Communicator (communicator) wrote,
Communicator
communicator

Deathly Hallows 1

I went to see the new Harry Potter film. Critical opinion seems to be divided. I liked it. I liked it better than any other HP film, except The Prisoner of Azkaban. If you really don't like Harry Potter I guess this won't convert you, but it appealed to me. I used to like the rare bits in the previous films and books which presented magic as an intrusion into the mundane, and the shabby old rooms, and a bit of violence and evil. I like to get away from the idea that the magical world is rather nice. I was pretty bored with Hogwarts. You know the excellent scene in Order of the Phoenix, where he glimpses grown-up people making serious plans behind a door, which is slammed shut. I feel in this we are allowed to go behind the door. Alan Rickman in particular conveys a great deal of hinterland with almost nothing but his suffering eyes. Exemplary.

So, this film suited me pretty well. It had quite a lot of evil ruling class in it - let me not get started on any political analogy - lots of grubby interiors and unpleasant types. I thought it integrated emergent sexuality into the story quite well, not too explicitly, but not too domestic either. We also see the wicked death-eaters responding to the attraction of the heroes, which I thought was bold. Specially Belatrix rubbing herself all over Hermione.

I thought the story was more interesting than in the book, which had its longeurs. Having said that there was some gabbling through verbal explanations of what was happening next, I suppose on the assumption that every viewer knows the story, but expects the overall plot to be ticked through. I've said before, I'd scrap the explanations altogether.

On the whole I would say Rupert Grint was the least pretty of the three, but the most sexy and grown-up seeming, and the best actor - though unfortunately he really gabbled through the plot-tokens - but apart from that he was a lot more affecting than the other two chums.

The style was more naturalistic than the previous films. Stylised naturalism: shots up through grass stalks, some of those Private Ryan type clots of earth flying about, a lot of grubby skin and acne. Good, I like that. Some people will find the lengthy tent-sequence slow, very slow. I was quite bored by it in the book, but I felt it was fine in the film, and it was here that the naturalism was used the most. Good presentation of the physicality of nature, which makes the magic much more interesting. Perhaps not very much fun for the youngsters in the audience.

I wish that Rowling had followed through the pulling apart of her world that she was doing in this book, and that it had ended with a revolutionary overthrow of the whole apparatus of houses and Hogwarts.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic
  • 15 comments