Review: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (David Yates)

[nebroadwe]

I spent this afternoon seeing Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix -- I'm frequently a little behind on popular culture and the last few weeks have been very busy. Plus, a movie theater is the one thing with which my otherwise institutionally well-endowed neighborhood is not equipped, so I waited until my friends in the next town over were ready to go. I found Order of the Phoenix to be a mixed bag. It went by really quickly, and was the first of the films to demand that its viewers be intimately familiar with the source novel to follow the script. I admit that scriptwriter Michael Goldenberg had a tough task cutting the novel down to a filmable couple of hours and, to his credit, there were very few wasted minutes (for instance, effects-heavy action sequences were not multiplied beyond the dictates of Occam's Film-Cutting Shears). I do fault director David Yates, however, for a good deal of extremely banal shot composition (particularly in the beginning of the movie, on Privet Drive and in Grimmauld Place), pacing problems (ditto; the film doesn't really settle into a rhythm until it reaches Hogwarts) and an utter inability to build suspense. This was, despite its rating, not a scary movie. The opening sequence with the Dementors didn't raise a single hair on my neck; the battle in the Department of Mysteries was entertainingly kinetic, but not gasp-inducing. (And since when was Grawp supposed to be cute?) The most interesting portions of the film, both technically and dramatically, were the montages -- Umbridge's interrogations, Harry's dream-sequences, the DA at work, the Occlumency lessons, and so on. Given how underwhelming the direction was elsewhere, I'm inclined to credit editor Mark Day with making a silk purse out of a sow's ear -- a lovely evening bag with one of those Undetectable Extension Charms built in. :-) The score helped, too; I particularly noticed it during Fred and George's escape and the action sequences at the Department of Mysteries. And there were moments of grace: I must admit I did enjoy the duels at the end, once the Order arrived and everyone stopped zipping around like half-ghosts. Also the bit with Crookshanks and the Extendable Ear. And Harry talking to Luna about the Thestrals.

Speaking of which, the acting from the young leads was adequate throughout. Daniel Radcliffe has become better able to handle his role across the last two films, though in general he, like the other young actors, is still carried by his senior colleagues: Radcliffe has no chemistry with Katie Leung, frex, but bags of it with Gary Oldman (who's such a treat to watch; his death hurts). Rupert Grint and Emma Watson have little to do here beyond the obvious, and I was disappointed not to see a little more from Bonnie Wright's Ginny, given that she's going to become more important in the next installment. The same goes for Tom Felton's Draco, though he's already built a presence in the previous films. But Evanna Lynch is a definite find as Luna and Matthew Lewis has kept Neville endearingly clumsy-yet-earnest throughout his tenure in the role; when he rises to valiancy in the Department of Mysteries, it doesn't seem strange at all. The adults, of course, are practically a Who's Who of British Acting and it shows. I wanted to strangle Imelda Staunton within seconds of her initial appearance; her height contest with Maggie Smith's McGonagall was quite amusing. I can't imagine anyone but Julie Walters as Mrs. Weasley -- I'm sorry there wasn't room to show her reaction to the Boggart, but it's easy to believe her both concerned for and on edge with her charges. Robert Hardy got the biggest laugh of the afternoon with his reaction to seeing Voldemort at the Ministry, though I chuckled louder at Mark Williams (Mr. Weasley) in the Underground. I still maintain that Ralph Fiennes's Voldemort has his work cut out for him topping Jason Isaacs's Lucius Malfoy. Alan Rickman steals every scene he's in, although I could have wished that Yates had taken just a few more seconds to push the drama of his response to Harry in Umbridge's office, to give his words more significance, so that they could be interpreted either as an understood message (with an implicit "keep your mouth shut, boy, and let me take things from here") or a brush-off in further revenge for Harry's intrusion into his mind. Sigh. On the other hand, if you only have one line with which to shine, you'd do well to emulate George Harris (Kingsley Shacklebolt) and nail it to the wall with spikes -- though I'm not sure that Michael Gambon brings all that much style to his portrayal of Dumbledore. But the script did not serve him well. Without having read the book, it would be very difficult to discern what his behavior to Harry meant merely from the clues the film drops.

Taken all in all, this film was a curate's egg experience: parts of it were excellent, but the structural issues and the weaknesses of presentation dragged it down as a whole below the level of both its immediate predecessors. I shall hope for better work from Yates on the next installment.

Comments

[haleysings.livejournal.com]

There's really two reasons I go to see the Harry Potter movies:

1) So I can discuss it with others, and
2) Because I always enjoy the acting, if nothing else.

So I agree with all your points, particularly on the acting fronts--I adore Alan Rickman, and he's always a blast to see in these movies. And I agree with how you felt about Umbridge--I actually unconsciously reached my hands out a little as if I was trying to reach through the screen and strangle her. Luna was wonderful, as well. And I love Emma Thompson in everything she does, as well. ^^

Still, I feel like there's been much better adaption of fantasy books...particularly in regards of actually making sense to people that haven't read the books...

...But I have to admit, I'm a sucker for nightmarish, surreal montage scenes like Harry's nightmares and flashback scenes, so...I did like those quite a bit. ^^;

[nebroadwe.livejournal.com]

So I agree with all your points, particularly on the acting fronts--I adore Alan Rickman, and he's always a blast to see in these movies. And I agree with how you felt about Umbridge--I actually unconsciously reached my hands out a little as if I was trying to reach through the screen and strangle her. Luna was wonderful, as well. And I love Emma Thompson in everything she does, as well. ^^

Hear, hear! I also loved Warwick Davis's little "Yes!!" gesture as the Weasley twins departed -- it was so "There goes the product of my training!" proud. :-)

Still, I feel like there's been much better adaption of fantasy books...particularly in regards of actually making sense to people that haven't read the books...

Yes. I'm wondering if the fact that Rowling's basically writing school picaresque (at least up until Deathly Hallows) hampers the filmmakers' ability to turn her stories into connected narrative, rather than a series of scenes held together by characters and setting. I was rather boggled, seeing Goblet of Fire, to find that such a sprawling plot held together so well on screen, but I'm thinking now that it's also the one with the strongest basic plot through-line in the Triwizard Tournament. (Prisoner of Azkaban, while stylistically stronger as a film, depends more heavily on character for its through-line, as Harry discovers who he himself is by learning his father's history, but unfortunately Daniel Radcliffe wasn't quite up to the acting challenge at that point.) Which leads me to conclude, tentatively, that

a) We're in for another hard slog through Half-Blood Prince, unless Steve Kloves (back for screenwriting duty again) and David Yates really grapple with the book and glom on to one of its storytelling sub-structures to anchor it (e.g. playing up the parallels and contrasts between Harry and Draco Malfoy, who are both chosen by the head of their side in the conflict for a significant task, but who have utterly different experiences of choice, training and outcome); and

b) Deathly Hallows, with its more traditional quest-structure and practical abandoment of the school year as a way of telling narrative time, may turn out to be the easiest book of the bunch to put on screen, which could round out the series with a bang. (It will certainly slim down Rowling's talkier scenes, which is all to the good.) On the other hand, it does require the young leads to carry the story almost entirely by themselves, but by then they may have sufficient experience to do it. They've certainly been improving film by film.

By the way, at my theater they trailed the upcoming adaptation of The Dark Is Rising by Susan Cooper, which looks like it's been pretty sadly mutated away from its novel (that cheeky American lad is NOT stolid Will Stanton) but may still be entertaining as a generic fantasy film. I do like those.

...But I have to admit, I'm a sucker for nightmarish, surreal montage scenes like Harry's nightmares and flashback scenes, so...I did like those quite a bit. ^^;

Oh, yeah. I'm a sucker for any moment in which a character is pushed to the wall and responds by revealing more of him- or herself. Myself, I'd've toned down Harry's expository internal dialogue with Voldemort at the end, because the visuals carried the meaning so well on their own. I particularly liked how it was triggered by the entrance of Hermione and company, so that Harry's love for Sirius was tied to the family of friends he's developed through his time at Hogwarts. But, of course, there are twelve-year-olds watching this movie, so a little extra exposition is to be expected. (One enthusiastic nine-year-old leaving the theater exclaimed, "That was the best Harry Potter EVER!!" And if the film hits its mark with its target audience, what right has an old fart like me to quibble with shot composition? :-)

[haleysings.livejournal.com]

Hear, hear! I also loved Warwick Davis's little "Yes!!" gesture as the Weasley twins departed -- it was so "There goes the product of my training!" proud. :-)

Ooh, I almost forgot about that part! Good scene. ^^

Yes. I'm wondering if the fact that Rowling's basically writing school picaresque (at least up until Deathly Hallows) hampers the filmmakers' ability to turn her stories into connected narrative, rather than a series of scenes held together by characters and setting.

That might be part of it. I think another part is just how full of details the books are...she's always filling these books with details that foreshadow and connect everything, even things that are important in a later book. It seems like she very rarely describes something if it won't be used later. When I think about how the LOTR books worked out better, that sort of makes sense to me, too--Tolkien wrote a lot of descriptions and background details and had dialogue heavy scenes as well, but quite a bit of it wasn't really that important to the main plot and could be cut out. (...Of course, I'm probably a bit biased, I'm a big fan of LOTR. ^^;)

As for the future movies...part of me thinks everyone's going to go see HBP to see Snape kill Dumbledore. XD;; I haven't finished DH yet, but so far from what I read what you said makes a lot of sense.

Oh, yeah. I'm a sucker for any moment in which a character is pushed to the wall and responds by revealing more of him- or herself.

Ooh, yes, yes, yes. That's part of the reason why episode 20 is one of my favorite Princess Tutu episodes. And 18. And 10. ...Any episode where Fakir is forced into character development, really.

(One enthusiastic nine-year-old leaving the theater exclaimed, "That was the best Harry Potter EVER!!" And if the film hits its mark with its target audience, what right has an old fart like me to quibble with shot composition? :-)

I still prefer GOF, but...a friend of mine that's a big Harry Potter fan had a similar reaction. I suppose as long as the fans are pleased...

[nebroadwe.livejournal.com]

I think another part is just how full of details the books are...she's always filling these books with details that foreshadow and connect everything, even things that are important in a later book. It seems like she very rarely describes something if it won't be used later.

Hmm. I'm not sure about that. I mean, I think her whimsical take on world-building is one of Rowling's strengths, but I also think she describes a lot of things in throwaway detail, particularly in the early books, as part of the joy of inventing it all, and then sometimes takes belated advantage of the huge amounts of stuff she generates, turning throwaways into significant items. Not to sound like Malvolio in Twelfth Night :-), but some things are immediately and obviously important and remain so (e.g. Harry's wand); some things are just for fun (e.g. garden gnomes); some things seem like they ought to be important, but then fade as the developing plot leaves them behind (e.g. -- um, not knowing how far through 7 you are yet, I'll just say a motif borrowed from Irish high folklore that shows up at the climax of book 4); and some things get retconned into importance (I'd bet my eyeteeth that Riddle's diary is one of them -- Horcruxes strike me as a late-developing solution to the getting-rid-of-Voldemort problem; I'd also add, um, the apotheosis of one of Harry's most prominent possessions in 7. Here's to remaining spoiler-free! :-) But that has got to drive a scriptwriter (not to mention a director) absolutely batty. You can't just adapt from what you've got available; you've got to keep checking back with the author so that you don't leave out, or make too prominent, a detail that will be required later. It's a darned good thing they're always a book or three behind.

Which is not to diss Rowling as a writer -- I've always been impressed by her ability to retcon, though I'm a little uneasy at the amount and kind that seems to be going on in 6 and 7, mostly because of all the explanation that's entailed in wrenching some of those details into their new contexts. Really good retconning builds smoothly on what's already revealed, so that your response is "Aha!" or "Ooh, cool!" rather than "Waitaminnit!"