Throughout the Harry Potter series, Lord Voldemort has always been an ambiguous figure. He is well known and yet simultaneously unknown. Like other successful villains, such as Heath Ledger’s Joker or Hannibal Lector, Voldemort represents the archetypal villain whose modus operandi appears to be evil for evil’s sake. We understand him as a pure embodiment of evil. On the other hand, there is so much about Voldemort we don’t know. Each subsequent novel chipped away a small piece of this mysterious façade, but Voldemort always retained the enigmatic allure of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. The success of J. K. Rowling’s sixth Potter novel is the fact that she takes on this inexorable riddle, no pun intended. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince does not try to pinpoint why Voldemort is the way he is, but focuses on the experiences that shaped who he is.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is my favorite Potter book precisely because of its handling of Lord Voldemort. In five previous books, we had been told how evil Voldemort is; but we rarely saw him, being stuck on another guy’s head or appearing as a memory from a diary was not enough. His brief appearances in The Goblet of Fire and The Order of the Phoenix added to the “evil” narrative but they did little to unravel the mystery. Harry Potter the Half-Blood Prince fulfilled this hole in the series by functioning primarily as a detective story. In the novel, there is a palpable sense of satisfaction as Harry and Dumbledore enter the Pensieve, each time revealing another essential detail about Voldemort’s past. Like Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, Potter and Dumbledore are on the case, closing in on the answer.
Sadly, from the beginning of David Yates’s adaptation this inquisitive tone is missing. I understand the time constraints but only two of the six Pensieve scenes are included in the film and these occur rather haphazardly. In the novel, these curious journeys through memories are an essential element. They drive one of the major plot lines. Yet, the film includes no mention of Tom Marvolo, the House of Gaunt, or Voldemort’s return to Hogwarts. I know this may seem petty. Of course, you have to cut, embellish, and rearrange when adapting a novel for the screen, especially from such a hefty tome as this, but not to the point at which you neglect the spirit of the novel.
Due to these absences, the film is incomplete because the story is incomplete. Yates has tried to pull it together but ultimately it feels rushed. I can’t imagine how someone who hasn’t read the books would fair watching this film. And it is not just the narrative that suffers, but the inherit uneasiness of the novel is also absent. Early on as Narcissa Malfoy (there were early rumors that Naomi Watts was going to play this part) visits Professor Snape to form an Unbreakable Vow, the director has done little to create a mood—certainly not an ominous one. Things just seem to happen. This persists throughout the film and even the eponymous prince is rarely mentioned.
It is hard to build a film around such a truncated narrative and an adversely affected mood, but I guess Yates has done his best. He handles the hormonal episodes with a great deal of humor. In fact, I was struck to hear many critics refer to the film as the darkest of the series; I thought it was the funniest. Ultimately, the comical side of the film cannot save the depressingly schizophrenic story. I would suggest they change the name of the film from the triumphant Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince to something like Harry Potter and a Few Things that Happened, Rather Sloppily. Maybe they could’ve split this film into two parts like its successor. Or, perhaps they should have just hired Naomi Watts to play every role. Now that would be a movie.
* * *
No comments:
Post a Comment