I went to see Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince the other evening. I could just write a brief post saying that I enjoyed it, that it was a bit different from the book but that's not necessarily a problem (see previous comments on that subject), and that I still think Prisoner of Azkaban was better. Job done. But Harry Potter won't let me do that, so I'm now going to be tl;dr about it.
Here's the thing: the problem with Harry Potter is not in the concept, but in the execution. Harry Potter is the global phenomenon it is because the universe J K Rowling created has captured people's imaginations - you just have to look at the proliferation of fanfic to see that*. The whole idea of a secret wizarding world existing in parallel with our own is an intriguing one, and the books are full of great, original ideas - Platform 9 3/4, Quidditch, Horcruxes (Horcruces?), Pensieves, etc.
*On second thoughts, don't look at the fanfic. It may scar you for life.
The trouble is, Rowling is not a good enough writer to pull it off - she has a tendency to tell rather than show, she keeps slipping out of third-person limited narration at jarring moments, and she seriously needed an editor to take a red pen to the bloated drafts of the last four books. My main criticism of the books, though, is the characterisation. Most of the characters, even the principal ones, are basically cardboard cutout archetypes - black and white, good or evil, with handsome generally meaning good, and ugly evil.
Which is why I liked the character of Snape so much - he was the exception to this simplistic view. He was a good guy, without being a nice guy: I assume that the intention was to keep us guessing about which side he was on, but I never had any doubt. (Actually, that's not entirely true: it was clear to me that he had to be good, but I wasn't 100% confident that it was clear to J K Rowling.) And the more we found out about him as the books came out, the more interesting he became.
And this, I think, is why I was slightly disappointed with the latest film, even though I did enjoy it: to me (though apparently not to Rowling or to David Yates) book 6 belongs to Snape, so it seemed a terrible shame that he was more or less pushed out of the picture in favour of lots of embarrassed teenage fumbling.
And then there's "the unfortunate event", as Simon Mayo and Mark Kermode have been calling it. As previously mentioned, I don't necessarily have a problem with plots being changed in adaptations, but I'm really not sure about this particular case, because it completely changes the thrust of the scene, for no obvious reason. In the book, Harry is invisible under his Invisibility Cloak, and has been cursed so that he can't move, which means that he's completely helpless and unable to act; in the film, on the other hand, he's not physically impeded in any way, so he is choosing not to intervene (and to obey Snape, which he's never shown any previous inclination to do). Which, apart from being rather out of character for the typically recklessly brave Harry, raises interesting issues relating to free will which I will not bore you with right now :)
And that is nearly 600 words that shows I have been thinking about a children's film far more than is entirely appropriate for a grown woman...
Here's the thing: the problem with Harry Potter is not in the concept, but in the execution. Harry Potter is the global phenomenon it is because the universe J K Rowling created has captured people's imaginations - you just have to look at the proliferation of fanfic to see that*. The whole idea of a secret wizarding world existing in parallel with our own is an intriguing one, and the books are full of great, original ideas - Platform 9 3/4, Quidditch, Horcruxes (Horcruces?), Pensieves, etc.
*On second thoughts, don't look at the fanfic. It may scar you for life.
The trouble is, Rowling is not a good enough writer to pull it off - she has a tendency to tell rather than show, she keeps slipping out of third-person limited narration at jarring moments, and she seriously needed an editor to take a red pen to the bloated drafts of the last four books. My main criticism of the books, though, is the characterisation. Most of the characters, even the principal ones, are basically cardboard cutout archetypes - black and white, good or evil, with handsome generally meaning good, and ugly evil.
Which is why I liked the character of Snape so much - he was the exception to this simplistic view. He was a good guy, without being a nice guy: I assume that the intention was to keep us guessing about which side he was on, but I never had any doubt. (Actually, that's not entirely true: it was clear to me that he had to be good, but I wasn't 100% confident that it was clear to J K Rowling.) And the more we found out about him as the books came out, the more interesting he became.
And this, I think, is why I was slightly disappointed with the latest film, even though I did enjoy it: to me (though apparently not to Rowling or to David Yates) book 6 belongs to Snape, so it seemed a terrible shame that he was more or less pushed out of the picture in favour of lots of embarrassed teenage fumbling.
And then there's "the unfortunate event", as Simon Mayo and Mark Kermode have been calling it. As previously mentioned, I don't necessarily have a problem with plots being changed in adaptations, but I'm really not sure about this particular case, because it completely changes the thrust of the scene, for no obvious reason. In the book, Harry is invisible under his Invisibility Cloak, and has been cursed so that he can't move, which means that he's completely helpless and unable to act; in the film, on the other hand, he's not physically impeded in any way, so he is choosing not to intervene (and to obey Snape, which he's never shown any previous inclination to do). Which, apart from being rather out of character for the typically recklessly brave Harry, raises interesting issues relating to free will which I will not bore you with right now :)
And that is nearly 600 words that shows I have been thinking about a children's film far more than is entirely appropriate for a grown woman...
