Nevertheless, if you are one of those people who read the books and think the movies are better (we know you're out there), leave us now and never return. If you only ever bothered to watch the movies, perhaps you can stay to see what you're missing, but tread carefully, we're sensitive. If, like us, you are disappointed in the movies as a representation of the books, and really as movies period, we welcome you as brothers and sisters. If while watching the movie you said, "HEY, NO, WAIT, HE DRANK ALL THE FELIX FELICIS! TH-THAT'S NOT RIGHT! D-d-did you see that?? Did you???? That can't be!!" then you are truly welcome, and we warmly invite you to make angry faces along with us while reading. It's assumed you've seen the movie, but there are also spoilers for book 7. Alert systems will be set up to protect you and your family (just highlight over the spoiler text to see it), but as a general rule we frown upon those who are still behind. Oh, and we also ban Twi-hards. Not cool, people, not cool.
Now, don't get us wrong, the new movie is a colossal improvement on the previous one, and perhaps even on 3 and 4 also. However, the entire movie franchise has been doomed from the start, namely because they started before the 5th book came out, and therefore weren't able to scope out the arc of the story, or include details early on that become important later (like Harry's eye color... grumble grumble). But this latest movie was, in fact, funny--a shocking twist in the sullen, grimy world of Harry's adolescence. Grrr. The movie put too much emphasis on certain plot lines and diminished others while still managing to cut out key elements everywhere and ill-represent what was left--an admirable feat for, say, a politician, but not a movie.
A prime example is the romance plot lines. They were about half the movie, and every one had cheesy dialogue and bad acting. Or how about the whole Half-Blood Prince mystery, which was only vaguely mentioned in cozy common room chats, so when Snape billowed around and announced that he was the Half-Blood prince, we were like, "Oh. Huh. Really. Um, neat?" Nothing of the "OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG NO WAY!! I CAN'T BELIEVE IT! BUT IT TOTALLY MAKES SENSE, WAIT OH NO THAT MEANS, NOOOO WAAAAAY! BUT HOW?........cool" that we got in the book.
Another plot line debacle, Quidditch, was absent unless important to the romance plots. That, and the most important element of these intertwining stories, Cormac McLaggan, wasn't nearly as hate-able as in the book, whereas in previous movies Dobby was a serious rival to Jar-Jar as far as deep mental pain was concerned. We never saw enough of Cormac being a jerk, and never saw Ginny play Cho (Catfight!) because Harry had detention, which was also conveniently left out of the movie. Speaking of, they also left out that great scene where Snape suspects Harry of having the potions book and has the reader freaking out and frantically skimming while Harry panics and quickly hides the book in the Room of Requirement in the midst of a desperate haze, not as some lame "romantic" scene with Ginny (quite possibly also a desperate haze). By the way, the RoR is supposed to be cathedral size, warmly lit, and generally exciting and intriguing--not some pawn-market-back-room-closet thing.
A little intermission from plots here: dueling. It was despicably lame. Harry would wave his wand, there would be a crack and a flash of WHITE light--heaven forbid something with color or specificity--and the Death Eater of the Day would whip his or her wand menacingly and another flash would crack, once again nothing being said, (which the youngsters would never have been able to pull off in that situation) and no one would go anywhere. Oh, and I'm pretty sure the Death Eaters never even attacked anyone with their wands! What the heck?! They just traveled around as spooky black smoke! Actually, a more accurate term for traveling would be prolonged bouncing. Land, growl, twirl, smoke up, move to ten feet away, twist, land, growl, repeat for best results. Besides, everyone knows smoky is the LOST monster's turf. And as if their lack of individually colored spells wasn't enough, they didn't even give good and bad different colors! Star Wars distinguished sides by laser color, at least in the Original Trilogy! You knew who was blowing up the big hunk of metal this time because good was red, and bad was green! Yeah, you know what I'm talking about! But nooooo, we need vague "spells," because it's far more important that we concentrate on Harry's heavy-breathing, jaw-jutting, eyebrow-furrowing concern for Ginny!
Now back to plot lines, namely the most interesting one (in my opinion) of the book: Tom Riddle's history. Most of Dumbledore and Harry's exploration of Voldemort's past and back story was completely left out. None of the House of Gaunt memories, no Hepzibah Smith, or asking for a job. None! And of the two that they did have, the orphanage meeting was done poorly and spliced so as to leave out any clever lines or spooky foreshadowing, and the Horcrux questioning didn't put nearly enough weight on the horror and monstrosity of the action and the realization that Voldemort did it seven times! (Though I gotta admit, young Voldy was creeepy.) Oh, and a small side note: the pensive memories are supposed to be a gas/liquid hybrid, not some sort of soapy water! And what's with all the people appearing in smoke like Death Eaters? It's not ominous, people, just weird. I don't know what they're going to do in the 7th book when Harry needs to have seen the ring (which is the RESURRECTION STONE for crying out loud) and the Hufflepuff cup. It's VITAL INFORMATION!!! But its movie time is less important than seeing Harry look wistfully at Ginny.
Now, lets just talk about the ending and the extra scene, the latter obviously supposed to replace the original former. I think it was meant to make us really hate the Death Eaters and to be an unsettling blow to a formerly safe haven, the Burrow. But the Burrow is never considered a particularly safe place until the 7th book, and Hogwarts has always been THE ultimate shelter, and it's the one invaded and ruined in number seven! In the movie, we never see Dumbledore take off the protective enchantments around Hogwarts, which is a BIG DEAL!!! Hogwarts is barely safe anymore! It's vulnerable, not only for the lack of Dumbly, but for the absence of his spells as well! And seriously guys, Dumbledore and Harry can apparate to the Astronomy tower, but Smokies can't? So, what, Hogwarts has a smoke shield?? My backyard grill has one of those!!! And I can't believe the Death eaters just ran away after killing Dumbledore! Ooooo they broke windows? That's what drunk teenagers do. Not cold-hearted, blood-thirsty servants of the most evil man ever to live! And snuffing out the candles, wow, to do that you'd have to have, like, a breeze. I mean, really!? What was that spell called, the Fart of Doom??! Oh, wait, that would've actually been cool--there would at least have been billowing fire!! I mean that last scene in the book was a gut-wrenching wake up call to the monstrosity that this war was! The teachers and friends were fighting for their lives and their school! Not only that, but Harry saves some of the Felix for his friends, a sign of caring and foresight that Danny boy has never been able to pull off, perhaps due to the fact that it's never, ever in the script. The best part in the book was seeing the teachers fighting, seeing them step up and kick some Death Eater butt! Yeah!! Sorry. But seriously, that entire scene was unsettling and disorienting in the book, and set the tone for the sequel. But all we got in the movie was Harry being stupid and running after Death Eaters. Again.
And finally, Dumbledore's death. First of all, the Avada Kedavra curse was blue. Blue. Or maybe cyan. Perhaps aquamarine. But I digress. The point is, it's not green, which is explicitly stated in the books about every single time. I mean, the one spell you give color, the ONE SPELL, the MOST IMPORTANT ONE IN THE BOOK, you get wrong. And I admit, I cried when he died in the book. But all I could think about in the movie when we got the slow-mo shot was, "Hey, he looks like he's doing the backstroke!" Or, "I hope when they bury him they take off that stupid beard ring." Much to my DISAPPOINTMENT, however, I NEVER GOT TO FIND OUT, because WE NEVER SAW DUMBLEDORE'S FUNERAL! NOTHING! And just to put that in perspective, we had a lengthy funeral scene for AARAGOG! AARAGOG!! But not DUMBLEDORE?!???!?!!! And what was with the wand-raising? This is a tragic death, not a FREEBIRD ENCORE! What on earth??!?!?
[Sigh]. All in all it was a letdown. Granted, better than any of the movies in a while, but still, it didn't stay true even to the spirit of the book(s). I'll give them some props, however, for the fact that the Malfoy plot line was done very well, and I could've sworn I saw the bust with the tiara in the Room of Requirement, but I get delirious when angry.
And I'm of course exaggerating in much of what I say. I'm just having fun (but it's NOT FUNNY! RAAR!). I just want a good representation of the wonderful books. Heck, I might settle for a good movie. I didn't have very many problems with the Lord of the Rings movies, because they took so much care to really bring the book to life; they really invested in it. And I feel as if the HP people don't. They just want to make a blockbuster with an actor, who, in the words of my sister, "Only acts by jutting out his jaw and breathing hard." I want to be able to see the movies on TV and say, "Oooo, let's watch," not have acid and bile well up in the pit of my stomach. Not really, but you get my point. In fact, Harry Potter might be better outside of the Silver Screen.
This is now Philip. I of course agree heartily with every word of this very special guest rant and I thank Jacob for doing this. We encourage you to share your insights and grievances in the comments, but please, only about Harry Potter. We don't want to hear about your back problems. And, for the record, Jacob is only 3 years and 11 months older than me.
(BTW, sorry this took so long. A lot of revising, and trying to get my sister to write something [obviously unsuccessfully] is time consuming. Plus, it's summer.)
[Sigh]. All in all it was a letdown. Granted, better than any of the movies in a while, but still, it didn't stay true even to the spirit of the book(s). I'll give them some props, however, for the fact that the Malfoy plot line was done very well, and I could've sworn I saw the bust with the tiara in the Room of Requirement, but I get delirious when angry.
And I'm of course exaggerating in much of what I say. I'm just having fun (but it's NOT FUNNY! RAAR!). I just want a good representation of the wonderful books. Heck, I might settle for a good movie. I didn't have very many problems with the Lord of the Rings movies, because they took so much care to really bring the book to life; they really invested in it. And I feel as if the HP people don't. They just want to make a blockbuster with an actor, who, in the words of my sister, "Only acts by jutting out his jaw and breathing hard." I want to be able to see the movies on TV and say, "Oooo, let's watch," not have acid and bile well up in the pit of my stomach. Not really, but you get my point. In fact, Harry Potter might be better outside of the Silver Screen.
This is now Philip. I of course agree heartily with every word of this very special guest rant and I thank Jacob for doing this. We encourage you to share your insights and grievances in the comments, but please, only about Harry Potter. We don't want to hear about your back problems. And, for the record, Jacob is only 3 years and 11 months older than me.
(BTW, sorry this took so long. A lot of revising, and trying to get my sister to write something [obviously unsuccessfully] is time consuming. Plus, it's summer.)
Dear Mrs. Rienstra's Little Crumb-Snatchers:
ReplyDeleteWell, well, well. Looks like "blogging fever" is back at chez Rienstra--and now, not just
one, but TWO members of that infamous
Dutch-American cabal are all blotchy and feverish and shaky with it!
And there's no vaccine!
It was just a few moments ago when I, at the
end of a long day, said (these were my exact words), "Oh, I don't really WANT to, because I know there won't be any NEW entries, and I don't really NEED the dreariness of this vale of tears reinforced even a LITTLE nit more (that's right, "nit"), but, what the heck..."--and then, wearily, Googled, "Rienstra Rant"...
And, why? I knew the bus was never coming...
Yet, there it was--in the first entry, top-of-the-screen--evidence that the world's most prestigious publication was back in business!
My little heart lept!
But, then, as is so often the case in life--the bitter coming with the sweet--I
immediately felt as though I was having a
massive myocardial infarction with the nearest ambulance service down Route 7 near
Curtis Junction and that's about a hundred
miles away and they close at 4 on Mondays.
Because I have never read a Harry Potter book
or seen a Harry Potter movie.
And shall not! You can't make me!
So, alack, I am clearly unequipped to respond to Jacob's masterful rant.
No, but I can at least respond to the quality
of his writing--let's see, which Rienstra
stripling is the more talented wordsmith,
hmm, I don't know, it's so hard to pick one
over the other, hmm--and I can say immediately that it is what I would come to expect from someone whose last name rhymes with "Niemstra"...
But...
I'm just sorry I am not Potter-trained.
So, I shed tears...
Tears of J-O-Y over the Rant's spectacular reemergence upon the Midwestern--and, indeed, global--literary landscape!
And, look, there's at least this: I don't have any back problems.
Also, my imaginary first mate, Salty, fell into a fish processor yesterday.
He doesn't have any back problems--now--
either.
Well, time to fry up some bottom-feeders.
Keep blogging, boys. The Ol' Mariner sure
likes the cut of your literary jibs.
Signed (but not in any legally binding way),
The Ol' Mariner
Niemstra?
ReplyDeleteI couldn't find anything on google, so...?
(Please don't tell me to ask my parents. I did.)
And are you frying the bottom-feeders in the Salty-strewn processor? I think that's a serious health violation.
Oh, and ve haff vaaays of making youu rvead...
P.S. Do we know you?
Jacob--
ReplyDeleteGreat to hear from you, pal.
Do you know me? Well, in the fashion of how panelists used to answer questions on the old TV quiz show WHAT'S MY LINE? (your parents may recall it), I will answer as follows, pausing for dramatic effect and thus creating profound ambiguity in my subsequent response...
No...at least not in the way that someone
could be known...especially if he or she is
a mystery...
Hope that satisfies! I know it would me!
And, look: the "Niemstra" thing was not to
be taken seriously. I don't know anyone named
"Niemstra." Or "Piemstra" or "Siemstra" or
"Liemstra." So, Googling their names will
not help the young regent (that's you). Instead, let me explain what my little fillip was really all about ("fillip," not "Phillip"). Instead of writing, "The Rienstras have a good sense of humor," I
wrote, "The people whose last name rhymes with 'Niemstra' have a good sense of humor,"
simply to mix my prose up a little bit. It's
always good, when you write, to not repeat
words in the same general vicinity of each
other--it's more stylish and interesting, by
general agreement, to try instead to use synonyms for those words, or other language that suggests those words without actually rewriting those words. (On the other hand, you probably noticed that I just used the word "words" three times, close together, in that last sentence--deliberately, because being clear about what I was saying was more important than trying to dazzle you. There is, in writing, like in most human events, an optimum time and place for everything.)
Then, also, in the "Niemstra" thing, I was
trying to "construct" a joke. Generally speaking, a joke is something--if
it makes you laugh--that takes your brain on
a little journey. When I wrote, "the people
whose name rhymes with Niemstra" instead of
just writing "Rienstra," I was wanting you
to say to yourself, "Okay...whose name rhymes with 'Niemstra'...wait a minute...oh, I know...MINE." And then, maybe laugh--well,
maybe not laugh, because I can't say that
what I was doing there was so gut-bustingly
funny...but more like have a moment
of mental pleasure, as in, "Oh, I get what
the Ol' Mariner's doing."
Hey, too: glad you asked about how we were
cooking the bottom-feeders!
We only started dinner after the police crew impounded and took away the fish processor and the homicide detectives arrested one of
our employees (though others are still
"persons of interest")!
So, no chance of any health violations!
We wouldn't want to run afoul of the law!
And now, to close: some exciting news!
I actually have been pulling together a
serious and I think very interesting response
to your objections to the latest Potter
film. So, that'll be on your desk soon--after I help the police wrap up the whole "Salty
business." First steps: have some radical facial surgery (to get rid of any pesky, one-
of-a-kind "features"), book passage for one on a three-a.m. freighter to Zanzibar, and find out why it's taking Raoul so long to finish engraving my Albanian passport.
Your loyal reader,
XpCYp4furnacefilter
(new name as it appears on my Albanian
passport)
Dear Phillip and Jacob--
ReplyDeleteJust a short postscript to my last missive.
I would like to suggest a rant for you--one
called "Why people who have never read a Harry Potter book or seen a Harry Potter movie are really missing something" (notice
how nicely I put that).
That way, neanderthals like me could learn
from you, even while discovering how to use
our opposible thumbs--and perhaps, even comment back on what you write.
Meantime, you might want to take a look at
the website rottentomatoes.com. Just enter
the name of the latest Potter movie, and all
the reviews of it will pop up. I think the experience of reading them will expand you, although not so much that you won't be able
to still fit inside your house.
Sometimes, don't you wish you were a halibut?
I know I do. My feelings about this always
puzzled the doctors back at the home whenever
they would speak to me about it, but I always
patiently explained to them that psychiatric
science had its limits, and not to worry.
Man overboard,
The AM
Ooooh. Ok. I get it...ish. Oh, and we read rottentomatoes all the time. But we don't care. Everyone but us is wrong. So there. LALALALALALALALALA.
ReplyDeleteWe were actually thinking the next rant would be about slow internet. We've exhausted the "Read HP" argument on our aunts, so we'd have to really think about it to pull it off. Plus, we'd have to convert it into a rant too. Which would be pretty hard, because, well, it's a very ranty topic. But maybe.
Jacob--
ReplyDeleteA "slow internet" rant sounds promising. Visualizing you dredging it up from the depths of your tortured soul, I--yes, now,
finally, the seaside mists are clearing--I can see your eyes bulging with rage, the veins in your neck distended and precursing thrombosis, your tiny fingers flying over your keyboard as if they were the wind (an ill wind, one blowing ISPs no good), every fiber of your pre-adolescent being alit with raw, unchecked indignation as you place the big fat foot of your peerless prose squarely into the squalid posterior of the entire Internet technical community and with one huge kick catapault it to another solar system or at least Ypsilanti.
Meantime, though, some thoughts on your last rant.
I wonder who directed this latest Potter film.
I am guessing it is not the director who did
the first one, or any of the others. I am guessing it might even be someone whose last directing assignment only involved traffic, at a not especially busy intersection. Why do I think this way? Because it's always that way with sequels. All the best intentions behind the first film in a series are gone by the time the later ones come along. The money people think, "We made a killing with the first one. So, think how much more money we can make with the sixth one if we do it with hand puppets and move all the location shooting to the back of Kroger's." (In line with this cost-savings, the director and screenwriter of the first film are each offered one shiny penny and a small rope of Twizzler in exchange for their services--
offers they respectfully decline, although each manages to get a least a little bit of Twizzler before running away.)
Also, it's very tough to predict what will
happen when a screenwriter adapts a book.
He or she may love the book, and want to
be faithful to its spirit or letter. Or he
or she may feel stifled by the book, and
decide to transgress its bounds and thus
turn it into something else completely. They
may be subject to all sorts of pressures from
a film's producer to make their work this, or that. Or, the other thing.
All, or some, or none of this may explain
your disaffection with the latest Potter film.
As they used to say between segments of Johnny
Carson--ask your parents who he was--"more
to come."
The AM
Your rants
must be your rants, and no one else's. They
must spring from the depths of your heart--
or at least
Jacob and Phillip--
ReplyDeleteHey, did you see that little free-form poem
at the bottom of my last post? I sent it
along because I thought you might want to
emboss it on a piece of driftwood and keep
it near your computer--but, as you can see,
I didn't finish it!
So, just add the words:
your pancreas.
Anyway: I'd like to add a few thoughts to my last communique.
I realize that your displeasure with the
Potter films doesn't follow a straight line--
in other words, you're not saying the first
one was great and the others have been less
and less great. Your dissatisfaction graphs out in a a more haphazard pattern--in fact, you even think the latest film has some merits some of the earlier ones didn't have.
That, of course, shoots the gist of my last
post to you kind of all to heck.
Even so, I think my reasoning in my last
response may at least be generally apropos--especially
because you ask if, really, any movies
should have EVER been made out of the Potter
books. It may be, you see, that no director or screenwriter has really ever understood them, or cared enough about them to adapt them properly--screenwriters being adults, and the people who really love and understand the books being a lot younger. And Hollywood
or Anglowood or whomever really isn't prepared
to face just conundrums--they just want to
put something out there that doesn't look
like a kinoscope, just to bring in the spondulix.
But, I will still also make another guess: that the budget for the latest movie was smaller than the budget for the first one.
With attendant consequences.
I'm not at my sharpest today--rather tired,
if I must say. (These constant rhumba lessons
are taking their toll!) But, I hope I am at least making a bit of sense.
Maybe if I take off this pinwheel hat I will
be able to think more clearly.
Take it easy breezies,
The AM
Actually, the director of this film was the director of the last one, and the budget for this one was $250,000, which is $100,000 more than the last one, the biggest budget yet.
ReplyDeleteDavid Yates, the director of 5 and 6, was previously a movie director, so...
The rankings of the movies probably go like this: this past one the best, 1 and 2 tied for second, 3 and 4 a much lower third, and 5 an abyss of misery. Weird, that the same director directed the best and worst (in our opinion). 1 and 2 were...different. Much less dark (probably because we hadn't seen the dark side of the series when they came out), same director for each, different Dumbledore (the actor died). It wasn't that accurate, but the books were so short...I don't know, they had this...intangible wrongness about them...it just didn't seem right. 3 and 4 were so blatantly inaccurate, and 5 was the shortest movie of the longest book. And that book was so full of deliciousness that was put in a blender and through an entertainment-strainer for the movie, just left out everything we loved about it.
But I think you're right, Hollywood treats HP without the respect you need to satisfy book fans, the kind Lord of the Rings got (I hope you've read those). It was a piece of art, not a Blockbuster.
By the way, did you check out the links? They're funny.
Jacob--
ReplyDeleteI sure will check out the links, as soon as
I get over the ill effects I'm feeling from
the plutonium I accidentally swallowed this
morning. Because, you know, I am still reading and re-reading and thinking about the Potter rant--because I want to say more about it, soon.
David Yates--trust me on this one--is not
much of a director, track-record-wise. He
was someone brought in to mind the store,
not to create something memorable and lasting.
Who directed the other Potter movies, the ones
Yates did not? Can you tell me?
And I think you might want to check that $250,000 number. Sure it isn't $2.5M? Or $25
M? A low-budget Hollywood film or TV movie
can barely be done for $3M, and $25M is even
a low budget for a mass-market Hollywood
film. So it'll make a difference in our thinking about this if you can come up with the right figure...
Your new comments, too, have given me still
more to chew on.
Along with some pemmican I prepared this
morning.
If the world was a better place, the mourning
for the loss of Les Paul--dead today at 94--
would be much greater than what was expended
for Michael Jackson.
A few years back, I went to a club in NYC,
got the best table in the house, and sat at
Mr. Paul's feet as he played his guitar.
A good memory. Try to listen to some of his
music and read about who he was--THE NEW
YORK TIMES will have something great--The AM
Jacob--
ReplyDeleteI bet you're now wondering whether, this
morning, I made the pemmican before swallowing the plutonium, or vice versa.
The effects of the plutonium are making it
hard for me to remember, but I at least know
both things happened after I finished taking
off my clown makeup.
Well, in this place where I am, I just picked
up a copy of THE GOBLET OF FIRE--and examined
its credits.
Mike Newell is a fine British director, who's
made many personal, artistic films. Steve Kloves is an equally good screenwriter (he wrote and directed a film called THE FABULOUS BAKER BOYS that is very worthwhile). And
the cast, wow: it's an all-star team of Brits.
Coltrane, Fiennes, Gambon, Gleeson, Oldman,
Richman, Smith, Spall...I mean, it's hard for
me to see how this film wouldn't have a lot
to offer.
But you didn't like it, huh? Huh.
I wonder if to see it, I'd need to see the
first three first...or see the first three
and read all the books...or dress up as a
giant mouse and fly to Rhodesia and enter
spelunking school and shave my head and eat
every peanut in the world and ring every school bell and go on the road with the late
"Brother" Jack McDuff?
In other words, can I just enjoy GOBLET on
its own without first devoting the rest of my
life to studying Harry Potter and his band of pixies, or...
Our continuing discussion re all this grows,
like Topsy. (Ask your parents who Topsy was.
If they roll their eyes, tell them, 'Topsy
doesn't like to be messed with.')
Till soon,
The AM
P.S. Your whole family, but especially you
and your brother, would love a Swiss film
called VITUS. It's about a boy genius--yeah,
I thought of it because it strikes close to
home. It's around on DVD--or ask your library
to find it for you...
Jacob and Phillip,
ReplyDeleteI just read your Potter rant again, so let me
respond while the iron is hot.
Which reminds me--I need to go turn off the iron.
Okay. I'm back.
It's worth noting, I finally realize, how
little of your rant I actually understand,
let alone the humor in the links you urged me
to look at, just because I haven't read the
Potter books or seen the Potter movies.
But, I feel at least a little less lost when you make analogies to Tolkien.
When I was in grade school, there was this
thing called the Scholastic Book Club. Your
teacher would give you their catalog, you'd
look through it and pick out some books you
wanted to order, get the money for them from
your parents, bring the money in to your
teacher, she would place the order, you would
wait excitedly for about six weeks, your classmates would die from old age, wars would be begun and fought and ended around the
world, a cure for cancer would be found, and
finally your books would show up at the
school and your teacher would give them to
you and you would just feel so darn excited. The books were paperbacks, all uncreased and with perfect and colorful covers and they were yours, all yours. They even smelled good.
This was how I bought and read THE HOBBIT,
and the rest of Tolkien's vaunted trilogy.
And so, you made me try to remember: did I
love the Tolkien books? Yes, I did. And why?
Because they took me to a better world than
the one in which I was living--a world I
loved being in and wanted to stay in forever.
I even recall reading the books slowly because
I didn't want my savoring of them to ever end.
Is that what it's like for you guys with the
Potter books? I'd like to know.
More than that, I'd love to know what gestalt,
what je ne sais quoi, the Potter books had that the Potter films don't. What was the
precise experience the books gave you that
the films haven't?
By the way, as you may have already guessed,
I keep using words and expressions you may not know the meaning of because I want you to look them up in the dictionary (or ask your parents about them, those same parents who probably fled the country after you asked them about Topsy) and then start using them yourself.
Instead of "cool," "awesome," and "amazing."
So that you can put yourself, already, on
track to a scholarship-funded Ivy League
education.
And then, become players in the American
meritocracy.
Something God has clearly given you the brains
to pull off.
So: if you can enlighten me by answering my two questions, I'll be able to delve still
further into this whole book vs.film matter.
By the way, I did a Google search on Steve
Kloves today, and right away came upon an
item titled, "Steve Kloves sucks." So, it's
obvious you are not the only two mad lads
(to quote Tower of Power's "You're Still A
Young Man")out there with spirited feelings
about the book vs. film situation.
Also, too, before I close: I suspect the
ultimate reason the RINGS films were, by all
accounts, so much better and artistic than the POTTER
films may be that the people who made the
RINGS films were people who as kids had loved
the RINGS books, whereas the people who made
the POTTER films were adults who'd never
read the POTTER books until they were forced
to.
I'm feeling better today after my escapade
with the plutonium. What seemed to help a lot was accidentally hitting myself in the head with a hammer.
Let it roll like a wheel,
The AM
It's got to be something specific, I
think--something that it may be tough for
you to describe, but something worth trying
to describe, both for you and for your readers.
Boys,
ReplyDeleteDid you see that stray fragment of prose at the end of my last message to you?
Kind of confusing, isn't it?
Well, just put the following in front of it:
What would you tell the people reading your
book about what happens after you eat six
quarts of pork and beans?
It'll make more sense then.
Hasta lagusta,
The AM
Men,
ReplyDeleteMore Potter-related, thought-provoking(we pray) potables and comestibles from the Ancient Mariner's inexhaustible mental larder:
Mike Newell's career, upon further inspection, has taken quite a commercial, even high-end-hacky turn since the films I
knew him by (THE GOOD FATHER, for one). He
hasn't really made as many fine movies as I
thought--just a few. My mistake, youngbloods.
So that's another part of the explanation for what might be the overall mediocrity of some of the Potter (need-another-word-for-
"films"-here).
When you hire Newell--look at the list of work he did just leading up to his Potter
stuff--you are maybe not hiring someone to merely mind the store, but someone who does make commercial (e.g. almost always relatively empty) pictures ("pictures" used to be a synonym for movies). No art in that list, I'm sayin'...
Which brings us to the producer of the Potter
films. I don't know if it was the same producer for all of them, but said producer
buys the rights to the books and then decides
how much money to spend on making them into
films, and that amount of money governs everything about them--who writes them, directs them, etc. So if we could take a can-
opener to that producer's head as it was thinking, somewhere backwards in time, we'd
have a lot of insight into what ended up being done (e.g. the hiring of Newell, Yates,
and for the upcoming installment seven, a paper clip that claims it can "direct movies") or not done that has left you, now, so cinematically unfulfilled.
Also, actors--no matter how fine and British, like the ones in the Potter series appear to be--can never, by themselves, save a film.
They are, even at their best, subservient to
the director and to the screenwriter. Who may or may not be allowed free reign by a producer.
Some French film critics, in the 1950s, came up with what I think stands as the pure rule
of thumb for how to always pick out a good
film: if it was directed, and even written and/or edited, with final cut, by its director, as a personal vision, spend the two hours with it and figure you have a decent chance of fulfillment. Otherwise, caveat emptor.
Like with the Potter films.
I doubt they met the French standard going in, so it's understandable why they wouldn't meet it going out.
And, on the heels of my asking you what you liked about the books, there's this: begging a film to give you what a book it is "based" on gave you is like expecting a prune and a radish to taste about the same. No should do. But will us humans stop the madness? No.
Yet, this God-given thing that happens when you read and love a book--what its language makes happen in your mind, what the experience of reading print (letters, in typeface, in sentences) is all about--well, it's just so different from watching something on a screen...
Well, I don't perzackly know if I've ever heard tell of a film that made the people who loved the book it was based on happy.
Ever.
And another thought: getting the Potter books "right," on film, even if it was possible...well, when it comes to movies for a "kid" market, kids get the short end of the stick every time. The "money people" figure kids just aren't as savvy about quality as adults are, so they cut corners for kids that they wouldn't cut for adults. And they certainly don't understand kids like kids would like to be understood--that would take time, and time is money, and spending money cuts into profit, so...
Wait a minute--I'm late!
Every Saturday afternoon at three-thirty, I
walk around downtown on my hands, whistling
"Dixie."
So, I have just enough time to put on my
ostrich costume, and get down there!
The AM
Sprouts,
ReplyDeleteI don't have to work hard at all to, each day, run into some tidbit of info about the Potter films. These days, it just happens.
Today, I looked down at a DVD sitting on a
table, saw that it was one of the series--I
forget which--and further saw that it was
directed by Alfonso Cuaron.
The Mexican. The artist. One of the world's
more thoughtful, erudite, accomplished directors.
So, I wonder if you liked his effort. (Wish
I could remember which of the six it was.)
There's a mystery here, to me, if a guy
like Cuaron can't make something good out
of Potter.
We await your next thought on the matter.
As for me, I am going up to the sun--great
outdoor restaurants there--tonight.
I always go to the sun at night, because it's
cooler then.
A bientot,
The AM
Youths,
ReplyDeleteHave you ever been stupid about something and then, out of the blue, gotten smart?
That, of course, is a rhetorical question.
But, I'm asking it only to tell you that yesterday, for the first time, I think I understood your Potter rant. I don't know how
I "missed it" all the other times--except I
will say that emergency rooms don't seem to
have adequate facilties to deal with the
ingestion of plutonium, which (apparently!)
comes with a motherlode of side effects.
These flippers I've recently grown on my hips, though--well, they're pretty handy, I'll admit!
Anyway: when I was reading your rant again, I suddenly thought of how almost no film "based on" my favorite book has ever been any good, either.
And, what that feels like for me. How, as I
have watched the films purportedly based
on my favorite book, I've kept thinking, "This is nothing like the book...they've left so much out...they've even added new stuff...
there's nothing here that, in the book, is
uniquely great..."
I don't have to go on. I'm talking to you
two hooligans. Two cats who know the score.
I know you are picking up what I am laying down.
Anyway, my favorite book isn't about wizards
and spells and witches.
It's..the Bible.
So. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, as sheer spectacle, has its moments. One or two. And THE GREATEST
STORY EVER TOLD has a few more, because the
casting of Max Von Sydow as Jesus is so
inspired--but it's still really Hollywoody.
And THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST--well, it has
a lot of what those first two lack, but...
You know, there's been really only one
good film based on the Bible. And it passes
the "French test," because it was very single-handedly controlled by its director,
an Italian named Pier Paolo Pasolini.
It's called THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW. And I urge you to see it, so that
you can actually have the experience of a
book you are well familiar with actually
being respected and very well-translated
into a film. (Your local college library
might have a DVD of it.)
To sum up, then: I get your rant. It's full
of the anguish, which you detail in many
specifics--from what happens to Stumblebum
or Omnivore or whomever, to, "They got the
spell color wrong!"--of seeing something you love unappreciated by others and even
trampled upon.
Just wanted you to know.
That another human being read and understood what you took the time to write--and wrote so well.
(I noticed that again, too, yesterday--your expert use of language, especially given how young you guys are. It's something you and your parents should feel very good about.
Take the compliment and take it to heart.)
My doctor, Dr. Chuck Wagon, thinks maybe a
lobotomy would help reduce the world-record
levels of plutonium still in my blood stream.
I'm tempted, but I think I kinda like these
flippers. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
Have fun getting ready for school. Try not
to look at it as the prison sentence that it
is.
Your nautical pal,
The AM
Sorry I've been busy lately, so just a quick comment: I pretty much agree with all the stuff there, the directors not growing up with the books, them being "kid" movies, and we still hated the "artist's" movie (#3). Way too dark and left out a lot of what made the books so darn fun. Gotta go,
ReplyDeleteJacob
Jacob--
ReplyDeleteYour sporadic responses have a prairie- doggish, or even meerkatish, quality about them--you poke up from under the earth for just a mo', chatter ever so briefly, and then, hay presto, are gone.
Yet, it's always nice to see, whenever you
do come up for air, that you are still
sitting up and taking nourishment.
I also like the way you dismiss Cuaron with an imperious--but, knowing--wave of your hand, by referring to him, in quotes, as "artist."
As Will Smith says to Matt Damon in THE LEGEND OF BAGGER VANCE (a movie you would like, I think, with just that one scene involving Charlize Theron that your parents should fast-forward through so you don't see it), "You a hard man, Mistah Junah."
Still, behind the seeming intransigence of your critical assessments, I see a true aesthetic intelligence--so, I only look forward to more wry observations from your unceasingly pulsating cerebellum.
Or--when your cerebellum is out of town--from
you.
And, look, too: Cuaron actually is a pretty
"dark" hogan, so, as usual, nothing has escaped you. His film CHILDREN OF MEN, which I advise being kept from you completely until you are over 18, is, well...an apocalyptic nightmare.
But, it's a good apocalyptic nightmare. To
make it, Cuaron built a meticulous set that
replicates London 50 years from now, fashioned a great script from a book by P.D.
James, the noted British mystery novelist,
wrung great performances out of Clive
Owen and others, and ended up with a near-
masterpiece.
And, at another place and time, he made a film version of ALICE IN
WONDERLAND that some people think is pretty
good. (I'll wager you could even see it yourself, to see what you think.)
So why couldn't Cuaron have done better by Harry Potter? Especially since he (Cuaron,
not Harry Potter), seems to be well able to
adapt books?
I don't know. I can't answer the question. I
can only ask it.
Meantime, there's still enough time for you
and your brother to run away from home before
school starts again.
I know, I know--you're not the first person who's told me I can read minds.
As Barack Obama once said to Harry Reid (they
were talking about something else), "It's a
gift."
So, I'll let you go--I know you have a lot of furtive packing to do.
Suggestion: just head West until you reach your aunt's place. I'm sure she'll be glad to see you, and happy to hide you both until you each turn legal age.
All right--time for me to head down to the
end of the pier for a day of pandhandling!
Good luck on the road (tip: the bathrooms at Stuckey's are usually pretty clean),
The A M
Boys--
ReplyDeleteA German writer, Gunter Grass, once wrote an
acclaimed novel called THE TIN DRUM. Here's
what he had to say, in 1978, about how, in 1979, his book became a film:
"Since 1959, when THE TIN DRUM was published,
every two years I have received an offer for
a film adaptation. What was suggested was insufficient, was only concerned with a limited aspect of the book, only corresponded
to a limited vision.
"With Volker Schlondorff (who directed the
film), it was quite different. In him, I found
an interlocutor. In this case,
someone who provoked me by his questions, who
delved into the heart of the subject and who,
during this dialogue, forced me to reconsider
fully a book from which I had become detached.
Thanks to Schlondorff's provocative questions
I was able to collaborate (with him) on the
dialogue (of the film).
"I saw straight away that he had understood
the epic dimension of the book. I also felt
that he would be forceful enough to reshape
the material, not to slavishly follow the
book, to replace the ways of literature with
those of cinema.
"It occurred to us immediately that we could
not reconstruct the totality of scenes and
episodes in the novel. Certain chapters had
to be forgotten, even if we suffered. Schlondorff gave me the different versions
of his screenplay and I gave him my point of
view. A few changes were made, and then in
the last stage, I collaborated (with him)
intensively on the dialogue, particularly
when he needed additional dialogue for a scene..."
On the one hand, Grass wanted his book respected by anyone making it into a film.
On the other, he did not feel that such a
film had to be almost identical to his book.
An interesting duality.
I wonder what Rowling thinks about the Potter
films.
Ta ta,
The AM