(I did this review long before I started this blog however i am posting it in anticipation of part 2 which will be released to the public later this week My reviews have matured considerably since this review as you will see. I seem to have anticipated some issues that will be addressed in part 2)
The absence of Hogwarts in the latest Harry Potter film: the deathly hallows exposes the superficiality of the franchise. The absence of Hogwarts is not necessarily a bad thing since it is supposed to be adapted from the book however that vibrancy normally associated with the closed environment at Hogwarts is missing and so it seems like a letdown. I say seems because this film seems to have no momentum at times and the current open adventure that Harry potter finds himself in with Ron and Hermione seems to take place in a void. They disappear and reappear in the middle of nowhere and i, as a neutral, cannot seem to understand where they are at times. There are several plot conveniences associated with this. When Harry and his band reappear in the middle of nowhere they (not surprisingly) find an important clue in their quest for the horcruxes. The closed environment of Hogwarts on the other hand seemed to suggest that this was a place steeped in lore and this helped the neutral viewer to ignore that the harry potter films are pretty shallow from an emotional point of view. The lore of Hogwarts was always explained and so you never felt left out as a neutral. The films have always been about the panache as opposed to establishing any serious emotional connection i.e. unless you discount that you are watching this teenager blossom throughout his high school years. In this film for instance Harry Potter appears nervous all the time, he is stiff and walks as if he is stunted and I am not sure if it is the actor or if it is due to the fact that he has been brutalized since he was young: first by his aunt and then by his many experiences at hogwarts. Watching these characters grow is probably the most rewarding experience of this franchise. It is only too convenient that all these terrible incidents take place during their time at Hogwarts and since I have not read the book I will see whether he will defeat Voldemort in the year that is supposed to be his final high school year so as to round off the series (how convenient). The Harry Potter films have also introduced a problem that comes when you serialise films in such a manner. From what I read in the books the problem was there but the author due to the liberties of expression that is afforded to her through the medium of print, was able to avoid this issue. The Lord of the Rings was one story and so it never encountered this difficulty whereas each Harry Potter film seems like a different story as opposed to being part of a whole. I have read the first 5 books and obviously everything centres on the return of Voldemort and how the chosen one (how convenient) Harry Potter will defeat him. I don’t think it is fair to review this film as it is part 1 of 2 however the filmmakers have bowed to the demands of the fans and have sacrificed the potential of this film franchise from an artistic point of view.
The plot of the film is pretty simple: Harry potter and his friends need to defeat Voldemort. The only way to do this is to find 7 horcruxes (not sure of spelling) and destroy them. They also have to prevent Voldemort from accessing the deathly hallows which would make him immortal. The only reason neutrals are mystified by the plot is that there were six previous films and how can you possibly remember all that came before; they are simply concerned with the here and now and so some terms and characters may seem alien and so mystifying. Every filmgoer will go in knowing that it is the basic tale of good vs. Evil. Everything has its own internal logic and J. K Rowling should be commended for creating an original fantasy with its own historical context. No fantasy can long survive without a proper historical context because the further back the lore goes the better served are the present crop of characters when they have to encounter these so called myths and legends. This is why the most memorable and original sequence in this film was the scene where they sought to explain the origin of the deathly hallows. It is clearly not myth for voldemort is in hot pursuit of the relics associated with the deathly hallows. Harry Potter is not allowed to go to school in his final year since he is ostracised by Voldemort and his supporters who are now in full control of the Ministry of Magic and the school. The only way for him to become a part of the whole is to return and defeat Voldemort and his cronies. He has Hermione and Ron with him for support. The major characteristic of the Voldemort group is their intolerance for mixed blood individuals i.e. individuals who have an affinity towards ordinary humans and the so called superior magical beings. Voldemort and his cronies demand that only the pureblood magical beings be accepted in the magical world and so they carry out a witch hunt for those individuals with mixed blood that they call mud bloods. It is clear that this contrasted with the Dumbledore approach which was more inclusive of all beings i.e. he was more progressive. Aside from the witch hunt and the ghastly appearances Voldemort and his cronies do not seem that terrifying because they are simply expressing a philosophy that a lot of people adhere to and this gives the Harry Potter franchise some allegorical significance. An idea has two sides: Good vs. Evil; Liberal vs. Conservative; Realist vs. Idealist; Life vs. Death etc and each side reveals the contradiction in the other which is why there is always a stalemate. In the present day the Good approach is to be inclusive of everything: Bleaching, homosexuals, men dressing like women, drugs, sexual promiscuity, freedom of expression and the works. All this equates to being free to do whatever you want. Just be free everything will be alright. There is another side however and this side would find bleaching, homosexuality, drugs, sexual promiscuity and freedom of speech as harmful vices to society and there is proof for this. This side is normally considered quite conservative and old fashioned and at times is portrayed as Evil in the simplest sense by the forces of Good because they are intransigent and cannot get with the times or they will not allow freedom of expression. In this case what is Evil is actually good and vice versa; so called criminals for instance feel that they should be free to do whatever they want which is why you have a conservative force (the police) to check this freedom of expression. In Jamaica this conservative force is characterised as ‘Babylon’ for instance because they supposedly uphold the shackles of the law which deny people (the so called criminals) their freedom. The law will always have shackles so that we cannot be completely free. When the conservative member goes over to the Liberal side they are labelled as corrupt by the conservatives and conversely a liberal man who decides to cooperate with the conservatives will be considered a conservative member because he is aiding to deny freedom of expression. It is this freedom of expression that led to the recession for instance and not surprisingly the people that are doing well in the recession were conservative. In other cases you need to promote freedom of expression in the economic sphere so as to generate new investment opportunities. One side compliments the other in such cases. Conservatives by their very nature can be considered corrupt when you consider that it normally involves engrossing all unto themselves i.e. everything has to pass through them (like money) and they decide what to do with it. The Conservative (Government or any established financial institution; a new financial institution with a quick get rich scheme is usually quite Liberal and loose. Also most institutions start out as Liberal but the longer they stick around the more they become considered conservative even if they make Liberal approaches to their product. In this sense the Liberal approach will still be considered under the umbrella of the conservative Board of directors, chairman etc) for instance normally holds on to your money and seeks to control how you spend it thereby coming across as corrupt should something go wrong and your money cannot be accounted for. Everything fluctuates between one side and the other. As is seen in this film the conservative Voldemort and his cronies are portrayed (not surprisingly) as ghouls, or soulless individuals. They go further with Voldemort who has a reptilian type face probably in likeness of a snake. (In the Euro American zone reptiles such as snakes are demonised). Will the liberals (Harry Potter) defeat the conservatives (Voldemort)? There is absolutely no surprise in this scenario.
There are some problems with the film and I will briefly discuss these in detail. This is a two part film on the same subject. It remains to be seen whether all these issues will be addressed in the later film. I have given up on questioning the story but there is one thing everyone should know so as to distinguish between good and bad fiction. The Good fiction explains everything in its premise the bad does not. A vulgar film viewer does not see much of a distinction between the two. A vulgar/crude person cannot see the distinction between anything for that matter. I have given up questioning the story because, as noted before, this story has its own logic so to question its entire makeup would require a reading of all seven Harry potter books. There is only one thing you can question in a film such as this: Did it explain everything in sufficient detail so that a neutral viewer caught in the moment would understand? As mentioned before there were times when I was lost when the three musketeers kept disappearing and reappearing (called apparition) in the middle of nowhere. I understood some sequences where it was a daring escape so they would disappear to anywhere so long as they escaped. There were times when they were just walking around, sleeping in tents with no clue as to where they wanted to go. These parts where they are just meandering seemed to slow the film down. There are times when the film introduces a couple action scenes with people running around zapping each other. The death Eaters, the servants of Voldemort, are on the hunt for Harry Potter and this is the impetus that it seems drives the three musketeers onward into empty open lands. What could have given the film some momentum was some additional scenes away from Harry Potter to enhance the experience and make it appear as if this was a struggle shared by all. This is done at the beginning for instance but as soon as the three musketeers go on their path it seems pretty uninteresting. There is also a time when they encounter the house of some magician in the middle of nowhere and there is no clue as to how they got there. In the closed space of Hogwarts there was a specific map of the entire school so that you would know exactly where they were going or even without the map you would know that they are in some area unknown to the general populace but still a feature of the lore of Hogwarts. In the open space you are at a loss. Fans of the book probably will not be but the neutral will find them self lost because of this lack of detail. The main problem is that they centred everything on Harry. If Harry is not in the picture you have no clue of what is going on on the outside. The filmmakers could have interspersed the adventure of Harry Potter with the other characters that were featured at the beginning for instance. I am sure you will only hear about what is happening to them when Harry encounters them. The reason why the Lord of the Rings was able to continue its momentum through the two films after the fellowship of the ring was because after the separation of the fellowship the filmmakers were able to keep you abreast of what was going on with all characters simultaneously. When their paths did collide at the end of ‘the return of the King’ there was no need for any longwinded explanation about what happened to everybody. If you are interested watch the scene where Frodo awakes to a smiling Gandalf and is greeted by the other member of the fellowship. It is a celebration of renewal and victory. Imagine if Peter Jackson and crew put in a scene where Frodo starts questioning Gandalf; ‘what Happened Gandalf? Then what would follow is a long uninteresting scene. Frodo does ask Gandalf what happened to him in the ‘the fellowship of the Ring’. Gandalf just says that he was delayed but the filmmakers were compelled nonetheless to show you what happened in a simple flashback thereby enhancing the visual experience without bogging it down in superfluous narrative. This is not done in this Harry Potter film and it is even more interesting when at the beginning they say that ‘you cannot do this on your own Mr. Potter’. Also Ron listens to a radio saying that he wants to hear what is going on. It does seem however that Harry with Ron and Hermione, which has always been the case, thinks they can do it on their own. All this would be unnecessary if the filmmakers updated us themselves instead of waiting until Harry discovers someone who tells him a longwinded story. This would have required additional scenes to enhance the visual experience. Harry Potter fans should remember that this is a film not a book. Books have more of a luxury but films depend on the visuals you need to see what is going on especially in a film such as this where so much is to be happening. You only see Voldemort in one or two scenes independent of Harry Potter and so you must guess when is the next time you see him after that: Yes thats right when Harry Potter has visions of him. The film would have been stronger if Voldemort had more scenes independent of Harry Potter so as to establish some credibility to the whole scenario because I do not like the idea that I have to take the visions of Harry Potter as the only source for what is going on. The filmmakers were probably afraid of Harry Potter fans; for what I am speaking of would probably require scenes that were not in the book. These scenes would be helpful to get a better understanding of the events happening outside of Harry Potter’s control. It is because they do not do this that Dobby, the elf, in one scene appears out of nowhere, to save Harry Potter. I have no idea how he knew Harry Potter was in that predicament because I am a neutral. It seemed too simple and convenient for the chosen one and so when that happens to Dobby does happen I was eager for them to move on with the story because the filmmakers failed to establish the character properly and so the scenes fell flat on the face. The producers must remember that not all Harry potter fans understand the art of filmmaking. They instead decided to compromise the artistic vision that Daniel Yates may have had to cater to harry Potter fans. Even if the unexplained presence of dobby is eventually explained the final scene that involved him is a failure because that should have been determined independently of Harry Potter.
The last issue I have is with the serialisation of the Harry Potter films and the lack of fluidity or continuity between them. Firstly this aspect of the deathly hallows only comes to view in this film when there was no mention of it in the previous one. Harry Potter fans will say it is in the book but that does not matter here because this is the film; if it is not mentioned in the film it is considered a failure on the part of the filmmakers. How convenient it is that it is only in this film we are exposed to the deathly hallows? How convenient is it that Harry Potter and friends start seeing this symbol that is linked to the deathly hallows? I am supposed to take for granted that this symbol appears out of nowhere and suddenly catches the eye of Harry Potter. This is a symbol that I did not see in the previous film so how does it suddenly appear out of nowhere as a clue to the deathly hallows that no one seems to have considered before (of course Hermione would know because she reads but she thinks it is mere legend). These are just some of the problems of fluidity that I am referring to. This is a negative against the entire film franchise and not necessarily this film alone; they do not even present us with flashbacks. The Lord of the rings presented you with flashbacks so you were never at a loss even if you watched ‘the Return of the King’ for the first time. This is a failure of the entire franchise. This was also compromised by the fact that the Harry Potter films have had different directors therefore this director will just go straight from the book without referring to previous films as he tries and create his own version of Harry Potter while all the time forgetting that this is one franchise. So if Harry says something give us a flashback in a previous film to establish continuity. It is because they do not do this that this counts as a negative against the entire film franchise and not simply to this film alone.
Well I await part2 but from what I have seen 3D will not make much of a difference. It is the story that dominates here and no matter how good the 3D is if the story is hollow then it will still be clear as day. As it stands ‘The Lord of the Rings’ is artistically the most successful fantasy film franchise in history. Harry Potter is the most successful commercially but at least Peter Jackson did not have to compromise his artistic vision for the fans.
No comments:
Post a Comment