Recently Rewatched: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Ahead of the release of GoF, HBO gifted us with the TV premiere of PoA last weekend.
I had seen this only once last year, and found it enjoyable enough and visually gorgeous, but a letdown compared to the general excellence of the book.
The movie does not really improve upon a second viewing. In fact, if anything, I find myself being less forgiving of the liberties taken with the screenplay and the elements that they chose to excise. They made a good action-fantasy movie, but a poor adaptation of a Harry Potter book regarded by many fans as the best in the series.
The good things are quite wonderful.
The Scottish scenery is wondrous and shot on film like a tribute to beauty. (A related aside: I was in Edinburgh last year and saw the building upon which JKR allegedly based Hogwarts. The film captures that great blend of grandeur and intimacy that makes Scotland so rewarding on the eye.) The outdoor shots are so lovely, you feel like packing your bags for the Highlands.
The acting from the adult actors was top-notch, as one has come to expect of British-cast films. Emma Thompson is one of my favourite people-I-don't-actually-know in the world. She is tremendously funny, touching and irritating all at the same time as Professor Trelawney. Michael Gambon assumes the role of Dumbledore after the passing of Richard Harris and the transition is flawless. He brings dignity and a sense of fun to the role. David Thewliss is physically so different from the Lupin that I expected to see, but he is a fine and subtle actor who overcomes this handicap (which is not inconsiderable in a visual medium). Alan Rickman and Maggie Smith are their usual quietly excellent selfs.
Note on the child actors playing the Trio: They are improving, particularly young Daniel Radcliffe. All three are still given to moments of over-acting, but Cuaron's darker, more meandering style seems to have dampened those tendencies.
Barring the werewolf (too thin, too hairless and not at all wolf-like), the effects were convincing and suitably awe-inspiring. The dementors were especially inspired; truly bone-chillingly scary. Buckbeak was also a much better effect than Fawkes had been in Chamber of Secrets, so things definitely looked up in the birds department.
And now the not-so-good.
First and foremost, the complete absence of any exposition about Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs is just mind-boggling. The fact that the four of them knew each other was mentioned in passing but not the fact that these were four great friends. Even James Potter's and Sirius Black's very close friendship was not ever made explicitly clear. There was nothing that explained that the creators of the Marauder's Map were also Harry's father and his friends. The fact that three of them became animagus because of Lupin was not mentioned. The fact that James Potter was a stag in animagus form was never connected to Harry's patronus (if a viewer had not read the book, the stag-shaped shimmer of light would have been nothing more than a rather cool effect). An entire emotional layer was lost by this screenwriting choice. Worse, by omitting this, the film-makers seemed to have missed quite a lot of the point of PoA: the link to Harry's past, the events of the first war and the dynamics of friendship and betrayal as it played out between the four friends.
I understand that a movie cannot adapt every event in the book and excisions are necessary. Much as I bemoaned the loss of the Quidditch matches and the Scabbers and Crookshanks side plot, I understand why they could not fit into a 120+ minute movie. But why drop plot points and elements that are central to the original story? It would not even have taken much more screentime to accomplish; a couple of sentences from Lupin and Black would have managed it just fine.
If I had not read the book before, so many things would have seemed out of the blue, with no narrative motivation. Why did three boys become animagi for no apparent reason? (Or were we supposed to assume that turning into animals is rather normal in the wizarding world?) Why the vague stag-like shape of Harry's patronus? Why did Lupin hug Black when he learnt he was not the traitor (the movie never drove home the friendships of the MWPP foursome)? How did Lupin know how to work the Marauder's Map? Why did Snape bear so much animosity towards both Lupin and Black (and no, it was not enough to simply say that Snape never much likes anyone anyway)?
The movie also downplayed the foreboding that permeated the book. The sights of the Grim and Trelawney's many predictions of Harry's impending doom were not used to any effect at all. In fact, the cloud Grim was a complete misfire; it would have made so much more sense for Harry to actually see a black dog, rather than just a dog-shaped cloud! There was an ongoing thread in the book about Harry's paranoia, fear and anger. These barely registered in the movie. Harry's character development suffers as a result.
And while on the topic of character development, Ron in the movies is annoyingly one-dimensional, played for comic relief and nothing more. The film-makers seem intent to make him seem stupid, which is not how JKR writes him at all. It is a disservice to the character. Hermione, on the other hand, is annoyingly and boringly competent and smart and brave. Definitely a case of "positive role model" gone wrong. A smart know-it-all, action super-heroine is just not very interesting. Again, Hermione is not like that at all in the books.
While I loved the look of the film's sets and scenery, the costuming drove me out of mind. Just not wizard-y enough! The Harry Potter series is about fantasy; I expect to see everyone floating around in robes, whether they be flowing, billowing or flapping. All those practical clothes were just too colourless, dull and uninteresting.
On the whole, there was something that seemed off about the pacing and tone of the film. I can't quite put my finger on it - there was an overall unevenness to the whole enterprise. It seemed all at once too rushed and yet too leisurely, too dark and yet not weighty enough, too sombre and yet too flippant, too melancholic and yet too uplifting.
Despite my gripes, I would watch it again, if only to see the gorgeous scenery again and to watch a bunch of British actors at the top of their game.
Overall rating: 6.5 out of 10.
I had seen this only once last year, and found it enjoyable enough and visually gorgeous, but a letdown compared to the general excellence of the book.
The movie does not really improve upon a second viewing. In fact, if anything, I find myself being less forgiving of the liberties taken with the screenplay and the elements that they chose to excise. They made a good action-fantasy movie, but a poor adaptation of a Harry Potter book regarded by many fans as the best in the series.
The good things are quite wonderful.
The Scottish scenery is wondrous and shot on film like a tribute to beauty. (A related aside: I was in Edinburgh last year and saw the building upon which JKR allegedly based Hogwarts. The film captures that great blend of grandeur and intimacy that makes Scotland so rewarding on the eye.) The outdoor shots are so lovely, you feel like packing your bags for the Highlands.
The acting from the adult actors was top-notch, as one has come to expect of British-cast films. Emma Thompson is one of my favourite people-I-don't-actually-know in the world. She is tremendously funny, touching and irritating all at the same time as Professor Trelawney. Michael Gambon assumes the role of Dumbledore after the passing of Richard Harris and the transition is flawless. He brings dignity and a sense of fun to the role. David Thewliss is physically so different from the Lupin that I expected to see, but he is a fine and subtle actor who overcomes this handicap (which is not inconsiderable in a visual medium). Alan Rickman and Maggie Smith are their usual quietly excellent selfs.
Note on the child actors playing the Trio: They are improving, particularly young Daniel Radcliffe. All three are still given to moments of over-acting, but Cuaron's darker, more meandering style seems to have dampened those tendencies.
Barring the werewolf (too thin, too hairless and not at all wolf-like), the effects were convincing and suitably awe-inspiring. The dementors were especially inspired; truly bone-chillingly scary. Buckbeak was also a much better effect than Fawkes had been in Chamber of Secrets, so things definitely looked up in the birds department.
And now the not-so-good.
First and foremost, the complete absence of any exposition about Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs is just mind-boggling. The fact that the four of them knew each other was mentioned in passing but not the fact that these were four great friends. Even James Potter's and Sirius Black's very close friendship was not ever made explicitly clear. There was nothing that explained that the creators of the Marauder's Map were also Harry's father and his friends. The fact that three of them became animagus because of Lupin was not mentioned. The fact that James Potter was a stag in animagus form was never connected to Harry's patronus (if a viewer had not read the book, the stag-shaped shimmer of light would have been nothing more than a rather cool effect). An entire emotional layer was lost by this screenwriting choice. Worse, by omitting this, the film-makers seemed to have missed quite a lot of the point of PoA: the link to Harry's past, the events of the first war and the dynamics of friendship and betrayal as it played out between the four friends.
I understand that a movie cannot adapt every event in the book and excisions are necessary. Much as I bemoaned the loss of the Quidditch matches and the Scabbers and Crookshanks side plot, I understand why they could not fit into a 120+ minute movie. But why drop plot points and elements that are central to the original story? It would not even have taken much more screentime to accomplish; a couple of sentences from Lupin and Black would have managed it just fine.
If I had not read the book before, so many things would have seemed out of the blue, with no narrative motivation. Why did three boys become animagi for no apparent reason? (Or were we supposed to assume that turning into animals is rather normal in the wizarding world?) Why the vague stag-like shape of Harry's patronus? Why did Lupin hug Black when he learnt he was not the traitor (the movie never drove home the friendships of the MWPP foursome)? How did Lupin know how to work the Marauder's Map? Why did Snape bear so much animosity towards both Lupin and Black (and no, it was not enough to simply say that Snape never much likes anyone anyway)?
The movie also downplayed the foreboding that permeated the book. The sights of the Grim and Trelawney's many predictions of Harry's impending doom were not used to any effect at all. In fact, the cloud Grim was a complete misfire; it would have made so much more sense for Harry to actually see a black dog, rather than just a dog-shaped cloud! There was an ongoing thread in the book about Harry's paranoia, fear and anger. These barely registered in the movie. Harry's character development suffers as a result.
And while on the topic of character development, Ron in the movies is annoyingly one-dimensional, played for comic relief and nothing more. The film-makers seem intent to make him seem stupid, which is not how JKR writes him at all. It is a disservice to the character. Hermione, on the other hand, is annoyingly and boringly competent and smart and brave. Definitely a case of "positive role model" gone wrong. A smart know-it-all, action super-heroine is just not very interesting. Again, Hermione is not like that at all in the books.
While I loved the look of the film's sets and scenery, the costuming drove me out of mind. Just not wizard-y enough! The Harry Potter series is about fantasy; I expect to see everyone floating around in robes, whether they be flowing, billowing or flapping. All those practical clothes were just too colourless, dull and uninteresting.
On the whole, there was something that seemed off about the pacing and tone of the film. I can't quite put my finger on it - there was an overall unevenness to the whole enterprise. It seemed all at once too rushed and yet too leisurely, too dark and yet not weighty enough, too sombre and yet too flippant, too melancholic and yet too uplifting.
Despite my gripes, I would watch it again, if only to see the gorgeous scenery again and to watch a bunch of British actors at the top of their game.
Overall rating: 6.5 out of 10.
Labels: Movie Reviews
posted by gentleice the deptfordian at 7:28 PM
<< Home