(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: 2004-06-07 02:20 pm (UTC)Thing is... to me, I have -my- Draco, while Harry's JKR's. Y'know? JKR defines Harry for me, while I define Draco out of a hodgepodge of personal issues & projection, interpretation of canon & also various fanfic-related inspirations. I can't really claim anything about Draco, because he's such an idiosyncratic character to me-- there's no "uber!Draco" that I love-- there's only individual Dracos I love-- mine & Maya's & Silvia's & Trin's & Cassie's & so on and so forth. I dunno. I feel weird being put into this Harry-fancying slot where Draco was my actual hook in the fandom before I ever fell in love with Harry while reading GoF. I mean, I loved him before, but reading JKR's rendition made him -real- to me in a way no fanfic ever has.
Draco, on the other hand, is totally different. While I read the books, he's totally not a real character to me-- he's a collection of often contradictory (sometimes appealing, sometimes annoying) traits that rarely resolve into a sense of a -person-. Then again, I don't get "personhood" from anyone but Ron, Snape, Sirius & Luna (maybe Lupin but not really, probably Dumbledore, the twins & most of the rest of the Weasleys), apart from Harry. The books are simply not characterized/styled in a way I can digest directly. Do you know what I mean? I really need to get into characters' heads pretty directly to feel "know" them, and with Draco I've only done that in fanfic. I really feel he could be almost -anyone- in canon in terms of how I perceive him, even though I do know all these traits & characteristics he shows. They just don't add up to "real person" in my head any more than Fudge or Dudley or Neville, say. I don't know these people. I don't know canon!Draco, not -while- I read canon. I just. Don't. So I can't really care, even though at the same time I worry about him because I feel like JKR's could mess with the choices & possibilities for -my- Draco (since I can't very well ignore canon facts). I dunno, it's weird.
I love Draco, and I love things -about- canon!Draco, but I don't actually love canon!Draco 'cause he doesn't exist to me. Canon!Hermione doesn't exist either, by the way. Snape & Luna exist 'cause I identify with them even knowing so little-- I can latch on to things like intellectualism coupled with obsession coupled with emotional distance (hello, projection). They're character types I will always "know". Sirius exists less, but we know enough details about his life (unlike with Draco) and temperament outside of his relationship with Harry (again, unlike with Draco) so that I can build a person in my head. Ron exists 'cause he's easy to picture, basically, and also he's fallible & passionate & silly (again, easy to identify with)-- and unlike Draco, he's canonically described that way.
I can't bring myself to make a post about this 'cause I think it's just -too- meta & insane somehow, but yes. I also project myself a whole lot upon Draco, but I don't pretend he's JKR's at this point, see? Even if people say I write him IC, I know this is just because I don't have enough patience to really develop him realistically like I want to. And I say "develop" 'cause canon!Draco is like... "step 1" for me, y'know? He's the beginning of a character I want to play around with to achieve maximum intensity. So he's not me either, but he's definitely... Other. He's like my rage & frustration & scheming petty Slytherin whiny side, as well as my obsesso crushing-maniac side, as well as generally being that-pretty-boy-that-looks-prettier-on-his-knees :D Wah. Issues :>
no subject
Date: 2004-06-08 07:23 am (UTC)most of the rest of the Weasleys
You get personhood from Bill and Charlie?
I can latch on to things like intellectualism
Snape's not really intellectual, he's someone who would like to be one. And. He's sociophatic enough to keep his wits on him when other people's circumstances are in peril.
Luna isn't intellectual either, I think. She just has a fervid immagination.
He's like my rage & frustration & scheming petty Slytherin whiny side, as well as my obsesso crushing-maniac side, as well as generally being that-pretty-boy-that-looks-prettier-on-his-knees
ahaha, ain't that canon? :D :D :D
no subject
Date: 2004-06-08 10:31 am (UTC)I wasn't trying to focus on Snape or Luna's intellectualism as an... I dunno... lifestyle, just sort of that they hide within their minds, or overuse their minds, or use their minds for escape. I sort of grok that on some basic level. Like, they let their interests use them instead of them using their interests-- like Hermione does, which is why I don't identify with her. She's so outward-looking. My one semi-decent Hermione-fic, `Thirst', was about Hermione going obsesso & having her zeal for knowledge turn her away from the world. *sigh* Me & my issues writing Hermione :/
Yeah, that's funny, isn't it? The basic, instinctual things I latched on to from reading a few H/D fanfics to project upon Draco (before I'd ever read canon, mind you!!) actually turned out to be canonish.
I always find that funny :D :D