| Rating: |
 |
| Jay Mansfield |
| Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix USA / UK, 2007 [David Yates] Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Michael Gambon, Imelda Staunton Action |
 |
|
| 12th August 2007 |
| Famously, the Harry Potter novels come with both children�s and adults� covers, so the more mature reader can sit with his copy of Order of the Phoenix on the train without his or her contemporaries pointing and laughing at them.
However, the far more tastefully rendered artwork on the front of the book doesn�t change the fact that the story itself is primarily aimed at the 11-17 year age group. It�s not like the recent surfeit of �adult� versions of British television shows, where the same characters do the same things post-watershed, but with added drinking, swearing and knee-trembling. Like Paul McCartney�s much loathed �We All Stand Together�, the view of adult reviewers becomes slightly academic as the purpose of the product is to entertain its demographic, rather than achieve high art. That may be stating the obvious (as well as being slightly patronising), but I�ve lost count of the number of people I�ve witnessed approaching the books and the films with scalpel poised, ready to slice into the narrative, themes and semantics with cruel and unerring efficiency. I am going to try and avoid that morass here as best I can, bearing in mind that although the films might appeal to those of us recklessly hurtling towards middle age (hey, 27 is middle-aged where I come from), ultimately they are designed for a younger generation, sobering a thought as that might be. Anyway� Those viewers who have read the book will no doubt express frustration that some of the novel�s plot and sub-plots have been trimmed (well, I say trimmed; it�s more of a gruesome axe murder) in order to get the running time down to a manageable length. No doubt some favourite scenes are not included. On the other hand, those viewers who haven�t read the book will no doubt express frustration when they find themselves swept past a particular point of plot development as something explicitly expressed in the novel is just implied here. Characters appear and disappear with frightening alacrity, and this leads to a slight ambiguity over some of their motivations. I suspect viewers (quite possibly parents) unfamiliar with the story so far will find it hard to resist thinking out loud �so who�s he/she?� at times. Similarly, a strong ensemble of British acting talent is allocated a handful of lines and screen minutes between them. Emma Thompson, Gary Oldman, Ralph Fiennes and even Alan Rickman are sadly under-used throughout�well, maybe not Alan Rickman, but more on that later. Hogwarts itself doesn�t appear nearly as much as it has done in previous films, and there�s precious little of the magic (cinematic variety) which was so abundant in the first film of the series. That�s not to say the filmmakers have failed in their remit; it just comes with the advancing of the story. Harry is growing older after all� And so is Daniel Radcliffe. He caused a minor furore earlier in the year when he stripped off to show a surprisingly buff physique in some publicity shots for Peter Shaffer�s play Equus, and treading the boards seems to have done wonders for his acting. From his faltering, unsteady steps of the first two films, he�s grown into a young thespian of some calibre, able to portray the conflicting emotions of the bewildered, teenaged Potter, and holding his own against such heavyweights as Gary Oldman and Michael Gambon. The other of the three young leads to have acted outwith the franchise, Rupert Grint, also continues along his steady arc of improvement, leaving Emma Watson floundering a little. Still, she�s in good company; Alan Rickman could have phoned his few lines in. You can do anything with CGI these days after all� Imelda Staunton is another example of the excellent casting decisions made so far in the series, though this is perhaps due to the franchise having such a large pull, the very actors J.K. Rowling might have had in mind when she was writing the book are acquired with less trouble than you might think. Visually, the film is easily the best of the series so far. It even outstrips the melancholy beauty resplendent in Alfonso Cuar�n�s Prisoner of Azkaban. From the opening shots of a stiflingly hot, yet for Harry stupefyingly dull, summer�s day in Surrey, this is the first time film director David Yates and cinematographer Slawomir Idziak take the aesthetics of the films to another, more sophisticated, level which mirrors Harry�s growing maturity. The colours are muted and hint at the sense of foreboding possessed by the eponymous organisation in the face of widespread disbelief. Meanwhile, Yates� frequent collaborator Nicholas Hooper has taken over as composer, and he eases himself into the post by interpolating John Williams� existing themes into his own heavier and more strident orchestration to match the darker visuals. Finally, the closing action sequence, apparently shot in 3D, is extremely faithful to the novel, and should have the younglings rapt. It�s easy to dismiss the Harry Potter films as being little more than celluloid baby-sitters which keeps the kids occupied, although to be fair, the first four have been little more than that at times. But what artistic merit can we expect from franchise films? The first and last installements may pull out the stops, but the middle ones run the risk of becoming lost in exposition and plot progression. That said, careful direction and writing can make all the difference between an Attack of the Clones and an Empire Strikes Back. Unfortunately, for all the plus points Order of the Phoenix gathers, it loses for simply being a vehicle to move the story on to the next chapter rather than being a self-contained story of its own. It exists mainly to set up Half-Blood Prince, which in turn will suffer the same fate. |
|
|
 |
 |
 |