(PoA review #2!)
Jun. 6th, 2004 05:24 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaI saw ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
noblerot's great review and dear Maya's priceless take on things and well-- virtually everyone's review is... more of a review than I feel capable of. I'm too close to this movie, and my eye for detail and whatever analytical zeal I possess is overwhelmed by the sheer overwhelming emotion of seeing (especially huge, in IMAX).
The funny thing about movies is that soon enough, people come up with virtually every viable interpretation. I think it's 2 days later, and people have already pretty much said everything there is to say. Which I suppose says something, I'm not sure what, because the book itself could provide -months- of discussion material, I think.
In the end, I believe a review of a Harry Potter movie is pointless, because most viewers are fans, and thus won't be watching it in the same way they'd watch a "normal" movie. Everyone was -looking- for something in this movie, I think, and its success depends heavily on whether or not they found it. I was looking for Harry.
Well, he's there :D
Actually, I feel a bit guilty because there were certainly "interesting" points I could've thought of, like the details of Cuaron's style (the transitions, colors, camera angles, blah blah) and the specifics of some semi-minor characterizations I care little about in canon and so don't bother noticing (Pansy, that-boy-that-isn't-Crabbe, Dumbledore, Trelawney, etc). I actually really liked Trelawney because it's obvious that Emma Thompson knows how to act & the camp flowed well and easily. It's nice to see a real professional actor in an HP film-- you could just -smell- it somehow; like, Gary Oldman and Emma and Alan Rickman-- they're just in a class by themselves. It doesn't even matter what they're doing, it seems, because they can't help but do it well.
I mean, Gary was just sitting there, looking at Harry, at the end, and then he raised his hand and laid it on Harry's chest and said a hokey line about the dearly departed being in our hearts, and I was like OMG WAH SIRIUS, because he -was- Sirius by virtue of sheer presence on screen. His eyes glitter and his hands are long and gnarled-looking and mesmerizing and one looks at him and thinks, if I was Harry, I'd be melting in my shoes too. Heh. I could -tell- that what Sirius was saying (oh, you look just like your father, Harry) meant a zillion times more because -this man- was saying it. He just had this simple undiluted intensity that demanded Harry's most direct, child-like response.
I think my impression of Draco as silly and non-offensive (to the point where I wondered why Harry or anyone else would be bothering to care, like, ever), was lightened upon second viewing. Yeah, okay, he was silly many times, but he did seem to have a sort of duality, at least, where he reverted into silliness & over-the-top melodrama when the Trio paid attention to him, but he was all sneer-strut-sneer to his friends and behind their backs and such. I mean, it seemed like he was teasing, yeah, but I thought I saw glimpses of competitiveness & a sincere sense of resentment, though maybe I was just looking for that. I think in the movie, he was being kinda passive-aggressive, what with so much viciousness directed off Harry to Buckbeak.
It's hard to really describe since it was something about Tom Felton's exact expression or tone that made the difference. You must understand-- while I believe canon!Draco is camp, I also think he's actually very angry, too. That's like, one of the things he has in common with Harry, that unites them in my head-- the obsessive anger thing. So yeah. I counted the sneers, baby (though Harry only got angry once, before the first Buckbeak scene, I take what I can get).
My second viewing of Lupin (a problem area before) was more conflicted. It's like this characterization works & doesn't work at the same time. In my memory, I was going overboard, thinking that Harry seemed overly indulgent or bored by Lupin and that Thewlis gave him a weird sort of patronizing insensitivity; now, my only real issue is that I feel there ought to be some indefinable -more-, something you cannot claim is textual but is a sort of magical ingredient that would make this a magical, mesmerizing character, like Sirius was. Basically, while I think the characterization did the job, so to speak, I didn't find this person at all sympathetic, and I want to like Lupin (more).
In fact, I want to love Remus, and I couldn't, quite. Which isn't so much a review as a sort of pathetic wish-fulfillment thing, so. Though I couldn't see why -Harry- would be drawn to this person either... though I suppose in canon, he wasn't, not so much. Maybe he just seemed both reserved in the extreme and 'louder' than I expected; mostly, if you based it solely on the movie & the semi-unfortunate casting choice, his nature is muddled and his behavior nearly nonsensical, especially at the Shrieking Shack. Though like I said, it does the job except possibly Remus' interaction with Sirius. Thewlis is more than adequate for the Snape bits, but he had no discernable chemistry with anyone, Gary Oldman included, that's all. Possibly though, you could say he had chemistry with Snape, but it seems like Alan Rickman could have chemistry with a rock, if he drawled at it. :D
I keep trying to like, change (or acquire) my own opinion on movie!Hermione, however the fact remains that I don't care: she doesn't annoy me too much, it's all good. I kept staring at her, trying to feel something one way or the other this time, and mostly, I decided she's not perfect at all-- she's still snotty, bossy, a bit hysterical at times (remember when she cried in the first movie? well, this movie she's just irritated all the time) and also about as secretive as Dumbledore. Whom, by the way, I found less cute than the first one-- as in, he was also silly & doddering, but it seemed more more external than internal (which might be more canon, but I like less). I didn't feel Dumbledore's deep and abiding intelligence this movie (not that I particularly care, as I said).
~~
It's funny how I did notice the whole Marauders thing being up in the air the first time, but-- since I didn't know it wouldn't be explained by the end at the time, I just enjoyed the wink-wink-nudge-nudge aspect of the movie. In the end, it really is made for fans of the books (unlike say, the LoTR movies which do stand on their own, seeing as I haven't read the books & understood them pretty well, I think).
Cuaron brought visual expressiveness & flair and a sort of sense of surface emotional immediacy to the movie, so it all flowed together as you watched it. You get to see the parts you enjoy with about 30% (or more) of their meaning coming from you, the viewer. The actors don't depend on story/characterization logic to work well together (or not), 'cause the acting overall seems more natural & less stilted. So like, now, one could tell more minute differences-- i.e., some things work & some things don't. It's very much a character-development commentary of a movie in that way.
I get the feeling you're simply not expected to analyze it too deeply as far as canonicity & linear progression & so on, outside of -knowing- why certain scenes happen and how they really relate to these characters overall. It's not a movie that draws on the decisions of the other movies, really, so it's not quite a sequel but a sort of "arc" film in fanfic terms. It's referring to and shamelessly (if often accurately) interpreting a source text related to the texts that fueled the other films, but also independent of them. The movie is just -more- loosely linked in some ways than PoA is as a book, I guess, but you could probably get away with arguing that makes PoA a better movie. Even so, I'd respect it slightly more if it stood on its own like the LoTR movies do.
I think of it in terms of the 3rd movie excelling in "artistic expression" rather than "technical merit". The viewer is more a part of the intended process than normal (so I suppose that makes it squarely the movie equivalent of-- admittedly good-- fanfic), so certain things are just assumed, like-- most blatantly-- knowledge of Snape's precise relationship to Sirius & Remus, who the Marauders were and to a lesser extent, Harry's canon relationship with Remus and maybe even Draco (since Draco's past nastiness was sort of assumed).
I didn't care that Remus and Sirius were never "outed" as Messieurs Moony & Padfoot because it was obvious Snape knew (and obviously, so did Remus & Sirius themselves), so there was a lot of play on that anyway-- mostly in the Snape-teasing bits, like the message on the Marauder's Map and in the Shrieking Shack and such. Still, it's a questionable directing/editing choice, though individual level of fannish concern (and this is mostly of concern -to- fans of the book) will vary.
In the light of purely PoA-limited logic, if one chose to judge the film as a direct reflection of canon, Harry's blatant righteous anger and aggression also became questionable. (This was mollified upon second viewing and slight compensation for Dan's acting skills). Ideally, I think PoA Harry is more lost and questioning and worried, but Dan Radcliffe just has issues looking like that. When I felt more generous and squinted a bit, I could see how he was trying. He's supposed to lose control with Aunt Marge and leave in a fit of adolescent rebellion and -hurt- as much as anger, and I was reassured when I looked for that hurt-- it's just generously masked by said anger. This Harry's just... slightly more ambiguous and harder to read than I think of canon!Harry as being, that's all.
There were flashes of the 13 year-old insecurity and uncertainty there amidst the lovely rage and slight homicidal fervor (all these often centered around Sirius) especially if you looked for them, I think. When decisive action is required, this Harry seems completely confident, but any emotional interaction-type stuff really seems to boggle him, which is realistic. He really doesn't talk well to -anyone- this movie, being all awkward edges and inappropriate body-language, and that's kinda cute, actually. Heh. Ron's even more like that; it's funny how totally with the program Hermione is, though.
I do think canon!Harry is more passive-aggressive, but you've got to make allowances for the movie medium (which begs for action, action, action). I did love the smirky deadpan of him telling Aunt Marge they beat him at St. Brutus' all the time (classic Harry, heheh), the lost confusion with Stan at the Knight Bus, the exhilaration of flying & the believable sort of reticence he had with Buckbeak at first (which he seemed more genuinely frightened by than the Dementors-- or certainly Snape, ahahah).
Rupert's Ron & Tom's Draco were great-- pretty canon within their alotted screentime, I thought, but not as much canonical in their vibe with Dan's Harry. Harry & Draco had little to no mutual animosity to the point where I wondered if Harry just didn't -have- emotional ties to anyone outside of his few friends and his parents (and therefore Sirius as an extension of his parents). I mean, especially the super-cutelove-note paper crane-- he blew that thing with such a darling pout that I really couldn't imagine why they -didn't- 'love each other, really'. Heh.
Hermione seems like a good side-kick & muddled love-interest most of the time, if only she didn't hysterically throw herself at Ron (and I'm not even mentioning the ridiculous decision to have 13 year-old British schoolboys-- i.e., Harry-- throwing themselves at her in turn). Her relationship-- that is, friendship-- with Ron seemed pretty there and canonish, what there was of it, so yeay. It's just, I suspect boy-boy friendship (that is, the Harry&Ron) was considered not "dramatically interesting" enough, not like the supposed tension & conflict with a girl (or say, a school rival) brings into a film. That said, you had the bit with the boys fooling around with the candy (way cool) & Ron waking up with Harry indulgently shushing him, which is more than we had before, isn't it?
It's like, it's not a friendship movie, I guess, and they had limited time and had to focus, focus, focus on what propelled the plot. And one has to admit Harry&Hermione's relationship propelled the plot a lot more than Harry&Ron's. Also, the shippy stuff was more in the way of newish ("preview" type) territory to explore, so I imagine that makes it more artistically interesting for a director.
So. Like I said, enjoyment depends on accepting the central performances (Harry, Ron, Draco, Sirius, Snape), filling in the blanks & suspending fannish disbelief.
noblerot's great review and dear Maya's priceless take on things and well-- virtually everyone's review is... more of a review than I feel capable of. I'm too close to this movie, and my eye for detail and whatever analytical zeal I possess is overwhelmed by the sheer overwhelming emotion of seeing (especially huge, in IMAX). The funny thing about movies is that soon enough, people come up with virtually every viable interpretation. I think it's 2 days later, and people have already pretty much said everything there is to say. Which I suppose says something, I'm not sure what, because the book itself could provide -months- of discussion material, I think.
In the end, I believe a review of a Harry Potter movie is pointless, because most viewers are fans, and thus won't be watching it in the same way they'd watch a "normal" movie. Everyone was -looking- for something in this movie, I think, and its success depends heavily on whether or not they found it. I was looking for Harry.
Well, he's there :D
Actually, I feel a bit guilty because there were certainly "interesting" points I could've thought of, like the details of Cuaron's style (the transitions, colors, camera angles, blah blah) and the specifics of some semi-minor characterizations I care little about in canon and so don't bother noticing (Pansy, that-boy-that-isn't-Crabbe, Dumbledore, Trelawney, etc). I actually really liked Trelawney because it's obvious that Emma Thompson knows how to act & the camp flowed well and easily. It's nice to see a real professional actor in an HP film-- you could just -smell- it somehow; like, Gary Oldman and Emma and Alan Rickman-- they're just in a class by themselves. It doesn't even matter what they're doing, it seems, because they can't help but do it well.
I mean, Gary was just sitting there, looking at Harry, at the end, and then he raised his hand and laid it on Harry's chest and said a hokey line about the dearly departed being in our hearts, and I was like OMG WAH SIRIUS, because he -was- Sirius by virtue of sheer presence on screen. His eyes glitter and his hands are long and gnarled-looking and mesmerizing and one looks at him and thinks, if I was Harry, I'd be melting in my shoes too. Heh. I could -tell- that what Sirius was saying (oh, you look just like your father, Harry) meant a zillion times more because -this man- was saying it. He just had this simple undiluted intensity that demanded Harry's most direct, child-like response.
I think my impression of Draco as silly and non-offensive (to the point where I wondered why Harry or anyone else would be bothering to care, like, ever), was lightened upon second viewing. Yeah, okay, he was silly many times, but he did seem to have a sort of duality, at least, where he reverted into silliness & over-the-top melodrama when the Trio paid attention to him, but he was all sneer-strut-sneer to his friends and behind their backs and such. I mean, it seemed like he was teasing, yeah, but I thought I saw glimpses of competitiveness & a sincere sense of resentment, though maybe I was just looking for that. I think in the movie, he was being kinda passive-aggressive, what with so much viciousness directed off Harry to Buckbeak.
It's hard to really describe since it was something about Tom Felton's exact expression or tone that made the difference. You must understand-- while I believe canon!Draco is camp, I also think he's actually very angry, too. That's like, one of the things he has in common with Harry, that unites them in my head-- the obsessive anger thing. So yeah. I counted the sneers, baby (though Harry only got angry once, before the first Buckbeak scene, I take what I can get).
My second viewing of Lupin (a problem area before) was more conflicted. It's like this characterization works & doesn't work at the same time. In my memory, I was going overboard, thinking that Harry seemed overly indulgent or bored by Lupin and that Thewlis gave him a weird sort of patronizing insensitivity; now, my only real issue is that I feel there ought to be some indefinable -more-, something you cannot claim is textual but is a sort of magical ingredient that would make this a magical, mesmerizing character, like Sirius was. Basically, while I think the characterization did the job, so to speak, I didn't find this person at all sympathetic, and I want to like Lupin (more).
In fact, I want to love Remus, and I couldn't, quite. Which isn't so much a review as a sort of pathetic wish-fulfillment thing, so. Though I couldn't see why -Harry- would be drawn to this person either... though I suppose in canon, he wasn't, not so much. Maybe he just seemed both reserved in the extreme and 'louder' than I expected; mostly, if you based it solely on the movie & the semi-unfortunate casting choice, his nature is muddled and his behavior nearly nonsensical, especially at the Shrieking Shack. Though like I said, it does the job except possibly Remus' interaction with Sirius. Thewlis is more than adequate for the Snape bits, but he had no discernable chemistry with anyone, Gary Oldman included, that's all. Possibly though, you could say he had chemistry with Snape, but it seems like Alan Rickman could have chemistry with a rock, if he drawled at it. :D
I keep trying to like, change (or acquire) my own opinion on movie!Hermione, however the fact remains that I don't care: she doesn't annoy me too much, it's all good. I kept staring at her, trying to feel something one way or the other this time, and mostly, I decided she's not perfect at all-- she's still snotty, bossy, a bit hysterical at times (remember when she cried in the first movie? well, this movie she's just irritated all the time) and also about as secretive as Dumbledore. Whom, by the way, I found less cute than the first one-- as in, he was also silly & doddering, but it seemed more more external than internal (which might be more canon, but I like less). I didn't feel Dumbledore's deep and abiding intelligence this movie (not that I particularly care, as I said).
~~
It's funny how I did notice the whole Marauders thing being up in the air the first time, but-- since I didn't know it wouldn't be explained by the end at the time, I just enjoyed the wink-wink-nudge-nudge aspect of the movie. In the end, it really is made for fans of the books (unlike say, the LoTR movies which do stand on their own, seeing as I haven't read the books & understood them pretty well, I think).
Cuaron brought visual expressiveness & flair and a sort of sense of surface emotional immediacy to the movie, so it all flowed together as you watched it. You get to see the parts you enjoy with about 30% (or more) of their meaning coming from you, the viewer. The actors don't depend on story/characterization logic to work well together (or not), 'cause the acting overall seems more natural & less stilted. So like, now, one could tell more minute differences-- i.e., some things work & some things don't. It's very much a character-development commentary of a movie in that way.
I get the feeling you're simply not expected to analyze it too deeply as far as canonicity & linear progression & so on, outside of -knowing- why certain scenes happen and how they really relate to these characters overall. It's not a movie that draws on the decisions of the other movies, really, so it's not quite a sequel but a sort of "arc" film in fanfic terms. It's referring to and shamelessly (if often accurately) interpreting a source text related to the texts that fueled the other films, but also independent of them. The movie is just -more- loosely linked in some ways than PoA is as a book, I guess, but you could probably get away with arguing that makes PoA a better movie. Even so, I'd respect it slightly more if it stood on its own like the LoTR movies do.
I think of it in terms of the 3rd movie excelling in "artistic expression" rather than "technical merit". The viewer is more a part of the intended process than normal (so I suppose that makes it squarely the movie equivalent of-- admittedly good-- fanfic), so certain things are just assumed, like-- most blatantly-- knowledge of Snape's precise relationship to Sirius & Remus, who the Marauders were and to a lesser extent, Harry's canon relationship with Remus and maybe even Draco (since Draco's past nastiness was sort of assumed).
I didn't care that Remus and Sirius were never "outed" as Messieurs Moony & Padfoot because it was obvious Snape knew (and obviously, so did Remus & Sirius themselves), so there was a lot of play on that anyway-- mostly in the Snape-teasing bits, like the message on the Marauder's Map and in the Shrieking Shack and such. Still, it's a questionable directing/editing choice, though individual level of fannish concern (and this is mostly of concern -to- fans of the book) will vary.
In the light of purely PoA-limited logic, if one chose to judge the film as a direct reflection of canon, Harry's blatant righteous anger and aggression also became questionable. (This was mollified upon second viewing and slight compensation for Dan's acting skills). Ideally, I think PoA Harry is more lost and questioning and worried, but Dan Radcliffe just has issues looking like that. When I felt more generous and squinted a bit, I could see how he was trying. He's supposed to lose control with Aunt Marge and leave in a fit of adolescent rebellion and -hurt- as much as anger, and I was reassured when I looked for that hurt-- it's just generously masked by said anger. This Harry's just... slightly more ambiguous and harder to read than I think of canon!Harry as being, that's all.
There were flashes of the 13 year-old insecurity and uncertainty there amidst the lovely rage and slight homicidal fervor (all these often centered around Sirius) especially if you looked for them, I think. When decisive action is required, this Harry seems completely confident, but any emotional interaction-type stuff really seems to boggle him, which is realistic. He really doesn't talk well to -anyone- this movie, being all awkward edges and inappropriate body-language, and that's kinda cute, actually. Heh. Ron's even more like that; it's funny how totally with the program Hermione is, though.
I do think canon!Harry is more passive-aggressive, but you've got to make allowances for the movie medium (which begs for action, action, action). I did love the smirky deadpan of him telling Aunt Marge they beat him at St. Brutus' all the time (classic Harry, heheh), the lost confusion with Stan at the Knight Bus, the exhilaration of flying & the believable sort of reticence he had with Buckbeak at first (which he seemed more genuinely frightened by than the Dementors-- or certainly Snape, ahahah).
Rupert's Ron & Tom's Draco were great-- pretty canon within their alotted screentime, I thought, but not as much canonical in their vibe with Dan's Harry. Harry & Draco had little to no mutual animosity to the point where I wondered if Harry just didn't -have- emotional ties to anyone outside of his few friends and his parents (and therefore Sirius as an extension of his parents). I mean, especially the super-cute
Hermione seems like a good side-kick & muddled love-interest most of the time, if only she didn't hysterically throw herself at Ron (and I'm not even mentioning the ridiculous decision to have 13 year-old British schoolboys-- i.e., Harry-- throwing themselves at her in turn). Her relationship-- that is, friendship-- with Ron seemed pretty there and canonish, what there was of it, so yeay. It's just, I suspect boy-boy friendship (that is, the Harry&Ron) was considered not "dramatically interesting" enough, not like the supposed tension & conflict with a girl (or say, a school rival) brings into a film. That said, you had the bit with the boys fooling around with the candy (way cool) & Ron waking up with Harry indulgently shushing him, which is more than we had before, isn't it?
It's like, it's not a friendship movie, I guess, and they had limited time and had to focus, focus, focus on what propelled the plot. And one has to admit Harry&Hermione's relationship propelled the plot a lot more than Harry&Ron's. Also, the shippy stuff was more in the way of newish ("preview" type) territory to explore, so I imagine that makes it more artistically interesting for a director.
So. Like I said, enjoyment depends on accepting the central performances (Harry, Ron, Draco, Sirius, Snape), filling in the blanks & suspending fannish disbelief.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-06-06 07:14 pm (UTC)A lot of times, I thought Frodo wasn't painted in the best of lights, for instance, but that wasn't really the point. The point is that it's his story & one's supposed to either identify with him or ignore him to kind of go along for the story's sake. Then again, I never entirely empathized with the whole... need for a beloved character to be sympathetic...? I guess...? Like, I could think someone's an immature asshole & still like them 'cause they're cute when they're angry. But then, I'm immature like that. :D
no subject
Date: 2004-06-07 12:23 am (UTC)What? Of course he's sympathetic. Don't you whimper? Don't you cry? I mean, I know lots of people don't want to see this about themselves as humans, but that's actual humanity, there.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-07 12:41 am (UTC)In fact, in terms of book canon, I think that people like Draco (and by extension, the Slytherins) because generally they act out & mock & bully instead of whimpering or crying. In my mind, if Draco does whine he's kind of being melodramatic and silly rather than seriously going for pity. Remember me and my whole thing about pity :>
Anyway, in the movie he seemed to be genuinely whimpering & peeing in his pants & the sight of Hermione's wand, which I think is pretty OOC, but not sympathetic either. :>
no subject
Date: 2004-06-07 02:13 am (UTC)Oh, totally! Though sometimes he is weak and cowardly and vile and I do think that’s human. I mean, that’s what makes me emotional about them, as opposed to an intellectual outlook on their dynamics and his behavioural patterns and his morals and whatever. I mean, this is really me and you being different because ugliness is such an important part of humanity for me. If I don’t feel it, I immediately associate the character in question with super-humanity and dismiss it as a formula or a symbol or tool of the Man. :)
Anyway, in the movie he seemed to be genuinely whimpering & peeing in his pants & the sight of Hermione's wand, which I think is pretty OOC, but not sympathetic either. :>
Oh, I repressed that. You’re right. And Kloves must die.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-07 03:41 am (UTC)But really, everyone seems to be being an asshat.
Sirius and Lupin I have no sympathy for, and never have. Probably never will. Hermione's arrogant, Ron's petty...
I never entirely empathized with the whole... need for a beloved character to be sympathetic...?
Oh, totally. But I need a 'hero' to be sympathetic.
I had huge issues with Buffy and it's fandom, because the story requires the audience to see her as good, most of the time. And I thought she was a self-centred martyr complexing bitch, most of the time.
(I have much more sympathy for Harry, but the self-centredness and the self-pity are still his most irritating characteristics. I probably have this qualities in spades myself, though, so this could be a reaction against that.)
no subject
Date: 2004-06-07 03:06 pm (UTC)Well, I think what it comes down to is, I find Harry sympathetic because I don't judge his emotional responses-- that's where I was going with the whole... "right" or "wrong" emotional response thing being hard for me to grasp. I find peoples sympathetic if I can put myself in their shoes-- if I can feel what they feel. And I can almost always feel what Harry feels-- possibly because I write him so much, and possibly because he's got all this rage and insecurity and neediness and pride (wahahahah).
I think
Right now, it's sort of something like, "he's not a hero, really, but he's in the right time at the wrong place & he follows his (better than average) instincts & generally his opponents are a lot worse & he does his best & it's sort of enough". Or something. Overall, one either loves him or not, but I think either way it's like-- he's a person, not a "hero". There are no Heroes, y'know, but some people are really cool. :>