Racism is not an action.
It is an establishment.
Recommended reading this week: http://newjimcrow.com/
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Monday, November 24, 2014
Ranking the Harry Potters
BOOKS MOVIES
Deathly Hallows Sorcerer's Stone
Goblet of Fire Prisoner of Azkaban
Order of the Phoenix Chamber of Secrets
Prisoner of Azkaban Half-Blood Prince
Half-Blood Prince Order of the Phoenix
Sorcerer's Stone Deathly Hallows 2
Chamber of Secrets Deathly Hallows 1
Goblet of Fire
Sorcerer's Stone is a delightful book, and it definitely gets props for starting the whole series off. When you go back to reread it, though, you notice a few clunks. The movie, though, is a masterpiece; it's visually ambitious, completely enthralling, true to the heart of the story, and it actually feels better on the screen than on the page, which shockingly few book-to-film adaptations are able to do.
The Chamber of Secrets movie carried over the same heart and charm from the first movie, which is why I rank it so high on my movie list. Again, it seems to work better on the screen than on the page. This is in small part to the fact that the second book is probably the worst of the books, although none of them can truly be labeled as "bad." It introduces us to the "mudblood" conflict that escalates throughout the entire series, but it also has some frayed edges: why can Percy the Prefect take points from Gryffindor? How exactly did Mrs. Norris come to hang from that torch bracket? And if only wizards can become ghosts, how are there ghost horses int he headless Hunt? Were they Animagi and still in horse form when they died?
Prisoner of Azkaban is where things start to get a little crazy. We got a new director for the film, which caused a lot of changes, but the new aesthetic he brought to this film was engaging and fun, and combined with the interesting Dementor and Time-Turner effects, it's no wonder why so many people like this film best. The book is wonderful too, because it's the one that got parents' attention: this isn't just a kid's series anymore. A pivotal book and pivotal movie.
Goblet of Fire, however, is totally imbalanced. While I think Chamber is one of the best movies but worst books, Goblet is one of the best books, and a terrible, terrible movie. This is where Rowling really hit her stride, where she found her perfect voice and writing style, and she could write as much as she wanted because her audience was so enormous. The book was a masterpiece, and began to tip the series into a new direction, setting us up for a stunning finale. The film, though, was a mess. It's a big book to adapt to the screen, but the corners they cut were done hastily, not with care. Then the final product was Frankensteined back together with ten extra minutes of dragon-attacks-a-school-while-the-teachers-do-nothing-about-it and the whole thing just feels haphazard. The bottom line is that this is the film where you had no clue what was going on plotwise unless you'd read the book, earning it an F.
Order of the Phoenix carries a bit of the same terrible fate as Goblet of Fire, filmwise. It's hard to grasp the backstory on everything unless you read the books, so the Fudge-goes-mad arc (and thus the inclusion of fiction's best villain, Umbridge) really does come out of nowhere. The film does retain a bit of that "It's like I'm really at Hogwarts" feeling from the first three movies, but significant pieces are still missing or glossed over. The connection to the characters began to wane in this one--the only genuine emotion you felt toward any of them was just anger at Umbridge and not much else, even Sirius. (Plus, that "something worth fighting for" line is just the worst.) The book, however, is easily one of my all-time favorites. A lot of people don't like how much of a jerk Harry became, but this story was integral to my personal growth as a teenager: seeing Harry act like a jerk, identifying so strongly with him, and the level of complexity and emotional depth in this book really helped me evaluate myself and start making a move toward become a more positive and healthy person.
Half-Blood Prince. The big "SPOILER!" book. Don't get me wrong, I love this book--but it does feel a bit like housekeeping. Most of it is just setting up for the Horcrux hunt in book 7, and while the concept of a Horcrux is such a great plot device that it makes me straight-up giddy, the final fight at the end did feel just a tiny bit contrived. As a movie, however, it was quite enjoyable, and the transition into the darker side of the franchise felt smooth and appropriate. This was the first movie that religiously attempted to stay true to the book since Azkaban, which was enormously refreshing.
Ah, Deathly Hallows. One of the best finales to any book series out there. There are a lot of series that stumble on the last installment--even a lot of trilogies can't get it right--but Rowling really delivered here. The epilogue is a bit much, but still, this is easily the best of the seven books. The movie, though, is in two parts. The first is all setup with no climax, and the second is all climax with no setup. Considering that the point of splitting the movie in two was to cover all the events from the book and really get it right, they glided over a lot of necessary information. Like the fourth movie, non-reader audiences were left saying "whaaaaa...?"
This fascinates me--that the difference in the medium can change how much I like a story. There's something very interesting lying at the heart of that, I think. It's really quite intriguing to examine the ways that stories have to change depending on the medium in which they're told.
My favorite example of this is an old Goosebumps book by R.L. Stein, My Best Friend is Invisible, where a kid named Sammy tries to convince his family and friends that he's being followed by an invisible boy named Brent. At the end of the book, Brent does become visible, and everyone is disgusted that Brent only has one head, two arms, two eyes, and no tendrils or antennae or suction pods on his skin. That's an R.L. Stein twist for you--all the other main characters are aliens.
This is the kind of thing that just can't be pulled off in film, though. Seeing the aliens the whole time would ruin the effect. There is a Goosebumps episode for this book, but the ending was obviously changed around, and it just doesn't really work.
Looking at the Harry Potters, or any book-to-screen adaptation, is always really interesting to me for exactly this reason. When you have a story to tell, which medium is the best one to present it? What are the restrictions of each? Is there something inherent to a specific medium that makes translating it from one to another difficult or impossible? Looking closely at your favorite things to discover why they're your favorites is a really fascinating project, and that process of self-discovery is just one more reason I'm grateful for the Harry Potter series.
Deathly Hallows Sorcerer's Stone
Goblet of Fire Prisoner of Azkaban
Order of the Phoenix Chamber of Secrets
Prisoner of Azkaban Half-Blood Prince
Half-Blood Prince Order of the Phoenix
Sorcerer's Stone Deathly Hallows 2
Chamber of Secrets Deathly Hallows 1
Goblet of Fire
Sorcerer's Stone is a delightful book, and it definitely gets props for starting the whole series off. When you go back to reread it, though, you notice a few clunks. The movie, though, is a masterpiece; it's visually ambitious, completely enthralling, true to the heart of the story, and it actually feels better on the screen than on the page, which shockingly few book-to-film adaptations are able to do.
The Chamber of Secrets movie carried over the same heart and charm from the first movie, which is why I rank it so high on my movie list. Again, it seems to work better on the screen than on the page. This is in small part to the fact that the second book is probably the worst of the books, although none of them can truly be labeled as "bad." It introduces us to the "mudblood" conflict that escalates throughout the entire series, but it also has some frayed edges: why can Percy the Prefect take points from Gryffindor? How exactly did Mrs. Norris come to hang from that torch bracket? And if only wizards can become ghosts, how are there ghost horses int he headless Hunt? Were they Animagi and still in horse form when they died?
Prisoner of Azkaban is where things start to get a little crazy. We got a new director for the film, which caused a lot of changes, but the new aesthetic he brought to this film was engaging and fun, and combined with the interesting Dementor and Time-Turner effects, it's no wonder why so many people like this film best. The book is wonderful too, because it's the one that got parents' attention: this isn't just a kid's series anymore. A pivotal book and pivotal movie.
Goblet of Fire, however, is totally imbalanced. While I think Chamber is one of the best movies but worst books, Goblet is one of the best books, and a terrible, terrible movie. This is where Rowling really hit her stride, where she found her perfect voice and writing style, and she could write as much as she wanted because her audience was so enormous. The book was a masterpiece, and began to tip the series into a new direction, setting us up for a stunning finale. The film, though, was a mess. It's a big book to adapt to the screen, but the corners they cut were done hastily, not with care. Then the final product was Frankensteined back together with ten extra minutes of dragon-attacks-a-school-while-the-teachers-do-nothing-about-it and the whole thing just feels haphazard. The bottom line is that this is the film where you had no clue what was going on plotwise unless you'd read the book, earning it an F.
Order of the Phoenix carries a bit of the same terrible fate as Goblet of Fire, filmwise. It's hard to grasp the backstory on everything unless you read the books, so the Fudge-goes-mad arc (and thus the inclusion of fiction's best villain, Umbridge) really does come out of nowhere. The film does retain a bit of that "It's like I'm really at Hogwarts" feeling from the first three movies, but significant pieces are still missing or glossed over. The connection to the characters began to wane in this one--the only genuine emotion you felt toward any of them was just anger at Umbridge and not much else, even Sirius. (Plus, that "something worth fighting for" line is just the worst.) The book, however, is easily one of my all-time favorites. A lot of people don't like how much of a jerk Harry became, but this story was integral to my personal growth as a teenager: seeing Harry act like a jerk, identifying so strongly with him, and the level of complexity and emotional depth in this book really helped me evaluate myself and start making a move toward become a more positive and healthy person.
Half-Blood Prince. The big "SPOILER!" book. Don't get me wrong, I love this book--but it does feel a bit like housekeeping. Most of it is just setting up for the Horcrux hunt in book 7, and while the concept of a Horcrux is such a great plot device that it makes me straight-up giddy, the final fight at the end did feel just a tiny bit contrived. As a movie, however, it was quite enjoyable, and the transition into the darker side of the franchise felt smooth and appropriate. This was the first movie that religiously attempted to stay true to the book since Azkaban, which was enormously refreshing.
Ah, Deathly Hallows. One of the best finales to any book series out there. There are a lot of series that stumble on the last installment--even a lot of trilogies can't get it right--but Rowling really delivered here. The epilogue is a bit much, but still, this is easily the best of the seven books. The movie, though, is in two parts. The first is all setup with no climax, and the second is all climax with no setup. Considering that the point of splitting the movie in two was to cover all the events from the book and really get it right, they glided over a lot of necessary information. Like the fourth movie, non-reader audiences were left saying "whaaaaa...?"
This fascinates me--that the difference in the medium can change how much I like a story. There's something very interesting lying at the heart of that, I think. It's really quite intriguing to examine the ways that stories have to change depending on the medium in which they're told.
My favorite example of this is an old Goosebumps book by R.L. Stein, My Best Friend is Invisible, where a kid named Sammy tries to convince his family and friends that he's being followed by an invisible boy named Brent. At the end of the book, Brent does become visible, and everyone is disgusted that Brent only has one head, two arms, two eyes, and no tendrils or antennae or suction pods on his skin. That's an R.L. Stein twist for you--all the other main characters are aliens.
This is the kind of thing that just can't be pulled off in film, though. Seeing the aliens the whole time would ruin the effect. There is a Goosebumps episode for this book, but the ending was obviously changed around, and it just doesn't really work.
Looking at the Harry Potters, or any book-to-screen adaptation, is always really interesting to me for exactly this reason. When you have a story to tell, which medium is the best one to present it? What are the restrictions of each? Is there something inherent to a specific medium that makes translating it from one to another difficult or impossible? Looking closely at your favorite things to discover why they're your favorites is a really fascinating project, and that process of self-discovery is just one more reason I'm grateful for the Harry Potter series.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)