Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
Jul. 15th, 2009 03:30 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fabrisseWalking home at three a.m. under a Pratchett half-moon (seriously, it looked like it had been bisected) was a magical way to end an evening about magic.
Order of the Phoenix is the longest book and the shortest movie. It works for me, though. I think David Yates got the politics right, and there were some absolutely stand-out moments for me. As I'm currently re-reading Deathly Hallows, it becomes very clear to me that Rowling isn't just writing a coming of age story: she has written an epic about becoming a leader.
I think Order of the Phoenix worked for me because the screenwriter, Michael Goldenberg, distilled much of the talk about emotions and let the actors carry that while he worried about plot.
This is to say that I think bringing Steve Kloves back as the screenwriter was a mistake. He worked well on the third and fourth Potter films, and wrote fairly servicable Chris Columbus movies out of the first two books. However, he really misses on this one.
From the shock of Cedric's death in Goblet of Fire through leading Dumbledore's Army in Order of the Phoenix, we see Harry picking up a mantle. He's still a teenager, and a somewhat arrogant one, but he risks himself first and learns to lead others into danger.
And Kloves as screenwriter cut that out of The Half Blood Prince. Harry is a follower in this movie. He follows Dumbledore, but not once is he allowed to make a decision for himself. I could handle the smaller changes and even some of the larger ones. Kloves, much as he did in Goblet of Fire, really concentrates on getting the teenaged hormones right. I think the cast handles it well, and most of the changes either make explicit some of the things mentioned in the book or up the level of danger so that the middle doesn't drag.
But, for me, the single most important development in Harry as a leader is learning to consult with others, but ultimately trust his own judgment. In the book, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, he does it by having the active members of Dumbledore's Army keep a watch on Draco when he knows that he and Dumbledore are leaving the castle. Harry trusts his gut which is telling him something is wrong, and has Hermione divvy up the felix felicitas serum among everyone on watch.
This is important. Just as it's important earlier in the book that he use only enough liquid luck for a few hours or that he tricks Ron into thinking luck his on his side. Harry understands that luck is important to have, but he doesn't get lost in the perfect day as Slughorn, it's implied from his description of his two perfect days, does. Dividing the felix felicitas is Harry's first truly tactical decision, and he's deprived of it in the movie.
Moreover, in the book, Harry trusts Dumbledore, but he's still hot-headed. It weakens him in the movie not to have been in a full body bind when Draco confronts Dumbledore at the end. That's right, Harry follows Dumbledore's order to keep quiet and still without so much as attempting an "expeliarmus" on Draco or Bellatrix.
Kloves as screenwriter, and I guess Yates as director because I assume he approved the script, also miss in not giving Harry his halcyon days with Ginny. There's a kiss, and honestly, the teen sexuality in this film earns it the solid PG-13 rating it has, but it's not the fierce public one of the book nor is it a particularly tender private one. The one under the mistletoe with Cho in Order of the Phoenix was a better moment for the characters.
Overall, I think Bonnie Wright has a good presence as Ginny, and I wish those in charge had used it better. There are some lovely friendship moments between Harry and Hermione, and the young lady playing Lavender Brown is wonderfully over the top in a real teenaged girl sense.
Michael Gambon's best moment is when he makes it clear that he's just realized Harry is a horcrux.
I think Tom Felton does a good job as Draco, but again, I think Kloves and Yates mis-step in having us see too much of what he's up to.
One of the things the script makes explicit is Harry's development as a politician. In the book, the political side is there by using the Ministry and, again, letting Harry make his decisions on whether or not to support it. In the movie, Harry asks Dumbledore flat out if he wants Harry to allow Slughorn to collect him. It's the question of a savvy politician, and Radcliffe plays Harry's reaction to "yes" with understanding.
As I'm sure many of you have, I dug out my DVDs of the first five movies this weekend. I still find one scene in The Sorcerer's Stone unnerving. It's where Harry is talking to Ron and Hermione in the Gryffindor common room, laying out the whole theory of Snape trying to help Voldemort. His manner and pacing are those of an adult, and I think of him, in that scene, as a young man. Radcliffe still has that air of authority in Order of the Phoenix, but there are few moments that allow him to use it in The Half-Blood Prince.
I hate that they destroyed the Burrow. Rowling left it as the one refuge in all the books, so it seems particularly bad to have it burn in the film.
I wish they'd kept the Dursley scenes and the Prime Minister having to talk to the Minister of Magic, but I understand why they had to go.
I wanted to love this film as fiercely as I loved Order of the Phoenix. There were moments watching that movie where I had cold chills.
Order of the Phoenix is the longest book and the shortest movie. It works for me, though. I think David Yates got the politics right, and there were some absolutely stand-out moments for me. As I'm currently re-reading Deathly Hallows, it becomes very clear to me that Rowling isn't just writing a coming of age story: she has written an epic about becoming a leader.
I think Order of the Phoenix worked for me because the screenwriter, Michael Goldenberg, distilled much of the talk about emotions and let the actors carry that while he worried about plot.
This is to say that I think bringing Steve Kloves back as the screenwriter was a mistake. He worked well on the third and fourth Potter films, and wrote fairly servicable Chris Columbus movies out of the first two books. However, he really misses on this one.
From the shock of Cedric's death in Goblet of Fire through leading Dumbledore's Army in Order of the Phoenix, we see Harry picking up a mantle. He's still a teenager, and a somewhat arrogant one, but he risks himself first and learns to lead others into danger.
And Kloves as screenwriter cut that out of The Half Blood Prince. Harry is a follower in this movie. He follows Dumbledore, but not once is he allowed to make a decision for himself. I could handle the smaller changes and even some of the larger ones. Kloves, much as he did in Goblet of Fire, really concentrates on getting the teenaged hormones right. I think the cast handles it well, and most of the changes either make explicit some of the things mentioned in the book or up the level of danger so that the middle doesn't drag.
But, for me, the single most important development in Harry as a leader is learning to consult with others, but ultimately trust his own judgment. In the book, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, he does it by having the active members of Dumbledore's Army keep a watch on Draco when he knows that he and Dumbledore are leaving the castle. Harry trusts his gut which is telling him something is wrong, and has Hermione divvy up the felix felicitas serum among everyone on watch.
This is important. Just as it's important earlier in the book that he use only enough liquid luck for a few hours or that he tricks Ron into thinking luck his on his side. Harry understands that luck is important to have, but he doesn't get lost in the perfect day as Slughorn, it's implied from his description of his two perfect days, does. Dividing the felix felicitas is Harry's first truly tactical decision, and he's deprived of it in the movie.
Moreover, in the book, Harry trusts Dumbledore, but he's still hot-headed. It weakens him in the movie not to have been in a full body bind when Draco confronts Dumbledore at the end. That's right, Harry follows Dumbledore's order to keep quiet and still without so much as attempting an "expeliarmus" on Draco or Bellatrix.
Kloves as screenwriter, and I guess Yates as director because I assume he approved the script, also miss in not giving Harry his halcyon days with Ginny. There's a kiss, and honestly, the teen sexuality in this film earns it the solid PG-13 rating it has, but it's not the fierce public one of the book nor is it a particularly tender private one. The one under the mistletoe with Cho in Order of the Phoenix was a better moment for the characters.
Overall, I think Bonnie Wright has a good presence as Ginny, and I wish those in charge had used it better. There are some lovely friendship moments between Harry and Hermione, and the young lady playing Lavender Brown is wonderfully over the top in a real teenaged girl sense.
Michael Gambon's best moment is when he makes it clear that he's just realized Harry is a horcrux.
I think Tom Felton does a good job as Draco, but again, I think Kloves and Yates mis-step in having us see too much of what he's up to.
One of the things the script makes explicit is Harry's development as a politician. In the book, the political side is there by using the Ministry and, again, letting Harry make his decisions on whether or not to support it. In the movie, Harry asks Dumbledore flat out if he wants Harry to allow Slughorn to collect him. It's the question of a savvy politician, and Radcliffe plays Harry's reaction to "yes" with understanding.
As I'm sure many of you have, I dug out my DVDs of the first five movies this weekend. I still find one scene in The Sorcerer's Stone unnerving. It's where Harry is talking to Ron and Hermione in the Gryffindor common room, laying out the whole theory of Snape trying to help Voldemort. His manner and pacing are those of an adult, and I think of him, in that scene, as a young man. Radcliffe still has that air of authority in Order of the Phoenix, but there are few moments that allow him to use it in The Half-Blood Prince.
I hate that they destroyed the Burrow. Rowling left it as the one refuge in all the books, so it seems particularly bad to have it burn in the film.
I wish they'd kept the Dursley scenes and the Prime Minister having to talk to the Minister of Magic, but I understand why they had to go.
I wanted to love this film as fiercely as I loved Order of the Phoenix. There were moments watching that movie where I had cold chills.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Wow, now I wonder whether to see it
Date: 2009-07-15 06:08 pm (UTC)Re: Wow, now I wonder whether to see it
Date: 2009-07-15 11:36 pm (UTC)Besides, I want to read your reaction. *G*