I decided to post this snipet from A.O. Scott's (film critic for the New York Times) review of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. At first he seemed to be giving the movie more credit than deserves, even going so far as to make you feel he actually felt it was at least "even" with the novel. And, although he doesn't giving Rowling the credit I think she deserves, he does, if it's anyting, agree with me. His words are as follows:
"And like its predecessors, it manages to succeed as a piece of entertainment without quite fulfilling its potential as a movie. Perhaps by design, the films never quite live up to the books. This one proves to be absorbing but not transporting, a collection of interesting moments rather than a fully integrated dramatic experience. This may just be a consequence of the necessary open-endedness of the narrative, or of an understandable desire not to alienate “Potter” readers by taking too many cinematic chances. "
His comment on how the movie was absorbing was not transporting buts the general feeling of the movie into the perfect words. I rarely found myself engrossed with it, and I think it's because they weren't willing to make it in a mini-series or at least give it the extra twenty minutes it needed. I always felt a little like the movie was putting a hand between me and the screen, not letting me truly focus my eyes on it like you focus your whole energy when you're reading the book. The books are fully integrated because they cover every necessary aspect of life, and how Harry feels, and they give those feelings time to realistically develop. The film on the other hands fews more like a collection of photos that capture only a mere moment from reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment