There are many good reasons to tell a story. In fact, I think we all learned about these reasons in elementary school. We tell stories to inform, to entertain, and to persuade. I believe that, with the Harry Potter franchise, Warner Brothers has epitomized a fourth reason for story-telling, with blockbusting conviction: to make a shit-ton of money.
A quick Google search will surely yield the exact box office totals for all eight of the Harry Potter flicks. Whatever the number is, I doubt that any of the masterminds behind the series are ever going to eat Ramen Noodles for dinner again. These movies have made Big Bucks.
Where am I going with this? Well, I was a fan of Harry Potter before Harry Potter became Harry Pot-of-Gold. And I'm happy that these books (which are really, really fantastic, by the way) have been adapted to the screen and are reaching larger audiences through a different medium. However, I have always felt that the films are a bit...empty, compared to the books. While the books are brimming with whimsical humor and imagination, the films are rather dull and formulaic. I can practically see some Warner Brothers exec in the background of each shot, smoking a cigar and jingling his money bags.
To illustrate this point, let me take you through an exercise. I can remember almost every minuscule detail of the outrageously convoluted plots of each of the seven Harry Potter books; I have even been known to recite lengthy passages verbatim. Conversely, I can only remember one or two important factoids about each of the first seven Harry Potter films (I will share my profound thoughts about the final film at the end of this fascinating post). That is how forgettable and soulless I found the film adaptations of the stories I have cherished and adored for much of my childhood and adulthood thus far. For example:
Movie 1: Introduction to Dan Radcliffe's solitary facial expression: Shock-and-Awe.
Movie 2: ...Nothing comes to mind. Oh, right: the movie ends with an awkward applause scene that somehow centers around a teary-eyed Hagrid.
Movie 3: Completely different art direction and cinematography. Sirius and Lupin are way too old. Left out tons of important plot stuff.
Movie 4: Dan Radcliffe must have taken some acting lessons and learned how to do a convincing crying scene. Cedric Diggory is pretty hot. All the guys mysteriously have the same ridiculous mullet-style hair-do.
Movie 5: Lots of new characters and dream sequences. Snooze-fest.
Movie 6: I SERIOUSLY REMEMBER NOTHING ABOUT THIS MOVIE.
Movie 7.1: Naked Harry and Hermione make out. WTF?
So there you go. There are some stories that just don't translate well into film, and the story of Harry Potter is one of them. To put it simply, the story works perfectly well AS A SERIES OF BOOKS. But there are too many characters, details, and settings to cram into a three-hour script spoken by children and adults with English accents over booming sound effects and a soaring musical score. It's too overwhelming to make any sense at all, even to devoted fans like myself who already know the books better than they know their own academic disciplines. So why try to force such a story into a format that doesn't serve it well, and why disappoint the fans of the series by doing so? I'll give you a hint: CHA-CHING!
I have no interest in making Warner Brothers even more filthy rich by continuing to be disappointed by their lackluster adaptations of the story I adore. Therefore, I was somewhat unenthusiastic about The Deathly Hallows, Part 2. Sure, it has about a 97% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes at press time, but I attributed that to some sentimental notions on the part of the critics over the end of an era. Either way, I went into DH2 expecting to be disappointed.
Well, after all these years and all these disappointments, Warner Brothers and all their billions of dollars in revenue finally got it right.
DH2, unlike its predecessors, was thoroughly memorable. It moved me (to tears, and many times, but don't tell anyone). As I left the theater, sobbing like a child on an airplane, I wondered what was different about this one. Had I, like the movie critics I had been scoffing at for their rave reviews of the film, experienced a wave of nostalgia due to the end of the Harry Potter era? No, that wasn't it. I realized, after carefully analyzing my feelings (cut me some slack, I'm on summer vacation and have too much time on my hands) that this film was superior to the previous Harry Potter films simply because it actually TOLD THE STORY.
It didn't hit the major plot points in a perfunctory, check-list fashion. It didn't throw characters at you for no reason. It didn't deviate too much from J.K. Rowling's perfectly good vision, but it also didn't dogmatically adhere to every last detail. It took liberties without falling short of the mark. In other words...it was kind of like the Lord of the Rings movies.
It's no secret that I'm a lifelong fan of the Lord of the Rings trilogy: both the books and the remarkable, outstanding films directed by Peter Jackson. But it wasn't until fairly recently that I became aware that the strength of these films lies in the fact that Peter Jackson and company clearly decided to adapt the books to the screen not to make money, but to TELL THE STORY! (Sure, it doesn't hurt that they made a ton of money off the films, but it truly doesn't seem to be what they were all about when they set out to complete this project). And believe me, their motivations came through in the films: in the loving, genuine, sincere way that the story came to life, in the sensitive, nuanced performances of the actors, in the dedication to making Middle Earth seem as real to the viewer as our own world. This last Harry Potter film more closely resembles a Lord of the Rings film than a Harry Potter film, and, in my opinion, there can be no higher praise.
