2009, cert: PG, running time: 153 mins
Director: David Yates
Actors: Daniel Radcliffe, Michael Gambon, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Jim Broadbent, Tom Felton
And we have been transfixed (stupefied one could say...) ever since. Actually, I do have a lot of time for Harry Potter but that is primarily because of J.K. Rowling's books rather than the films. As well as having enjoyed reading all of the books myself they have got thousands, if not millions, of people reading books for fun. they may not be the best written books in the world, they're not really "literature" in the snobby sense, but anything that gets people into books and storytelling is a bloody good thing.
So in a sense, the films are separate entity entirely for me. I have never been particularly captured by the films, certainly not in the same way as the books; and I often feel that the way the films are constricted by re-telling each book is one of their major problems. There is too much plot in most of the books to be satisfactorily conveyed by a two hour film whilst keeping the films entertaining, engaging and coherent. It is a very good job that the final one is coming out in two parts - it's not just the money spinning that it first appears to be. I suppose I'm trying to explain why I want to look at the films as entities in their own rights; not just re-tellings of books but films to be watched and considered as independently from the books as possible.
So, on to the subject at hand: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince or "HP6" if you're lazy and unimaginative. Having just said about how I wanted to think about the films as stand alone films in their own right, it is actually impossible to know how this film would seem to someone who had no idea about the characters. I imagine it would be pretty much impossible to follow without having at least seen the previous films to understand things like Death Eaters, The Dark Mark, Voldemort, quidditch and even what "Half-Blood" is about. This is by no means a problem, as re-explaining all of that stuff every film as well as coping with too much plot would be impossible.
We join Harry at the start of what would be sixth form in the UK, and as its set in the UK I'm going to say he's in sixth form. Or year 12 I suppose. Anyway, as you can imagine hormones are flying everywhere, snogging is top of everyone's priority list (nothing more of course...) and our young heroes are finding out that love is never easy. In fact, the teenagey stuff is done very well (especially as they're hardly teenagers anymore) and really captures the transition from child to adult better than all the US teen drama dross with thirtysomething year old actors playing out stupidly convoluted plot lines. The O.C. would be much better if it was like Harry Potter. These bits are genuinely warm and funny and are a necessary contrast to the ever-growing tide of darkness slowly enveloping Harry et al. This is also something that the film does well, there is a great sense of Something Very Bad Is About To Happen, in a very horror film type way. In fact I was surprised to see imdb listing the genre as Adventure, Fantasy, Mystery and Romance... For me it's a childrens' fantasy horror.
In fact it is the lack of Mystery that I consider one of the film's biggest flaws, it is after all called Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince but by the time we get to the big "I'm the Half-Blood Prince!" reveal, I was struggling to remember why it was even relevant in the first place. It should have been called Harry Potter and the Something Very Bad Is About To Happen. If you don't know what the bad thing is, then you have been living under a rock, but I won't spoil it... Let's just say that Kaiser Soze is Darth Vader's father who sees dead people. It's that big.
The fact that the "Prince" is a "Half-Blood" is totally glossed over, there is only one point where Hermionie is asked what her parents do and she has to explain what a dentist does that the issue of bloodlines is touched upon. This issue is something that is a key part of the whole story of Harry Potter and has echoes of historical events, particularly the holocaust. The obvious good versus evil theme is reinforced in the book by these parallels to the actions of people throughout history. Evil is not necessarily a space monster or nasty dictator, evil is something that comes from people just as good is. The meaning of good and evil is brilliantly portrayed by a stand-out performance by Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy, and it is a shame that there wasn't more.
The other problem is with the Something Very Bad which does ultimately Happen, but in a different way from the book... Now I'm not moaning about them changing the book, but what happens to Harry in the book makes sense as he is unable to prevent the Very Bad Something, however, in the film he could have helped but doesn't... Maybe more will be explained in the next one.
Still, gripes aside, I enjoyed The Half-Blood Prince as a film. I find it really hard to pin-point a best Harry Potter film as they all seem to blur into one, but I suppose that it would be The Prisoner of Azkaban and this one does match up to that fairly well. It is a difficult bit of the story to tell, and David Yates has done a good job keeping the many threads together whilst still making the film watchable. All in all, a good film, bit of a shame at the lack of a Half-Blood Prince, but worth watching even if you're not massively into the Harry Potter film phenomenon. Certainly better than the dross that Hollywood summer blockbuster sequels generally tend to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment