Movies that provoke excellent criticism are usually worth seeing, and that’s exactly the case with Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.
That’s a nice surprise for me, because even though I swallowed the books in big, hungry gulps, I have never cared for any of the film adaptations. I’ve been dutiful enough in seeing them, but it wasn’t until yesterday that I felt transported in the theater.
And two of my favorite writers clearly had similar experiences, because Half-Blood Prince brought out their A-games. At Salon.com, Stephanie Zacharek writes beautifully about the film’s script and its overall relationship to magic, and at Low Resolution, Joe Reid (a.k.a. Roommate Joe) adroitly describes how the supporting cast enriches every scene.Â
So… in keeping with a great tradition of critical theft, I’d like to borrow liberally from Zacharek and RJ to discuss what I liked about HP6. And then I want to hear how you felt about it.
SPOILERS AHEAD!
Mainly, I’m happy because this is the first Harry Potter flick that isn’t trying to sell me on anything.
In the first two movies, Chris Columbus shouts, “Look! Magic!  The paintings talk and the picturesmoveandthespellsworkand (deep breath) it’s MAGIC!” And there’s kind of a story in there, but it gets bludgeoned by CGI.
Then there’s Azkaban, which is Alfonso Cuarón’s attempt to convince me that his Bold Directorial Style can work in a kiddie picture. The next two films are style-heavy as well, and they’re also fixated on making sure these big characters, these Voldemorts and Sirius Blacks, are larger than life.
That’s a little bit to do with J.K. Rowling, of course, but I mostly blame the look-at-this vibe on the series’ ever-changing roster of directors. It was like every new helmer had to prove he could wear the robes, so he kept pushing aside the story to make room for his stamp.
But now David Yates is back for his second installment, and just as Rowling did at this point in her writing, he is letting the story drive his decision making. (He’ll also direct the rest of the films in the series.)
As Zacharek notes, Yates tucks special effects in the corners of the frame, which enhances our sense of the world rather than distracting us with computerized flash. When Hermione is replacing books in the library, for instance, and they float out of her hand to their proper shelves, the scene isn’t about flying Shakespeare. It’s about Hermione’s exploding crush on Ron. The floating books are just there because she’s in a magic library, and that’s what they do.
Similarly, the movie doesn’t give each of its famous costars a “big scene” in order to justify their presence. Robbie Coltrane, Maggie Smith, Julie Walters and David Thewlis have about six combined minutes of screen time in two and a half hours, but again, that’s because this movie isn’t about them. Like the special effects, the actors are there to serve the larger story. A feisty scene with Mrs. Weasley would surely be awesome, but it would distract from the business at hand.
It’s great, of course, that the effects and the actors defer to an excellent story. Just like in Rowling’s novels, you can feel the forces of good and evil rushing toward a final showdown, and as every element of the film pushes toward a world-altering conclusion, the smallest moments are mbued with importance. Even Ron and Hermione’s halting love affair seems to prepare us for the new maturity they’ll bring to the final battle.Â
Then there’s this: Those supporting performances and those special effects may be in the background, but they are still exquisitely detailed. In just a few scenes, Helena Bonham Carter makes Bellatrix Lestrange hella scary… to the point that I’m  worried she’s going to crash through my bedroom wall in a plume of Craphole Island smoke. And the courtyard tribute to Dumbledore is simple, just a bunch of wizards holding up lighted wands, but it speaks of a long-held tradition in the wizarding world. With just a few points of light, it teaches us how wizards grieve.
That richness makes it seem like the world of this movie extends for miles beyond the screen. When the minor characters are this specific, when the books in the background float so dreamily, our imaginations are invited to engage with what we’re seeing. Instead of being told what to feel and think and notice, we’re asked to wander past the camera and wonder what’s happening there.
Most movies are so literal that they deny this kind of imaginative response. But Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince demands something of us. It asks us to see things for ourselves.
8 responses so far ↓
1 Laura Mc. // Jul 23, 2009 at 2:08 am
Dying for Helena BC to get some credit, so thanks for seeing her excellent work for what it most certainly is! I really think it is some of her best, and I am surprised it has taken her this long to develop this level of nuance. Come on, pretty lady, you’ve been famous for like 20 years. Better late than never.
Unfortunately, I didn’t love this installment as much as the last, but I look forward to the resolutions which will be borne from the many set ups in HP6.
2 stephanie // Jul 23, 2009 at 2:21 am
I really loved this film as well, but I’m bothered by the rather gaping plot hole they left — namely, Harry and Dumbledore never spoke about what other objects were Horcruxes other than the locket. I keep wondering how they are going to fix that for 7.
3 katy // Jul 23, 2009 at 7:24 am
This was my take on HP6, too. I really, really enjoyed it. Some reviewers took issue with the kids’ acting, but I wasn’t troubled by it. They did seem a little uneven at times, but it just comes off as adolescent.
Something I think has gone largely unacknowledged about this film: at a few points, I thought to myself, wow, this is *really* freaking scary. Like horror film scary, like my-kid-is-going-to-have-to-wait-a-long-long-time-to-see-this scary. Which I don’t remember thinking in the other adaptations, even though dark things happened. I liked it.
I was also fascinated by the way that Jim Broadbent’s performance added value to the Slughorn character. Slughorn was more complicated, more haunted, more sympathetic in the film than in the book, where he was mostly a caricature played for laughs. I also totally agree that Helena Bonham-Carter is an unappreciated force of nature in these films. I love her as Bellatrix, and she appears to be having the time of her life.
And okay … every time Alan Rickman delivers any line in the Harry Potter franchise I laugh outloud. I believe one reviewer counted five seconds between words at some point. I couldn’t love that performance more.
4 JennyM // Jul 23, 2009 at 9:14 am
Re: really freaking scary bits: the Katie-Bell-being-cursed scene? That is the stuff of nightmares, right there. Holy crap.
Fabulous, fabulous movie — the more I remember about it, the more I want to see it again, so it did it’s job, I guess. By managing to keep all the same actors in the major roles and mostly all the same actors in the relatively minor roles (like Seamus, Dean, professors with few or no lines…) they’ve managed to create the impression of a world with realistic depth and familiarity. Neville Longbottom may not have had much to say or do in this installment, but he was *there* because he exists in that world — we might not have noticed if he wasn’t there, but I believe it would have been subliminally jarring nonetheless. I know there are complaints about how much was left out of the movie, but I come down on the side of supporting the editing decisions made this time around — I think this movie successfully captured what I remember of the spirit of this particular book — the ever-increasing dread made even more dreadful by the prosaic normalcy of what else is going on. If I have any complaint, it’s that I felt the ending was a bit rushed. But maybe that’s because I just wanted the story to keep going.
5 Michael // Jul 23, 2009 at 11:30 am
Wow. While I agree that this film is less showy and suggests without flash and strain a consistent wizarding world and a population of barely-glimpsed familiar characters, and that it captures the darkness of Rowling’s imagination when many of the earlier films made it all into sure-fire good-versus-evil CGI duelling, still– even though the larger story of the confrontation between evil and good gathers all the way through–I found this one ominous but low-key and frequently undramatic: the only real story was the detective work to raid Slughorn’s memory; Hermione, Ron, and all the others were utterly tangential to that and their hormonal confusions an inconsequential distraction, the teamwork of the friends in previous installments gone. In previous books (and to some extent the films), the psychological power of Voldemort to play the weaknesses of these growing kids and screwed-up adults, the increasing picture of Voldemort’s own sinister development from childhood, and Harry’s growing sense of his own role and the sacrifice of his parents gave it all more depth: for this one, these were barely gimpsed. This film was mostly about uncovering a wizarding technicality while evil draws near. I’m not surprised that many left it anxious for the next film–but I don’t think that’s entirely a compliment to this one. (I do think that this has to do with the source material: Rowling’s last books are actually going to be hard to dramatize; Harry goes on a final quest with very little idea of what to do–we’ll see.)
6 sam // Jul 23, 2009 at 3:10 pm
I was really glad that I re-read the book before I saw the movie last week, because (while Yates did change some key scenes for dramatic effect), it made me appreciate the film more. If you haven’t read the book in a while, let me remind you that almost nothing happens until the very end. The book itself is almost all exposition and backstory to prepare us for book 7. Re-reading it, I was actually wondering how the hell they were going to make a movie that was interesting, because the book was so internal (as is the first half of book 7, so I’m wondering what that film is going to look like as well). Neville and Luna were barely characters in the book as well (although they actually beefed up Luna’s movie role slightly).
So with that, I was pretty thrilled with the film. But I have several friends who hadn’t read the book in years and were disappointed.
And, can I just say, that Radcliffe was at his best during the funny parts. Dude’s got great comic timing.
7 Laura Mc. // Jul 23, 2009 at 4:19 pm
@ Michael: Agreed. My sentiments exactly!!
8 erica // Jul 23, 2009 at 7:48 pm
I agree with all the reasons for loving the movie. I *wanted* to love it. But WHY cut out the battle at Hogwarts? And why add the destruction of The Burrow?
Leave a Comment