next »

[angela]

SPOILER ALERT!!!

It is the only movie not true to the spirit of the final book or any of the books.

In the books, James is a heroic figure.  He and his wife took on Voldemort, they opposed him and joined the original order of the phoenix, the same group that Neville’s parents were in for which they were tortured and driven mad. James was brave and self sacrificing in trying to save his wife and son. At school, he saved Snape’s life, for which Snape hated him even more (very accurate detail psychologically).

James and his friends teased Snape for which Snape hated them. Snape hated them even more for having friends and for being popular and ultimately hated James because Lily fell in love with him. It was wrong to torment Snape as they did. On the other hand, Snape never asked himself, as such people never do, why he had no friends. He was obnoxious and cruel, even eventually wearing out the kindness and patience of Lily with his anti-muggle bigotry. He became a death eater, only turning away from them when he learned that he had inadvertently caused the death of Lily. He had no quarrel with what Voldemort wanted to do when he thought another family, not the Potters, was the target. If Voldemort had killed James and Harry and left Lily alive, Snape would have been satisfied. That is the impression the book gives. Snape wants revenge on Voldemort for killing Lily. He cares not who else Voldemort kills.

Snape’s love for Lilly is the kind that cares for her only and hates everyone else, even her son. This is contrary to the general nature of love which spreads kindly feelings to the world. Love that says I care only for the beloved and everyone else can go to hell is destructive. Snape’s love cuts off kindness to all but one. This makes it great, more so than the ordinary love, which no matter how profound, does not forget the rest of the world. But the great love is doomed. Snape’s love is great in the same way that, as Olivander says, Voldemort did great but terrible things.

Snape was loyal to Dumbledore and he looked after Harry, in a way.  He saved Harry from harm at Voldemort’s hands. He refrained from injuring Harry on occasions he must have been really tempted to do so. But he did this because Dumbledore told him to. He hated Harry all the while, really hated him. Rowling is clear about that. In that sense, she gives Snape his due. She does not make him one of those “deep down inside, he’s really nice” types.  When Voldemort tortures and kills a Hogwarts teacher, she cries out to Snape to help her and reminds him they were “friends.” Whether Snape feels at all bad about what happens to her we are not told. But it does not seem that he would care at all.

Snape is consistently malicious and cruel and unjustly unfavorable to all but Slytherins. To them, he is unjustly favorable. The books make it clear that Snape’s animosity towards Harry is not just acting. He really hates Harry for being James’ son, the living proof that Lily loved another man. Snape seems to share the principles of the Slytherins in regard to pure blood, but he has enough integrity to keep his word to Dumbledore.

In the last movie, we are made to understand that Snape is more interested in Harry’s welfare than even Dumbledore is. That is the impression given from the rushing images that Harry sees in the pensieve. Dramatically it makes no sense and enlarges Snape to the detriment of Dumbledore. It was Dumbledore who ordered Snape to look after Harry. The Snape as written in the books never would have pleaded with Dumbledore to take more care of Harry’s welfare, no matter what Dumbledore was doing.

One link between Harry and James is that both their thing to repel dementors (I forget the right word) is a stag. Harry thinks he sees his Dad when he is really seeing himself. In the book, there are frequent reminders of how Harry is like his father, in terms of his sports skills, his looks, his bravery. In the end, when his parents appear before Harry, the book gives the father an important role. In the movie, the father is barely seen.  The mother and Snape are emphasized. To enlarge Snape’s role, the movie belittles James as Harry’s father. In the flashback, we get to hear twice Snape saying that James was a swine, as if that was true. In order to favor Snape, the movie gives short shrift to James Potter in his role as Harry’s father.

Rowling did not intend this. For instance, in the book (and the movie is true to that aspect) Snape does not die in a heroic fashion, fighting or after being found out by Voldemort for being a double agent. Voldemort believes till the end that Snape is his loyal follower. The fact that Voldemort nevertheless kills Snape shows how evil the former is. He is not true even to his own. So that dramatic purpose is served. But in terms of Snape’s double agent role, which he has been playing since Lilly was killed, his death is anticlimactic.  The author deliberately did not give Snape a hero’s death.

In the books, Snape is described as greasy haired, bad skinned, and unattractive. But by casting Rickman as Snape, the movie gives him an unwarranted physical attractiveness, which makes the audience always think that he can’t be that bad. Such is power of good looks and a sexy voice. That is why Snape, not as he is in the book, but as he is in the movies, has a fan following.

The moviemakers were wrong to glorify Snape at the expense of Harry’s father.

Sorry I had to get it all out.

[voxprincipalis]

Check, please.

VP

[theblondeassassin]

James Potter preferred cake, whilst Snape definitely went for pie.

[systeme_d_]

Just what we needed on the fora.  More twelve-year-olds.

[concordancia]

You need to re read the books. Among other things, the line that goes something like "You had me protect him all this time just to let him die when you wanted?!" was actually from the book.

Furthermore, I never let my students talk about authorial intention. This is important in your case because Rowlings was quite active in the making of all the movies and was a smart enough cookie to reserve script approval. As I recall, she was even a producer for the last films. As such, she is one of the movie makers who was wrong, in your opinion.

[cj405]

There are actually places on the interwebs where this analysis would be more than welcome and might even spark a lively debate (I think, I only made it through two of your paragraphs).  See: The Leaky Cauldron.

[palla]

I honestly don't understand why anyone would read the book and then go see the movie. You read the book.  The movie is never as good.  Why go see the movie?  If you want a replay, read the book again.  Chances are you will pick up on something you missed the first time.

And this holds true for any book, not just the HP series.

[tinyzombie]

I honestly don't understand why anyone would read the book and then go see the movie. You read the book.  The movie is never as good.  Why go see the movie?  If you want a replay, read the book again.  Chances are you will pick up on something you missed the first time.

And this holds true for any book, not just the HP series.

Because artistic adaptation is interesting. Because the director and the rest of the creative team might have envisioned things differently than you did, which might affect your appreciation of the book. Because movies are fun to see.

[concordancia]

I honestly don't understand why anyone would read the book and then go see the movie. You read the book.  The movie is never as good.  Why go see the movie?  If you want a replay, read the book again.  Chances are you will pick up on something you missed the first time.

And this holds true for any book, not just the HP series.

I suppose you don't care for Dali's Alice in Wonderland sculptures, either?

[palla]

I honestly don't understand why anyone would read the book and then go see the movie. You read the book.  The movie is never as good.  Why go see the movie?  If you want a replay, read the book again.  Chances are you will pick up on something you missed the first time.

And this holds true for any book, not just the HP series.

I suppose you don't care for Dali's Alice in Wonderland sculptures, either?

I don't consider the sculptures the same as a movie.  People look at a sculpture expecting to see the artist's interpretation.  People go to a movie after reading a book expecting it to be the same as the book. It won't be the same; it can't be the same. Everyone has a different interpretation of a book. The way the character’s look, act, feel.  The movie is a combination of everyone: the director, actors, producer…  When people read a book, they interpret it their own way.  Then they get upset when the movie doesn’t portray it the same way. 

[concordancia]

I honestly don't understand why anyone would read the book and then go see the movie. You read the book.  The movie is never as good.  Why go see the movie?  If you want a replay, read the book again.  Chances are you will pick up on something you missed the first time.

And this holds true for any book, not just the HP series.

I suppose you don't care for Dali's Alice in Wonderland sculptures, either?

I don't consider the sculptures the same as a movie.  People look at a sculpture expecting to see the artist's interpretation.  People go to a movie after reading a book expecting it to be the same as the book. It won't be the same; it can't be the same. Everyone has a different interpretation of a book. The way the character’s look, act, feel.  The movie is a combination of everyone: the director, actors, producer…  When people read a book, they interpret it their own way.  Then they get upset when the movie doesn’t portray it the same way. 

Then it is a matter of educating people about different mediums, not putting down people who choose to do both.

[changinggears]

I honestly don't understand why anyone would read the book and then go see the movie. You read the book.  The movie is never as good.  Why go see the movie?  If you want a replay, read the book again.  Chances are you will pick up on something you missed the first time.

And this holds true for any book, not just the HP series.

Because artistic adaptation is interesting. Because the director and the rest of the creative team might have envisioned things differently than you did, which might affect your appreciation of the book. Because movies are fun to see.

And because in the case of HP, the movies are pretty darn close to being as good as the books.  In fact, I like the movies as well as the books, though for different reasons.

And what concordancia said in that last post!

[palla]

I apologize.  I wasn't trying to put anyone down.  I just don't understand it.  I read the HP series and saw the first movie.  The movie left out elements that were important to the series (it glossed over how he was treated by his aunt and uncle, for example), and it wasn't as effective in giving his emotions.  I did not find the movie good at all.

I am not against movies, and I don't think less of people who watch movies after reading books - or instead of reading books.  Personally, I just don't understand it.  I honestly wasn't trying to be argumentative.

I also don't understand why people would let cats get on their kitchen table.  I know people who do it, and it works for them.  I just don't get it.

[dale1]

Not to mention that the movies take 2-3ish hours, whereas me reading 600-900 pages takes a whole lot longer.  Trust me.  Trying to get through the A Song of Ice and Fire Series is killing any other time I have.

[cj405]

Some of my friends have been watching all the movies but have never read the books.  They often lose track of important details because the book explains them very thoroughly, but the movie doesn't. 

I think it is a conscious choice by the film makers to breeze past some of the finer points because they know that most of the audience has already read the books and they don't want to slow down the pace of the movie by explaining things that most people are already familiar with.

I can't think of many examples off the top of my head, but I do remember having to explain the particulars of the horcrux.

I don't even know if this counts as a thread-jack, but if so, my apologies.

On preview: Have you ever tried keeping cats out of anything, let alone a large open surface?  Did it work?  Please tell me more.