Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows

If you have read all the Harry Potter books, then Deathly Hallows is a very good movie. If you haven't read the books but you've seen all the movies, and you are a quick study, it is almost as good a movie. If you have neither read the books nor seen any of the previous movies (surely someone somewhere will find himself in that situation), you had better have a taste for the kind of film that tells you almost nothing.

I think it is true that each movie in the Harry Potter series has functioned less as a standalone film than did its predecessor and more as an animated illustration appended to its book. In films based on books, a character will frequently say something that is a little bit artificial and out of place because it is necessary to provide the audience with background information. That was dispensed with more and more as the series went on.

If I am right about that, the first half of Deathly Hallows completes the process. Early in the film Hermione walks quietly up behind her parents, points her wand, and whispers "obliviate". Then she walks around the room magically removing herself from all the family photos. Not a word is spoken to explain what she is doing or why. The scene brought tears to my eyes because I had a very good idea of both. In scene after scene, the movie presents the characters acting in a context which is supplied by the book. Who is this new Weasley and who is this wispy blonde he is about to marry? What does the cryptic message delivered by the silver apparition have to do with the sudden appearance of malevolent, smoldering ghosts?

This is not a criticism. Quite the contrary, it is a sign that the death of the book has been greatly exaggerated. When a film is based on a book, the former usually cannibalizes the original characters and storylines until they are almost unrecognizable. Consider the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes movies, or the James Bond films. In the case of Harry Potter, the opposite has happened. Such is the power of the books and so widely have they been read and become part of the audience consciousness that the books devoured the movies.

I have a hard time imagining a better film adaption of this book than this movie. I always find pacing in this sort of film to be a bit disappointing. I listened to an audio production over four days while traveling this summer. That gave a sense of great events carried out over a significant period of time. No single film can compete with that.

What the film did it did very well. Each scene was exquisitely crafted. I don't think a single one fell short. A lot of very powerful actors got only minutes to work their craft, but that was enough. Alan Rickman's Severus Snape (may his name be praised!) gets one good shot. I am haunted by it. But of course, I know what Snape's enigmatic expressions meant when he watched as a colleague from Hogwarts tortured and murdered. I know who and what Snape is.

The three main actors are superb as usual. The landscapes, sets, and visual effects are all stunning. CGI my ass, they hired real house elves to play house elves. I was thoroughly captured and delighted by the movie. Of course, I was delighted by the book.

Comments

[duggersd]

Perhaps one of the reasons the movie captures the book as well as it does has to do with the author being part of the production. As I recall, she had veto power on what they did in the movie. Sometimes authors see their "babies" turned into something completely different from what they had in the first place. Your example of Bond is a great example. I doubt Ian Fleming would recognize his character. I never read many of the books, but I did read the Spy Who Loved Me. I think that was all the book and the movie had in common.

[Travis]

I guess we can agree on a couple of things Dr. Blanchard - I have loved the books and can't wait for the final movie this spring!

[KB]

The truth of the matter, Travis, is that we agree on almost everything. We are just more interested in the disagreements. Yes, the Potter series was grand.

Dugger: the author's power was not altogether beneficial when it came to the books themselves. They needed editing, but after the third book (the best, in my opinion), she was too powerful to edit. The movies may be another story. I think that the time constraints served as editor, and the force of the story did the rest.

[duggersd]

Well, Dr. Blanchard, I really do not know much about the need for editing books. I pretty much just read them and if I like them I do and if not, I don't. When she wrote the first book, I believe she was a person with very little experience of writing.
The story is aimed at people who are rather young readers and that shows in the books. This is a series that was wildly popular and successful. It met the expectations of the target audience and got a whole lot of people reading books that were a lot bigger than most kids that age read. Perhaps if it had some editing, the books would have been better and even more successful. But on the other hand, how much more successful would they have been? I would not even think about telling Rowlings how to fix her books.