Thursday, February 20, 2014

Leaving Hogwarts and the Prisoner of Azkaban


HARRY POTTER AND the prisoner of Azkaban
book 1999      movie 2004      first read 2002?     first watch 2004

A third-in-a-row return to the school of wizardry and witchcraft, where I swoon over Alfonso Cuarón's directing style, Daniel Radcliffe's improved acting skills and how Hermione's hair looks from behind.

ZOOM IN.



Also known as "The One Everybody Loves", Prisoner of Azkaban marks the point at which the Harry Potter film adaptions became a force to be reckoned with. Changing out director Chris Columbus, who had approached the previous two films from a traditional "children's movie" perspective, with the darker and more stylized mind of Alfonso Cuarón, stepped up the game quite a bit. It also helps that the three leads have grown into better actors and that their characters are able to develop in a more interesting, nuanced way. Finally, Prisoner of Azkaban connects another two Brilliant Brits to the series with Gary Oldman as Sirius Black and David Thewlis as Professor Lupin.
What makes this particular entry so special to me on a personal level is that it was the first Harry Potter film I was able to see on the big screen. Before I eventually picked up the dusty old copy of Sorcerer's Stone, the only thing I gathered from posters of the first two films was that it was obviously a boys' kind of film with a lot of sports involved. So I noticed the hype, especially around the time that Chamber of Secrets was released, but never read the books until after the second movie was out on DVD. When I caught the first glimpse of the Prisoner of Azkaban trailers then, I had a complete freak out. In my head anyway. In retrospect, I guess you could say that it was at that moment my inner fangirl was born. 


The trailer of this film remains, until this day, the trailer that I remember most clearly when I think about it. I'm pretty sure I still know all the words - from the German version - and we are talking about the days when there was no such thing as YouTube, not really. I had to watch immense amounts of tv to get my daily fix of watching the trailer 10 or more times, and every time I did see it, my heart skipped a beat. Of the actual cinematic experience I remember very little, except for the fact that it was the best I had had in my whole life until then.

Unlike most of the things I said this about when I was smaller, Prisoner of Azkaban is a film that has actually held up for re-watches through all of my adolescence. This (394th) time, my focus laid on Cuarón's way of narrating the story and transforming it from page to screen, especially after last year's grandiose Gravity. Primarily, the difference between the first two films and this one is striking, which may lead you into thinking that it's a good film compared to those but not necessarily the 'best' for that reason. Of course, I haven't made up my mind on this yet, as I still have five films left to go for this row of re-watches. But I do know that Prisoner of Azkaban used to always be kind of a favourite. It stays very true to the novel but makes some necessary changes, thus mastering the most obvious challenge of a film adaption. Furthermore, some of the execution of the source material has become so iconic (to fans, at least) that it's hard to imagine reading the novel without having that particular shot in mind - think of Hermione hitting Malfoy, Aunt Marge blowing up and the prominent poster of Sirius Black that is all over this film.



As I said in the beginning, the three leading actors have come a long way since Chamber of Secrets and, even more so, Sorcerer's Stone. The most talented of the three is still Rupert Grint - either that or he just fits his character this well. Just one year ago I would have argued for Emma Watson taking that spot, but it becomes more and more obvious to me that she was a tad wooden in the first two/ two and a half films. Partly because Hermione is a very uptight character, but let's stay realistic. She improves her performance vastly though in this part, especially the second half. The one whose development stands out most however, is Daniel Radcliffe. Re-watching bits of the first film just this past weekend made for a good time with a friend - and Radcliffe's yet slightly underdeveloped acting skills were definitely occasion for laughter. He makes it all up in the third film though, where he doesn't only look just the way I always pictured Harry - his hair has never been this perfectly messy - but also acts the way. Very brave, a tad stubborn and slightly stupid.

It also struck me that Prisoner of Azkaban is a very well-written film, as well as just a good story in general. How I ever thought I "wasn't that much in to" time travel, when this was my favourite movie of all time, I have no idea. Having uncovered my affection for all things wibbly wobbly, it becomes more apparent what's so fascinating about the ending of Prisoner of Azkaban. It just all fits so well! And since I promised to keep an eye on the change from Richard Harris to Michael Gambon, I must say I do enjoy Gambon's performance a lot in this film. He brings the twinkling humor from Harris but also adds a shade of darkness - both to his appearance and behaviour. In a way, he seems more active and energetic than Harris, while on the other hand, he's a more worn-out and on-guard kind of Dumbledore. A description that just as well fits the whole movie in comparison to the first two.



Unlike Chamber of SecretsPrisoner of Azkaban is no bridge between the two degrees of Harry Potter. It's no magical port into the darker side of the series, but the movie that the others simply had to follow, whereas the book isn't that significantly different from the previous ones. I realize that I didn't write much about the book, it's just that the story is very similar to the one in the film but unimaginable without the filmic details in mind. - Can you imagine the Snape of your imagination nailing the 'Turn to page 394'-line anywhere close to what Alan Rickman did with it?

ZOOM OUT.


Make sure to GRAB A PORTKEY near you next month to read about the FOURTH entry in the Harry Potter franchise; The Goblet of Fire.

Previously...


16 comments:

  1. It's the one I've seen the most, and perhaps because of that it's still my favourite. I love that little taste we get of harry's parents' generation, I always wished there was more about that. I ended up reading fan fiction for the first time in my life, just to read more about them!

    And the book was one that I enjoyed reading (although from that point on, I'd enjoy every HP book!), and I especially remember a scene that I think wasn't in the film... I can't remember the specifics, I know it's towards the end of the book but I can't find the page. Anyway, Snape is talking to Harry, trying to get information, and he says something like "spill it Potter". I'm not sure of the correct translation to english, but in portuguese it's written "vomit" and I used to find that hilarious.

    Ooh I found it! It's when Fudge, Snape and Dumbledore burst into the infirmary. I remember Dumbledore saying some of these lines in the film, but I can't remember Snape being there... but it's possible that memory fails me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The first is the one I've seen most often but I think this one follows closely. You're right, the parents did have a very interesting life and so did everyone else who lived at that time. It's a bit sad that the new films won't focus on that...

      I think Snape was in that scene in the film, but I'm not sure. It's so easy to confuse book and film.

      Delete
  2. AWESOME post! The passage from the book on the first image was such a heart-breaking moment. My favourite book and film both, and you did it complete justice! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cool, I'm happy you're pleased. I love that moment.

      Delete
  3. Nooope. Terrible terrible terrible terrible terrible terrible terrible terrible terrible terrible terrible terrible TERRIBLE adaptation. Cuaron has good style, but he's almost solely responsible for almost every single bad thing that happened in the film series from this point forward. It seems every time I write an article on the Harry Potter films, it turns into a PoA-hating, Cuaron-bashing RAR-fest. It not only creates for itself a number of plot holes in its own film, but also sets up a number of plot holes for the later films. He also cuts out the entire purpose for the book's existence, trimming down on why the book was even written into the series in the first place and expanding on more unimportant matters. This movie annoys me to no end. I can give an adaptation leeway if it changes a lot but it stays true to the heart of a story and keeps in what's important. But I can't forgive an adaptation that ignores the purpose and removes the heart and makes it a purely aesthetic charm, which is exactly what PoA does. To be fair, Goblet of Fire is technically a worse all-around adaptation, but I ultimately forgive it because the graveyard scene (the purpose of the book) is so well done. For more details on things left out of the series... http://www.yourfaceisa.com/nicks-top-10-biggest-things-never-explained-in-the-potter-films/

    (OK, I'm done. End rant.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hahah, ok Nick, you have a right to your own opinion. Interesting, I've never met anyone who hates this film or the following ones that much, most people just tend to dislike the epilogue of the 8th film and either parts or all of the first two films. I'll head right over to your article then... (because I do agree that a lot of important parts were left out of the films).

      Delete
    2. To be fair, I love the David Yates films (5-8). I like the first two films. It's 3 and 4 I have problems with. Which, bizarrely, are the ones everybody loves.

      Delete
    3. I know a lot of people that disliked the fourth movie. But I'm very excited to rewatch David Yates, definitely.

      Delete
  4. I love this post. I love anything that has to do with Harry Potter. I'm totally in the minority here, but Prisoner of Azkaban is one of my least favorite Potter movies. I loved the darker tone, and of course Snape's "Turn to page 394" but a lot of other things didn't work for me. Daniel Radcliffe's acting was awful, especially in that scene where he finds out Peter Pettigrew betrayed his parents. (But like you said, they improved)
    Then there was the fact that Cuaron gave most of Ron's lines from the book to Hermione. And my biggest (and lamest) pet peeve - Hermione's pink hoodie and rainbow belt. Hermione wore nothing but pink after this movie and I never felt that was very 'Hermione-ish" at all. They even changed her Yule Ball gown to pink, and I blame this movie.

    I also have a very stupid memory of a P. Diddy interview where he was laughing when he heard a character was named 'Sirius Black.' I don't know why that always comes to mind. lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, I'm happy you do if you don't like the movie itself very much. So I'm as objective a critic as I strie to be? (hahah, who am I kidding).

      Yeah, Daniel Radcliffe isn't the best actor of our times but he does improve a lot and I think he has grown into a decent one. Anyway, I love him as a person which is enough. It's true that the emphasis is more on Hermione than Ron, which continues in the following films. One of my biggest issues with the film series.

      Hermione's clothes, ok. I must say I looooooved them when I was younger and I just wanted to be like her, 100%. She also wears a lot of more 'Hermione-ish' clothes in this one, doesn't she? But that's before the long ending. I was very mad about the Yule gown too, although I loved it, but just the fact that they changed it. The dark blue one of my imagination is so much prettier - but we'll get to that next month.

      Hah, that's weird, but sounds kinda familiar to be honest. *YouTubing that right now*

      Delete
    2. Oh yeah, Daniel Radcliffe has improved SO much. I really enjoy him now. I'm looking forward to Kill Your Darlings. I kid you not, people SIGHED in the theater when Hermione came out in her pink Yule Ball dress! I'm glad I'm not the only one annoyed with such a little detail. lol

      Delete
    3. They did?! That's awesome. I think nobody mentioned anything where I was.

      Delete
  5. I agree, out of all the Potter movies, the third one just hits it every scene.. I think it's a great story in the books, not very dark yet but just enough of fun and adventure and that makes a good material for the movie. Before it was all too light, to childish, and after, well with the forth one pretty much tearing me apart emotionally, I would say this is my favorite ever Potter movie!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a good way to place it. Like i said, I'm not sure as to whether this will remain my favorite but it's definitely up there.

      Delete
  6. Man, why couldn't they keep Harry's hair this way for the rest of the movies? So perfect.

    I really love this one too. It's not my favourite, but I actually think it improves on the crazy time turner plotline. Plus Hermione punches Malfoy, so yaay!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hahah, that was my favorite moment and it's still one of them today. I was just like 'Yep, that's it, I love Hermione'. And Harry's hair is fabulous, spot-on. Ron's too, actually. I'm not anticipating Goblet-of-Fire hairstyles for either of them. But then again, there's David Tennant and Robert Pattinson.

      Delete

Let the discussion begin!