Order of the Phoenix or Why I Should Never Read the Book Before Seeing the Movie

I don’t know why I continue to see every Harry Potter movie. I adore the books and I really believe they’ll last as classics of (childrens or popular, take your pick) literature. But every movie version leaves me wondering if the director and screenwriter have ever actually read the books or just a synopsis of plot points. All of the whimsical tone and asides of the books, the wryness, are gone. I love how matter-of-fact the books are about the magic, even as Harry is first introduced to and awed by it.

At first, I blamed the heavy, hack hand of Chris Columbus. His over use of longshots with epic music designed to remind us that this is FAAANNTASY are 180 degrees from how the books approach withcraft and wizardry. And then he left the series and some of the things I hated most, surprisingly remained. Ok, if I had to pick one I could live with, it’s Cuaron’s Prisoner of Azkhabhan. It’s not my PoA, but at least it’s someone’s (Cuaron is the one director of the series I’m sure really read the books and gave a lot of deep thought and respect to translating what he was getting out of it to the screen). I didn’t really love his film, most especially because I just can’t get behind Gary Oldman as Sirius (not an Oldman fan, here).

I know that these latest two, Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix, are a real challenge to cut down to feature-movie length. But the things they lose in the process are what build the world of Harry Potter for me. I particularly miss their school experiences and adolescence. Sure Harry’s angsty adolescence is being explored, but what about Ron and Hermione? Good lord, there’s hardly anything left of them. Half the time they’re just standing around for expositions and transitions. Honestly, if I were Emma Watson I would have been tempted to chuck the series for college, too!

If anyone seems to understand this series less than the directors, it’s movie reviewers. Before I started writing this, I went over to Rotten Tomatoes to see what kind of reviews OotP is getting. Roger Ebert’s review just about made me lose my mind. He gets that it’s not a very good film, but that’s where the sanity ends. Forgive me, but I’m going to have to quote about a third of the review here.

“Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix still has much of the enchantment of the earlier films, but Harry no longer has as much joy. His face is lacking the gosh-wow-this-is-really-neat grin. He has internalized the secrets and delights of the world of wizards, and is now instinctively using them to save his life.”

Can you imagine how unbearable it would be (not to mention boring and lacking in character growth) if Harry were still as astonished five years later by the existence of magic?

“There will come a time, I fear, as we approach the end of the series (one book and two films to go), that Harry and his friends will grow up and smell the coffee. They weren't trained as magicians for fun. When they eventually arrive at some apocalyptic crossroads, as I fear they will, can the series continue to live in PG-13 land? The archvillain Voldemort is shaping up as the star of nightmares.”

Clearly, Ebert’s read even less of the books than David Yates did. “Shaping up as the star of nightmares?” Welcome to the party Rog. He’s the embodiment of evil. Jo isn’t pulling punches on that just because these are kid stories. She proudly joins the tradition of writers like Roald Dahl who respect that kids know the world can be tough and scary. Also, the part about smelling the coffee and why they’ve been trained makes me wonder if he stepped away from the balcony for popcorn when Dumbledore’s Army was created? This is explicitly what is happening in that part of the story. I know it gets rushed like everything else in these films, but if that point is lost I’m not sure OotP has a raison d’etre as a film.

"For Harry, like many another leader before him, it is time to leave the nest and begin to work in the world. For the first time since we saw platform 9 3/4 at King's Cross, the city of London has a major role now, as Harry and sidekicks fly down the Thames and swoop past Big Ben.
That causes me to wonder, what is the practical connection between the world of magic and the world of Muggles? Will Harry, or should Harry, become a world leader? Can wands and spells be of use in today's geopolitical turmoil? Or are Hogwarts grads living in a dimension of their own? All will be told, I guess, in the final book in J.K. Rowling's series, and then the retail book industry will be back on its own again."

Okay, a big part of the above is just big old silliness and not germane to a movie review. The HP series clearly has moments of commentary within it on the struggles and nature of modern culture. To twist it this way just reinforces Ebert’s foolish nostalgia for the very bad Columbus films. eta: A much better example can be found in the Harry Potter Alliance, a group encouraging young readers to take the moral lessons they've learned from HP and use it on causes like Darfur.

And “all will be told in the final book” is a complete non sequitor (putting it at this point in the review implies that Rowling’s going to clear up some apparent confusion about how wizards co-exist with a world like ours. Huh? Large portions of the beginning and ending of each book – and sometimes the middle – deal with this all the time.) Is this just Ebert trying to find someplace to mention the final book?

“My hope, as we plow onward through "Potters" Nos. 6-7, is that the series will not grow darker still. Yet I suppose even at the beginning, with those cute little mail-owls, we knew the whimsy was too good to last.”

First, as I’ve mentioned above more than once, the early whimsy sucked. But more importantly, 6 and 7 will and should get darker. It’s only the story of growing up and learning that world’s a complicated and often dangerous place! Someone recently pointed out to me that the villains of each book (not the over-arching Voldemort but the baddies of each year) get more realistic, more adult as the series progresses. The first ones were cartoony – Quirrell and a disembodied Dark Lord living in his turban don’t have anything on Dolores Umbridge, a thoroughly adult, political threat that the teachers genuinely can’t shelter the students from. Again, welcome to the party, that’s the point of the book series as I see it.

But the point of the movies remains a mystery. Unless it’s Daniel Radcliffe’s very pale but well-defined pecs. Talk about disturbing -- I'm much too old to be noticing those. But what's a girl supposed to do when he wears those tight t-shirts?