Book: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, plus others
Gap between first publication and film release: 5 years--2000 to 2005 (the first Harry Potter came out 2001, four years after the first Harry Potter book was published)
Closeness to original characters: 95% (Kate)
First three movies: 99% Final five movies: 90% (Where'd the real Dumbledore go?) (Mike)
First three movies: 99% Final five movies: 90% (Where'd the real Dumbledore go?) (Mike)
Closeness to original story: 70% for the series, 60% for Goblet. (Mike)
Kate says to prepare, I reread most of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. However, I didn't get a chance to reread Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, so I've provided a percentage for "closeness to original characters" but not one for "closeness to original story" (since I don't remember the fourth book that well).
In terms of the look of the characters, the casting is inspired. The only person who doesn't look completely like her book persona is Emma Watson as Hermione, and she does such a fantastic job capturing the personality of Hermione that it doesn't matter.
But Hagrid, Snape, Neville, Professor McGonagall, Harry . . . are all so much how the book describes them, it's hard for me to recapture my first pre-movie-franchise impressions!
I do remember that pre-movie-franchise, the rules of Rowlings' world mattered to me . . . well, not at all. One problem with series (and with series that become extremely popular) is that (1) the growth of the universe involves more and more connections that need to be tied into prior connections and since most fantasy writers don't spend years creating a complex history of several thousand years like Tolkien (who only produced his popular work as something of an after-thought), there are bound to be snags; (2) with popularity come growing expectations and criticisms. A writer who attempts to satisfy both expectations and criticisms will embroil herself in more problems and complications.
Inevitably, one begins to wonder about the nature of Voldemort's original war (before Harry's birth), why Dumbledore is so impossibly bad at keeping evil people out of Hogwarts, why Hogwarts even has a Slytherin House, why--if Dumbledore can prevent the Weasley twins entering the contest--he can't just say, "Harry can't compete." Why Barty Crouch Jr. doesn't just kill Harry . . .
If one ignores these problems (and Rowlings' continual efforts to solve them rather than just ignore them), the stories are enormously entertaining.
And this is where the first four movies have an edge (the fifth movie was a bust, and I haven't seen the last three) because the rules matter less. The nature of film is to promote image and plot over literary continuity. With Goblet of Fire, this is most effective. Image-wise, the settings are gorgeous--mysterious, vivid, intricate, eerie. All those towers and rugged terrain, gorgeous magical ships, dragons. Truly alluring. Plot-wise, the story focuses on the contest and, through the contest, on the vagaries and fears and anxieties of growing up.
The latter is one thing the movie does absolutely right. The teenage joking, angst, jealousy, friendships, awkward apologies, uncomfortable dating, etc. etc. etc. are all entirely appropriate/dead-on. The director did a remarkable job pulling natural reactions/tones/moods out of a whole parcel of child actors. And Daniel Radcliffe's acting skills have definitely expanded.
I'm not sure, however, that I would have watched Goblet initially if I hadn't seen the previous films. The beginning scenes demand some prior knowledge. On the other hand, like with Two Towers, the director may have decided to assume an "educated" viewership rather than try to engage new viewers.
And maybe I would have watched Goblet even if I hadn't seen the previous three! Goblet has guest actors that I simply adore: Robert Hardy, David Tennant, Shirley Henderson, and Roger Lloyd-Park. No, I'm afraid Robert Pattinson doesn't make my list although it is rather disconcerting to see him pre-Edward. I've only seen one of the Twilight movies, but Pattinson's image as Mr. 21st Century Vampire is SO omnipresent, it is hard not to start looking for fangs.
Maybe, Daniel Radcliffe and Robert Pattinson should get together and discuss what it is like to BE an icon for a large portion of one's life (although Radcliffe has been one longer).
Mike says the Harry Potter books and movies have been a huge phenomenon for years, and it's kinda of sad that it's all over... for now at least.
I always felt the films did a great job of capturing the spirit of the books, and the characters. While things had to inevitably be cut from the adaptations (the books are HUGE, after all), overall you got a good idea of what the overall story was.
I will absolutely agree, however, with those who complain that some vital plot lines and explanation were cut because it's absolutely true. With different screen writers and directors over eight movies, there was no unifying vision, other than Rowlings', to tie the movies together.
Perhaps the one movie that was most viciously cut was Goblet of Fire. There was simply SO much to cover, the Tri-wizard events were basically all that fit into the movie. But this is forgivable, as the movie moves fairly quickly and is rather enjoyable....that is, until it makes the biggest mistake it could: Dumbledore.
As Kate mentions, the casting was inspired, and each character is absolutely true to the book. While not every character moment makes it to screen, the characters themselves act and speak as they should, with a slight tint of reality that doesn't exist in the books. At least, this is 100% true for the first three movies.
When Michael Gambon first took over the role of Dumbledore after Richard Harris' death, he managed to give a rather subtle performance in Prisoner that didn't distract too much from the casting change. But in Goblet of Fire, Gambon's Dumbledore makes a serious deviation from both the books and Harris' version. In the movie, after Harry's name is called as a participant in the tournament, he retreats to a side room with the other contestants. Now in the book, Dumbledore handled the entire matter calmly and without surprise, allowing the thought that perhaps he was the one behind it.
Dumbledore was constantly like that in the books--his happy mood and goofy manner could rarely be ruffled by whatever was happening.
Gambon's Dumbledore, however, enters the side room, arguing loudly with the other teachers, rushes Harry, grabs him by the shirt, and slams him into the nearest wall, demanding that Harry tell him who broke the rules.
When I first saw this scene in the theater, it so effectively broke my suspension of disbelief that I cursed in shock, and spent the rest of the film wondering what the hell had just happened. I looked around, and while there were a few others slightly confused, no one seemed as upset as I was--that character wasn't Dumbledore! I didn't know who he was, but he was an imposter, and my brain would not, could not accept who he was supposed to be.
As a result, I've never really enjoyed the following movies as much as I probably should have. Sure, I loved the two part finale, and I agree the last few films are very good. But every time Dumbledore enters the scene, I get grumpy, and my attention wavers, which made Half Blood Prince especially frustrating.
In the end, the Harry Potter movies will never be as good as they could have been, for me at least. What I learned from this, however, is that casting and consistent acting is important, but solid and consistent writing is just as crucial to making characters work, especially in adaptations. When you change one of the most important characters from a sweet, kindly, bumbling, and brilliant old man into a rash, angry and violent man, you betray the source material and its fans.
I do enjoy the Harry Potter movies, but I'll always wonder how much more I would have liked them if the wonderful Richard Harris had lived to complete the series.
I always felt the films did a great job of capturing the spirit of the books, and the characters. While things had to inevitably be cut from the adaptations (the books are HUGE, after all), overall you got a good idea of what the overall story was.
I will absolutely agree, however, with those who complain that some vital plot lines and explanation were cut because it's absolutely true. With different screen writers and directors over eight movies, there was no unifying vision, other than Rowlings', to tie the movies together.
Perhaps the one movie that was most viciously cut was Goblet of Fire. There was simply SO much to cover, the Tri-wizard events were basically all that fit into the movie. But this is forgivable, as the movie moves fairly quickly and is rather enjoyable....that is, until it makes the biggest mistake it could: Dumbledore.
As Kate mentions, the casting was inspired, and each character is absolutely true to the book. While not every character moment makes it to screen, the characters themselves act and speak as they should, with a slight tint of reality that doesn't exist in the books. At least, this is 100% true for the first three movies.
When Michael Gambon first took over the role of Dumbledore after Richard Harris' death, he managed to give a rather subtle performance in Prisoner that didn't distract too much from the casting change. But in Goblet of Fire, Gambon's Dumbledore makes a serious deviation from both the books and Harris' version. In the movie, after Harry's name is called as a participant in the tournament, he retreats to a side room with the other contestants. Now in the book, Dumbledore handled the entire matter calmly and without surprise, allowing the thought that perhaps he was the one behind it.
Dumbledore was constantly like that in the books--his happy mood and goofy manner could rarely be ruffled by whatever was happening.
Gambon's Dumbledore, however, enters the side room, arguing loudly with the other teachers, rushes Harry, grabs him by the shirt, and slams him into the nearest wall, demanding that Harry tell him who broke the rules.
When I first saw this scene in the theater, it so effectively broke my suspension of disbelief that I cursed in shock, and spent the rest of the film wondering what the hell had just happened. I looked around, and while there were a few others slightly confused, no one seemed as upset as I was--that character wasn't Dumbledore! I didn't know who he was, but he was an imposter, and my brain would not, could not accept who he was supposed to be.
As a result, I've never really enjoyed the following movies as much as I probably should have. Sure, I loved the two part finale, and I agree the last few films are very good. But every time Dumbledore enters the scene, I get grumpy, and my attention wavers, which made Half Blood Prince especially frustrating.
In the end, the Harry Potter movies will never be as good as they could have been, for me at least. What I learned from this, however, is that casting and consistent acting is important, but solid and consistent writing is just as crucial to making characters work, especially in adaptations. When you change one of the most important characters from a sweet, kindly, bumbling, and brilliant old man into a rash, angry and violent man, you betray the source material and its fans.
I do enjoy the Harry Potter movies, but I'll always wonder how much more I would have liked them if the wonderful Richard Harris had lived to complete the series.
No comments:
Post a Comment