Though the fantastical world and griping story of Harry Potter came to an end five years ago, one does not need a Time Turner to re-live the magic. Marvel Studios has created such an intriguing, game changing Hollywood product in their "cinematic universe," but it could be argued that that might not have come to fruition without the Potter franchise preceding it. Indeed, thinking back on it now, the very idea of a single franchise telling largely one overarching story throughout the course of a decade and eight films, with largely the same cast throughout the entire process, was hugely ambitious. It is something that truly had never been done before.
Despite several director changes, we somehow obtained a rather cohesive vision of the world, mixed with some interesting and visually stunning work from others (namely Alfonso Cuaron, but Yates contributed to this as well in his second film Half-Blood Prince). We could have wound up with wildly differing versions of Hogwarts, or even the characters, with altering tones and visual queues. Instead, we saw a franchise with some flexibility, yet remain consistent. Like the source material as well, we saw the darkness brought to life, with maturing themes and story elements to match the aging cast and characters.
So much of the franchise's success is intrinsically dependent on author JK Rowling, who penned an incredibly well structured book series. While some of the films perhaps lacked interesting filmmaking or felt cinematically bland, they still work largely because the structure is solid. Rowling did a great job establishing key plot elements that would return. Things rarely vanished, and the conclusion of each installment was well set up. Examples of this would be the introduction of Professor Pomona Sprout and her mandrakes, which served as the typical first act classroom scene to establish the schooling element of Hogwarts, but later provided the cure for the petrified students at the conclusion. Another simple example would be the game of Wizard's Chess that Ron and Harry play in Philosopher's Stone, which quietly establishes Ron as being good at the game, and comes back as one of the big tests the trio must overcome at the end.
Of course, sometimes there are some contrived plot points, like the whole bit about Dobby telling Harry that he can only be freed if his master presents him with clothes at the beginning of Chamber of Secrets. It isn't exactly the smoothest, since that plot element is so strange and he brings it up rather clumsily, but that does come back at the end. So even with some forced points, they still make it a point to set things up. Nothing should ultimately come as a surprise, even if it sometimes takes a while to develop. The perfect example of this would be the use of polyjuice. This is a rather minor plot element in Chamber of Secrets, establishing this potion's power and popularity within the world. It doesn't ultimately pay off in terms of plot, though, until Goblet of Fire, when attentive and knowledgeable film goers (who haven't read the books) might guess at the fact that Mad-Eye Moody was actually David Tennant's Barty Crouch Jr in disguise. It's a brilliant pay-off that rewards viewers should they be paying attention and retaining information they've witnessed already.
If you go back and re-watch all eight films in the franchise, you can't help but notice how much they do things like this. This, again, is because of Rowling's writing. Setting Dobby free at the end of Chamber of Secrets is explicitly setting up his inevitable return in Deathly Hallows. Similarly, Ron mentions his brother being a dragon trainer a couple of times in the first few films, which is setting up his aiding Harry (sort of) in Goblet of Fire. The Room of Requirement in Order of the Phoenix ultimately holds little significance to the greater plot of that individual installment, but serves to set up its return of much greater value in Deathly Hallows. Quidditch itself is primarily there to establish Harry's abilities on a broom, which sets up key moments in Goblet of Fire as well as Deathly Hallows. Even thematically, they establish reasons for Ron to feel insecure when comparing himself to Harry in Goblet of Fire, which comes back later in Deathly Hallows as he wears the horcrux. Basically, they develop a natural feeling in Ron that the horcrux then exploits later. There are so many examples of this kind of groundwork being laid early that it would take too long to list them all. (And if you have read any of my reviews of Edgar Wright films, you probably know that this is the kind of thing I absolutely adore.)
What makes Harry Potter stand apart from any other Hollywood franchise is how it merges the worlds of basic entertainment with a story filled with themes, that requires some thinking, and often includes visual styles that challenge viewers to pay attention. It is not asking viewers to simply enjoy the ride the way that, say, Transformers does, nor does it simply scratch the surface of thematic points the way that Marvel movies do.
All things considered, there is really one film in particular that stands out: The Prisoner of Azkaban. This piece could easily turn into gushing praise of the film, and the incredible job that director Alfonso Cuaron brought to the franchise (yes, Children of Men, Gravity, Y Tu Mama Tambien Alfonso Cuaron). Following the capable, but rather stale filmmaking style of Chris Columbus, Cuaron introduced young Potter fans to interesting filmmaking, well executed shot composition, more individualistic characters, and put emphasis on viewers obtaining visual literacy. Gone are the stiff, by the books transition of time, replaced here through images depicting it. The whomping willow outside the school, once the source of a brief action sequence, now serves to depict the passage of time in a unique way. Cuaron also breathed real life into Hogwarts, allowing the young actors to have input on what they wore. Taking them out of their robes gave greater personality to each character, and provided a more naturalistic feeling to the school.
He also allowed the actors to do more. Consider the times where he has a long take featuring Daniel Radcliffe discussing things with Remus Lupin. The fact that some of those scenes lasts over 90 seconds without a cut, complete with camera movements and character actions, shows a clear trust in the actors. Perhaps best of all is the sequence with the boggart. Watch that scene and try to fully follow it. Here, let me post it below so you can:
The content of the scene features the students confronting what they fear most - thematically about self-reflection. The camera begins "in" the mirror itself, coming out through it into the "real world." After several minutes of wandering around the room, Remus is forced to step in and throws the boggart back into the cabinet. The camera follows it, going once again back "through" the mirror, ending the scene "in" the reflection. All the while, quietly foreshadowing Remus's secret that he's a werewolf (when he steps in, the dementor changes into a full moon - his greatest fear). Plus, it again hints at the Time Turner of Hermione (as the camera starts in the reflection and makes its way out, Hermione is nowhere to be seen, only to show up standing right next to Ron a moment later, just off camera so as to not see her simply pop in).
Prisoner of Azkaban also marked the beginning of the darker story threads, with each subsequent film getting progressively darker. As the tone of the plot became more intense and distressing, the visual look matched. Taking over the final four films, David Yates wound up with several films filled with scenes at night, or without light. Both parts of Deathly Hallows are so visibly darkened that you can't watch them with any sort of light on in the room, otherwise you can't see what's going on! (This functions as a bit of a double edged sword. On one hand, it creates a stylistic appearance syncing up with the tone of the story. On another, it is maybe not great to make a cinematic film that is so poorly lit that you sometimes can't even see anything.)
By the end of Goblet of Fire, the plot has gotten fully underway. The more enchanted nature of the first two Columbus films fall to the wayside. Yet for all the grittier story elements and the bleaker prospect for the characters, they are careful to never totally remove the magic of this fantasy world. Up until Deathly Hallows Part 2, there is always at least one sequence featuring Harry smirking as he discovers some new aspect to this realm. Though smaller moments and less frequent than the first few films, they are cautious to retain the awe-striking nature of magic. Cuaron is the first to really establish it as equally dangerous as it is magnificent, but Yates and Mike Newell (Goblet of Fire) make sure to keep some aspect of the wonderful side. This creates an important tonal balance. Magic is scary, but it is also incredible.
The format of each film is also kind of interesting when watching in a marathon. Philosopher's Stone establishes the foundation of the three best friends. Ron and Hermione both contribute greatly to aiding Harry get to the stone and temporarily stop the Dark Lord. In Chamber of Secrets, they remove one of those pieces: Hermione gets petrified, forcing Ron and Harry to make due. Prisoner of Azkaban flips it, taking Ron out of commission when Sirius accidentally bites him while trying to help him. This forces Harry and Hermione to team up sans Ron, who is left recovering in the infirmary. Goblet of Fire then breaks it up more, essentially putting Harry on his own. He does get some assistance from his friends, but it is comparatively minimal (consider that Neville Longbottom does more to help him than Ron does). By the time of Order of the Phoenix, Harry has been empowered to act on his own, but his friends are still there to help him anyway. Additionally, he has the support of many other adults and students.
All in all, for a franchise that spanned eight films over ten years and saw four different directors to tell one story, they are surprisingly consistent in quality. They're not all equal, of course. Chamber of Secrets is a bit of a slog given how much it repeats the beats of the first film. Goblet of Fire, by nature of its plot, suffers a bit from the team of Harry, Hermione, and Ron being a bit disjointed. Deathly Hallows Part 1 also falls victim to studios trying to maximize the profitability of the franchise, splitting one book into two films, with the first part being little other than set up for the second.
Additionally, it's amazing how lucky they got with their casting. Yes, it helps that they cast the majority of the British actors you know, but they cast young child actors at an early age, before anyone would know whether they'd be good or not. They wound up with Daniel Radcliffe, who has become one of the best actors working today (seriously, his super strange acting choices make him supremely fascinating to watch). They also got Emma Watson, who has proven a solid actor in her own right, in addition to being a general powerhouse of a human being offscreen. The weakest link is Rupert Grint, and he isn't even terrible. Consider how many child actors you know that went on to become actually legitimate grown up actors. That they had to gamble on these kids, and had to commit for a decade highlights just how fortunate they were, and how skilled at casting they are.
Given the number of professors and adult characters that would get limited screen time, and that they would provide the emotional stakes late in the story, they also did a great job casting likable actors in key roles. Consider Mad-Eye Moody. Here is a character that we are ultimately supposed to like in some capacity. When you watch Goblet of Fire, he's only in it a little bit. For the majority of his screen appearance, though, it isn't actually Mad-Eye. It's Barty Crouch Jr. under the influence of polyjuice. Yet by the time we reach Deathly Hallows Part 1, we are supposed to like him to some extent, setting up the emotional punch of his off-camera demise. But why is his death actually sad? Well, they cast Brendan Gleeson, of course! Similarly, Sirius Black gets limited screen time, but we are drawn to him immediately. In part it's because he's actually a good dude and the last bit of quasi-family Harry has left, but in another part, it's because it's Gary Oldman. They do this with lower stakes as well. When Sybill Trelawney gets canned by Dolores Umbridge in Order of the Phoenix, it is a surprisingly sad sequence. But why? Who really cares about Professor Trelawney? She had maybe three scenes total up this point, and not even in this same movie! But it's Emma Thompson!
The most perfect casting of all is the late, great Alan Rickman as the most interesting character of the whole series: Severus Snape. For the entire series, Snape is involved in this game of intrigue. Is he loyal to Dumbledore? Is he actually a Death Eater looking to aid in the return of Voldemort? They constantly give us reasons for both possibilities. It isn't until the very end - after he has died - that we learn the truth. He was involved in a dangerous game as a double agent for Dumbledore, but he also wasn't so much loyal to the headmaster as much as he was operating out of a love for Lilly Potter. He participates for his own personal reasons, which are ultimately exploited by Dumbledore. Rickman was such a beloved actor that to cast him in such an ambiguous role was, as Ron would say, brilliant. Even when Snape was acting in a dubious fashion, many people may have still retained hope that he was actually a good guy, simply because it's Alan Rickman! He plays the duplicity of Snape perfectly, making him one of the most iconic and tragic characters of the franchise.
Sometimes, by nature of the medium, they have to rush things and we miss out on moments that should have been more powerful. At the end of Deathly Hallows Part 2, we see the aftermath of the night's battle. One of the sadder moments features the Weasley family sobbing over the body of one of their members. Which one was it, though? It gets sped by so quickly in the film that it's impossible to tell who it was if you hadn't read the book. It's so dark and the body is slightly blocked by his surrounding family. It looked like one of the twins, but the film makes no specific mention of which one. (Of course, readers of the book know it was Fred.) Though the point remains the same regardless of who it was - a sad scene where one of the Weasley kids has been killed - it is still a bit strange that they don't bother to actually tell us which one it was.
In the same vein was the display of Tonks and Remus's bodies. We learned several films earlier that they were a couple and that Tonks was pregnant. They bring it up very briefly when Harry has a conversation with his deceased parents, dead godfather, and Remus (for some reason - probably so that he can remind the audience that he and Tonks had a kid). But it's such a brief moment that you kind of do lose out on the full emotion of the shot when you see it. It has to hit you later, unless you have a super retentive mind.
Overall, the films are great adaptations. Yes, they skip over a number of big things from the books, but they do a good job figuring out what elements really need to stay, and which ones can be altered or cut altogether for the sake of a streamlined film. Adaptations should do this, rather than adhering strictly to the source material. The films do not serve as replacements for the books, and the Harry Potter films all do a solid job functioning as a representation of them. Die hard fans my harbor ill-will towards the films because of what they left out, but they stand out as among the most well executed and relatively faithful adaptations.
Hopefully, though, they leave it at that. There is The Cursed Child sort-of-sequel, and then this year sees the Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them spin-off, but the Harry Potter story is complete. As great as I think JK Rowling did with the books, and as well done as I think the movie adaptations are, I do really wish creators would stop with the "20 Years Later" epilogue. Whatever writers come up with for the long-term future will never be as interesting or exciting as what fans can and will conjure up in their minds. Harry Potter films especially would have benefitted from lingering a little longer on the immediate aftermath of the battle, and not time jumped to nearly twenty years later.
As an aside, it is worth noting that this is one of those stories that wouldn't have been such a big, elaborate thing if Dumbledore actually bothered to tell Harry anything, rather than leaving cryptic clues, putting him in grave peril, and hoping he, Hermione, and Ron (ok, let's be honest: mostly Harry and Hermione) figure it out. Dumbledore is kind of a jerk that way. It's also kind of painful to watch Philosopher's Stone when you get to the end and he meanly announces Slytherin as the winner with most points accumulated - only to then yank the rug from under their feet and award Harry, Hermione, Ron, and Neville just enough points to make Gryffindor the winner. Why couldn't he have added those points before announcing the point totals and the winners? He was just toying with those Slytherin students. They weren't all bullies like Draco Malfoy...
Rewatching the films made it painfully apparent of how badly Hollywood has been failing to imitate the franchise. You can usually tell the good franchises from the bad. The trouble with so many modern series is that it is blatantly evident when they are simply trying to be "the next Harry Potter." Nothing has captured an audience through intelligent writing, a story that grows with its audience, and with a unique concept and world. Not even the Marvel Cinematic Universe has quite managed to provide such an experience. Harry Potter is worthy of revisiting.
OVERALL REDUCTIVE RATING: Pretty Good
(Rating scale - Terrible..., Pretty Bad, It's Fine, Pretty Good, Incredible!)
Harry Potter Rankings:
8. Goblet of Fire
7. Chamber of Secrets
6. Deathly Hallows Part 1
5. Philosopher's Stone
4. Order of the Phoenix
3. Deathly Hallows Part 2
2. The Half-Blood Prince
1. Prisoner of Azkaban
No comments:
Post a Comment