Harry Potter films - such as they must exist, given their tentpole status for Warner Brothers - seem to require certain concessions from everyone outside the core target of Fans of the Books. Rather than attempting immersion on purely cinematic levels, a consideration of these films seems fair only when hinged on such "under the circumstances" attributes; only the bold Alfonso Cuaron totally broke free from studio oversight (or at least felt like he did) in Prisoner of Azkaban, the third film. Now three films worth of aesthetic recoil later, The Half-Blood Prince comes to us encumbered by similar issues of narrative balance as the majority of its predecessors - what matters to making this a good film versus what matters in selling this to a zealot-like audience? Personally, I prefer coming to these films as I always have - fan of the books, but with only faint memories of reading them (I've only read the first more than once). Tellingly, the best of the films have been those that made me feel least like I was re-reading their source material on the screen, and so I found Prince's almost whispy, broad-stroke handling of the plot more satisfying in the manner of pure cinema than that of a tedious connecting of the dots. Not every decision made in streamlining this story was wise, however - the climax is foreshadowed for virtually the entire film, first breathtakingly subtle (in an opening pre-title scene with Harry and Dumbledore) , but only to go directly into thuddening blatancy. Visual and verbal wit reigns as the special of the day, however (yes, this is how some high schoolers talk), while thoughtful compositions, in their vast, almost embracing depth, suggest a silent film made today. The effects are less annoyingly attention-grabbing than I'd come to anticipate - instead, they're more texturally banal so as to ground the proceedings in a believable habitat in which magic is a simple fact of life (as opposed to a box office draw). Were the film more consistently awe-inspiring (a madhouse chase through a wheat field suggests the Days of Heaven climax by way of Lynch), or the cast but a sliver more emotionally game (while quite honed and precise in their ever-deepening displays, these veterans nevertheless seem a little tired, even if such is otherwise appropriate given the long-term status of their characters' plights), and this might have been the most sterling Potter entry to date. Such as it is at first glance, it comes close.
Jul 15, 2009
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009): B
Harry Potter films - such as they must exist, given their tentpole status for Warner Brothers - seem to require certain concessions from everyone outside the core target of Fans of the Books. Rather than attempting immersion on purely cinematic levels, a consideration of these films seems fair only when hinged on such "under the circumstances" attributes; only the bold Alfonso Cuaron totally broke free from studio oversight (or at least felt like he did) in Prisoner of Azkaban, the third film. Now three films worth of aesthetic recoil later, The Half-Blood Prince comes to us encumbered by similar issues of narrative balance as the majority of its predecessors - what matters to making this a good film versus what matters in selling this to a zealot-like audience? Personally, I prefer coming to these films as I always have - fan of the books, but with only faint memories of reading them (I've only read the first more than once). Tellingly, the best of the films have been those that made me feel least like I was re-reading their source material on the screen, and so I found Prince's almost whispy, broad-stroke handling of the plot more satisfying in the manner of pure cinema than that of a tedious connecting of the dots. Not every decision made in streamlining this story was wise, however - the climax is foreshadowed for virtually the entire film, first breathtakingly subtle (in an opening pre-title scene with Harry and Dumbledore) , but only to go directly into thuddening blatancy. Visual and verbal wit reigns as the special of the day, however (yes, this is how some high schoolers talk), while thoughtful compositions, in their vast, almost embracing depth, suggest a silent film made today. The effects are less annoyingly attention-grabbing than I'd come to anticipate - instead, they're more texturally banal so as to ground the proceedings in a believable habitat in which magic is a simple fact of life (as opposed to a box office draw). Were the film more consistently awe-inspiring (a madhouse chase through a wheat field suggests the Days of Heaven climax by way of Lynch), or the cast but a sliver more emotionally game (while quite honed and precise in their ever-deepening displays, these veterans nevertheless seem a little tired, even if such is otherwise appropriate given the long-term status of their characters' plights), and this might have been the most sterling Potter entry to date. Such as it is at first glance, it comes close.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Were the film more consistently awe-inspiring (a madhouse chase through a wheat field suggests the DAYS OF HEAVEN climax by way of Lynch)
ReplyDeleteFunny, you saw touches of Malick and Lynch, I saw an incomprehensible mess of a sequence.
I felt one of this film's biggest visual strengths was how it subverted typical blockbuster visual handholding or superficially epic vistas (most annoying trademarks of the series). Those shots of characters running from behind had this splintered quality to their editing that brought the anxieties to an instant boil: whowhatwherewhenwhyhowRUN!
ReplyDeleteOne thing you and I have in common here, rob: "Scorcerer's Stone" is the only book we've made an attempt to revisit. Although, I couldn't finish reading either "Chamber of Secrets" or "Prisoner of Azkaban" on paper.
ReplyDeleteI just wait for the movies.
@Adam: I picked up Sorcerer's Stone again as I was finally deciding to read the series (which was at that point at book 5, if I recall); I'd already read it, but wanted to brush up. As for the others, I mostly enjoyed them but there are too many other books to read.
ReplyDeleteAdam, the books really, really aren't anything all that special. Rowling is not such a great writer. Her greatest virtue is the accessibility of her prose, and the simple stories she tells. I stopped after the fourth book, which I thought was fine, but no 'masterpiece'.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't have any idea what the hell Rob is talking about.
Some other books I gotta read by the end of the this year:
ReplyDeleteLight in August (reading currently)
David Copperfield
The Road
it's impossible.
Impossible is nothing, Adam! And the more you read the better your already excellent writing will become.
ReplyDeleteCurrently reading Into Thin Air, Last Stand of Foxtrot Company and occasionally dipping on some Hercule Poirot stuff.
ReplyDelete