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

I think I’m Pablo Picasso!

Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) (SPOILERS) I get the impression that, whatever it is stalwart Venom fans want from a Venom movie, this iteration isn’t it. The highlight here for me is absolutely the wacky, love-hate, buddy-movie antics of Tom Hardy and his symbiote alter. That was the best part of the original, before it locked into plot “progression” and teetered towards a climax where one CGI monster with gnarly teeth had at another CGI monster with gnarly teeth. And so it is for Venom: Let There Be Carnage . But cutting quicker to the chase.

Are you, by any chance, in a trance now, Mr Morrison?

The Doors (1991) (SPOILERS) Oliver Stone’s mammoth, mythologising paean to Jim Morrison is as much about seeing himself in the self-styled, self-destructive rebel figurehead, and I suspect it’s this lack of distance that rather quickly leads to The Doors becoming a turgid bore. It’s strange – people are , you know, films equally so – but I’d hitherto considered the epic opus patchy but worthwhile, a take that disintegrated on this viewing. The picture’s populated with all the stars it could possibly wish for, tremendous visuals (courtesy of DP Robert Richardson) and its director operating at the height of his powers, but his vision, or the incoherence thereof, is the movie’s undoing. The Doors is an indulgent, sprawling mess, with no internal glue to hold it together dramatically. “Jim gets fat and dies” isn’t really a riveting narrative through line.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.

Fifty medications didn’t work because I’m really a reincarnated Russian blacksmith?

Infinite (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s as if Mark Wahlberg, his lined visage increasingly resembling a perplexed potato, learned nothing from the blank ignominy of his “performances” in previous big-budget sci-fi spectacles Planet of the Apes and, er, Max Payne . And maybe include The Happening in that too ( Transformers doesn’t count, since even all-round reprobate Shia La Boeuf made no visible dent on their appeal either way). As such, pairing him with the blandest of journeyman action directors on Infinite was never going to seem like a sterling idea, particularly with a concept so far removed from of either’s wheelhouse.

I can do in two weeks what you can only wish to do in twenty years.

Wrath of Man (2021) (SPOILERS) Guy Ritchie’s stripped-down remake of Le Convoyeur (or Cash Truck , also the working title for this movie) feels like an intentional acceleration in the opposite direction to 2019’s return-to-form The Gentleman , his best movie in years. Ritchie seems to want to prove he can make a straight thriller, devoid of his characteristic winks, nods, playfulness and outright broad (read: often extremely crude) sense of humour. Even King Arthur: Legend of the Sword has its fair share of laughs. Wrath of Man is determinedly grim, though, almost Jacobean in its doom-laden trajectory, and Ritchie casts his movie accordingly, opting for more restrained performers, less likely to summon more flamboyant reflexes.

Five people make a conspiracy, right?

Snake Eyes (1998) (SPOILERS) The best De Palma movies offer a synthesis of plot and aesthetic, such that the director’s meticulously crafted shots and set pieces are underpinned by a solid foundation. That isn’t to say, however, that there isn’t a sheer pleasure to be had from the simple act of observing, from De Palma movies where there isn’t really a whole lot more than the seduction of sound, image and movement. Snake Eyes has the intention to be both scrupulously written and beautifully composed, coming after a decade when the director was – mostly – exploring his oeuvre more commercially than before, which most often meant working from others’ material. If it ultimately collapses in upon itself, then, it nevertheless delivers a ream of positives in both departments along the way.

Madam, the chances of bagging an elephant on the Moon are remote.

First Men in the Moon (1964) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen swaps fantasy for science fiction and stumbles somewhat. The problem with his adaptation of popular eugenicist HG Wells’ 1901 novel isn’t so much that it opts for a quirky storytelling approach over an overtly dramatic one, but that it’s insufficiently dedicated to pursuing that choice. Which means First Men in the Moon , despite a Nigel Kneale screenplay, rather squanders its potential. It does have Lionel Jeffries, though.

I’ll look in Bostock’s pocket.

Doctor Who Revelation of the Daleks Lovely, lovely, lovely. I can quite see why Revelation of the Daleks doesn’t receive the same acclaim as the absurdly – absurdly, because it’s terrible – overrated Remembrance of the Daleks . It is, after all, grim, grisly and exemplifies most of the virtues for which the Saward era is commonly decried. I’d suggest it’s an all-time classic, however, one of the few times 1980s Who gets everything, or nearly everything, right. If it has a fault, besides Eric’s self-prescribed “Kill everyone” remit, it’s that it tries too much. It’s rich, layered and very funny. It has enough material and ideas to go off in about a dozen different directions, which may be why it always felt to me like it was waiting for a trilogy capper.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.