posted
I wrote the following review for Rottentomatoes, another forum I participate in.
*spoilers*
I have no idea what the secrets of a great cinematic adaptation of revered—or not so revered—literature are. Often when the inevitable adaptation of a successful book comes along it turns out to not to be a translation of the books contents to cinematic terms but a soulless reenactment of that content that depends upon the audience’s recognition of the story and characters. It must be said that this is often the result of writers/directors who are incapable of translating to cinema the particular soul of a book. It must also be said that this too can often be the result of the fact that the book in question may be very hard to adapt. Whatever the case, Harry Potter And The Prisoner of Azkaban is not as good an adaptation as its predecessors.
Let us talk about Christopher Columbus and why after seeing Azkaban I realized that some of us might have been unfair to him. His direction of the first films, while in some spots pedestrian, was overall fairly competent and effective. The first film I felt to be a bit unimaginative and a bit—just a bit—soulless but otherwise a decent adaptation. The second film though delivered a stronger plot, a better mystery and an intensely focused and stronger narrative. The screenwriter and director were able to tap into the spirit of the Potter stories and deliver an actual movie that was enthralling despite the fact that I knew what the resolution and major events was going to be. I can’t help but roll my eyes when I read critics declaring the third potter film to be the most cinematic of them all. Were they paying attention in the second one? Despite the triumphs of this film (the “way” Harry communicated with the snake, the flashback to the early days of Hogwarts, Kenneth Branagh’s and Lucious Malfoy’s performances, the climatic confrontation between Harry and the main villain) I was ready to forget it in anticipation of the third installment—an installment which was supposedly more “darker”, supposedly more “cinematic” and supposedly “better” then the first two; Disappointing that it’s none of those.
This is a by the numbers adaptation that is merely a reenactment of the book but delivers neither its heart nor its charm. Almost every scene feels like it could’ve been handled with more imagination and cinematic know-how. Consider for instance the first major conflict that gets the film rolling: The bitchy aunt who incessantly abuses Harry to the point where he lashes out at her using magic. That momentary act of vengeance was supposed to be pleasing—the aunt was suppose to annoy Harry to the point where we in the audience wanted to see him take revenge upon her, but the whole scene is ineffective, dull and tame because the film is in a profound hurry to get Harry to Hogwarts; The film is replete with such perfunctory moments that seem flat and tame because our darling Cuaron doesn’t seem to be interested in investing the necessary buildup essential for a payoff to work.
After Harry runs away from home in anger he is picked up by one of those funky double decker buses. From a cinematic perspective nothing is entertaining by this bus ride. In the book it is funny, bizarre and mysterious—here it is just bizarre. It doesn’t work, nor does the scene that ensues in the bar where Harry is mysteriously informed by a certain Minister that he is in danger. Once again, Cuaron doesn’t let our sense of mystery and curiosity develop enough to the point that we care about the information Harry learns. The scene is brisk and not too memorable, and it seemed that Cuaron didn’t realize that the crucial buds of a mystery was supposed to be developed by this scene—it would’ve been more appropriate if the minister was more agitated and nervous, if he sat down and we observed these traits and make us wonder just what it was he was hiding. But the film is just too much of a hurry to let such a thing happen and it rushes along.
We learn that Sirius Black has escaped from the awful prison of Azkaban and is likely to be coming after Harry because he (Harry, that is) stands in the way of the return of Voldemort--who Black is allegedly a supporter of. So far so good, but they don’t include the most crucial detail that would’ve made the audience anticipate Mr. Black more and fear for Mr. Potter: In the novel didn’t he allegedly kill a score of innocent humans before he was caught? That’s crucial detail of the plot suggested this guy really could be an insane ****. In making the film faster paced and more shorter than the previous two, discarded were the plot details that would’ve made one care about the larger narrative. As we have it there is a “supposedly” villainous figure coming after Potter and, while this has repercussions in terms of plot, there is hardly any suspense or tension. Stuff sort of just happens. Is it a surprise then why the major confrontation in the tree house—and the revelations that occur there--feel exceedingly perfunctory?
The second film had three juicy villains—Gilroy Lockheart, Malfoy Sr., and Voldermort Jr. Each and every one of them was effective and enthralling and finely acted. This third installment has the Dementors—who are only a bit creepy; the Rat—who, because he seemingly comes out of nowhere (though there is a bit of foreshadowing in the film indicating his presence—the fact that Ron had a Rat should’ve been more stressed) seems almost useless as a villain; and, lastly, the mysterious character of Sirius Black who, as explained earlier, is also ineffective (and he isn’t really a villain after all!). And regarding Gary Oldman: What a waste. I expected him to do for this film what Kenneth Branagh did for Chamber Of Secrets, but Oldman’s performance here is so under whelming, so unimpressive that I’m wondering why they didn’t simply go with an unknown actor or someone less famous considering the fact that his real presence on the screen seems so minimal. My theory: They wanted to stress the possible villainy of the Black character and hoped the “wanted” photo (we see it like thirty six times—more of it then real Oldman in the film) to generate anticipation. It doesn’t work because a mere photo and lackluster buildup to do not generate anticipation.
Regarding Cuaron: He handles a few of the scenes well. Certainly the film’s better moments include the manner in which the Dementors descend upon the castle Hogwarts in the moonlight—we get two of these shots and they each last a couple of seconds, but they’re effective and a bit haunting. Other than that though his direction is totally unremarkable, though a bit more kinetic than Columbus’s. However, when it comes to these Potter films, Columbus is his superior because, despite his pedestrian handling of the camera, he had a sense of story that worked well for the series. He could also fashion scenes well and would’ve let the Aunt scene develop naturally rather than rushing through it. In the end though I’m amused by the fact that the installment promised to be the most radically different and cinematic turned out to be the most mediocre!
**.5/****
[ June 20, 2004, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: the Somalian ]
Posts: 33 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"This is a by the numbers adaptation that is merely a reenactment of the book but delivers neither its heart nor its charm."
Wow. What's amazing is that you don't find Columbus guilty of this.
You do realize, of course, that pretty much the entire world disagrees with you, right? And, in fact, thinks that your criticisms apply much more accurately to the first two movies?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, Columbus is guilty of that--but I think the first two film's are far more *complete* than the third one and better paced. At any rate, I am aware that most people disagree with me, but then again popularity never has truly been an accurate reflection of something's worth.
Posts: 33 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with the directing in PoA is that it was good enough to open itself to more sophisticated criticism than the first two. They basically reenacted the books with little or no attention being paid to the differing needs of a book or movie. So there was little cinematic art to critique - it would be like giving a full blow artistic analysis of the assembly diagram for an Ikea bookcase. In other words, only the functionality (the translation of the book) is really accessible to criticism.
The third movie was good enough to judge on it's cinematic merits. There were quite a few weaknesses, and some disparities from the book that may be hard to recover from in later movies, but it's a much better film than the first two.
One of the problems with Rowling's writing, and one of the few areas she hasn't greatly improved during the series, is the use of the range of narrative detail to highlight very important scenes. She spends as much time on unimportant scenes as she does on important ones. Even giving her leeway for foreshadowing and maintaining mystery, she doesn't have precise control over the depth of her coverage of certain events.
The weakness isn't fatal to the books; it was nearly fatal to the first two movies. I still enjoyed them, mainly because the story is so fun, but there were some very dull moments.
The second movie had a much better handle on which scenes needed full treatment and which could be given less time. However, he did err in not giving a couple of scenes enough time. These mistakes were well worth the great improvement to the rest of the film, however.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And, in fact, thinks that your criticisms apply much more accurately to the first two movies?
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
