Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (the Movie)

On Sunday morning my husband and I were standing outside in the bright summer sun, waiting for the movie theater to open. We weren't the only moviegoers up early on a weekend morning in eager anticipation of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.

Opinions on the quality of the Harry Potter movies swing from ecstatic to sarcastic, as fans of the books are either swept up in the magic of seeing their fantasy world come to life, or bitterly disappointed by the differences between the movie and the book. My first thought on emerging from the dark theater back into the blazing afternoon sun, was that the Half Blood Prince was a particularly good adaptation of the book into movie format.

Simply by using the word adaptation, we are accepting the fact that the content of the book must undergo some alteration, some screenwriting metamorphosis that allows the moviegoer to share approximately the same experience as the reader enjoying the book. In early films we saw screenwriting that attempted to scrupulously preserve plot points and world building details. In later films, we saw mad efforts at condensing huge, sprawling story lines into one film, that usually resulted in awkward, hectic pacing. It is already common knowledge that the seventh film will be broken into two parts, to avoid giving the audience the sense that they are simply skimming over, or reviewing major plot points of the book, instead of enjoying a movie. Given that, I wasn't sure what to expect from the pacing and enjoyability of the Half-Blood Prince.

In my opinion the screenwriters did a brilliant job of capturing the emotional journey of the story's characters. By loosening their grip on exacting loyalty to the plot, they were able to focus on character growth and development. The movie skipped important plot points, added a major scene that wasn't in the book, and changed around the order of events- but the result was a beautifully-paced movie, in which I felt I could sit back and follow the characters as they adventured and interacted. The movie version of the book was like an impressionist painting of the book- leaving me with the same feeling that I had reading the book- even if the film was a slightly fuzzy Monet instead of a crisp, digital photograph of what I had read. The ending of the movie, which I can imagine disappointed some viewers, nevertheless produced exactly the same sentiment I had upon the conclusion of re-reading the Half-Blood Prince for the second time: that this had just been our last year at Hogwarts, and hadn't it been a lovely place to grow, to be together, and enjoy.

I think fans of the characters in the book- people who read because they love Harry, Ron, Hermione, and the dozens of other touching and memorable characters that populate Rowling's world- will have a great time watching the movie, despite (and of course because of) the plot changes.

Horowitz/Smith "Doppleganger" Definitely Portent of Bad Things to Come

Thank goodness the short film Doppleganger (written and directed by Michael Horowitz and co-directed by Gareth Smith) was only 14 minutes long. This supposed thriller was far from spooky or dreamlike. The entire film was just a big voice-over, except for rare snatches of dialog that would have sounded corny in a middle school play.

The idea of the dopplegänger, or sinister double (often a portent of bad luck in German folklore), has been done so many times in TV and film and been the title of so many movies, that I had trouble pegging down the stinker I wanted to review on IMDB. Does this mean playing with a character's other self is doomed to ridiculous cliché? Hardly. Since I've been mentioning the Buffyverse frequently in recent posts, I'll cite the BtVS episode, Doppelgängland, as an example of the fun that can be had with doppelgängers.

Wikipedia takes a look at a stock character related to the dopplegänger, the evil twin, and quite aptly explains that the evil twin retains the same fundamental characteristics of the original character, but the character's morality does a 180. So, in the episode "Doppelgängland," the sweet and gentle Willow becomes a bloodthirsty killer (she's still intelligent, stubborn, and quirky). This is a key element to why Horowitz and Smith's Doppelganger doesn't work: the doppelgänger convention requires that the audience is familiar with the original character. This means the convention is best employed in a serial television or comic series, and at the least requires a feature-length to establish the original character and his/her doppelgänger flipside. How can the doppelgänger's twisted personality resonate if we're unfamiliar with the original's quirks and characteristics? Horowitz/Smith attempt to shortcut this familiarity by telling us the original is a successful advertising exec with tons of money, a cool pad, and hot girlfriend. This is a stereotype, not a character, and the ad exec's doppelgänger is as predictably boring as he is.

I try to say something good about everything I review, so I'll say that actress Rebecca Gayheart, who turned out to be the actual protagonist in the painfully inept twist ending, was striking and would play well in a film that was actually thrilling or spooky.

BtVS- Where it all began

The Buffyverse will always be one of my favorite fictional worlds. Today I read the script that started it all.

If you've ever read a movie script, you know there's an awful lot of white space on that paper! Screenwriting gurus Robin Russin and William Downs advise screenwriters to be be "as tight and short as possible: Don't use three words if two will suffice" (from Screenplay: Writing the Picture).

Take a look at what Joss Whedon made of that advice:

BUFFY'S MOM
Well, that's everything. Kiss noise.

She actually makes a kiss noise at her daughter.

BUFFY
'Bye.

Buffy's mom heads out the door.


Joss Whedon stops the all-important forward motion of the film to inject his sense of irony. We could probably pare "She actually makes a kiss noise at her daughter" down to "kiss noise," but I'm sure Russin and Downs would agree that if we did, we'd lose something important to making the film.

Whedon breaks some other cardinal screenwriting rules- most notably being ultra-specific about prop and costume details screenwriters should usually leave for the prop and costume department to figure out. Buffy and drooling boyfriend are having popcorn on the couch. Whedon stops to tell us Buffy is "spraying diet butter substitute on it." Wow, is that specific. I also loved Whedon's description of the outfits mall princesses Buffy and friends are wearing at the beginning of the film: "they are all dressed very similarly: bright colors, a lot of white and pink. Not trashy, but mainstream and uninspired. Esprit."

Fans of the TV series will find lots of familiar Whedonisms in the script- from witty quip to Buffy fighting the "king" of the vampires in a prom dress a little worse for the demon-fighting wear.