tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194922508890040877.post5435469002740027626..comments2023-12-24T09:01:35.944-06:00Comments on Write. Read. Live.: HP Monday – Movie NotesMariah!http://www.blogger.com/profile/04179015019089576857noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194922508890040877.post-59342095953593596832009-09-21T19:54:47.571-05:002009-09-21T19:54:47.571-05:00Danny,
Thanks for your thoughts. You have some g...Danny, <br />Thanks for your thoughts. You have some good points and reminded me of my first viewing of the third movie. Cuaron did do an excellent job getting me to step inside the movie and take a look around the magical world. Since this is often my problem with movies based on books – a reader at heart, I easily get sucked into the book like I’m really there; movies based on books usually just skim over all of the book highlights without that in depth feeling. I therefore agree with your comments on the third movie. In fact, I might even go as far as to say I like the book (which, as was recently pointed out to me, is a lot of telling and not a lot of showing) more because of it. We will get into this more later when we discuss book 3. I would also like to hear more of your take on the music in each movie and how it shapes each individual film.Mariah!https://www.blogger.com/profile/04179015019089576857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194922508890040877.post-70034772374466718182009-09-16T18:08:34.795-05:002009-09-16T18:08:34.795-05:00About the Knockturn Alley scene: it's in the d...About the Knockturn Alley scene: it's in the deleted scenes, the conversation he overhears Malfoy and Mr. Malfoy having. In fact, whenever ABC Family airs it, they not only don't truncate it for time, they include that scene. In the realm of filmdom (and not of the book), I find their decision to excise this scene completely understandable. The very appearance of Knockturn Alley, the scene in Flourish and Blotts, the backstory of the Chamber---all of these make the Malfoy encounter a tad redundant and help us get to the juicier and more lively scenes faster.<br /><br />My opinions on the second movie have little to do with the quality of the adaptation (which is spot on) and with the quality of the movie as a work of art. I have always been a staunch believer that what Chris Columbus and screenwriter Steve Kloves did with the first two movies was suffocate his artistry in favor of giving fans a near untouched story (in contrast to the playful-though-simplified 3rd installment, the heavily butchered 4th, the distilled 5th, and the ... well, I'll leave the 6th, because feelings are still hot). The kids have gotten marginally better (they hit their stride in #3), though the acting prowess in these movies has always been on the impressive array that constitutes almost the full breadth of the brilliant British acting establishment.<br /><br />"Chamber of Secrets" the movie has always to me been an example of what doesn't translate so gracefully onto film. Though Kenneth Branagh's turn as Lockhart is impeccable, characters like Lucius, Dobby, and Aragog are treated so straightforwardly and verbatim from the books that their appearance on film seem, respectively: a ham-handed and trite caricature of malevolence and prejudice; a facsimile of every "Uncle Tom double-agent" seen before; and a very fake-looking monster filmed in a setting that was realized so typically and unimaginitively that it often grates on my faculties of patience to tolerate its being on celluloid. Just as much, Chris Columbus uses a series of B-movie-grade zoom-ins, close-ups, and lietmotifs chopped-and-pasted from Williams's original (and brilliant, I must say) score for the first film that all force me to dismiss the 2nd movie as having been thought of as a "kid flick," or at least as a "melodrama that just so happens to have kids in it."<br /><br />Which is, to say, that approach is completely wrong. Our discussions have already elucidated Rowling's deep societal allegory, its multifaceted look at evil and those it seduces, and other delightful tidbits. Chris Columbus, however, took all of Rowling's words, descriptions, and plot with none of the complexity, none of the theme, none of the heart. Whereas Alfonso Cuaron in the 3rd movie followed a rather simplified script from Steve Kloves but still managed to infuse it with the same mood: alternatively playful and dark. Just look at the scenes where invisible Harry plays with the tassels of Ron's hat, the way the Grim appears not on a hillside (as it does in the book) but in the clouds. These demonstrate a vision willing to sacrifice perfect adaptation in favor of actually making a good movie. Chris Columbus's strict interpretation and overly-stuffy art direction shows little depth as an adapter, and I thank God that Warner Brothers saw the goodness to hand over the series to a series of directors who used their own artistic prowess to infuse the adaptations with their own brands---to varying degrees of success and artistry, as we shall I hope come to realize.Danny Vopavahttp://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=806840234&ref=namenoreply@blogger.com