Kinematoscope

It's the fourth Transfigurations entry, everyone, and coincidentally the fourth in our six-part Harry Potter series (technically it will eventually be eight parts, but that's neither here nor there). Today, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

Multiple questions abound this time out- can a new director maintain the impossibly high standard set by Cuaron's last film? Why does Harry Potter's hair grow so much faster than mine does? Does J K Rowling want us to inherently distrust authority?

And most importantly, why hold an international, much-publicized wizarding competition that consists of two events (out of three) that spectators can barely see?



The Crew:

Steve Kloves remains our screenwriter. Meh.

Our new director is Mike Newell, mostly known for dramedy-type British films like Four Weddings and a Funeral and Enchanted April. After Cuaron declined to film two films back to back, Newell took the job fresh off Mona Lisa Smile, which in addition to being schlocky and mediocre did feature students- so perhaps the producers saw Newell as well-suited to handle the burgeoning relationship melodrama that the fourth book contains.

Click for More...

Patrick Doyle also takes over composing from John Williams, but stays mainly within the themes Williams previously established.

The Cast:

Our biggest notable addition is Brendan Gleeson as the wonderfully grouchy Mad-Eye Moody (sort of, see later). He's been covered in these here internets before.

MAJOR DIFFERENCES:

Well, once we get past the third book, Rowling just sort of goes nuts with the page counts (GOF clocks in at 734) and stuffs in the subplots. Newell and co. initially thought about making Goblet into two films (much like the upcoming pair of Deathly Hallows films) before deciding to condense it into one.

So things like the Quidditch World Cup (at least the match itself) are cut for time, the Weasley twin's gambling winnings bit, the characters of Ludo Bagman and Winky entirely.

House elves on the whole are nowhere to be seen, even Dobby and Hermione's growing S. P. E. W. movement (not something that would have translated. And Rita Skeeter's insiduous journalist has only one scene, which is part of a growing trend of the films toning down the parts of the book that are aggravating.

WHY YOU SHOULD READ THE BOOK

Well, it's longer, like I said. Moreover, it sets up the eventually revelation that Mad-Eye Moody is not himself a little better, by mentioning more than once that he was attacked early on, along with all of the Polyjuice potion hints.

It's also got classes in it, something laregly absent from all of the films- we usually see one or two Defense Against the Dark Arts lessons and one Snape class on film, but the books are still structured around the school year.

And as part of a larger world, the book has a HUGE advantage over the film- the filmmakers chose to exclude what I feel is one of the most important scenes in the book, near the end when Dumbeldore and Fudge have a sort of stand-off in the school hospital wing.

That scene (which sort of shows us why Dumbeldore is such a revered figure) sets up so much in the fifth book I keep forgetting that it's not in the film at all. Nor does the film explain what "Priori Incantatem" is in the slightest, despite the fact that it allows Harry to escape Voldemort with his life.

WHY YOU SHOULD WATCH THE MOVIE

It's funny.

Not something I'd really say about the earlier films, even the third, which is wonderfully atmospheric, but darkly so. Goblet of Fire manages to play the fish-out-of-water Moody to a T, get the Yule Ball chicanery just right, and is a showcase of moments invented just for the Weasley twins.

It has the advantage of building on the first three films, in that it doesn't have to introduce us to anybody- thus, after the initial rush through the World Cup and expositional Triwizard Tournament bit, it can stretch its legs a little and let us see Snape whack the back of our young heroes' heads for talking during a test, see Neville's love of dancing, and the twins repeating things five times fast while taking bets on the tournament.

And as stilted as it can be at times, turning the final task maze into a generic attack-hedge and madcapping the dragon and merpeople bits, the instant Harry and Cedric touch the Triwizard cup it completely nails the change in tone- the graveyard battle and especially the chaotic return to the field.


CONCLUSIONS

Goblet of Fire might be the closest film to the book that still has a life of its own. It streamlines the plot, but keeps the high points and contributes its own funny moments.

It would nice if it were as jam packed with magical details as Prisoner of Azkaban, but I can't have everything. A worthy entrant to the series, Newell's film would be a suitable substitute for the book, if you really don't have the time, but it's not the greatest experience on its own.

Of course, it's the first one I saw after becoming a fan of the books, so the differences might have struck me harder than before- I notice that Kloves kept Harry and Ron's extended disagreement (despite glossing over Harry's fight with Hermione in book three)- in his ongoing Ron exclusion, but Grint and Radcliffe managed some nice moments out of it.

OTHER (MINOR) DIFFERENCES/OBSERVATIONS

- I notice the Death Eaters in the film have KKK hoods. Totally subtle, guys.

- Bummest note in the film- the Weasley's tent at the World Cup is small on the outside but huge inside- a point that might've been deftly handled last film here gets a musical flourish and then Harry literally says: "I love magic!" Me, too, Harry. That's why we're all here. Thanks for spelling it out.

- Some people don't care for it, but I like Michael Gambon's much more reactionary Dumbeldore in this film, as he shakes Harry's shoulders when his name comes out of the Goblet. He's important to set the tone for what's to come, even if his scene of badassness was cut for time.

- Sirius in the fireplace ash in the film- meh. That seemed like FX just for the sake of FX to me.

- No Maurauder's Map in the film, as useful as it would have been..

- Not to hark on this, but people watching the Triwizard Tournament must be bored as hell: after a relatively exciting dragon first task, they get to watch the surface of the lake for an hour, and then the edges of a hedge maze, while merely guessing what could be happening. Nothing unites the international wizarding world like being bored out of your minds.

Next time on Transfigurations: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix- featuring Luna Lovegood! an entirely different screenwriter! more of Gary Oldman than his face! and possibly my favorite scene not in the books!

Welcome back to my feature comparing movies to their source material. We continue our six-part Harry Potter series with the second book and film, Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets.

NOTE: Again, all kinds of Harry Potter spoilers are rampant in this post, though mostly for this installment

The Crew:

As mentioned last week, our filmmakers are screenwriter Steve Kloves and director Chris Columbus.

The Cast:

Once again, the cast is huge and it really wouldn't do to recap everyone's storied career. Suffice it to say that our three stars, Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint, have all grown up a year and gotten better, and our already packed-with-ringers supporting adult cast adds Kenneth Branagh to its ranks this time out.



Click for More...

THINGS THE BOOK DOES THAT THE FILM DOESN'T

1. Not to hark on this or anything, but- Subtlety

It's the little things, people. I know that the subtleties of the printed page are completely different, but Columbus is just too "gee-whiz!" of a director to be right for this series at all.

Dobby, for example, is in large part directly translated from the book (Toby Jones's rasping voice-work I mostly could've done without), but is initially seen inexplicably jumping on Harry's bed, a completely out of character moment.

Or the stairs in Hogwarts castle, which merit but a sentence or two about how they shift about in print (and move mostly in the background in future films) get a musical flourish and their own camera shots in Chamber, and then Harry and co. pass by.

This attitude carries once again into a spectacularly overdone Quidditch match (where Harry flies through the stands, and Oliver Wood's broomstick is shattered by a bludger), Hermione immobilizing an entire roomful of pixies with one speel (instead of two at a time), and the important-to-the-plot breaking of Ron's wand- in the book, he finds it broken after the whomping willow pummels the car, but in the film breaks it himself whacking it on the steering wheel. This after the flying car nearly gets hit by the Hogwarts express, a completely new idea.

It's the difference, I think, of existing in a world versus presenting it. As exposition-y as Rowling's books can be, they sort of take the whole magic thing as a given, and don't waste time emphasizing it (at least not more than other things, like characterization and plot). Columbus is less interested in Harry than he is in the scar on his forehead (which shows up a lot more in these two films than later ones, where Harry's bangs cover it up).

2. Advance The Plot In A Timely Fashion

As we find out at the end of Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets, a lot of the master plot has to do with Ginny Weasley, and small scenes from the book that seem inconsequential at first glance back that back that up: she looks pale and sickly at a point, she looks mortified when she sees Harry with Riddle's diary, and she seems about to tell Harry and Ron something one morning before Percy walks by.

Are any of these scenes in the film? No, though we do see Ginny's Harry-related nervousness early on, and she's around the whole time.

Other plot elements get shuffled, but the scenes that dealt with them are preserved: Gilderoy Lockhart is still introduced signing books at the book-shop, but he doesn't announce he'll be teaching at Hogwarts- he just shows up there a few scenes later.

Similarly, Harry still arrives in Borgin & Burkes accidentally, but doesn't eavesdrop on Lucious Malfoy- the scene seems to be preserved mostly because Columbus wanted a disembodied hand to suddenly grab Harry's wrist. Magic!


THINGS THE FILM DOES THAT THE BOOK DOESN'T

1. Have Excellent British Actors Bringing The Adults To Life

Again, by far my favorite part of these first two films is the stacked cast. Here, we spend some time around Mrs. Weasley (Julie Walters), who scales back the more reactionary book character in a fun performance, and Mr. Weasley (Mark Williams), who has my favorite non-book line when asking Harry about Muggles: "Now tell me Harry, what exactly is the function of a rubber duck?"

Which is not to mention Alan Rickman's legendary Snape again (though I just did, I guess, because Snape is awesome), Maggie Smith's spot-on McGonagall, or Richard Harris as Dumbeldore- the late Harris's quiet, rasping Dumbeldore obviously stands out the most, since it contrasts with Michael Gambon's later interpretation of the character.

2. Pace The Big Finale A Lot Better

My problem with the end of the second book is that, after the first book's careful constructed obstacles, the finish is just four pages of Fawkes ex machina. In rapid succesion, Dumbeldore's pet phoenix shows up, pecks out the basilisk's eyes, drops the Sorting Hat in Harry's arms (which produces Gryffindor's sword), heals Harry's wound, and brings him the diary to destroy.

The film, in the rare instance of the cinema of spectacle helping an adaptation, spaces these moments out with a blind-basilisk chase-sequence and a small sword battle. Harry also stabs the diary all on his own.

I promise from now on that the "Things the film does" parts will be longer because the rest of the films do more things.

OTHER DIFFERENCES I NOTICED THAT ARE LARGELY INCONSEQUENTIAL

-When you use Polyjuice Potion in this film, you still have your own voice (but not, as we'll see, in the next one). Hmm?

-In an early example of Ron's lines getting given to another character (Steve Kloves seems to care very little for Ron), Hermione knows all about what a "mudblood" is.

-We do get to fly through the Harry Potter logo for the first time (a trend in all subsequent films), though the WB logo sort of falls out of the way.

-I mostly liked the way Parseltongue was depicted, though I find myself wondering why the basilisk only ever talked about killing things as it wandered about the castle. Why didn't Harry hear things like "I haven't molted in a while....this is really getting itchy...man, spiders sure are delicious...I wonder where they all went?"

-Hermione is a lot less of a scold in the films in general: here she seems hardly reproving of the boys arriving in a stolen car and damaging the whomping willow.

-I like the way Harry frees Dobby in the film better- hiding a sock in the diary, which Malfoy then hands to his servant. Tossing the sock over your shoulder seems like an iffy definition of "giving."

-The restriction on underage wizardy doesn't seem to exist in the early films- Harry gets no letter after Dobby uses a hover charm. More on this when we get to the fifth movie.

-Finally, John Williams score is once again a large culprit in the "golly gee!" sense that I dislike in these two first films.


CONCLUSIONS

So after two installments of Columbus-vision, I couldn't be happier to be moving on. The irony here is that if you're a book purist, these two films have been the hands-down best at keeping the story intact.

But that's the problem, they're not really films that way. The more you try to imitate another art form, the more you reveal that you can't do the same things.

Granted, Harry Potter isn't exactly a property that you can just hack apart in the service of movie-making, and it's not exactly a collosal failure that Columbus couldn't do both at once. But it's no wonder that the franchise went with an entirely different choice for the next film.

What Harry Potter books need are people who can tells stories with the camera to match the source material. Columbus was little more than someone trying to read the first two books to us as a bedtime story: serviceable enough, but he couldn't do the funy voices the way we like.

Next week, with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, we'll see how it's done.