At last, here is Harry Potter #6, arriving like Al Franken, seven months late. I must admit that going into the advanced screening there was a been-there, done-that vibe. Like any long-running film series with more sequels than fingers on a hand, the Harry Potter movie franchise has unwittingly descended into a formulaic vehicle, which both fans and Warner Bros. has seemed to accept. The James Bond series performs the same dance but to a different tune; observe: Rock-em sock-em prologue, sizzling title sequence, banter with Moneyponey, Bond gets mission from M, femme fatale introduced, diabolical villain scheming, car chases, explosions, Bond saves world. Rinse and repeat twenty times and you have a franchise. Harry Potter is no different, case-in-point: Harry endures the Dursleys/summer tribulations; new threat to Harry emerges, Harry & friends ponder threat on Hogwarts Express, Dumbledore introduces a creepy new teacher, Quidditch played in hurricane-ripe conditions, Snape sneering, Harry & entourage attempting to eliminate evil threat, Snape scheming, Harry jumping to wrong conclusions, Snape sulking, Harry tries to save the day Rambo-style, i.e. alone.
Although I may sound cynical, I have read every book in the series, and most importantly have enjoyed them all. In the novels, J.K. Rowling crafted a spellbinding saga of magical adventure and wonderment. Yet, for all of the spectacular wizard duels and fantastical locales, what kept the books grounded were characters and stories that readers cared about. As the novels grew thicker with each new installment, Rowling’s writing became richer, her characters deeper, and Harry’s wondrous wizard world took its place alongside J.R.R. Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” and George Lucas’ “Star Wars” as the three most organic and detailed fantasy universes ever created. Rowling was able to make places like Hogwarts and Diagon Alley seem as real as our own. Although each of the novels was framed during a school year, they always seemed amazingly fresh. They never possessed the cookie-cutter vibe that the films recently have taken on. Rowling’s endless imagination wouldn’t allow them to.
I was mesmerized by what Chris Columbus and Alfonso Cuarón achieved in the first three film adaptations. Although Columbus (“Mrs. Doubtfire”, “Step Mom”) is often unfairly dismissed by critics as more of a film manager than a director, make no mistake he is an auteur (try not to chuckle). He often directs projects featuring young protagonists that have divorced or absent parents, and delivers compelling drama without lapsing into campiness. Columbus was seen by many as perfect for the Harry Potter franchise, because they assumed he wouldn’t divert from the adapted screenplay. There was tremendous pressure on screenwriter Steve Kloves and Columbus to remain as faithful to the book as possible, and they responded by delivering near flawless film translations of the first two books. With Columbus at the helm, Harry was always the focal point of the films. In particular, Columbus allotted generous screen time to highlighting Harry’s desire for parents as well as building Harry’s relationship with Dumbledore.
Emboldened by the public’s positive reaction to the first two films, Kloves took more liberties in the script for Prisoner of Azkaban. After Columbus bowed out, Alfonso Cuarón was pegged by producers to direct. Cuarón, known for his brilliant but risqué Mexican dramas featuring adolescents and mature themes, surprised many by delivering the finest Harry Potter film. Cuarón added a real-world grittiness that had been lacking in the series, while embracing a more sinister tone that’s reflected in the washed-out cinematography, the masterful production design, and John Williams’ moody score. Prisoner of Azkaban represents the peak of the film series, one that the current films are still trying to get back to.
After the ho-hum qualities of the last two “Potter” flicks following Azkaban I was just hoping that Half-Blood Prince would put an end to the series’ negative momentum. I am pleased to say that it has. Pic is a major improvement over the past two and approaches Prisoner of Azkaban-quality before plummeting back down to mediocrity the last twenty-five minutes or so of the movie. I’ll get to that in a minute but there is much more good than bad in Half-Blood Prince, so first the positives.
Although I may sound cynical, I have read every book in the series, and most importantly have enjoyed them all. In the novels, J.K. Rowling crafted a spellbinding saga of magical adventure and wonderment. Yet, for all of the spectacular wizard duels and fantastical locales, what kept the books grounded were characters and stories that readers cared about. As the novels grew thicker with each new installment, Rowling’s writing became richer, her characters deeper, and Harry’s wondrous wizard world took its place alongside J.R.R. Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” and George Lucas’ “Star Wars” as the three most organic and detailed fantasy universes ever created. Rowling was able to make places like Hogwarts and Diagon Alley seem as real as our own. Although each of the novels was framed during a school year, they always seemed amazingly fresh. They never possessed the cookie-cutter vibe that the films recently have taken on. Rowling’s endless imagination wouldn’t allow them to.
I was mesmerized by what Chris Columbus and Alfonso Cuarón achieved in the first three film adaptations. Although Columbus (“Mrs. Doubtfire”, “Step Mom”) is often unfairly dismissed by critics as more of a film manager than a director, make no mistake he is an auteur (try not to chuckle). He often directs projects featuring young protagonists that have divorced or absent parents, and delivers compelling drama without lapsing into campiness. Columbus was seen by many as perfect for the Harry Potter franchise, because they assumed he wouldn’t divert from the adapted screenplay. There was tremendous pressure on screenwriter Steve Kloves and Columbus to remain as faithful to the book as possible, and they responded by delivering near flawless film translations of the first two books. With Columbus at the helm, Harry was always the focal point of the films. In particular, Columbus allotted generous screen time to highlighting Harry’s desire for parents as well as building Harry’s relationship with Dumbledore.
Emboldened by the public’s positive reaction to the first two films, Kloves took more liberties in the script for Prisoner of Azkaban. After Columbus bowed out, Alfonso Cuarón was pegged by producers to direct. Cuarón, known for his brilliant but risqué Mexican dramas featuring adolescents and mature themes, surprised many by delivering the finest Harry Potter film. Cuarón added a real-world grittiness that had been lacking in the series, while embracing a more sinister tone that’s reflected in the washed-out cinematography, the masterful production design, and John Williams’ moody score. Prisoner of Azkaban represents the peak of the film series, one that the current films are still trying to get back to.
After the ho-hum qualities of the last two “Potter” flicks following Azkaban I was just hoping that Half-Blood Prince would put an end to the series’ negative momentum. I am pleased to say that it has. Pic is a major improvement over the past two and approaches Prisoner of Azkaban-quality before plummeting back down to mediocrity the last twenty-five minutes or so of the movie. I’ll get to that in a minute but there is much more good than bad in Half-Blood Prince, so first the positives.
Half-Blood Prince opens with the ominous destruction of key London landmarks and the trashing of Diagon Alley by Death Eaters. Audience then gets to catch-up with Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) on a summer break excursion. Steve Kloves, back adapting the material after a one-film hiatus, seems re-energized from the get-go with a charming café scene and Harry’s surprise rendezvous with Professor Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) on a train platform. Dumbledore whisks Harry off to help him recruit an old potions teacher back to Hogwarts, Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent), who keeps a hall-of-fame of famous students he’s taught. After a successful pitch and a pitstop at the Weasley compound, Harry and the gang arrive back for another term at Hogwarts. Harry’s usual nemesis Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) is acting as suspicious as ever and Professor Severus Snape (Alan Rickman) has been promoted to Defense-Against the Dark Arts teacher. This year even Ron (Rupert Grint) gets in on the Quidditch fun, but overall there is a lack of …um…“action”.
The films relatively slow pacing hearkens back to the Columbus days, when screen time was actually devoted to classroom scenes. It’s odd that in Half-Blood Prince we never see Snape finally teaching the subject he has supposedly lusted after for years. In fact, Slughorn is the only professor ever shown teaching, which is a tad odd considering the story takes place in a school. For all the lounging around and socializing in the dining hall students seem to do, you’d think it was an American public school, but I digress.
The film feels all of 2 hours 33 minutes, but luckily the screen is populated with bubbly and engaging personalities. Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson are in top form and have developed a rapport that only comes from years of being together in front of the camera. Jim Broadbent is outstanding as the slippery Horace Slughorn, who drools like a pit-bull at the thought of becoming a “friend” to the famous Harry Potter. Only in a “Potter” movie could so many twitches and furrowed eye brows be considered insightful acting, but it all adds to Broadbent’s characterization. It’s funny how the “Potter” films have become essentially a work-release program for aged British thespians, but nevertheless they all hit the mark. Ageless Maggie Smith charms as McGonagall and Rickman’s Snape steals every scene he’s in. Even when Snape is positioned in the background, it’s impossible to ignore his wickedly amusing reactions.
Michael Gambon is reliable as always as Dumbledore, but Kloves doesn’t push his relationship with Harry past that of old professor and dutiful student. Part of the problem is Kloves’ decision to cut several of the Tom Riddle memory flashbacks that helped Harry and Dumbledore form a closer bond in the book. Rowling also used each of the books to steadily build-up the two’s relationship, so that Dumbledore became Harry’s most trusting adult confidante. Columbus again deserves credit for advancing their relationship through the two films he directed. Too bad none of his successors seemed interested in pushing forward what he had set in motion.
Overall, director David Yates seems more comfortable with the material here than he did in Order of the Phoenix, however, again his greatest faults are revealed when lensing action sequences. What could have been a rip-roaring finale was stifled by a poorly conceived alternative to the novel’s curtain closing moments (loyal readers will know I’m talking about after seeing the film). It’s difficult to say if Steve Kloves' screenplay is to blame, but ultimately Yates must be faulted for the severe lack of tension and excitement in the film’s last 30 minutes (not including Harry and Dumbledore’s near-deadly journey into a cave). The final 100 pages of the novel were the highlight of the book, but sadly all of that has been lost in the translation to the screen. The finale will undoubtedly anger and disappoint legions of fans of J.K. Rowling's series.
On a positive note, Yates keenly inserts humor throughout the film (the best gag has Ron overdosed on a love potion), in an attempt to balance the ending that many in the theater knows will crescendo with the death of a major character. There are lots of new elements in Hogwarts, which keeps things fresh. It helps that Broadbent’s Slughorn is the most amusingly quirky and funny to watch teacher since Kenneth Branagh’s portrayal of celebrity-obsessed Gilderoy Lockhart. Production values as always remain top-notch. Nicholas Hooper's score is at times adequate, but more often than not leaves you yearning for the days John Williams was at the helm. Hooper has openly admitted that he writes music on a scene-by-scene basis. Conversely, Williams uses leitmotifs, meaning he writes music based on characters, themes, objects, or locations in the film. Williams’ style, by its very nature is more conducive to thematic development. Williams gave us dozens of memorable cues including Hedwig’s Theme; while Hooper’s scores seem to be background music that he’s hoping will go unnoticed. Thankfully, producers have been in talks with John Williams to return for the two-part series finale (Williams has said he would love to come back), but ultimately his schedule will dictate whether he rescues millions of fans from soundtrack purgatory.
In the end, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince will enchant those with an open mind. Even non-Potter aficionados should be able to enjoy this entry due to its consistently laid-back structure, as well as the film’s focus on fluid characterizations more so than any rigid plot (although some terms will soar over their heads). The whimper of an ending dampers what is actually a fine entry in the film series. This one is much more similar in tone and pacing to films 1-3, which most will be happy to hear.
In the end, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince will enchant those with an open mind. Even non-Potter aficionados should be able to enjoy this entry due to its consistently laid-back structure, as well as the film’s focus on fluid characterizations more so than any rigid plot (although some terms will soar over their heads). The whimper of an ending dampers what is actually a fine entry in the film series. This one is much more similar in tone and pacing to films 1-3, which most will be happy to hear.
No comments:
Post a Comment