For a children’s fantasy film, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, is an incredibly dark picture. That being said, the intensity and maturity that the filmmakers try to bring to this enterprise are not felt enough. However, surprisingly the movie succeeds as a political allegory. This may have to do with the fact that the children’s fantasy structure gets waylaid by reality.
In the film, trouble starts for Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) before he even gets a chance to enter Hogwarts School of Wizardry, for his fifth year of learning. Ever since his encounter with Lord Voldemort (Ralph Finnes), Harry has had a very difficult time not giving in to his dark impulses. This is because Lord Voldemort, who plans to rule the wizarding world, has the power to subvert his mind.
However, Harry’s problems do not cease there. A new teacher has arrived on the scene by the name of Dolores Umbridge. She is a diminutive tart of a woman, with a high pitch voice, that constantly dresses in acidic pink, and is also the most menacing person in the film; she’s scarier than Voldemort. She eventually has permission from the Ministry of Magic to start to take over the school. She makes Hogwarts a Fascist institution where no student or teacher is allowed to deviate from the ridiculous stipulations that she has written. A group of teenagers, led by Harry start a rebellion against Umbridge’s reign. Basically, the film harkens back to the late 70’s in
The reason why there’s a sense of rebellion in the movie is because the actors inhabit their roles so well. It makes sense that Daniel Radcliffe (Harry), Emma Watson (Hermione), and Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), are all by now very adept at playing these roles. In effect, the actors know their characters like the back of their hand. The reason is because they have been playing these roles for roughly the last six years. Radcliffe has flash determinism and intensity, while Watson conveys intelligence and calm, and Grint conveys wry humility. An audience assumes that these teenagers are the best people to lead a rebellion. (I have to admit that I always get a kick at watching Rupert Grint, probably because he looks and acts exactly as I saw Ron Weasly in J.K. Rowling’s books. He’s not as stern and serious minded as the other two actors.) What’s surprising is how the co-stars give the best performances in the movie. Because certain actors are new to this enterprise, their acting is more spontaneous than the main actors’ performances; maybe, this is because they haven’t had time to be “well-adjusted” to their roles. A good example is Imelda Staunton, who plays Dolores Umbridge. She is almost too good at playing a creepily demanding woman.
The strangest bit of casting is of the character Luna Lovegood, played by rising talent Evanna Lynch. Her character is one of the students who helps in Harry’s rebellion, and her performance is so strangely calm that she becomes off-put tingly reassuring; her grey hair matches her personality. Lynch gives the best performance in the movie, though she’s not in it nearly enough.
The problem with the film is that it isn’t particularly startling. The cinematographer Slawomir Idziak lights the movie in a dingy way, where the characters are continually bathed in darkness. Yet, it’s easily apparent that the film is not as grim as it’s made out to appear. In Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the plot development involving Harry’s connection to Voldemort is not very well developed. There is not really one particular dramatic scene that shows the inner conflict and turmoil that Harry is facing. This may have to do with the fact that the filmmakers didn’t want to scare away the kids in the audience.
Those moments would have been the instances when the audience understands the split personality in Potter representing his being a teenager, and becoming more of an adult. Harry’s emergence as an individual is the reason for why he starts the rebellion in the first place. By not having those particular details in the film, the whole point of the story is lost. Throughout the movie, Potter is split between staying a kid and becoming an adult, due to the precarious and dangerous environment around him. There are hints of this, like when Professor Dumbeldore is noticeably more distant from Harry. Dumbledore’s aloofness is an example of the father figure becoming more distant from his son as his child gets older. However, this example of character development isn’t really adequately conveyed. Also, we as an audience get merely a taste of Harry’s leadership skills, and the rebellion’s results basically end in a whimper. Their actions should be the main context of the film, instead of it being some prophecy that Harry has to find.
The movie is beautifully made during the instances when Umbridge rules Hogwarts. An audience member (child, adult) is made aware during those moments that the film is a very adept political allegory. Every audience member feels the terror behind Umbridge’s intentions, and the way she disciplines children. I particularly like Umbridge’s room visually; it’s a huge dwarfing space filled with ominous cats. What’s missing from Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is a sense of naive imagination. There’s too much of a reliance on politics and realism, which is why the last scene feels so limp. That last scene is the moment when the audience is waiting for some fantasy and brilliant imagery; that moment does not come. There isn’t even a Quid ditch match in the movie.
What’s surprising about the film is the fact that it’s a children’s movie that is political. Even though the screenwriter, Michael Goldenberg, has left out many parts of the roughly 870 page book, the film still retains the political message in the book. These filmmakers (and J.K. Rowling) lived during the Thatcher period in
No comments:
Post a Comment