivalent of those serial films from the 30s & 40s. Fun. Escapist. And relatively harmless. But great art? I don’t think so.
I’ve never read the Potter books either, R. J. Like Mark Twain said about learning German, life’s just too short.
My wife Linda has, though, and she loved them all. Same for the films.
De gustibus, right?