the potter rule
Just saw the final Harry Potter movie today. I've arrived at a formula that describes the way the filmmakers chose to adapt these books.
Anything good about the books that can be explained to a Hollywood producer in a T-shirt and blazer made it to the screen intact and shining. (The escape from Gringotts, the exhilaration of a Quidditch game.) Anything good about the books that cannot be explained to that producer will be botched, ignored, or somehow not trusted. (The actual game of Quidditch, any spell done with a wand, denouements.)
Further, and poisonously, everything that could be so explained if only it were changed a bit gets changed. (Dumbledore's brilliant escape from his own office goes from being a miracle of timing and teamwork to ZAPPO!!!!!!; the ride in the Ford Anglia goes from being an amusingly anticlimactic episode of sunburn and boredom to a rollercoaster ride; the final duel with Voldy goes from being a smart and dramatic showpiece ... to a rollercoaster ride.)
It's of course a Hollywood miracle that we managed to have a Potter series in which Robin Williams never appeared and in which Harry and Hermione never have a love scene. For that we (according to our training) should be grateful. But the thing could have been done so well. An overwhelming number of fans see the movies as ikons, pointers to and reminders of all the great stuff about the books, a way of reawakening our fondness. If I could see it that way, I'd probably be as thrilled as they are. Wanting real movies, though, and unwilling to take a paint-bath in the idea that it's asking too much for the movies to capture the spirit of the books (Lord of the Rings, anyone?), I'll have to content myself with bits and pieces, most of the third movie, and the sizable chunk of the last movie in which you can squint and see the real thing.
Anything good about the books that can be explained to a Hollywood producer in a T-shirt and blazer made it to the screen intact and shining. (The escape from Gringotts, the exhilaration of a Quidditch game.) Anything good about the books that cannot be explained to that producer will be botched, ignored, or somehow not trusted. (The actual game of Quidditch, any spell done with a wand, denouements.)
Further, and poisonously, everything that could be so explained if only it were changed a bit gets changed. (Dumbledore's brilliant escape from his own office goes from being a miracle of timing and teamwork to ZAPPO!!!!!!; the ride in the Ford Anglia goes from being an amusingly anticlimactic episode of sunburn and boredom to a rollercoaster ride; the final duel with Voldy goes from being a smart and dramatic showpiece ... to a rollercoaster ride.)
It's of course a Hollywood miracle that we managed to have a Potter series in which Robin Williams never appeared and in which Harry and Hermione never have a love scene. For that we (according to our training) should be grateful. But the thing could have been done so well. An overwhelming number of fans see the movies as ikons, pointers to and reminders of all the great stuff about the books, a way of reawakening our fondness. If I could see it that way, I'd probably be as thrilled as they are. Wanting real movies, though, and unwilling to take a paint-bath in the idea that it's asking too much for the movies to capture the spirit of the books (Lord of the Rings, anyone?), I'll have to content myself with bits and pieces, most of the third movie, and the sizable chunk of the last movie in which you can squint and see the real thing.
Comments