Yesterday, Thanksgiving evening here in America, I went to go see the latest Harry Potter opus, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. The Mighty Wizard, always intrigued and impressed by films about his fellow wizards, was a sucker to see this new installment. I have to say that I thought that this was the best film of the entire series. Why? Well pull up a chair and I will tell you, gentle readers!
I have to admit that I have never read any of the Harry Potter books. At the insistence of several friends, I tried to start on the first one several years ago. I quit after about 50 pages, as I could not warm to Rowling's writing style. I keep promising myself that one day I will try and I might actually do it after reading some supplementary material that I found over the Internet that piqued my interest.
But back to the film. So what's there to like about Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire? The producers of this film - perhaps in an effort to condense what is probably a very long story (remember, I haven't read the books!) - dispensed with both the Dursley's (Harry's "Muggles" family), and with Dobby the annoying house elf. I don't know how much the Dursleys and Dobby figure in the book, but I know I could do without Dobby. We know the Dursleys are horrible, treat Harry like rubbish, and live on #4 Privet Drive in Whinging (is this a play on the Australian term "Whinge", which means a whiner or complainer)? So what is there more to know about the Dursleys that we don't need to know?
But the good parts don't stop there. Upon watching the first Harry Potter film, I came away with the idea that these stories were sort of like the school kid murder mystery Nancy Drew or Hardy Boys books of years gone by with magic thrown in. The Houston Press did me one better. They wondered whether Ms. Rowling was getting her inspiration from the old Scooby Doo cartoons. You know the story. "Those dratted kids! If it weren't for that goof ball Ron Weasley, that know - it - all Heromine Granger, and that star child Harry Potter, I, Lord Voldemort, would be ruling the world by now!"
Until now. It is now clear that with Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire that the series has taken new and much more interesting directions. Much has been made of the kids growing up and starting their nervous cakewalk through the pitfalls of adolescence. Much has been made of the return of Lord Voldemort. Both of these aspects of HP and the Goblet of Fire are wonderful. But in the background we are starting to see a not so subtle critique of government. We see that the Ministry of Magic, which is excellent at propagating rules, jailing prisoners like Sirious Black who are probably innocent, keeping tabs on everyone in general, but cannot keep the school kid wizards safe who are under its care. The Quiddich tournament grounds are turned into a wasteland by the Death Eating supporters of Voldemort. And what is it with the kid's Defense Against the Dark Arts teachers? How many times now have we seen that these teachers turn out to be either flat out dangerous (like Professor Lupin) or Voldemort supporters like Professor Crouch? What kind of a Ministry keeps doing this stuff? Well, maybe its every ministry that keeps doing this stuff. One wonders whether Rowling might have been smiling at the non - performance of America's FEMA when Hurricane Katrina came a knocking.
As a brief aside here. News came today (November 25, 2005) that the (former) head of FEMA during Hurricane Katrina, Michael Brown, a Bush crony who once previously held a post as Commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association before being named as head of FEMA, has started his own disaster consultancy organization. Hooray for Iron Triangles. I feel safer already.
With those thoughts in mind, I recommend that you visit the Social Science Papers network to read the abstracts of what academics are saying about Rowling's work and these films. You can see them here, here, and here. Hence the title of this entry, Harry Potter and the Half Crazed Bureaucracy.
But back once again to the film. The kids are getting to be much better at their roles, but it's a shame that this film is very "Harry Potter centric". Emma Watson was a true star in her scenes. It is a shame that she and Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley) don't get to do more in this film. The same goes for Tom Felton as Potter nemesis Draco Malfoy. And what about that handsome young fellow, Robert Pattinson, who plays the ill fated Cedric Diggory? I would put my money down that young Mr. Pattinson and Ms. Watson both have some real futures in film ahead of them if they so desire.
Ms. Rowling does a wonderful job at catching the differences between boys and girls. The teenaged guys travel in one's and two's, while the girls travel in packs. Sorry girls, I know better and so does Ms. Rowling. Y'all don't start traveling in two's until you hit the night clubs at 18 and later.
In a similar vein, the adults make their appearances, do their jobs, but they complement the kids. They don't try to take over or dominate their scenes. Watching Maggie Smith (Professor Minerva McGonagall), Michael Gambon (who should have been given the role of Gandalf in LOTR) as Dumbledore, Robbie Coltrane as the love stricken Hagrid, Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort, Pedrag Bjelac as Igor Karkaroff, Miranda Richardson as the vicious journalist Rita Skeeter, Jason Isaacs as Lucius Malfoy, and in particular Alan Rickman as Professor Snape are all marvelous.
I am a bit irritated that the spell to bring back Lord Voldemort required forcibly taken blood from the enemy (Harry Potter), but why could such a dastardly deed be not done sometime in class, or at some other time? Why did it take the TriWizard tournament port key scenario to do this? It seems to overcomplicate the story.
The special effects in this film are also sensational. Harry's dragon confrontation scene is absolutely terrifying and the underwater ship seems absolutely real. I've really come to enjoy the style of these films as time has gone by. As a swipe at Harry Knowles of "Ain't it Cool News", he wrote a while back that the film has a gag at the end. So I waited a good 10+ minutes after the film ended, wading through the endless film credits and looking for the gag. There was no visual gag, but there is a statement at the very end of the film credits declaring that, "No dragons were harmed in the making of this film." I thought I would write that so that nobody else would waste any of their time on any snippets like that which Mr. Knowles would write about.
But overall, these films are getting richer and more interesting. Ms. Rowling clearly has veered off the safe and beaten path of "Harry and friends vs. Voldemort" formulas which made the first 2 films near repeats of each other. I have to admit that I am now beginning to look forward to the next films and might manage to cough up the enthusiasm to plough through Ms. Rowling books.