David Who??
From what I can glean from the IMDb, David Yates (the director of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix), has previously directed BBC television shows and not much else. This guy is, at least to American audiences, an unknown. So my question is would someone fresh and baggage-free be better to take on a Harry Potter film, or should it be someone familiar that we can trust in the director's chair?
posted by Neal Paradise at 10:49 PM
7 Comments:
I don't think it's such a bad thing to have an unfamiliar face in the director's chair of the Harry Potter series. At this point, so much of the visual style has been established, the director really just needs to be a competent mimicker, rather than someone with a unique directorial eye or a strong directorial hand.
In fact, I'd argue that the more widely respected Alfonso Cuarón's offering--Prisoner of Azkaban, suffered because Cuarón tried to impose his style on the movie too much.
While largely I agree that much of the style has been established, it's important for the style to grow with the characters as they mature and change, and also enough needs to be different to hold the audiences attention. If I want mimicking, I'll watch the Sorcerer's Stone again.
basically, i think a balance needs to be struck. what DW said is true; the general visual style has already been established, largely by virtue of the fact tat it's the same story and character set. so in part, the director's work is done for him/her. what you said about Cuarón, DW, is right on. he did too much creative thought and not enough imitating.
but what WLC said is very pertinent as well; the style needs to grow with the characters. we're looking at a seven-part series here, so the characters are going to go through pretty massive changes. it would be inappropriate for the directing to stay the same.
but we really don't know if this new kid will strike that balance. i have a feeling that, since he's not a very established director, he'll lean more to the imitating side, but if he's a real hotshot, he may try to prove himself by doing something daring and original that may not be what the series needs.
In any case, I'll be there Wednesday night to find out firsthand. Thus far, I'd rank the movies like this:
1. Goblet of Fire
2. Sorcerer's Stone
3. Chamber of Secrets
4. Prisoner of Azkaban
My prediction is that this one falls somewhere between Goblet and Sorcerer, but we'll see.
I find it weird you think so highly of the Columbus efforts. I thought they were devastatingly bad films, especially the first one! Sure, kids might like them, but that's no contradiction. After those two, I would have happily taken the studio's toilet cleaner to do the rest.
I also think that Azkaban was by far the best of the lot. Still a flawed film that tries to stick to the book too badly for its own good, it was the only one so far that showed proper creativity and the only one I might have gone to watch if the books didn't exist.
okay, Moshe. the first two movies stuck to the books the most faithfully, and they were your two least favorites. also, the third deviated from the book the most, and it was your favorite. based on this information, i'm lead to believe that you either 1) didn't read the books, or 2) didn't like the books. is either true?
i'd really like to be wrong on both counts, so please speak up. and explain more about why you thought the first two were so bad.
I think the answer to the question is really simple: I don't think a film has to be loyal to the book in order to be a good film. Because of the different ways film works to text, the film has to differ to one extent or another in order to work.
I'll stick to just 3 examples of what I'm trying to say:
1. Blade Runner probably gets my vote for best film ever (although, in general, I'm against such rankings). It is, however, very different to the book it's based on (K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep).
2. Starship Troopers is a very good science fiction book that was converted into a very different film, yet a very good film. The entire fighting was moved from space age stuff to World War 2 like stuff in order to deliver the director's message; was it that bad? While the bit in me that liked the book wanted to see a more loyal version, the bit in me that understood the director's view appreciated the modifications.
3. The Lord of Rings trilogy, which given your photo you seem to like: it's loyal to the books, but it's not that loyal. The easiest example is the omission of the "return to the shire" bit at the end. So should we all stone Jackson? If someone comes and does the roughly the same films but with the shire scenes at the end, will those be better films by definition?
Back to HP: I read the books and I like them, although I think there is definitely some severe deterioration in quality as the series progresses.
The first two films were basically a collection of key scenes from the book that didn't combine well to make up a film. This feeling of a non-cohesive collection of scenes with an end stuck to them dominates the first film's experience, especially given its length.
Not that those films were 100% loyal to the books either: the first two books don't have the good guys in class together with the baddies; that was the film's invention, and it was adopted later by Rowling in her later books that felt as if they try to mimic the films.
Overall, I think I am yet to see a Chris Columbus film where I can say "wow, the guy was really onto something good here". The same does not apply to Cuaron.
Post a Comment
<< Home