Hindustan Times
The unbearable sadness of a Potter fan
Like the rest of the planet, I’ve read and enjoyed all the Harry Potter books (except The Order of the Phoenix, which I found very disappointing; seldom have I loathed a character as much as I loathed Dolores Umbridge).
And again, like the rest of the planet, I too made a dash to the cinema to catch the latest Potter film (Half-Blood Prince). Having read the glowing reviews and having bought into all the pre-release hype (to which we in Brunch also contributed by running profiles of Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson), I was looking forward to being totally riveted for two-and-a-half hours.
As it turned out, I had a hard time preventing myself from falling asleep in the first half. The second half was a big improvement, but my overwhelming feeling on exiting the theatre was one of being underwhelmed.
I understand that it’s not easy for a director to be faithful to the book that he’s filming and I also understand that there is something called artistic licence and liberty.
However, in the case of the latest Potter movie, I kept wondering if the scriptwriter and director had been on drugs when they wrote/made the movie. (Did they even read the book? I wonder…)
My list of bitter complaints: One. The film begins with attacks on the Muggle world, which is there in the book too. But in the book, the Muggle Prime Minister has a meeting with Cornelius Fudge and the new Minister for Magic, about how the Muggle world and the magic world are colliding. In the film, however, we saw the attacks and then we saw nothing. The next scene had Albus Dumbledore taking Harry to Horace Slughorn’s house. So what happened after the attacks? What were they all about anyway? The movie doesn’t bother to tell us.
Second. The first half of the film is all about love-romance which is there in the book too but it’s hardly the central motif. Burgeoning hormones are very cute, but since nothing actually happens, it makes for very dull viewing. So why did the film go on and on and on about the love thing in the first half?
Third. The burning of the Burrow as it’s shown in the film doesn’t happen in the book. So why is that scene there? And if you’re going to put it in, it’s weird that the very next scene is set in Hogwarts where everything seems quite normal and everyone seems to have amnesia about the Burrow being set on fire.
Four. The film gives hardly any importance to the Half-Blood Prince. (The book has so much about him; there is such a sense of mystery). Which is why, in the end, when Snape says, “I’m the Half-Blood prince,” if you haven’t read the book, you may have a hard time remembering who the hell this Prince fellow is.
Five. In the book, when the Death Eaters come to Hogwarts through the cupboard in the Room of Requirement, there’s a huge, climactic battle in the school. In the film, Bellatrix arrives (almost casually) in Hogwarts with three or four Death Eaters and then all of them just stroll out of the school. Huh?
Six. The book has many fascinating Voldemort flashbacks when he was Tom Riddle. But the film has so little of that, you want to throw a Pensieve at the screen.
And finally, I’m sorry to say I found the acting below par (Radcliffe did a good impersonation of a wax statue all through). The only person who I thought was absolutely superb was Snape (Alan Rickman).)
What was nice about the film? Well, it was shot beautifully (great atmosphere), the entire sequence when Dumbledore and Harry go looking for the Horcrux was brilliant, and… I can’t think of anything else.
Wish I could borrow one of the Weasley twins’ Dungbombs and throw it at Warner Bros/David Yates/Steve Kloves/whoever.
And I was so looking forward to the film.
(11 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...Posted by Poonam Saxena on Friday, July 24, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Filed under Pop Culture · Tagged Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Half-Blood Prince, Harry Potter, Harry Potter books, The Order of the Phoenix
I like the movie….i think its the good movie……….but they cant show or justify everything in the movie…..i read the book so i know the story…the only reason i watch it for entertainment at which movie doesnt disappoint me……..
I think Prisoner of Askaban n Goblet of Fire rthe only movie which justify the book the most….
[Reply]
welll!!!!!!!!!!
Can’t really blame u mam for not liking the movie.!!!!!!!!!!
A hardcore potter fan like me, enters the theater full of expectations but comes out with,welll, to say the least, half tummy full.
I have always believed that the only characters that author J.K. Rowling has magnificently created are of snape and Hermoine.
Both do justice to their roles in the film too.
[Reply]
Hi, I really agree on that front. I have personally felt that if one has read a book, it is usually silly to watch the movie coz there is a lot of distortion of the facts by the producers, because:
a) Adds scandal to the story ( example can be seen from “The Count of Monte Cristo” where Albert is said to be the son of Dantes!)
b) They think people going to the cinema halls are dimwits so they try to make the story simpler
c) They feel they can omit ‘useless’ details of the book
d) There is a need for endless mind-numbing songs(hindi movie)/ romantic scenes between the central characters even when there was none. (Can be seen in case of ‘Hello’ coming from ‘One Night at the Call Centre’ where the movie seems to be a loooong item sequence.
So, in short, I’d say I’m not surprised you say this.
[Reply]
poonam saxena Reply:
July 25th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Agree totally, specially with points b and c. Bollywood doesn’t really have a great tradition of converting books into films, they always muck it up. But abroad, they do it all the time and they often do it quite well (that’s why I was so irritated by the new Potter film). For instance, I have seen two absolutely magnificent Russian screen versions of Hamlet and King Lear. More recently, I thought the Lord of the Rings trilogy was done beautifully. it was spectacular and reasonably faithful to the books (which I have read and love to bits).
[Reply]
Deb Reply:
July 29th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Talking of romance, we should thank ourselves that they didn’t dwell more on the one between Harry and Ginny. Though it’s true that the one full kiss between them was shown in the Room of Requirement, which I thought was not there in the book. And what about Dumbledore’s funeral? The disjointedness in the movie is quite jarring at times.
Yeah, I agree the movies try to dumb it down. In that sense, Lord of the Rings was probably more honest. Qualitatively, it was a much better series than HP or Star Wars, as it didn’t try to sidestep the philosophical questions which are integral to the story.
[Reply]
Yeah, I found it quite disappointing too. But Poonam, did you not like the guy who played Horace Slughorn? I think he was brilliant in his role.
I think an American director and scriptwriter would proably habe done justice to the Potter books. Someone like Peter Jackson (Lord of the Rings fame) or Steven Speilberg. But no, they want an all British cast and crew. So what if an American studio finances it!
[Reply]
poonam saxena Reply:
July 25th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Well ya, I guess Horace Slughorn wasn’t bad. And Peter Jackson would have been a very very good idea!
[Reply]
Try to view the film as an independent, will you? Sure it had many many inconsistencies with the book but looking past that, the film was good. It seems you might have gone in with high hopes. It often destroys the movie-watching experience even if the movie was good. Also, I liked the acting. It’s much better than the previous films. And yes, you forgot to mention Jim Broadbent (Slughorn) who acted exactly as he should have - slimy, but with his heart in the right place.
Like I said, when compared to the book the movie is a disaster, but treat it as independent and it really isn’t that bad. Have you seen Transformers 2? I’d recommend you take a look at it to know what a truly bad movie is.
[Reply]
poonam saxena Reply:
July 25th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Dylan, it’s practically impossible to view the film as an independent if you’ve read the book and — as in this case — if you are a fan of the series. I mean, even if I tried, I wouldn’t have been able to. I know that a film can’t have every scene and every twist and turn that’s there in the book, but it should at least stay true to the basic story, the central theme. Sadly enough, the Half-Blood Prince doesn’t do that.
[Reply]
sonal Reply:
July 30th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
“a film can’t have every scene and every twist and turn that’s there in the book, but it should at least stay true to the basic story, the central theme. Sadly enough, the Half-Blood Prince doesn’t do that.”
it is just like you said. there are hardly Any movies based on books that stay true to them. i can give you many many examples….the kite runner, the namesake, pride and prejudice (the keira knightley one) and so on…so is the case with harry potter too. even the earlier movies were dramatically different from the books. i’ve just stopped going with my hopes high to the theatre to watch a harry potter movie, there’s no point really.
[Reply]
Oh I completely agree with you! This movie has made a hash of Half-Blood Prince. Much as people might say, ‘Don’t compare the movie with the books’, it’s all hogwash. It’s impossible to watch a movie on Harry Potter and not remember the books, which like you said, the planet has read and loved!
Which is why, it is my firm opinion that Harry Potter is not the sort of book, which is designed to be made into a movie. The plot is very complex and intricate, with hints and red herrings running across the series. There are subtleties in the story and characterization, which a two and a half (or even three) hour film cannot realistically capture. The movies are regarded as successful if they can just about capture the plot. For a true Potter fan, the basic plot is just part of what makes the books so great. In fact, the books play out more in the fashion of a TV series, where each chapter contains some important event.
At the same time it can’t be denied that a world as imaginative and complete as JK Rowling’s world of magic invites cinematic representation. What a fan like me goes to see the movie for, is to see whether the filmmaker has captured my imagination about that magical world. I personally don’t go looking for a well-made film.
At the same time, the performances were also pretty average by and large. Perhaps my Indian sensibilities, honed by years of melodramatic cinema find it hard to accept the stoic western school of acting. I wanted to see at least someone cry after the death at the end, but no one, not even Harry shed a tear. Just putting wands up in the air and spreading the light somehow doesn’t get to me emotionally! Daniel Radcliffe seems to be getting more and more wooden with every passing year and every emotion just seems to be his trademark shudder and awkward grin. Michael Gambon too might look the part, but he’s a woefully inadequate Dumbledore!
Like you rightly pointed out, only Alan Rickman’s Snape matches up to the wonderful characterization. Among the younger crowd, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint also showed some talent with their comic timing, but it’s a pity that their role was reduced to comic and romantic interludes in a dark story. The revelation for me in this movie though was Tom Felton’s Malfoy who I thought captured Draco’s dilemma wonderfully! Helena Bonham Carter too was brilliant as always!
[Reply]
poonam saxena Reply:
July 25th, 2009 at 10:59 am
True! Come on, it’s Dumbledore that’s died!!!! Everybody should be stricken, and as a viewer, you should feel really really sad. But you don’t…
And I agree with you about Michael Gambon, I much preferred Richard Harris (but my favourite for that kind of role is Ian McKellen who played Gandalf in Lord of the Rings).
But thanks for reminding me about Draco Malfoy — he was okay too. (Helena Bonham Carter didn’t have much to do, did she? Bellatrix just sort of fleetingly flits in and out in the film)
[Reply]
D10 Reply:
July 25th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
I totally agree with you about Ian McKellen! As for Bellatrix, I just felt that for some reason the Death Eaters (as actors) had a far greater impact than the good guys…
[Reply]
Deb Reply:
July 29th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
I’d also go with Ian McKellen. He brought Gandalf alive in LOTR.
[Reply]
I make it a point never to watch a based on a book, I think it akin to blasphemy. When I read a book, I imagine what the characters would be like and a reel plays in my head as I see the story developing. But with a movie, there are fixed actors essaying a role who might be something very different from what you have imagined.
Plus any deviations from the story-line makes one fret and fume like you did. It distorts what the author was trying to portray.
Unfortunately for me, I watched the movie Pride and Prejudice and Keira looked so unconvincing as my favourite Elizabeth Bennett that it made me want to scream.
[Reply]
poonam saxena Reply:
July 26th, 2009 at 11:04 am
That is so true, s2! I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve seen films where the characters look SO different from how I had imagined them. Sometimes though, everything just falls into place beautifully — like with (sorry to bring it up again) Lord of the Rings. That was a perfect ten!
[Reply]
Malvika Reply:
July 28th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
I really agree with S2 on this. Even worse is Aishwarya’a portrayal of Elizabeth in Bride n Prejudice. The characters completely murdered was that of Lydia, Mary n Kitty in the Hindi takeoff.
However, in this context, I must mention the BBC book adaptations which ran on Zee Studio recently. They were faithful to the book n the characters were not fiddled with. I particularly liked their version of ‘Jane Eyre’. Commendable more so since its tough to portray Jane Eyre n Mr. Rochester (Ruth Wilson n Toby Stephens do an excellent job!)
[Reply]
I absolutely agree with everything said above
the movie was such a disappointment; especially when Dumbledore dies,u don’t feel a thing
No emotion at all ,no one even sheds a tear
whereas I cried after reading the sequence of his death in the book
Do u remember the lines like”harry’s scream of horror never left him”…..u cant feel anythin like that while watching the movie
Draco malfoy has done brilliant acting
It is always frustrating to see when they tamper with the plot esp how they have changed the last part of novel with no fight between aurors and death eaters
And also U feel a little irritated when a scene in the movie is different from what u have imagined while reading the novel
But i think as the 7th part of the harry potter series is being made in two parts ,i hope they do more justice to the novel
!
[Reply]
Deb Reply:
July 29th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Yeah, reg. the last fight itself, it was quite an anti-climax. By comparison, the last fight in Order of the Phoenix was at least long drawn out with a lot of magic.
[Reply]
I fully agree with your view. Though i haven’t seen the latest one, i have seen all the previous ones. And all i can remember fondly about the franchise ends at the third part. I never saw anything happening in the later parts.Totally flat the stories have become. Hope the people behind the franchise wake up before the making of the last two parts.
[Reply]
What i hate most about the harry potter movies is that the school and places change with every movie. The burrow, dumbledore’s office, room of requirement’s position, the dormitories, even the quidditch ground are different in the movie version of half-blood prince (thank god the actors are all the same!!).
I concur with poonam on all the points she has mentioned. i was so looking forward to see the fight between aurors and death eaters at the end and was left enormously disappointed when nothing was shown. it made the movie look so lame, i mean the whole movie is about draco’s attempt to bring death eaters to hogwarts so that he has some back-up when he is doing voldemort’s bidding. when no aurors or dumbledore’s army members confront the death eaters, why the hell were they brot to the school? to run on tables and burning hagrid’s hut?
Nobody cries on dumbledore’s death, whereas the chapter White Tomb in the book is so emotionally charged. They could have so removed the the burrow burning sequence and could have lessened the whole romance bit. And they havent done justice even to the romance bits. in the book, ron feels scandalised on seeing ginny kissing dean and starts snubbing hermoine when he comes to know that she kissed krum the previous yearand that is the starting point of the fight between the two. there is nothing like that in the movie. The whole friendship-transfiguring-to-love thing is not just there, which rowling has so brilliantly done in the book.
the peeks into voldemort’s past, which the director has so conveniently omitted, were very important: they showed what the horcruxes probably are. And they neednt have included the whole episode of the visit to slughorn’s place.
draco’s mom, while visiting snape seems as if she is going there for a tete-a-tete, i mean she doesnt look worried or scared for her son. why the hell?
the best parts was undoubtedly the cave sequence and i found the whole romance plot a bit funny as well, it was cute and did produce giggles but shudnt have been there. if i had wanted giggles, wudnt i have gone to watch hangover?
if somebody who hasnt read the books (yes there are some strange souls who havent) goes and watches the potter flicks, i wonder if he/she will be able to comprehend the story at all.
actually the hp series shud be turned in to a daily soap, only then some amount of justice can be done to the seven masterpieces rowling has given to the world.
[Reply]
poonam saxena Reply:
July 26th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Yes, Dumbledore’s dying was handled really really badly in the film. There was no sense of loss, no sense of being orphaned as it were, no sense of tragedy, nothing. What should have been a deeply emotional moment in the film was just dismissed perfunctorily. The book was so much more moving.
And skk, I agree, wish someone would do a first rate TV series (which could have all the detail) on the Potter books
[Reply]
Deb Reply:
July 29th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Yeah, the last sequence beginning with the arrival of DD & HP at Hogwartz was a total washout. No asparating just outside the castle (enchanted) & seeing the sign of Voldemort in the sky over Hogwartz, no fight, nothing.
[Reply]
i liked the movie, despite the flaws:)
and yes..i have similar thoughts about how movies dont match the books…i wrote a blog few days ago..about how movies based on books can be disappointing. have a loook if you get time:
http://joshunlimited.blogspot.com/2009/07/blog-post.html
[Reply]
Totally agree with you, the romance part was a bit overdone, instead of that they could have shown some of the more meaningful parts.
One thing i really liked were the locales where it was shot, i mean the shots of the Hogwarts Express through the countryside and the shots in the snow.. really beautiful.
[Reply]
Hi Poonam,
I have a very different story to share on above. Unlike you guys I have never been a Harry potter fan and have never read the books. I was quite happy to watch the movies which I have enjoyed all immensely. Hence, when i went to see Half blood prince i had the same expectations. But guess what? After seeing the movie, even a person like me who had not read the books thought the whole thing was very disjointed sepcially the bit about half blood prince. I kept wondering if you have a book dedicated to him then how come the entire thing is over by one sentence from Snape? And Now i have started reading the book to know what is the whole thing about Half blood prince ..and im enjoying that..So thanks to this movie i have discovered that i like to read HP books and may even go through the whole series. So aleast somethign good has come out of this
[Reply]
I will give my personal opinion as a non-harry potter fan, but a huge fan of movies in general. This movie felt like setup for things down the road, which when there is only one other book left to adapt (admittedly, into 2 films) is not a good thing.
I felt that the film fell flat because of 2 reasons:
1. The Harry-Hermione chemistry is so good onscreen, that you never want to root for Ron and Hermione or Harry and Ginny.
2. Lack of suspense: The grand act of dumbledore saving harry from gollum (ok, so those creatures look like gollum, i already said i am not a potter fan) comes across as anticlimatic. I never felt like cheering at that moment, and that is when a movie loses me. Contrast this to the hurrah moments when say, John Mcclane arrives to save the hacker dude in Die Hard 4.0, you are actually cheering for him.
I would have added “too long” to the list, but i saw it in IMAX and it had no interval. Hence too long wont apply to most viewers.
[Reply]