Unlikely Words

So, when my coblogger AC came on board, he wanted to start a feature called “Three-Sentence Reviews” where we’d keep track of the books we’d each read, movies we’d seen, etc., and provide a quick three-sentence review of each. I guess the idea would be that we’d have a gimmick (”unsolicited opinions in only three sentences!”) and they’d be easy to write. I’ve been struggling with the three-sentence limitation, to AC’s chagrin, and this review was particularly taxing. On the one hand, long reviews of Harry Potter movies are kind of my thing. On the other hand, I could sum this movie up in three sentences:

It was OK. Michael Gambon sucks. Read the book.

I want to make clear, right off the bat, that I’m not going to be one of those people who complains because they had to cut elements of the book to make the film. The movie was more than two hours long, and the book badly needed an editor to begin with. I fully expected that scenes would have to be cut to fit, and in general I’m satisfied with how that was done. For instance, the interlude at St. Mungo’s was excised, and (since we missed it in the movie version of Goblet of Fire, too) Neville just tells Harry about his parents and Bellatrix Lestrange: fine. The changes to GoF meant that Rita Skeeter and the Quibbler didn’t make it; I thought at the time this would be a big problem, but it was pretty effectively glossed over. Dobby and SPEW were cut: whew. The career of the DA and Umbridge’s reign of terror at Hogwarts were compressed into a completely effective montage: excellent. There was no Quidditch: thank god.

Some cuts weren’t quite so elegant. Harry and Cho’s relationship was greatly compressed. In the movie, their breakup is the result of Cho being the one who reveals the existence of the DA to Umbridge. The Cedric-related angst and their awful date in Hogsmeade didn’t make it. That’s fine, but when it’s later revealed in the movie that she was forced to confess — under the influence of Veritaserum — there’s no explanation for why they don’t make up. We also lost Dumbledore’s howler to Aunt Petunia, Ron and Hermione as prefects, the whole “cleaning Grimmauld Place” sequence (Kreacher is in the movie but serves no purpose), and Harry’s aspiration to become an Auror.

Grawp, however, was kept, as was an abbreviated report of Hagrid’s mission to the giants. Fred and George do make their dramatic exit from Hogwards, although it lacks the drama of the scene in the book. The Inquisitorial Squad and the rest of all of Umbridge’s nastiness made the cut.

For all that was lost, Michael Goldenberg did a very impressive job with the plot. It hung together — as a story — much better Steve Kloves’s GoF. Unfortunately, I think the success with the plot caused the characterizations to suffer. The movie just races along (as it must) from Privet Drive, to Grimmauld Place, to the trial at the Ministry, to Hogwarts, and it means that emotions don’t really get to build. Because we don’t see Harry’s weeks of impatience of being kept in the dark, his short-tempered-ness is both under- and over-played. It’s nowhere near as extreme as in the book, but even the flashes of adolescent snappiness we do get don’t feel justified by what we’ve seen.

There were some things about the movie that were excellent. The first fifteen minutes or so raised my hopes and expectations considerably. The three kids all give performances that are much, much better than in any of the previous movies — Daniel Radcliffe in particular was very good. Evanna Lynch is a pretty delightful Luna Lovegood. A conscious decision seems to have been made to focus the story on the kids at the expense of the adults — the Hogwarts teachers each get what is essentially a cameo. The exception, of course, is Imelda Staunton who is fantastic as Dolores Umbridge.

As with Goblet of Fire the absolutely fatal flaw in the movie was Michael Gambon’s Dumbledore. Seriously. It’s appalling. Let’s start with Dumbledore’s first appearance in both the book and the film, at Harry’s trial before the Wizengamot:

“Ah,” said Fudge, who looked thoroughly disconcerted. “Dumbledore. Yes. You - er - got our - er message that the time and - er - place of the hearing had been changed, then?”

“I must have missed it,” said Dumbledore cheerfully. “However, due to a lucky mistake I arrived at the Ministry three hours early, so no harm done.”

Michael Gambon does not deliver this line — or any other — cheerfully. He delivers it with narrow-eyed menace. This is the essence of the problem that is this disastrous bit of casting. This Dumbledore isn’t the calm, pleasant, funny headmaster of Hogwarts; Gambon plays him as if he’s bitter about being passed over by Christopher Lee for the role of Saruman. To take another example: the climactic scene of the book and the movie is the long-awaited duel between Voldemort and Dumbledore at the Ministry of Magic. Part of the reason the scene is so awesome as written is Dumbledore’s calm unhurried confidence in fighting the Dark Lord:

Dumbledore flicked his own wand: the force of the spell that emanated from it was such that Harry, though shielded by his golden guard, felt his hair stand on end as it passed and this time Voldemort was forced to conjure a shining silver shield out of thin air to deflect it….

“You do not seek to kill me, Dumbledore?” called Voldemort, his scarlet eyes narrowed over the top of the shield. “Above such brutality, are you?”

“We both know that there are other ways of destroying a man, Tom,” Dumbledore said calmly, continuing to walk towards Voldemort as though he had not a care in the world, as though nothing had happened to interrupt his stroll up the hall.

See? That is awesome. Dumbledore vs Voldemort, and already Dumbledore is kicking ass on style points. In the film, Dumbledore seems desperate and vulnerable, hurling spells at Voldemort without saying a word. To be sure, the visual effects during the duel are incredible: it’s a very exciting scene. It’s just not the scene from the book. In fact, watching every scene with Dumbledore you’re forced to wonder whether Gambon and David Yates even bothered to crack the cover.

He sucks. He sucks out loud, and it makes me wonder how the movie for Half-Blood Prince can possibly function. That story revolves around Harry and Dumbledore talking and adventuring together, and it’s impossible to imagine the character that Gambon portrays having a comradely relationship with anyone, much less Harry. It’s going to be a disaster.

(Actually, there’s another problem, and much as I hate to say it, it’s with Alan Rickman’s Snape. In all five films to date, Snape has done nothing — not a single thing — that has given the audience any reason to doubt his commitment to Dumbledore. Since the ambiguity of Snape’s allegiance is crucial to book six, I don’t know how they’re going to deal with the fact that they haven’t even bothered to set up the fact that Snape’s a double agent yet. They’re going to have to fit his entire character arc into a single film, which is possible, sure, but it’s going to be rushed.)

So, it’s not surprising that the movie sucked from the point of view of an obsessed fan of the books, but it was definitely the least bad of all the films so far. Radcliffe, Grint, Watson and the rest of the kids do a good job, even if they’re all starting to grow out of their roles. And let’s face it, you’re going to see this one anyway. It could have been worse.

Popularity: 3% [?]