|
By Peter T. Chattaway
 THERE is a lot that could be said about Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix . It is the longest of the books in J.K. Rowling’s
phenomenally popular series, yet it is also the shortest of the five movies
that have come out so far.
The book, which came out in 2003, was the first to be
written after the movies went into production – and it is tempting to
wonder whether Rowling’s description of her characters was influenced
in any way by the actors assigned to the roles.
The book was also the first to come out after the 9/11
terrorist attacks, which lent a heavy subtext to the plot of the novel
– which concerns a cultural and political establishment determined to
do anything but deal with the evildoers in its midst.
But if there is one thing Harry
Potter fans remember about the book, it is
that it was something of a disappointment. Despite its length, and despite
the fact that a significant character dies, not a lot seems to have
happened by the end. And this is a problem the movie version never really
overcomes.
The previous film, Harry
Potter and the Goblet of Fire, ended on a dark
and serious note – with the return of Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) and
the murder of a student by his hands. These actions were witnessed only by
Voldemort’s followers, known as the Death Eaters – and by Harry
Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), who barely escaped alive.
To this darkness, the new film adds a sense of mounting
frustration. Just as the greatest trick the devil ever played was to
convince the world he did not exist, so too Voldemort keeps a low profile
throughout most of this story – allowing the wizarding world to think
rumours of his return have been greatly exaggerated.
Thus, when Harry and his mentor, Hogwarts Headmaster
Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gambon), try to warn their fellow wizards that
Voldemort has come back, and that the wizarding world needs to prepare for
the inevitable showdown, they are accused – by the government, the
media and their friends – of lying and fearmongering.
Chief among these accusers is Dolores Umbridge (Vera Drake’s Imelda
Staunton) – an official from the Ministry of Magic who has been
appointed the new Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher, so the government
can keep an eye on Dumbledore.
Continue article >>
|
Unlike previous DADA teachers, who were all buffoonish
or sympathetic, Umbridge is a genuinely nasty person. Her exceedingly
proper etiquette and her demure sense of style – the smiles, the wee
laugh, the pink clothes and the china plates with cute animated kittens
– mask a cruel authoritarianism. She is, in fact, a sadist.
Thanks to story elements such as these, the film
version of Phoenix was
never going to be the fun, escapist lark the previous movies were. But one
still cannot help but think the film could have been more than what it is.
Where, for example, is the sense of wonder and
enchantment? Once again, Harry learns a few new things about Hogwarts and
the wizarding world in general; but there is little sense of awe about it
this time. For example, when a door to a secret room appears in the wall of
one corridor, it is a convenient plot device, nothing more.
And where is the humour? At times, the film aims for a
little levity; but more often than not, these moments feel forced, dutiful
– even recycled from earlier movies.
Worst of all, with the exception of a few scenes
featuring Alan Rickman’s delectably devious Severus Snape, there are
few – if any – of the ‘grace notes’ which have made
each of the previous films memorable in their own way. Indeed, it is
striking how this film brings together so many talented British actors, yet
gives them so little to do.
This may be because the film is directed by David
Yates, who is the fourth director to work on this series and the first with
no experience on a Hollywood movie. But a bigger problem is probably the
screenplay, by Michael Goldenberg. The earlier films, all of which were
written by Steven Kloves, had to leave out bits of the books, and sometimes
the omissions were puzzling – but they were never this clumsy.
At a few points in this film, we get flashbacks to
Harry’s younger days – to scenes from the earlier movies. It is
startling to realize just how much growing up Harry has done since the
first film came out six years ago.
It is also sobering to think that a series which began
with such potential is beginning to show serious signs of sequel fatigue.
Let us hope that the franchise gets its second wind, and soon.
August 2007
|
Personally, one of the things I loved about this series, (books and movies), is that they grew along with me. I was thirteen when I read the first book, and so the lighthearted enchantment was appropriate. Now, at twenty-one, I can appreciate the serious nature of the later books, which I most certainly wouldn't recommend to a thirteen-year-old.
It's true that many people didn't like the fifth book as much as the previous ones, because "very little happened." Order of the Phoenix was a character development book, and I, personally, enjoyed it very much.
I agree with you that there was quite a bit left out of this film. Yes, it could have been longer. And yet, I don't begrudge the makers of the film too much for this fact, because I didn't feel like this film was cutting corners nearly as much as the last few. It was what it was meant to be...a very engrossing film.
The one point I will really agree on is the minimal inclusion of some of the greatest British actors of ours time. I was thrilled to find out that Helena Bonham Carter was going to be in the film, and disappointed to find out that she was only in it for a total of five minutes. She dominated every scene she was in and the film could have used more of her. Sirius Black's character was very underdeveloped compared to his character in the book, which is tragic considering the fact that Gary Oldman is one of my all-time favorite actors and could have done great things with the part. And I think I, like many fans of the books, would have been glad to see Maggie Smith's McGonagall giving the verbal bitch-slap to Umbridge that we were all expecting.
That aside, I'm going to go ahead and say that I've liked the film series more with each installment. I was never the biggest fan of the first two films, though I'm going to go ahead and put the blame on Chris Columbus, who I never felt was that talented a director. As these films have progressed, though, the acting has improved and the plots have run more smoothly. Overall, they just keep getting better. Personally, I'm glad David Yates will be directing Half-Blood Prince as well, and I can't wait to see what he does with it.
The books are among my favorites for readers of any age, but the movies, while very cool, compared to the books leave a lot to be desired. Would have been better to make more movies so that everything could have been included, I think.
The problem, as I wrote, is not that the film is dark, but that it lacks the original humour and magical enchantment of the previous films -- and yes, humour and enchantment are possible even in "dark" films. Note my comment above re: the film's introduction of the Room of Requirement. I could also have mentioned the way the film utterly wastes Luna Lovegood, who would have brought a whole new kind of humour to the series.
For the record, my favorite film in the series so far is Prisoner of Azkaban, though Goblet of Fire gave it a run for its money.
And re: the question of whether they should have adapted these books as multiple movies, I have been saying for years that they should have adapted each novel as a mini-series, or as a single season of an on-going TV series. Each book takes place over the course of a school year, so the timing would fit, and the extended running time would allow each character to be given his or her due. And I gather that shows like 24 -- which I have never seen, but I hear about all the time -- have proved that you can stretch a self-contained mystery over an entire year's worth of episodes.
But TV shows aren't as lucrative as movies, so that was never going to happen.