hp: books vs. movies

[pauraque_bk]

I brought my UK copy of OotP to work today (one of my co-workers wanted to look at it), and yet another fan came out of the woodwork. This time it was the company accountant. He said OotP was his new favorite, and mentioned that he thought the odd-numbered books were better than the even-numbered ones. I agreed, and thought this was pretty amusing, considering that (as everyone knows) the opposite is true of the Star Trek films. I thought it was cool that this guy is a fan, though. He reminds me a little of Remus Lupin, actually -- if Remus Lupin were a somewhat disgruntled American accountant.

One thing he said intrigued me: Though he loves the books, he hasn't enjoyed the movies. He said he finds that they somehow miss the point, and aren't satisfying to him the way the books are.

Now, I was a movie convert, so obviously I do enjoy the movies, though I agree that the books are better. And despite the fact that I saw the SS/PS movie first, I still developed my own persistent mental images of the characters as written, apart from how they appear in the films. Some are very close matches (Emma Watson as Hermione, for example), but others are not. Alan Rickman is an example -- he's a lot of fun to watch, and I don't think he does a bad job, but he doesn't look at all like I picture Snape in the books, and his manner and delivery don't really match either. (I see Snape as much more introverted and tightly-wound, almost sullen. Rickman is... too confident.)

As to the movies "missing the point"... I guess I can see that. The SS/PS movie doesn't mention Snape's motive for protecting Harry, which stuck out as a mistake even before I'd read the book. (One of the reasons I picked up the book in the first place was to get a better handle on that point, in fact.) I enjoyed the CoS movie very much, though it obviously placed more emphasis on action than the book does. CoS, in some ways, is a creepy little book, and the movie didn't capture that feeling.

So here are some questions for the HP fans out there: Are the movies satisfying to you? Do they miss the point? Is it even possible to make movies from this material that are as satisfying as the books? When you read the books now, have the movies affected the way you think of them?

Comments

[deslea.livejournal.com]

I was a movie convert too, and I love Philosopher's Stone. Chamber of Secrets (movie) is fine, too, but it's less satisfying IMO. Mind you, it's hard to pin down whether it might be less satisfying because I've now read the books.

I dunno. I think of the movies as children's adaptations that stand in their own right, but don't necessarily capture the whole picture - which is fine by me, because it is an adaptation into a certain type of commercial product, same as a comic would be. I think, watching PS/SS, that you could take away the impression that Snape is simply protecting Harry because, y'know, he's a prick but not a killer. The unlikable teacher whose intentions are still in the right place. And that works, if you're viewing the movie on its own terms.

So I agree with your friend, in a sense, but it's not a problem for me. I can enjoy both.

I do think of the characters very much in line with the movie castings, but I agree with you about Alan Rickman's Snape and his confidence. Dumbledore and Hermione would be the two that most closely mirror how I see them in my mind...and also Lucius and McGonagall, I suppose.

[pauraque]

I think of the movies as children's adaptations that stand in their own right

This is pretty much the level on which I've enjoyed them, too.

I think, watching PS/SS, that you could take away the impression that Snape is simply protecting Harry because, y'know, he's a prick but not a killer.

Yeah, but even before I had the slightest clue what explanation the book gave, this seemed hollow to me in the movie. PS/SS hinges on Snape in a way that the subsequent books don't, yet the movie doesn't establish his character in our minds the way the book does. He has only a couple of scenes and hardly any lines, and after the truth is revealed, we don't hear anything more out of him. This was a problem for me not just because it left Snape's motivations foggy, but because it left the Trio's motivations foggy too -- why are they jumping to the conclusion that this guy we know almost nothing about, and hear almost nothing from, is in league with evil? Granted, they're only eleven, but it left me puzzled while I was watching the movie for the first time, as I recall.

[maidenjedi]

considering that (as everyone knows) the opposite is true of the Star Trek films.

Hehehe....so true.

So here are some questions for the HP fans out there: Are the movies satisfying to you? Do they miss the point? Is it even possible to make movies from this material that are as satisfying as the books? When you read the books now, have the movies affected the way you think of them?

Okay, I was a movie convert as well, so here goes.

The *first* movie is satisfying to me. I can watch PS/SS now and still be completely enchanted by it, which has to do with all the *movie* things that are great about it - the cinematography, the score (John Williams, of course), and the fact that I originally thought it told a very compelling story for a children's movie. It had some holes - you mentioned the Snape thing, which got to me as well - but they weren't so terrible to a person who had never read the books, and especially so when I considered that the books were there waiting to fill in the gaps for me. I devoured the novels, I couldn't get enough. And still, the first movie holds a special kind of charm. From a film standpoint, it's better than average and pretty to look at.

I don't think it's the movies that miss the point. If the point is being missed, it's by the studio and the marketing/merchandising people. The greatest tragedy of cinema in the late twentieth century was merchandising tie-ins. And on that note, the point has been missed a little by the casting people. You mentioned Alan Rickman being too confident for Snape. I agree, especially in light of material that hasn't made it to screen yet. For me, Richard Harris was weak as Dumbledore, and it wasn't age that did it. I'm afraid for Prisoner of Azkaban because the really tragic thing about MWPP in the book is how young they were, how their lives were cut so short. All of them, not just Lily and James. The movies are so busy concentrating on making the viewer care for Harry that they forget the subtleties that make the books so great. If the books were as one-dimensional as films often are, the adult following would be slim at best.

Is it possible to make satisfying films from these books as source material? Absolutely. I think it will take the right director and a more mature, nuanced script. Cuaron might be the man for it, because Chris Columbus is unfortunately a children's film director, and with PoA there is a definite shift into darker, more mature material. CoS was, too, and I think having Columbus at the helm was a mistake. The movie fell flat for me. It was heavy in the wrong places, the casting was spotty (Jason Isaacs and Kenneth Branagh were the only adults enjoying themselves, I felt, and the woman playing Molly was entirely too shrill. Little Bonnie Wright as Ginny was so underused - here was a chance to show *why* these books aren't just for kids, with the mindfuck Ginny endures in the novel, but it was glossed over in favor of giant spiders and the caricaturing of Ron into a goofy sidekick instead of a fellow Gryffindor and best friend).

The movies haven't really affected the books for me. Fanfiction has - I have all these expectations for Draco and Snape and I don't think either of them are going to be properly dealt with in Rowling's Harrycentric POV, which is fine, just a little disappointing. The movies create a craving in me; I've had to *read* right then, right after. I *see* things a little differently - Isaacs is so Lucius to me now, stick and all, and Branagh was Gilderoy long before the movie came out. That's about all.

[pauraque]

You mentioned Alan Rickman being too confident for Snape. I agree, especially in light of material that hasn't made it to screen yet.

Yeah. In CoS especially, he's just too flippant. Snape's need to intimidate comes from insecurity, and that doesn't show in the films at all. This may have something to do with what Deslea said above, that the movies are children's adaptations. A character as emotionally dark as Snape is in the books might well be overwhelming to the somewhat light-hearted tone they were going for. But I still think it could have been pulled off better.

I'm afraid for Prisoner of Azkaban

So am I. It's my favorite of the books, and I would love for it to be a great movie, but there will have to be a marked change in tone for that to happen (perhaps at the expense of continuity with the other films). Having played Snape the way he has, I wonder if Rickman will be able to handle something like the Shrieking Shack scene and care enough about it not to make it seem absurd. PoA cannot survive being played for laughs. I share your hope that Cuaron will bring in some much-needed subtlety; I've liked his work in the past.

I had some of the same complaints you did about CoS, though on the whole I enjoyed it. Kenneth Branagh and Jason Isaacs made the movie for me. Lucius and Lockhart hadn't really grabbed me in the book, but in this case the actors managed to establish wonderful characterisations despite weaker (IMO) source material. Both manage to be quite nasty when they're supposed to, without being so serious and heavy-handed that they drag down the film.

That's probably the biggest difficulty in making these movies: How serious can you play it? Jason Isaacs, in particular, had it pinned down just right -- he was playing it right at the level of the story, neither above nor below.

The movies haven't really affected the books for me. Fanfiction has

Fic has surely influenced my view of the characters to an extent, particularly Draco, who gets so shortchanged in canon. Ron, too -- his personality is not the most clearly drawn, so I'm more prone to letting fanon fill in the blanks. With the more strongly written characters, I think I have less difficulty letting the canon speak for itself.