FEATURES
18
December 8, 2010
Lianne Neiger Spellbound by Potter
Photo courtesy of IMDB Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson return to reprise their iconic roles. Audiences were treated to stellarar performances by the three young stars.
Lianne Neiger Staff Writer
As a member of the generation to grow up along the adventures of Harry Potter, I’ve always enthusiastically anticipated the opening nights of each new movie and book to come out in the series. Many like me felt a bit lost and empty after quickly finishing the seventh and last book of the series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. We had trouble imagining a replacement for the magical world that J.K. Rowling had so skillfully spun for us all. Whereas before we still had the successful movie franchise to rely on, the Harry Potter movie experience is now coming to a halt as well. The first of the final two movies--a result of splitting the plot of the seventh book into Part 1 and Part 2—has already made its way into theaters everywhere. Predictably, box-office sales took off. The waiting lines for tickets at the midnight opening were newsworthy and fans (including me) could feel the hype. After having seen the film in its premier night, however, I came out feeling as though the excitement wasn’t entirely deserved. I went into the cinema knowing that the newest installation of the series is pretty long for Hollywood standards, with a duration
of 2 hours and 30 minutes. At the time that seemed like a positive. But even through the joy of seeing one of my favorite book series play out on screen, I could see how some people could end up frustrated. The movie, for one, had a strange pacing. It seemed as though there was a constant fluctuation between loud and dramatic scenes packed with action, explosions, and wizard battles followed by calm and quiet dialogue-filled moments. Thus, whereas some parts were exciting the others ended up a bit boring in contrast, or anticlimactic. I know that if I had brought my father along with me he would have easily fallen asleep during those slow segments. Furthermore, the film served to narrow down its audience. Part of what made the previous movies so successful was its ability to not only reach all age groups, but also its ability to bring in an audience of non-readers. In the past, those who have not read the books—though perhaps missing out on the finer details—could still feel wrapped in the storyline. Not so true for movie seven. With introductions of many new characters that appear very fleetingly, and countless other name-drops throughout the film, an audience with no previous knowledge of the books will struggle to under-
stand references. Several individuals have confessed to me their difficulty in keeping up with the movie, for evidently the movie was constantly dropping new information on the viewers. Too much confusion is never a positive thing for movie-goers. Another factor that generated some heat with the viewers is the stretching of the story. The reason that the filmmakers gave for their halving of the last book into two is that condensing such a lengthy book into one movie would have forced them to drop too many necessary subplots. With two
movies they said that they could stay truer to the books…and incidentally make more money in the process. But one couldn’t help noticing that all the true action—all the most interesting bits and pieces—were largely left for part 2. Though part 1 was interesting in its own way, I could help agree with a neighboring viewer who said to his friends “So basically this was all just a setup for the next film”. Fortunately the movie had its share of saving graces. It does stick to the book for the most part, as was promised. The few chang-
es made were not crucial, and still portrayed what was meant to be portrayed. The lengthy film was also filled with emotion, both uplifting and disheartening, which left me teary-eyed in various instances. When an audience is able to have an emotional connection with a movie, it is indeed a mark of success. There is something to be said for a decade-long cinematic journey. Us viewers now feel as though we somehow know the actors and the characters they portray in a personal manner. When we see the early movies come up on television we feel nostalgic at how childishly innocent they once were. Now that Daniel Radcliff, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint are all in their twenties, we feel like proud parents. The three actors have infinitely matured as both people and actors on film and off, and it is difficult to not be fascinated by these very successful now-adults. The affection we feel for them has greatly added to the attraction of seeing the films, and is another one of Deathly Hallow’s positive aspects. Everything having been said and done, though, I still feel some turmoil concerning Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Many have condemned the split into two parts as being a box office trick, and I am still not convinced that this notion is entirely wrong. Though the movie had its interesting points and was certainly enjoyable to its steadfast fans, it still left me with the feeling that I’d paid to go see an advertisement for the next movie. Do I regret having gone to see it? No, but that’s due to my devotion to the story more than anything else.
Photo courtesy of IMDB