Skip to main content

Who wants to watch me take off Snivelly's trousers?

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
(2007)

(SPOILERS) The beginning of the homogenisation of Harry Potter, assuming you didn’t think he was a wholly homogenised product to begin with. And by that, I’m not necessarily levelling a charge –Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is qualitatively second only to Prisoner of Azkaban at this point in the running – but rather pointing out that David Yates has been the appointed ship’s captain ever since, even into the new prequel quintilogy. It means you’re going to get a reliably similar result, fine if you adore what’s on offer, so if you’re looking for a different take, spin or insight into the source material, your luck’s out.


My biggest criticism of Yates is probably an obvious and oft-levelled one; that he enforces on the series a rather drab, monotone digital colour grading in post, lending each scene an undifferentiated wash effect, except in as much as the wash may be green, or brown or blue (often green). Some may consider the results atmospheric, but I tend to see them as rather bland, the sort of thing you witnessed with the Underworld series and hoped it stayed there. This clearly isn’t down to the cinematographer, as Yates only used Slawomir Idziak on this movie and would work with someone different for each of his subsequent excursions (counting Deathly Hallows as one movie).


If you can get past that, and the effect is cumulative, rather than instantaneous with Order of the Phoenix, Yates brings to the series a tonal confidence and visual acuity that reaps dividends, albeit David Heyman might have overstated the value of his eye for the political, honed via TV, focussing on material that is earnest in its intentions but no less crude for all that in its content (one can forgive Emma Watson for interpreting Order of the Phoenix’s message in light of the 7/7/05 attacks, as she was young and doubtless prone to such seizures, although her commentFacing the fact that authority is corrupted means having a non-conformist approach to reality and power” is curious within that context).


The political dimension is a lesson on the dangers of groupthink and – an evergreen to those who believe it miraculously materialised in the Trump era – fake news, as the real danger approaching fast in the rear-view mirror is obnoxiously disdained and denied by the Ministry of Magic (a continually marvellous Robert Hardy; his performance has been one of the resounding pleasures of revisiting these movies, and it’s only a shame that Fudge’s admission of error and banishment from the series at the end of this chapter is both perfunctory and permanent), to the extent that a new totalitarian impulse is enforced over Hogwarts at the imposition of new Defence Against the Dark Arts professor Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton), getting her hooks in and supplanting Dumbledore.


Honestly, Voldemort may be a vision of evil, but Umbridge, thanks to Staunton’s Mary Whitehouse-by-way-of-Joseph Stalin prim-and-proper nightmare performance, is possibly the most sublimely disturbing creation in the Potter-verse. She isn’t a subtle character, and there are still frankly unlikely crowd-pleaser moments – her running screaming from the Weasely twins’ phantom snake – but Staunton breathes twitchy, prissy, sadistic life into Umbridge, and that her means of detention torture (“I must not tell lies” lines tattooed onto the detainee’s hand) leads to her own comeuppance (Harry parrots the instruction back at her when she asks him to explain to a mob of centaurs that she means no harm) is satisfyingly neat.


Michael Goldenberg (Contact, the 2003 Peter Pan, one of those chewed up by Green Lantern) was responsible for cutting down longest book in the series, and I can’t say I noticed anything that felt short-changed this time. Indeed, there are areas where there might have been further pruning (despite the running time being relatively spruce). The picture starts off incredibly well, a hot oppressive afternoon turning nightmarish as Harry is confronted by Dementors (disturbing, but not quite as well envisaged as in Prisoner of Azkaban; you notice this in other aspects too, such as Sirius in the fire being a basic superimposition, rather than Order of the Phoenix’s CGI coals, or revisiting the series’ surprising capacity for crappy CGI, with Hagrid’s half-brother Grawp, who would have looked at home in the first movie) and saving his blinged-up cousin from death, leading to his trial for magicking in the presence of muggles.


Subsequent elements of mystery – why is Dumbeldore shunning his pupil – are well-sustained, but others that are apparently significant but turn out to be disposable. The bottled prophecy is the very definition of a McGuffin (the reasons for attaining it are sketchy, its value nebulous, and it ultimately amounts to nothing). Meanwhile, as indebtedness to Star Wars goes, the vision of torture that entraps Harry is about as The Empire Strikes Back as it gets. And, of course, there’s too little Sirius Black. In a way, like Prisoner of Azkaban, this is a good thing, showing that Rowling (or the adaptors) recognises the power of a mythical hero as much as they understand the need to pull someone down who assumes such status. Like Boba Fett, Black is cooler the less you see of him, and killed off rather ignominiously before you can see more of him.


Besides Staunton, two new additions to the cast deserve particular comment. Helena Bonham-Carter summons her goth-trash psycho from Fight Club as Belllatrix Lestrange, a complete fruit loop and slayer of Sirius (another Star Wars nod, as Voldemort is willing to sacrifice her, a devoted minion, in order to ensnare the services of a bigger fish). Evanna Lynch also makes an impression as “Loony” Luna Lovegood, delivering in grandly dippy fashion, with something of a junior Carol Kane air.


Which leads me to the leads. At this point, I think Watson may have peaked with Prisoner of Azkaban, although her scenes of banter with Grint are always highlights – “I’m sure his kissing is more than satisfactory” she recriminates regarding Harry’s fumbling foray –  while Radcliffe shows himself a merely sufficient lead. There’s never a sense he doesn’t need to be supported by the material, even if it would be unfair to suggest he provides other than dedicated competence throughout.


His deficiencies are particularly pronounced in the picture’s least successful – and seemingly endless – episode, where he’s called to teach magic – after Umbridge has sanctioned only its theoretical use – to his fellow pupils and the picture begins to sway listlessly on the spot, unable to sustain itself without someone in command of the situation (even playing someone who isn’t in command of the situation). Contrast that with his scenes opposite Rickman’s Snape, training Potter to protect himself from Voldemort’s influence, and it’s illustration of how a more experienced performer can elevate his junior’s game. Radcliffe is likewise okay with Harry’s “What if I’m becoming bad?” subplot, which only really feels like lip service (to Luke Skywalker), and consequently there’s no chance we’re going to see it as feasible; indeed, the most effective moment comes via his CG-enhanced, possessed visage as Voldemort’s voice takes over.


Perhaps the best, most upturning scene in the movies results from the Snape sessions, as the revered parent is brought crashing down to earth when Harry gains an insight into the bullying Snape received from his beloved departed father. (“Your father was a swine!”) And, unlike other instalments, where a question is left hanging that creates confusion, here I felt the lack of clarity over whether Snape, having been trusted with vital information by Harry (“He’s got Padfoot in the place that is hidden”), actually did anything with it (the novel makes it clear Snape contacted Sirius), was a means to intentionally seed doubts that would become important in the following movie.


Sirius Black: A war? It feels like it did before.

This is the first time we get a proper sense of duelling wizards, and it’s pleasing to see Yates’ dedication to creating a choreography of battle and movement. I’m guessing one has to accept a shorthand compared to the novels, however, such that understanding ability and means must be assumed and wands are effectively used to “laser zap”; we have little insight into the strategies or accompanying spells and counter spells that might be used in an encounter (when Harry and chums are warding off the Death Eaters in the Ministry of Magic, before being subdued by them, it seems doubtful that they’re able to consistently conjure without any substantial response from their more experienced attackers). It slightly undermines the effect, as there needs to be a degree of quantification to the rules in such altercations. There’s also a “We all stand together” theme running through this, effectively made good on in the Ministry sequence, but it rather crumbles to basics when Rowling rearranges the furniture to focus on Harry and Voldemort once more (so Harry was right, and he should have gone it alone, for all the good it did?)


Nevertheless, the fight is far and away superior to the CGI ones in the Star Wars prequels (their closest comparisons), while the one between Dumbeldore and Voldemort bears similarities to both The Lord of the Rings and Big Trouble in Little China, of all movies (the conjuring of avatars). Again, though, following Goblet of Fire, there’s a slight sense of also-ran with the climax appearances by He Who Must Not be Named; they needed to go that extra step beyond the moustache-twirling villain who lives to fight another day, and never quite get there.


David Heyman suggested the picture was thematically about “teen rebellion and the abuse of power” and those elements are undoubtedly in the mix, but Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is at its best when it isn’t highlighting its subtext, preaching to the choir being Rowling’s weakness. Still, if it must go for the obvious, having someone like Staunton, who can make her character sharp, funny and unnerving, is a godsend. At the end, Dumbledore delivers one of his accustomed trite platitudes: “Harry, it isn’t how you’re alike. It is how you are not” One might say the same for the remainder of the series, as we’re looking for differentiators beneath the surface trappings from here on out. That said, the next stop would be a surprising winner…



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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

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.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

Anything can happen in Little Storping. Anything at all.

The Avengers 2.22: Murdersville
Brian Clemens' witty take on village life gone bad is one of the highlights of the fifth season. Inspired by Bad Day at Black Rock, one wonders how much Murdersville's premise of unsettling impulses lurking beneath an idyllic surface were set to influence both Straw Dogs and The Wicker Mana few years later (one could also suggest it premeditates the brand of backwoods horrors soon to be found in American cinema from the likes of Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper).

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

I mean, I am just a dumb bunny, but, we are good at multiplying.

Zootropolis (2016)
(SPOILERS) The key to Zootropolis’ creative success isn’t so much the conceit of its much-vaunted allegory regarding prejudice and equality, or – conversely – the fun to be had riffing on animal stereotypes (simultaneously clever and obvious), or even the appealing central duo voiced by Ginnifier Goodwin (as first rabbit cop Judy Hopps) and Jason Bateman (fox hustler Nick Wilde). Rather, it’s coming armed with that rarity for an animation; a well-sustained plot that doesn’t devolve into overblown set pieces or rest on the easy laurels of musical numbers and montages.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

I think World War II was my favourite war.

Small Soldiers (1998)
An off-peak Joe Dante movie is still one chock-a-block full of satirical nuggets and comic inspiration, far beyond the facility of most filmmakers. Small Soldiers finds him back after a six-year big screen absence, taking delirious swipes at the veneration of the military, war movies, the toy industry, conglomerates and privatised defence forces. Dante’s take is so gleefully skewed, he even has big business win! The only problem with the picture (aside from an indistinct lead, surprising from a director with a strong track record for casting juveniles) is that this is all very familiar.

Dante acknowledged Small Soldiers was basically a riff on Gremlins, and it is. Something innocuous and playful turns mad, bad and dangerous. On one level it has something in common with Gremlins 2: The New Batch, in that the asides carry the picture. But Gremlins 2 was all about the asides, happy to wander off in any direction that suited it oblivious to whether the audience was on …