Readers of the blog might recall my review of Part 1 of the movie adaptation of the final Harry Potter book, and how overall I was quite pleased with the result and interested in seeing how the second half turned out.
Overall, unfortunately, I actually felt like the second half was a bit weaker than its predecessor. I had actually had high hopes that by splitting the final volume into two feature-length films, the movies could finally take the time needed to fully develop the stories told in the books, but despite having 4+ hours of material to work with, this movie still felt rushed to me. Many scenes that were quite powerful in the books lost a lot of emotion and depth, in my opinion. For instance, the scene in the maybe-afterlife-King's-Cross with Dumbledore felt incredibly short, and without the exposition from the book felt like it didn't accomplish nearly as much. Likewise, Snape's memory sequence left out a ton of memories for the book, and to me at least it felt like his love for Lily felt a lot more forced without the evidence of their deep prior friendship.
Of course, something that's easy to forget and that I had to remind myself of is that the audience for these movies is not all like me. At this point, there are probably equal (if not more, I don't know the numbers) of people who have never read a single word of the novels who come to these movies. I'm sure when making creative decisions the directors and producers have to balance pleasing the diehard fans against the possibly greater number of people who won't be actively comparing every scene to its novel counterpart. The problem is after coming off the brilliant adaptation that was HBO's Game of Thrones, it's hard to go back to anything less.
With that said, there was some things that the movie did well. For instance, I was happy to see the way the battle was rendered. To actually see the castle exploding, spells flying everywhere, and absolute chaos was nice, considering such scenes are a bit harder to imagine from just reading. I do think it was overdone a little, since there was one point where Harry kept going through stairwells with students running everywhere (seriously, where were they going?), but overall it worked. The triumphant escape from Gringotts aboard the blind dragon also worked quite well; in general the actions scenes were good is I guess what it comes down to.
I think the biggest problem I had, honestly, is the host of minor, small changes they decided to make. I think I understand the reasoning behind all of them, but in general I didn't like the tone shift they introduced. For instance, making Griphook blatantly betray the trio and have the Imperio'd goblin fried felt wrong to me. Neville's speech against Voldemort also felt a little out of character. Having the Ravenclaw ghost know exactly where the diadem was (and what happened to it) but not do anything about seems odd. Having Voldemort feel the Horcruxes destroyed also sets a weird precedent. I think the biggest change I objected to though was the final fight: it felt like a over-hollywood-ization of a final scene, and Harry and Voldemort battle it out all around, which makes no sense given how much a superior wizard Voldemort is, and Harry only survived in the past due to dodging and/or Priori Incantatum. I also really enjoyed the final speech in front of an entire audience in the final book, and instead Voldemort just melts away after Nagini dies, which in and of itself seems odd. Again, I feel like it robs a lot of the importance of the scene when the main villain of 8 movies just kind of drifts apart with no major conclusion.
Again, though, not everything was bad. I liked how they added in the scene explicitly showing the destruction of the locket, and I actually like that they destroyed the diadem together instead of exposition-ing the fiendfyre. So while most of it I didn't necessarily care for, there were definitely bright spots.
Overall the movie fit into my general expectations for the series thus far: reasonably entertaining, but very forgettable and inferior to the books in almost every way. It was kind of interesting to see a photo posted on Reddit a week ago showing the main trio's actors when they first started, and the realization that they've been growing up at the same pace I have; it was very weird seeing young versions of them again. The main point though is that while I can see myself coming back to the novels years from now, and likely multiple times, I doubt I'll ever consciously choose to watch the films again of my own volition. Could they have been better? Undoubtably. Could they have been worse? Most easily. They're on the better side of average, and something that had to happen given the books' popularity and immense money-making capacity, and while I'm reasonably happy that we got a half-decent production, but I probably won't ever stop wishing a little that we had gotten something a bit better.
-HTMC
I remembered what my issue was, and it was that the scene with Dumbledore didn't do what it was supposed to, which was explain the plot of the book (which Dumbledore does at some point in pretty much every book). This really weakened the movie as a stand-alone piece more than anything else. On this subject, I was shocked by how much Part 1 was "required reading" - the Hallows subplot would have been totally indecipherable without it, whereas the critical details of previous movies were usually summed up at the start or could at least be puzzled out, IIRC.
ReplyDeleteI have to say, I don't really agree with you about the final duel between Harry and Voldemort - I felt the book ended with a huge anticlimax and Voldemort, the supposedly greatest wizard in the world, stumbling into the most obvious trap in the world was a big disappointment. The most charitable reading I could come up with was that it was supposed to be an anvil about hubris, but his hubris had already been sufficiently established already, and this just took it to cartoonish levels.
Part of the anticlimax, admittedly, was a flaw that Rowling baked into the universe from the start, which is to have a no-questions-asked killing spell at all. While I can understand the temptation, the problem is that it robs the vast majority of duels of any creativity, and reduces them to Western-style quick-draws. Whoever is faster in the trigger with a spell that is guaranteed to kill wins. What's more, it largely removes injuries from the equation - there are only two states, alive and dead. The film series generally did a good job making duels look nice despite this, though it suffered from the problem that often times Death Eaters would screw around unnecessarily instead of just using the killing curse (for some characters, this is justified, but for others, it's rather silly). What's more, because the heroes had a guaranteed-to-succeed stunning spell that incapacitates enemies for an arbitrarily long (in combat) amount of time, they were never really pushed to use anything more creative, either.
The only duel that averts this (for no adequately explored reason) is the one between Voldemort and Dumbledore in the basement of the Ministry - and it is also without question my favorite duel in the series, film or books.
TL;DR: Yes, Harry and Voldemort's final duel was Hollywood-y and it could certainly have been better, but this was (slightly) preferable to the book version.
Guess we differ about the ending, then.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I disagree about the "no-questions-asked killing spell." As I understand it, you need to summon up an incredibly amount of anger/hatred/other negative emotion to use Avada Kedavra and actually have someone die. That's the reason why many Death Eaters aren't continuously using it, why most of the Order doesn't seem to use it, etc. For instance, Molly Weasley is able to kill because she just had the life of her daughter threatened after losing a son. In contrast, I think part of the reason Dumbledore doesn't fling killing spell after killing spell at Voldemort is not only because of the reasons he states, but also because he doesn't feel "hate" towards Riddle, but rather remorse and sadness, which aren't the energies you need to kill someone.
Also, if it's anything like the other Unforgivable Curses (thinking of the scene in 5 where Harry uses Cruciatus) it's actually somewhat draining to consciously inflict pain on someone else, which is why I think Voldemort is one of the few people we see rapid-fire the spell, as his emotional well is near limitless in that regard. His followers don't feel the same way they do; they're attracted to the power, rather than any true hatred towards non-Death Eaters (the Order being the exception, since death duels tend to bring that out).
Also, the implication I always got was that the disarming spell often didn't work, and the reason it seems to work so often (especially in the last book) is that they manage to often take their opponents by surprise. Any time it's a straight up fight they're often barely able to hold their own.
Anyway, that's just my reading and understanding based off several very vague implications, so it could be false, but that's why I was never bothered by Death Eater behavior/spell choice as you apparently were.
I never really saw any indication, explicit or implied, that there was any sort of cap on the *amount* of magic that one could perform in a given period of time. People in the HP universe seem to spam spells as much as they want, and what separates a weaker wizard from a more powerful one is the success rate of individual spells, and not mana pool size.
ReplyDeleteIt was pretty clear that one needed to have a certain amount of "hate," or disregard for human life, or wickedness, or *something* to perform some of the forbidden curses. That said, Harry's failure to use Cruciatus read more like he was missing a necessary condition for the spell than he was lacking in a resource - he simply isn't enough of a dick to really WANT to hurt anyone that much. It wasn't as if he could Crucaitus one person and then he'd be too tapped out emotionally to hit another - it was that he just wasn't cruel enough to do it to anyone. You either have the emotional/psychological prerequisite to cast the spell, or you don't. This might vary target-to-target (it would be easier to cast the spell on someone you hate, for instance), but we never saw anyone cease to be able to function because they had cast too many spells, nor did we ever see someone's spellcasting ability decrease after casting too many spells.
So I don't buy your theory that there's a limit to most people's "hate," and that limits the number of times they can cast the killing curse per day (or hour, or whatever). It's a possible explanation that nothing expressly contradicts, sure, but I don't see any strong evidence that pushes me to accept it, either.
Regarding Voldemort's duel with Dumbledore, the real question is why Voldemort isn't using the killing curse, not why Dumbledore isn't. It's easy to see why Dumbledore wouldn't use such a spell even if he is capable of it (and, given how clinically he is willing to sacrifice lives to the greater good, I think he probably is). But why Voldemort didn't use it in their duel - that's an interesting question.
I don't think there's a mana cap, but emotions do definitely play a huge role in magic, both positive and negative ones.
ReplyDeleteTo quote Bellatrix from the fifth book
"You need to mean them, Potter! You need to really want to cause pain - to enjoy it - righteous anger won't hurt me for long -"
So obviously his anger is fueling some of the spell, but it's not as strong as the hate, and I assume if his anger flared away the spell would cease to function completely.
With that said, you're wrong, there IS one instance where see someone's spellcasting ability decrease after casting too many spells as the result of their emotions running out: Expecto Patronum. 3rd book, if I remember correctly, while facing the massed Dementors Harry & co. are able to cast the spell successfully a few times, but them the Dementors overwhelm them, and the successive spells get weaker and weaker until they're unable to cast them from lack of the requisite emotional happiness. It starts off very weak, then is essentially fog, and then he's unable to summon it anymore.
I assume if a spell that feeds off pure joy can be weakened given the right conditions, a spell that feeds off hatred works similarly. My understanding was the spell channels your happiness, which is why a happier memory is more powerful: bigger "well" of happiness. I suppose that doesn't necessarily mean you can exhaust that well, but if it does cease to exist the spell would stop. That's why I believe if your hatred (of malice, or whatever) towards the target isn't strong enough for Avada Kedavra, it simply wouldn't kill: you'd get the equivalent of the "grey mist" that was the failed Patronus, able to be swept aside by the Dementor. I suppose an argument could be made that you could use general hatred/disregard for life instead of hatred towards a specific person, and I would have no way of defending that, but I'm inclined towards that view just based on how magic in this universe tends to operate generally.
Why Voldemort doesn't use it is a good question. A couple options present themselves to me: either a part of Voldemort doesn't actually want Dumbledore dead, since he had a very special position in Riddle's life, or perhaps Dumbledore had reached a level of magical mastery that a spell as straightforward as the Killing Curse would be far too easy for Dumbledore to parry/dodge/counter/whatever, and thus Voldemort had to resort to more complex magic. The latter seems more likely, given the quote from the book "He sent another killing curse at Dumbledore but missed, instead hitting the security guard's desk, which burst into flames."
Perhaps the reason Voldemort does not use a killing curse on Dumbledore in Ministry duel is because Dumbledore's good at deflecting rays etc. He's going to be able to block a single beam from a spell, since he's an experienced duelist etc., so Voldemort's got to try hitting Dumbledore with things that have to be blocked through other means.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I don't think we're ever actually told what the limits are on the shielding charm or if there are many (or any) other spells used to block curses, so the means that Dumbledore used to defend himself may all have just been him showing off.
The fact is, we don't have a good sense of the mechanics of spellcraft in the HP universe.
ReplyDeleteThat said, it seems a bit off to me to extend the workings of the Patronus Charm to all spells, since it's explicitly stated to be kind of unique. Secondly, even if we do this Dementors provide a new wrinkle to the case, since they have some kind of direct effect on people's brains. We have never seen any indication that casting the Patronus charm, outside the presence of a Dementor (or a creature precisely simulating one), drains the user of spellcasting ability, IIRC. Long-term exposure to the Dementors is draining Harry of the mental stability required for the spell, not the use of the spell itself. If anything, casting the Patronus spell seems to BOOST the feelings of happiness and self-worth required for its casting.
Regarding the relevant Bellatrix quote, again, I see this not as Harry running out of capacity to use the spell, but lacking the resolve to really use it to its full extent. Harry doesn't have enough "hate" to use the spell properly, but if he did, he wouldn't "expend" that hate by casting the spell. Trying to substitute "righteous anger" for the real malice required is the problem, not "using up" too much of that anger.