I think it may have been a mistake to have read the Harry Potter books before seeing the movies. It's next to impossible to see the film as a work in its own right. I can't help but notice what's missing from the book.
Now, Half-Blood Prince easily wins my top prize among the Harry Potter novels. It reaches more deeply than any of the others into the loves, conflicts, and hopes of the characters. It explores the dynamic of its magical world more fully, and defines the lines of the central conflict between Voldemort and Potter. It even displays a depth of moral discernment not found in the rest of the series.
And I'm afraid that's what I missed from the film. I found myself too busy wondering where the dynamics of relationship and morality were to take more than passing notice at the quality of acting (still improving with each movie; I'm finally accepting Michael Gambon in place of the late Richard Harris) or the flashy special effects (well-executed, but lacking imagination). The film payed passing lip service to the moral questions around Harry's use of the Half-Blood Prince's textbook, and failed entirely to look at the issue of the sectem sempera spell. Regarding Dumbledore, the film portrays only what is needed to keep the action moving, so his role as wise father-figure is lost. Even the jealousy dynamic between Ron and Hermione, and Harry and Ginny, feels perfunctory and tacked-on, whereas in the novel it is at least somewhat integrated into the other moral quandaries the teens face.
Now, I'm not a huge Potter fan. I enjoyed the books, mostly, but on the level of light entertainment rather than as real literature. Rowling has a rightly acknowledged gift for inventive language and playful bits of magic. But her grasp of human nature and morality tends toward the shallow; at her deepest, she merely raises questions rather than truly exploring them. She's no Dostoyevski or Tolkien.
On the other hand, she's no Philip Pullman, either. She's not to blame for the rising popularity of "witchcraft" and occult magic. She's not out to destroy humanity or the Church, and the stories don't even have that unintentional effect -- except that they do ride the tide of popular ideas common in our culture today, such as: intention is the main factor in morality; authority is usually wrong, especially when enforcing rules; victory is ultimately in our own hands; etc.
Still, I did enjoy the movie, and did not wish for my money back. I think I'm hard on Harry because I develop such high hopes -- for characters, for insights, for drama -- and then am disappointed when I find the actual book or film falling short. Perhaps I, like Dumbledore, simply ask too much of Harry.
2hr 33min; Directed by David Yates; rated PG.
23 July 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comboxers:
I just saw the movie. Unlike you, I don't rate Book 6 particularly high. In fact, while it succeeds as part of the series, I think it utterly fails as a book in its own right. Even key mysteries introduced in the book (such as the nature of Draco's mission) are not explained until book 7.
I feel that the great moral issues of the series are those not stated by the author. Is Dumbledore noble or vicious in his treatment (use) of Harry and Snape? Are Harry's dad and Sirius basically good people with weaknesses, or are they not at all admirable? When I finished the series, I came to hold some strong opinions on these matters, and yet I was far from sure that JKR had intended for her readers to end up with such opinions.
(Can't say more... spoilers, you know!)
Post a Comment