Though mid-week usually means another installment of Media Maven’s Music Wednesday, today I have a special post for you, as I was lucky enough to attend a sneak peak of the newst film in the Harry Potter series, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. The tricky thing about a Harry Potter film review is that every individual is at a very different stage of Harry Potter immersion. Some people have read all 6 books and seen all 4 previous films. Some have never read the books, or conversely, have never seen the movies. Personally, I am in the first category, having read the books religiously since I was given a British copy (before there was even an American print!) of Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone in 1996, and have seen all the movies. Therefore, this review will be from that perspective.
That being said, I was fairly disappointed by this film. Granted, I haven’t really enjoyed a single Harry Potter film yet (ok, Goblet of Fire was pretty dope), but unfortunately, this was not the film to break the mold for me. I certainly don’t envy the screenwriter who has to adapt a 500+ page book with millions of devoted fans into a 2 hour movie, but I thought the screenplay here was rather crude and could’ve been much, much better.
The main issue with this film was the adaptation, which isn’t surprising seeing as this will be the only one of the 7 films not written by Steve Kloves (it was written by Michael Goldenberg, writer of such renowned films as Contact and Bed of Roses. What the hell was Warner Brothers thinking?). The amount of material covered in the book is quite staggering, and the primary focus of the creative team behind this movie must’ve been “how can we get all of this on screen?” This focus on covering all the major plot points made the film feel very inorganic to me. Rather than tell a naturally unfolding story with clearly defined character and story arcs, it felt more like director David Yates (a random British tv director– what the hell was Warner Brothers thinking?) had a checklist of important plot points and was merely featuring each and then checking it off his list. “Centaurs? Check. Appearance by Voldemort? Check. Moment between Harry and Neville? Check.” And so on and so on. If this were an original screenplay and not an adaptation, I can guarantee you the critics would be tearing it to shreds. There isn’t a single three-dimensional character in this movie, not even Harry (Daniel Radcliffe). In one scene, Harry talks of “feeling angry all the time,” but we see this anger expressed only once or twice. Whether it’s the writing or the acting (I think it’s both), Harry has the emotional depth of a piece of paper. I wasn’t compelled by him at all and had zero emotional investment in him or his journey; I honestly couldn’t have cared less what happened to him. There was just no character arc to latch on to. He had no obstacle to overcome, no personal journey to make, and so there was no real conflict or resolution. It was merely a string of moments thrown together haphazardly, with no emotional payoffs.
Even worse is the non-existent development of the supporting cast. On average, I’d say each supporting character has between 2-15 lines. No joke. Ron (Rupert Grint) has maybe 7, Hermione (Emma Watson) maybe 13, and Ginny Weasley (Bonnie Wright) has none. While the staff of Hogwarts is played by some of Britain’s most famous actors (Alan Rickman, Emma Thomspon, Robbie Coltrane, Maggie Smith, and Michael Gambon lead the pack), each teacher has 1-3 scenes each and only a handful of lines a piece. Draco Malfoy? 2 lines. Lord Voldemort and Bellatrix LeStrange, played by Oscar nominees Ralph Fiennes and Helena Bonham Carter respectively, each had 2 scenes and maybe 5 lines. The only people who speak more than this are Sirius Black (Gary Oldman, who is, as always, compelling and quite good) and Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton). Staunton is the real star of this film. She is perfectly as the horribly evil Umbridge; she has every single personality quirk down to a tee. I wouldn’t be surprised if Staunton had jumped straight out of J.K. Rowling’s head because she just is Dolores Umbridge.
Even with the plot checklist and the reduction of characters into mere fractions of human beings, the film still takes many shortcuts and leaves out plenty of important subplots. There isn’t even a mention of Quidditch, let alone the whole “Weasley is our King” subplot; the entire prophecy is recited to Harry as soon as he grabs the prophecy orb, which renders the ensuing battle to obtain the prophecy totally meaningless and forgoes Prof. Trelawney’s validation as a seer; Sirius Black simply appears at the Ministry of Magic, without Kreacher having to sell him out; there isn’t so much as a mention of Firenze; Fred and George’s exit is nothing more than a mini fireworks show; and the battle in the Ministry of Magic takes place in only 3 rooms (the prophecy room, the main lobby, and the dark room with the weird doorway through which Sirius passes) in a matter of about 15 unsuspenseful, very uncompelling minutes. This huge letdown of a finale was probably the most egregious instance of corner-cutting, as I cannot imagine a more cinematic, action-packed ending than the book’s sprawling ending, and yet the result here couldn’t have been more half-assed. Very unsatisfying and highly disappointing.
However, what strikes me as extremely odd, is that even while the film left all of this crucial stuff out and rushed through the plots it did feature, the running time was a scant 125 minutes (not including the final credits). I don’t know about you, but for a quality Harry Potter movie, I would at least through something 2 hours and 15 minutes long, if not longer. 2 hours and 5 minutes? Is this an Adam Sandler comedy or something? The last film was about 20 minutes longer. Can you imagine how much more they could’ve accomplished with jut 20 more minutes? We could’ve had real character development, or a real showdown for the climax, or a Quidditch match, or more than 6 lines per character!
The film had a few redeeming qualities. As I mentioned, any scene with Dolores Umbridge or Sirius Black is a treat. The scenes with Dumbledore’s Army are pretty cool (Ginny gets her only line here: “Reducto!”), and when they get the chance to speak, Grint and Watson are great as Ron and Hermione. Also, the opening scene with the Dementors is very creepy. I’d say the CGI for the Dementors is definitely my favorite special effect in the film. Unfortunately, that’s pretty much all I can think, as far as standout moments go.
If you’ve never read a Harry Potter book or seen any of the films, I urge you not to start here, for this film doesn’t hold a candle to the book, and the cinematic world it creates pales in comparison to some of the earlier films (for a movie about wizards, there wasn’t even a whole lot of magic going on). I prefer the more patient, organic and magical 3rd and 4th films to this one by a landslide (which is not surprising considering they were both written by Kloves and directed by seasoned and talented film vets Alfonso Cuaron and Mike Newell, respectively). It wasn’t even enough for it simply to be a Harry Potter film, which, while exciting in it of itself, just wasn’t enough to carry this lame, unengrossing attempt. If the books are a full-on wizard, this movie is nothing more than a Squib. Regretfully, I give this film a C.
See, my issue with what you’re saying is that you want it both ways: you want them to create an organic film that actually includes MORE of the random idiosyncratic plot developments that Rowling crammed the book with.
And that would have been just as awful. J.K. Rowling has yet to write a book that is capable of being adapted organically. And yet, directors and writers can’t stray too far from the material in fear of pissing off the loyalists. The result is a compromised film.
Order is an example of this. Yates and Goldenberg aren’t really at fault here, what choice did they have? You can see their hints at authoritarian commentary within the narrative, but if they went too far in that direction the already jarring switch to “The Voldemort Show” at the novel’s conclusion would be even worse. And yet, they can’t really fix that awkward transition, considering it’s inherent to Rowling’s text.
Thanks for your comment, Myles. I have to disagree with you on several counts though.
To tell a good story you only need a few things: a hero, what he wants, how he tries to get what he wants, what gets in his way, and how he does/does not overcome this obstacle to achieve his goal. This is the basic formula for every story ever told. And yet, I find it very difficult to trace even this simplest of threads through this film. What does Harry want? Why is he “angry all the time?” Does he want love, or to be loved or to beat Voldemort? Which one is it? And most importantly, how is Harry different at the end of the film than he is at the beginning? This crucial, human aspect of Harry is not at all explored. It feels like there is no clear arc, no development here. Just a list of plot points occurring in a row.
And I don’t think huge plot developments like Ron’s joining the Quidditch team is a “random idiosyncrasy.” In fact, I find storylines like this, that fill in enormously important details about the character’s themselves and their relationships, to be highly crucial to storytelling; they are glaringly absent in this film.
I don’t think its asking too much from a writer and director to give us a sense of character development, or good story arc. And yes, if anyone is to blame, its not J.K. Rowling, but the creative team. The Lord of the Rings is some dense, dense material, but they made Oscar winning movies out of those books, so to say the director and writer “aren’t really at fault” is, for my money, going way too easy on the people behind this film.
Though it is sudden, I find nothing about Voldemort’s sudden appearance at the end to be awkward. And even if it were, it’s a director’s job to make it not seem awkward, so again, I think the fault lies there.
Glad to have your opinions on the matter!
The issue is, however, that this story isn’t about personal growth for Harry but rather how the changing world is affecting Harry. Rowling’s insistence on Harry being the center of everything is really frustrating when he actually isn’t the center of everything. The entire book, and movie, is about how these changes are forcing Harry into a secondary role, and his desire to play a more important one as according to his destiny.
Ron doesn’t matter, sorry. That’s right: I don’t care about Ron. These stories are Harry’s, and the idea of trying to include something like Ron and Quidditch would be far too difficult. That’s not the right movie, and I think the pacing would basically just die.
But you want it both ways, here, and you can’t have it. You want the story to include all sorts of these small little things…but then you want the creators to pull a Lord of the Rings and start changing everything. The Lord of the Rings is a sprawling universe that, as one long story, can be easily cut and pasted around. The issue is that with Harry there are seven narrative, very distinct, and you can’t just abandon them in the same way. Two very different monsters.
The Voldemort issue is less that his appearance is sudden and more that the disappearance of Umbridge and the entire Ministry storyline. The film is going along on one plot, with Voldy in the background, and then BAM! Umbridge gets carried off and Voldemort takes over entirely. That’s a complete switch, and the conclusion really has little to do with the rest of the book/film.
Thanks for the reply, Myles. Again, I still have to disagree with you. Every story is about personal growth. Why do we care about a character if he isn’t changed by what happens around him? What’s the point in following his journey at all if everything is the same from beginning to end?
And to say that what Rowling insists is the focus (Harry) is not actually the focus makes no sense. Rowling is the author. If she says Harry is the center, Harry is the center. What else could you possibly base it off of? And furthermore, you prove my point when you say “the entire book…is about how these changes are forcing Harry into a secondary role, and his desire…” So really, the book IS about Harry and the way external forces are working against him and what effect this has on him as a person. And if Harry is a secondary part, who is the lead? I don’t think you’ll find a single person who believes anyone other than Harry Potter is the center of this story.
And also, just because you personally don’t care about Ron, doesn’t mean he is unimportant. Without Ron and Hermione, Harry would not be the person he is. They keep him grounded and humble, they remind him of what’s important (love), and they support him through his burdensome travails. To say Ron is unimportant is to deny the very things that make Harry who he is.
And I don’t mean to sound rude, but unless you’ve directed/written several films, I don’t think you are in any position to say what is or is not too difficult for a filmmaker to do, or to tell me what I can or cannot desire in a film. I think Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings are very similar. Harry’s universe is a “sprawling” one, that while divided into 7 distinct chapters, is one long narrative about one boy’s journey. Likewise, Lord of the Rings is divided into 3 distinct chapters, though it is also one narrative about one boy’s (Hobbit’s) journey. I think trying to cram those Lord of the Rings books, with all their intricate mythology and the vastness of the world, was a much, much more difficult task than translating these Harry Potter films to the screen, and yet those films are some of the best EVER (just ask AFI). So I find that to be proof that I can have it both ways– I can have detail and a coherent story with development. Hell, any good movie has these elements, and to tell me that I can’t have that in a film seems to ignore hundreds of films that have done exactly that.
Lastly, just because Voldemort comes to the forefront at the end in a way you don’t like (if you’ve read any of the books or seen the other movies, this happens in every single one of them except for #6), doesn’t mean it’s awkward or wrong. That’s what stories do– they shift focus. It’s called a shift of focus. It’s a very common device. Just because you personally don’t find a connection (though I can’t see how the ultimate appearance of a villain whose resurgence has been buzzed about the entire film can be seen as sudden), doesn’t mean there isn’t one.