Skip to main content

Seems silly, doesn't it? A wedding. Given everything that's going on.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I
(2010)

(SPOILERS) What’s good in the first part of the dubiously split (of course it was done for the art) final instalment in the Harry Potter saga is very good, let down somewhat by decisions to include material that would otherwise have been rightly excised and the sometimes-meandering travelogue. Even there, aspects of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I can be quite rewarding, taking on the tone of an apocalyptic ‘70s aftermath movie or episode of Survivors (the original version), as our teenage heroes (some now twentysomethings) sleep rough, squabble, and try to salvage a plan. The main problem is that the frequently strong material requires a robust structure to get the best from it.


The split finale device, a means of milking the last pennies from a terminal franchise, was quickly latched onto by other YA makers, Twilight reaping benefits and – showing you really have to love a series to keep getting fleeced – Divergent being unceremoniously axed. Did Deathly Hallows merit the decision? Well, I found Part II the most underwhelming concluding chapter since The Matrix Revolutions (tellingly, both culminate in an endlessly nullifying battle), so I’d argue not. I don’t doubt there’s more than enough material in the Potter books – at least, after the first couple – to split each into two movies, but that’s only truly beneficial if you’re decide to go the whole hog and follow the TV route. This kind of decision can make or break a movie, interrupting its natural flow (It got lucky this year, but might easily have come a cropper). Of course, the official version is that this happened for entirely creative reasons, but who are they trying to kid, right?


By this point, it seemed as if every seriously well-known thesp had appeared in the series, but there’s still room for Bill Nighy as the new Minister of Magic, presiding over a world gone to pot as Voldermort makes his reincarnated presence felt. And the opening scene with the hissable one is exactly as impactful as he should-but-hasn’t-quite-been before, relying more on the reactions of others to his presence than his presence itself (Jason Isaacs is particularly good as an undone Lucius), although I did like his mimicking of Lucius’ trembling “My lord?” in response to a request for his wand, the schoolyard bully bullying the father of a bully. Snape’s effectively unflappable here too, coolly maintaining his united front yet still managing to be superior to everyone else.


Mad-Eye Moody: Nip it, Mundungus!

There’s a snappy pace to the first half of the film (the shortest Harry Potter until Part II), preceding the more interior “road trip” of Harry, Ron and Hermione. I wondered a bit about the decision to create Harry doppelgangers, amusing as the sequence is (“Bill, look away, I’m hideous!”) –why didn’t they all take the Polyjuice Potion to resemble someone else entirely, or several other people, none of them Harry, as that would surely have created greater confusion (or have multiple Harrys except for Harry himself, who is disguised as someone else)?


The subsequent chase ain’t all that, sometimes showing that special effects haven’t moved on sufficiently to make the flying entirely convincing – either that, or they needed more time for rendering – even if it illustrates the continually rising stakes (Mad-Eye dies off screen, Harry’s owl buys the farm – rather silly to have him flapping along anyway, drawing attention to his true owner – and George Weasely loses an ear). However, following an entirely indulgent and illogical wedding (identifying this as idiocy within the text in no way makes it excusable) the trio’s alighting in London to secure a horcrux leads to the best scenes in the picture, like the previous instalment illustrating that, when the series brushes with other genres, it can be at its most engrossing. The news that the Ministry of Magic has fallen and is enforcing draconian Big Brother policies picks up from Order of the Phoenix, so the return of Imelda Staunton as Dolores Umbridge is both appropriate and welcome.


The London section is expertly judged, beginning with a very fine, brief café altercation with Death Eaters that plays as the equivalent of a gangland hit. The ensuing ministry infiltration heist/caper is great, and sees the return of deft physical comedy of identity (the personas assumed by the trio) mixed with genuine danger and menace. Ron’s “What am I going to do? My wife’s all alone downstairs”, in response to the news that the wife of the individual he’s impersonating is about to be interrogated, is hilarious. And Peter Mullan is particularly fearsome as Death Eater Yaxley, taking on the unstoppable tenor of an Agent Smith.


Harry: You’re not still mad at him, are you?
Hermione: I’m always mad at him.

The burden of the locket in the woods is perhaps a little too The Lord of the Rings for comfort, however, and the wits’ end of frayed nerves at times shows the limitations of the performers; they aren’t quite good enough to sustain these long dark nights of the soul, Grinch excepted, who is yet again adept at showing discontent with his friends (previously highlighted in Goblet of Fire). The flirtation with Harry and Hermione developing more than platonic feelings, meanwhile, comes across as Rowling deliberately baiting Harry-Hermione shippers, only to disappoint them.


If this section doesn’t quite come together, one can at least admit it’s a different and unusual development at this point in the story, so full marks for willingness to go that route. And it’s followed by an encounter with Rhys Ifans’ Xenophilius Lovegood, at his house in the middle of nowhere, resembling something out of The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. It’s a fine, nightmarish episode, as unease leads to the dawn of dread realisation that they have been betrayed, offering en route some lovely animation telling the story of the Deathly Hallows. Again, while I’m cynical about the reasons for splitting the story, being able to indulge an interlude such as this almost makes the decision seem creatively justified (ultimately, it’s more the deficiencies of Part II that suggest it as fundamentally flawed).


I don’t think the subsequent passages work nearly as well, however. The capture by Snatchers, with Harry being zapped into having a disfigured face, seems like a slightly desperate and tenuous plot device; it’s odd that the Malfoys don’t instantly think the ugly fellow with Hermione and Ron might be Harry, or attempt to cast spells to find out if it is him. Likewise, bringing back the much-loathed Dobby, absent from the screen since Chamber of Secrets, for a pathos-filled death smacks of exactly the sort of thing you cut not just for time but reasons of good drama too.


But, for all that it is structurally awkward and prone to indulging elements that would have been pruned in the past for good reason, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I offers some of the series’ best scenes and sequences. It registers with its pervading gloom and oppression, and shows Yates still inspired – even if it’s clear from the start that there’ll be no clear skies in Potter again, even on a sunlit beach it feels overcast and destaturated, which suits him completely – three movies into his affiliation with the series, still coming up the goods where it counts.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for