In Which Shall be Examined Films, Art, and their Intersections (or Lack Thereof)

Friday, November 26, 2010

Promising Part: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

I've read a lot of mixed reviews about David Yates's latest, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1. Though they're typically positive, most reviewers seem a bit bemused by this half of the film adaption of Rowling's seventh novel. Fact of the matter is, few people really know what to think about Deathly Hallows Part 1. It doesn't fit into anyone's expectations. But I think most confusion will be cleared up if people remember that this is, after all, part 1, and not the whole story.

The most common puzzler for reviewers, and thus the most frequent complaint, is how dark the film is. And they're absolutely right - this film is dark in a way none of the other Potters have been. It has very few humorous moments, and those moments feel more like accidents than anything else. We spend no time at Hogwarts - with its romance, beauty and Dumbledore-supervised adventures - and school days are but a memory. The lighting reflects this darkness, as very few shots in the film have bright light. The actors (as I have heard some reviewers complain) do little more than frown in stress and worry. All these observations on the film's darkness are very true and not what you'd expect from a Harry Potter movie.

But that's the point. The first half of Rowling's seventh novel is rough too. After all, it's in the first half of the story that there is absolutely no hope, none whatsoever. Not until the trio reaches Shell Cottage, knowing how to destroy Horcruxes, do they begin to think they've got the tiniest chance against Voldemort. Minister of Magic Rufus Scrimgeour's words describe the first half of the book best: "These are dark times, there is no denying it. Our world has known no greater threat than it does today." This seventh film is not for the faint-of-heart, and absolutely not for any young people.

You see, as the young wizards come of age (17, in the wizarding world), they begin to face the tough realities of adult life. And I really mean that they face them. Ron Weasley confronts his worse fears, among them a racy kiss between Harry and Hermione (one of the primary reasons this film should not be shown to children). Muggle-born Hermione is tortured by Bellatrix Lestrange, and though most of the torture occurs off-screen, the performances of Watson and Bonham Carter are so powerfully convincing that the scene really haunts you. The story is book-ended by excruciating sacrifices and its center turns on the moment when the trio breaks up painfully. Several of the fight scenes are intense enough that I'd say they're ought of bounds for anyone really young or immature. All in all, Deathly Hallows Part 1 isn't really a "fun" film to watch, at least by Potter standards; it's a pretty tough film on the viewer. It's no surprise to me that many walk out of the theater more serious than joyful.

But I confess, the intensity and darkness of Deathly Hallows Part 1 didn't bother me. The reasons are threefold. First, it was appropriate to what is going on with the characters in the story. Yes, there's some tough/nasty stuff going on. But to be frank, life's tough. When you come of age, when you're an adult, life takes you by surprise and whirls you around while you try to get a grip on things. In real life, people face hard things like desertion, jealousy, and death. When you're fighting for what's right, the people you love face serious danger. In Deathly Hallows Part 1, you see these things come out. It's not always pleasant, but it's boldly, thought-provokingly honest.

Secondly, the seriousness of the film is very faithful to its half of Rowling's seventh novel. It is unfortunate that, in this first half, the darkness doesn't let up, but that's how the story goes. Really, Deathly Hallows Part 1 was almost unfailingly true to the book, though it did not go quite so far as Chris Columbus's rather slavish adaptions. Of course, Part 1 will require some help from the final film, which brings me to my third reason.

I also didn't mind the intensity of Deathly Hallows Part 1 because I have hope that the final film will blow my socks off my feet. Part 1 just won't work well if the last film is a flop. But if Part 2 can succeed in bringing everything together and in compensating us for the intense darkness of Part 1, the two films combined have the potential for five hours of cinematic art, the kind which ought to be made more regularly.

Something to keep in mind if you go to see Deathly Hallows Part 1 is its primary question: Is goodness really worth the price we pay? In other films, where the trio have elders they can turn to and rely on, they never question the value of fighting for good. But when it comes time to call their own shots, things get blurry. Ron deals with a desire for vengeance, a jealousy of his friends, and a fear for his entire family. "Nobody else is going to die," says Harry, "Not for me." No wonder they lose their grip sometimes. And when we look into the dark circles under Hermione's lonely eyes and her care-worn expressions, we can't help but ask the question. Is destroying a Horcrux (a bit of evil soul) really worth all this pain and toil, all the blood and strife? Though the movie never gets into this, the story does end with the belief that, yes, goodness is worth all this sacrifice. But unfortunately, viewers will have to wait until July to get the movie's answer. This first half sets the stage for the second in the best possible way: it shows just how much you have to be willing to lose in order to conquer evil.

Now, Deathly Hallows Part 1 does have its faults. The prime example was that it didn't flow quite smoothly enough. Yates once again proves that his strength lies in poignant vignettes and specific scenes with his Obliviate prologue, Harry and Hermione dancing scene, Godric's Hollow Graveyard, among many others. Even certain sequences, like the brilliant Ministry of Magic scenes, work splendidly. But Yates's ability to string them together is not as strong. I can name sequences which are simply enchanting, but the transitions from one scene/sequence to another is often not a smooth as it ought to be. I am willing here, however, to grant David Yates a little artistic license. A lot of the clunkiness can be interpreted as a deliberate artistic choice, and if you choose this interpretation, it's actually quite skillful. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 is first and foremost character drama. The film isn't actually concerned with the movement of the plot as much as it is with the portrayal of each character's psychology. For example, Yates focuses more on Hermione's loneliness (a particularly well-done theme through the film) than her typical "girl power" image. He emphasizes Ron's vulnerability instead of his humor. But the overall smoothness of the plot suffers as a consequence.

But I really felt that the strengths of the film outweighed this potential problem. The cinematography and lighting were just as excellent as in the last film. And the acting in this series just keeps getting better. Daniel Radcliffe succeeds quite well with Harry and, for the first time since The Sorcerer's Stone, I'm satisfied with the portrayal of Ronald Weasley. Ron is no longer the stupid comedic relief, and thus finally becomes the important, deep character he is in the books. Watson, who has already proved herself countless times, once again acts her role like a pro. In some scenes, notably that of Hermione's torture, her acting was downright chillingly brilliant.

And when other actors are required (most of the film is spent between just Harry, Ron, and Hermione), they all flourish. The cold Ralph Fiennes continues as Lord Voldemort, and his Death Eaters are led by the superb Helena Bonham Carter (honestly, Carter's role here is overlooked by most reviewers and film awards. It takes guts and talent to pull off a role this crazy). I could go through a list of the other actors, but since this film is practically a catalogue of the greatest British acting talent of our day, I think I shall cease my raptures here. I only note, for those fortunate enough to have seen Gwyneth Paltrow's Emma, that the wonderful Sophie Thompson appears here in a small role (Just a tidbit for fellow fans of British acting).

I know that this review is rather longer than usual, but I cannot end without discussing Alexandre Desplat's soundtrack. Continuing in the footsteps of Patrick Doyle and Nicholas Hooper, Desplat moves away from that sterile Hedwig Theme and brings new life into the sound of Harry Potter. But just as Part 1 is a very different movie from its predecessors, this soundtrack is special. Desplat completely captures the sombre nature of the story with a sound reminiscent of James Horner's Braveheart; in the meantime, he creates a sound which transcends its Harry Potter stereotype. Desplat uses his strings to maximum emotional effect, and as a means to unify the soundtrack, as can be seen in pieces such as "Obliviate", "Snape to Malfoy Manor", "Ron Leaves", and "Ron's Speech". A new sound for the series is the delightful cello, a development which I find thrilling. Occasionally, Desplat makes excursions with other instruments - the piano in "Harry and Ginny" and the flute in "Farewell to Dobby". A few pieces are odds and ends, pleasant though they be. He captures the ultimate bureaucratic sound in "The Ministry of Magic" and "Lovegood" is beyond my ability to describe, it's so unique. By and large, the piece that encompasses the most musical themes is "Godric's Hollow Graveyard", which incorporates the piano, strings, and the signature solo cello. All in all, I found this music the most profound which has yet been composed in the series.

And so, I found Deathly Hallows Part 1 quite excellent, when taken with a few provisos: 1) the second film must round the story off well and 2) people do not let children sit through it. What many people (including, I believe, the person I accompanied to the movie) found depressing, I simply found refreshingly honest and thought-provoking. Deathly Hallows Part 1 doesn't try to hide the tough parts of becoming a responsible adult. It isn't content to be part of the most successful franchise in movie history - it actually wants to examine human nature and the struggles people face. As such, Yates's Part 1 is not, I repeat, not for children. It's an adult movie (ie., beneficial to adults but harmful to children). But for its appropriate audience, Deathly Hallows Part 1 really transcends its place in the Harry Potter series. It wants to be more than entertainment, a fact which I can appreciate. If Part 2 can maintain that transcendence, and still bring light and hope to the story, I'd say that Deathly Hallows is definitely worth a viewing.

Saturday, November 13, 2010

Confused Prince: Where Brilliance Meets Madness

The strengths and weaknesses of David Yates's Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince could be summed up by looking at the first ten minutes of its running time. Its beginning is frankly beautiful; I got goose-bumps as Dumbledore leads a broken Harry through the pressing reporters of the magical world. Continuing in Yates's flair for brilliant scenes, this beginning one was incredibly artistic. The lighting, the colors, the acting, the music: they gave me such great pleasure.

Fast forward to Harry, sitting in a subway cafe and reading the Daily Prophet. A flirting waitress informs him that she gets off work at 11, and Harry nods his head and hurriedly checks his breath. Wait, what just happened? No longer the young hero, who bears burdens beyond his years and learns to be the responsible man he must be. No, here we see Harry as a shallow young man who drives around on subways and flirts with waitresses to, as he puts it, "take his mind off things". I call this mediocre at best, and downright shameful at worst.

So, what's the problem? The film adaption of Harry Potter and Half Blood Prince, hated as it is by many fans of the books, does have some truly incredible qualities. Hooper's soundtrack is inspirational. Delbonnel's cinematography made me feel like I was watching a Vermeer painting; he plays with light like a true master of painting. And most of the acting remains thoroughly solid ground for the film to stand on.

Yet the film has some serious failings which made it impossible to like completely. Because the film focuses more on the story's romantic relationships than on Harry's discoveries about Lord Voldemort's past, problems in the relational development are far more glaring. The greatest of these was Harry and Ginny Weasley's outrageous "romance", or so some call it. In the book, Harry and Ginny's relationship is not as appealing as Ron and Hermione's, but it still has a life of its own. But in the film, when Bonnie Wright's nondescript Ginny meets Radcliffe's inconsistent Potter, we're given a prime example of teenage drama and disaster. Radcliffe's Harry drifts his way into a crush on Ginny after apparating to the Burrow and seeing her reading in a window sill (please, hear me scoff). Even more disgustingly miraculous is that somehow, after a a handle of pining looks from Harry, Ginny appears to reciprocate Harry's emotions. Oh, young love in all its glory! I'm afraid I'm left with Hermione, saying "Excuse me, I have to go and vomit."
The other relationship, between Hermione and Ron, requires a tad more examination. Apparently, self-confident, sassy, and brilliant Hermione Granger also has room in her schedule for a heart overfilling with powerful emotions. And though Hermione does a relatively good job of keeping those emotions in their proper place, the audience watches Hermione's trials with the greatest sympathy. The delightful Miss Emma Watson milks her character for everything it's worth, and the result is charming. She makes every twitch of Hermione's eyebrows, every glance of her eyes count. Her mastery of the character is remarkable; in Watson's hands, Hermione blossoms even more. She stammers, makes sharp intakes of breath, and yet remains the reliable Hermione we all love so much. I must admit that, somehow, Watson manages to make her side of the romance very realistically endearing.
But the movie runs into a serious problem that I've been awaiting since The Chamber of Secrets. Through no fault of his own, Grint's Ron just isn't convincing as a romantic possibility for the incredible Hermione. I kept asking myself why Hermione Granger would possibly fall in love with an emotional, irresolute, and (to be completely honest) non-existent character. In the films, Ron has merely been comedic relief, and very rarely does the movie-Ron capture the very real character in the book. In the book Ron is irresponsible at times and very insecure; he does, however, have real character qualities that suit Hermione perfectly. He's got an inner calm that Hermione often needs to rely on (particularly when she's freaking out about her schoolwork). And above all else, Ron is not flashy, a fact which he eventually comes to accept. While sniffing Slughorn's love potion, Hermione says, "For example I smell freshly mown grass, and new parchment, and spearmint...toothpaste." She smells touches of a simple life, the life in which Ron excels. He's very grounded, and it is this solidity of character which makes him perfect for Miss Granger. But unfortunately, the movie-Ron lacks the book-Ron's strengths, making any romance between the two friends truly implausible.

A few notes: Tom Felton excelled as Draco Malfoy. He more than captured the psychological quandaries the young Death Eater faces. Michael Gambon is decent as Dumbledore, but he still doesn't capture the powerful contemplator of the book. And though Radcliffe and Gambon work well together, Harry and Dumbledore's important hours working together to destroy Voldemort get lost behind the relational issues the characters face.

And so, to conclude, I found Yates's Half Blood Prince a Chex Mix of brilliant artistry and revolting hogwash. Please, pardon a very bad pun when I say that Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince was, shall we say, half and half.

Echoes from My Headphones: A Taste of the Music I'm Listening to



Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Echoes from My Headphones: A Taste of the Music I'm Listening to

Dear Mr. Desplat~

I believe I've underestimated you. I'm going to look for some more of your music at the library.

Sincerely, Jillian

The Rebirth of the Phoenix

Well, the pendulum has swung back round to the middle, ladies and gents. David Yates, in his Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, learned several good lessons from Prison of Azkaban director Alfonso Cuaron. Almost all the strengths which made me like the third film so much can be found in this fifth one, and though Phoenix does not quite achieve the excellence of Cuaron's work, it comes pretty darn close.

The entire film hinges on the vigorous unity of the screenplay. From beginning to end, the story flowed so well, it was almost as if it didn't require its predecessors. Phoenix stood on its own two feet, and didn't merely trickle along like The Goblet of Fire. Anything in the novel (the longest of all seven) which could possibly detract from this unity was ruthlessly cut. Though this did unfortunately result in some important omissions (Fred and George Weasley, for example, are not merely school-dropping bumpkins. They have plans for their lives which don't make it on screen), the film has an attractive concision. Despite a rather rushed atmosphere, it rolled along quite well.

Yates also tries really hard to maximize the strengths of his actors. Dan Radcliffe, for example, excels at playing a hero in torment but is not so successful at playing a flourishing one. So Yates makes the most of Harry's inner turmoil and Radcliffe shines as a result. The key to Grint's participation, however, is minimal dialogue. Though fascinating in the novels, in the movies Ron is at best a weak character, and at worst is downright despicable. Thus, Grint finds himself with fewer lines and a mercifully shorter haircut, both of which suit him well. Watson underplays the character of Hermione a tad; I suspect, however, that her retiring performance helps Radcliffe shine the brighter.

In the Phoenix, Michael Gambon is finally in his element. The need for an energetic and forceful Dumbledore suits him completely, far more the contemplative Dumbledore audiences have seen so far. And Imelda Staunton, the incredible British comedian, knocks my socks off as Dolores Umbridge. Fellow fans will also enjoy her performance because here, Staunton isn't just asked to make people laugh. She captures the cold heart beneath Umbridge's pink frills and the red-taped, ineffective methods of the Ministry of Magic. Staunton chills to the bones, and I highly applaud her acting abilities.

In addition, Yates has some of the best scenes I've encountered in the whole film series. The Sacking of Trelawny (excellently acted by Emma Thompson) sent chills up and down my spine. In that one scene, pages and pages of Harry's feelings in the book are expressed. And I get chills just thinking about the Possession scene where Harry resolves his internal conflict. The themes of the whole film are summed up when Harry looks at his friends while he's being tortured by Voldemort (this may be found here).

And with a final note, I turn to the film's composer, Nicholas Hooper. I have read complaints by people who wish Hooper had incorporated John Williams's signature "Hedwig Theme" more into the film. They are right in observing Hooper's move away from the famous theme, but they are most mistaken in saying it's a bad idea. The famous Hedwig Theme fits Harry's early years well enough, but as the story progresses, Potter needs something deeper, and more moving, though perhaps less flashy. This task Hooper fulfills exceptionally.

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Decent Time

What would you do if you could turn back time?

This question is the primary theme of Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, the video game-turned-movie of this past summer. Directed by none other than Mike Newell from Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and produced by the legendary Jerry Bruckheimer, Prince of Persia was a guaranteed financial success. With connections like that, no movie could be a complete flop; it can, however, be bombarded by critics as fake, plotless, and predictable.

And the critics are right in that respect. Prince of Persia is about as original as a red brick; I could have predicted 90% of the whole plot and script. Ruggedly dashing warrior-hero? Check. Feisty princess/love interest? Check. Wicked stepmother, er, excuse me, uncle? Check. Someone saying, "You're not my type"? Check. The story was like a poorly cut-and-pasted word document; I couldn't help feeling bad for the screenwriters. Writing a movie based on a video game is no easy task, and I'm afraid they weren't up to the task.

But despite the cheesiness (by cheesy, I mean really cheesy), an admittedly exhausted Jillian enjoyed it more than she expected. Most of its appeal comes from Jake Gyllenhaal's debonair performance. Not unlike Errol Flynn in The Adventures of Robin Hood, Gyllenhaal sweeps around the screen, defeating entire cities, escaping all foes, and grinning roguishly at the ladies in the audience during all spare moments. In addition to his warrior charm, Gyllenhaal's Dastan has a sort of morality rare to find in today's hero. Not only does Dastan go out of his way to help the fair Olivia de Hav....I mean, Tamina - in the whole movie, all they share is one kiss. This hero type, although predictable as all get out, is much more classic and thus more enjoyable than that popular currently.

When you add to this an ending which gives your insides warm fuzzies, Prince of Persia was a decent use of a tired Friday night.

Echoes from My Headphones: A Taste of the Music I'm Listening to

I know the beginning of this is not especially pretty, but the bit starting at 1:08 is simply gorgeous. In this respect, it's like James Newton Howard's Those We Don't Speak Of from The Village.

Friday, November 5, 2010

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Echoes from My Headphones: A Taste of the Music I'm Listening to

This has a very similar sound to James Newton Howard's Hidalgo. It does, however, have a stronger sense of action. The two combined would make for an excellent The Horse and His Boy soundtrack.

Just saying.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010