I am unsure how to feel about the latest "Harry Potter" film news. I have read a few articles and I am divided as whether I feel this is Hollywood commercialism at it's utmost, or good film making. According to Alan Horn at Warner Bros., there are plans to divide the final book into two parts. Horn said, "Cutting the book to fit the film would have been a disservice. This way, we have an extra hour and a half, at least, to celebrate what this franchise has been and do justice to all the words and ideas that Jo [Rowling] has put in the amazing story." The films star Daniel Radcliffe pointed out, "There have been compartmentalized subplots in the other books that have made them easier to cut. The seventh book doesn't really have any subplots. It's one driving, pounding story from the word go."
I must say that the final book is very exciting and would be very difficult to pair it down to a two hour movie with out loosing the elements of the story that make it engaging. Dividing it into two parts would give more space for plot development... but where do you split it? There is also some talk that the film makers are unsure they want it to end the same as in the book.
I am a firm believer that books are books and films are films. And books based on films, should fill in where the movie can't (a script is between 100-120 pages as compared to hundreds of pages in a book) and when books are adapted for film the film must mold and adapt the story so as to allow the watcher get pulled into the story, which can be hard if the film is trying to put in too much from the novel making the story crowded and confusing. But I guarantee you that there will be an uproar if the "Harry Potter films" stray too far from the books. There are already complaints of that. I even feel in that lot with the third film... feel much of what I had loved in the third book was left out. But I have since realized that they are two incomparable mediums, each with strengths and weaknesses.
So to reel in my ramblings... I pose this question to the void... should a film try to hold strictly to the text of a book to which it is based? Should it be an interpretation of the text? And in regards to the "Harry Potter" films, is it good to split the final installment? Or do you as the viewer feel that it is just a ploy to get an extra $12 out of you? I am still undecided...
2 comments:
I'm not sure how I feel about the two films. I'm excited for extra movies, but I do feel that I'm being somewhat prodded for my money. They know they can get it too because these films are so huge and who wouldn't go see the last one!?! I have wished that the films would provide more detail but I understand time restraints, so maybe this is the answer to more detail :)
I say that I think that two movies to do the final book justice is a fair trade. I haven't read the book though. All I know is that the last one was done really well. I almost even liked how Dumbledore was portrayed......almost. But to contribute to your question...I say it's a very rare movie that surpasses the book that it's based on. If you look at "To Kill a Mockingbird" the movie was a successful adaptation of the book, wiht the emphasis being adaptation. Usually if you see the movie first and read the book later, you're in a win-win situation.
Post a Comment