Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part One – the seventh Potter film, covering the first half of the final book of the series
The pacing results from the overdue decision to split any of the Potter books into two movies, rather than to pack one of Rowling’s detail-dense stories into a fairly short movie. Five of the six previous screenplays took the same tack: Try to make the movie look as much as possible as the depiction in Rowling’s text, adding in the most fun or memorable details, while skimping on back story and compressing or omitting key plot points. The exception was the third film, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Deathly Hallows Part One takes its time getting through what is still a dense 400-odd pages of text, assuming that by now you know the back story, ripping through a very tight, effective, emotional intro sequence to set up the almost immediate jump into action-film territory – and there is a lot of action in the movie. There are several major fight and/or chase sequences, and since you know Harry can’t die in this film (there’s a Part Two already on the schedule, which is sort of a clue), developing true tension when he’s in peril comes down to timing on the parts of both the director and the actors. The more natural pacing of the film also helped, as I could sink more into the story as opposed the arm’s-length perspective of the earlier films, where things happened so quickly and without explanation that my investment in the underlying plot was never very deep.
The stars of this film, as in the book, are Harry, Ron, and Hermione, getting their greatest chance to stretch out as actors and succeeding across the board. The acting in the earlier films in the series was often paint-by-numbers – parts were handed out based on appearances, or the fun of having a big star appear in a role, with the actual performances secondary. Rupert Grint (Ron) was probably the best actor of the young troika at the start, but Emma Watson has made the most strides as an actress from start to finish, to the point where she’s able to carry a few scenes in this film.
(Unrelated to the film, I’ve been very impressed with how Watson has handled herself and her career over the last few months, setting an example for taking control of your life and your work that more young women, famous or not, could follow. Watson has made an aggressive move into the fashion arena and attached herself to a bleeding-edge cause, fair-trade clothing – an uncontroversial affiliation, but one that’s several steps beyond where the public consciousness is on fair-trade anything right now. Given the vicissitudes of the film industry and the short times in the limelight for many young actors and actresses, this looks like a savvy business move to extend her personal brand and increase her own control over her career.
And then there’s the hair. I can’t remember the last time a non-insanity-induced change in hairstyle produced such a reaction – Jennifer Aniston on Friends? – but Watson’s decision to cut off her locks in favor of a pixie cut seems like more than just standard-issue rebellion, but a retaking of her own image distinct from that of the only character she’s played on the big screen to date. Again, there’s control at work; Watson described doing it on the sly, but as a planned, thoughtful move, as opposed to, say, showing up in an airport barbershop and shaving her own head. It helps to be cute enough to pull off such a short haircut, but as a way to transform her image on the fly and make positive headlines for something unrelated to the Potter film – although I’m sure Warner Brothers was thrilled for the added bit of publicity around the time of the film’s release – looks to me like a shrewd maneuver that establishes her as her own boss while promoting her careers in film and in fashion.
The risk of pigeonholing is huge for the handful of actors who played the kids in the Potter films – this Collider interview with Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy) gets at that issue as well – and the only practical solution is for the actors to take control of and develop their own brands independent of the characters to whom they’re so closely tied. It looks like Watson is doing so aggressively and intelligently, staking out territory for herself beyond acting; tying herself to a good, underplayed social issue; and stating unequivocally that her image is hers, not Warner Brothers’ or Hermione Granger’s or anyone else’s. In a world where young actresses and celebrities typically make headlines for bad or even self-destructive behavior, I worry about being able to show my daughter positive role models beyond those in our immediate circle – women who still bring the natural appeal of celebrity but are also smart, successful, and responsible. So far, at least, it looks like Watson is on her way to becoming that kind of person, and if that helps her achieve her own career goals, it’s just a virtuous circle where everyone benefits.
That said, I’m guessing that, like Watson’s father, I will someday be quite upset when my own daughter decides to cut off her curls.)
Daniel Radcliffe had settled comfortably into the Harry role a few films ago, and despite the fact that he’s front and center for almost the entire film, he has very little latitude within the role – he’s usually being chased, being attacked, or attacking someone else. He gets a bit of comic relief up front when various Order of the Phoenix members take Polyjuice Potion to resemble him, and there’s a fun (and apparently improvised) scene where he dances with Hermione to relieve the tension after a spat with Ron. Rumor has it that the Harry/Voldemort confrontation is even larger in Part Two than it was in the book, so I’m hopeful we’ll get to see more of Radcliffe’s range when he’s not under assault.
That comic relief I mentioned is necessary in a film that’s dark and foreboding and filled with action and mayhem, as well as two deaths of named characters. They don’t feel forced, but comfortable, similar to the scene in Prisoner of Azbakan when the Weasley twins intercept Harry while he’s wearing his invisibility cloak. (And this would be a fine time to point out that the actors playing the twins, James and Oliver Phelps, have been criminally underutilized throughout the series of films. Oliver, playing George, has a hilarious moment in this most recent film where he doesn’t speak a word, but just stands against a kitchen counter with a cup of coffee in hand.) That relatively seamless quality has been lacking throughout the series; often it would seem like a joke was inserted because it was a highlight of the book and the screenwriter couldn’t omit it even if it didn’t flow with what preceded and followed it.
The scenery in the film is remarkable, both indoors and out. I was sure they’d shot some of the film in New Zealand given how much it reminded me of parts of the The Lord of the Rings
As a part one of two, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One ends without full resolution, but doesn’t seem the least bit unfinished, nor does its status has half of a greater whole hang over the film in any way. There’s a gradual crescendo that will certainly accelerate in Part Two, but the longer format means we get more meaning, more detail, better dialogue, and more chance for several actors – notably Grint and Watson – to stretch out. I’ve watched the first six Potter movies out of a sort of obligation, but the success of this film has me avidly looking forward to the finale.
I enjoyed the movie a lot and I think Radcliffe / Grint were great, but I don’t know if I’d agree on Emma Watson – she seems to be reading lines. Ie, perhaps this is a book vs. movie debate, but one scene stuck out to me – the scene where Ron comes back (in the book) – Hermoine is described as frothing mad and I could almost “See” her doing something she’s regret to Ron – while in the movie, it came across as much much more understated. I’m not explaining myself well here, but I didn’t see it the same way I did in the book, and that was just one of many scenes.
If that’s the scene I’m thinking of, I thought it was more like “seething” in the film. I do think Watson has a problem like my daughter has: When you’re cute, it’s hard to look fierce. My daughter’s tough or angry face tends to crack us up.
I’d say look back at the first few films again for a comparison on Watson – I have seen a big improvement.
I agree with your review and do view Watson as the most improved. Radcliffe seems to come across disinterested through most of the film. I’m not sure if he issupposed to appear defeated and is just bad at it. Overall it issue easily the best so far and I look forward to the next installment.
It has been enjoyable to watch the three main actors grow from film to film but I completely agree that Watson has become a truly talented actress. I think you hit it on the nose when you said that she was asked to carry several important scenes in the film and she wasmore than up for it. And the scene at the beginning where she has to wipe her parents memories was a moment of subtle brilliance.
Dude, your movie reviews read like scouting reports.
Range, development, and you came really close to writing about Emma Watson’s makeup.
The cute / fierce bit is a good point – she really looks like she’s playing “angry” rather than actually angry. Side note: my impression has been that Watson is better looking than Hermoine is supposed to be.
I look forward to seeing this movie when it drops here in Finland. I have to take issue with your statement concerning fair trade though. Over the years of reading your blog, articles, and reading your posts on social media, this uncritical appreciation of fair trade by you comes as a surprise. I would not say that I am anti fair trade, but I am skeptical of its use as policy or business practice. I do not like that it is largely born out of a marriage of first world protectionism and a vague idea of a living salary in the third world. I also do not appreciate that fair trade as a policy reduces job opportunities and overall wages in the developing world while simultaneously raising prices for the poor of the first world. Further the advocacy of fair trade pushes ideals of those with means on societies, both domestic and foreign, that neither share nor can afford those same ideals. In doing so, I believe it can be oppressive. That said, I am sympathetic to the baptist side of the bootlegger and baptist phenomenon on this issue: human dignity and human welfare. I think many of the advocates of fair trade have their hearts in the right place, but I do not believe this is the most effective or respectful method to pursue the desired ends. I am not criticizing Watson or other advocates of fair trade for their beliefs, just (ever so gently) criticizing your benign statement about fair trade being uncontroversial. All that said, I remain a big fan. Keep up the good work. Merry Christmas and a happy new year.
I’m late to the party, not having time to read the blog in about a month. Thanks for the spot-on review. We’re in total agreement that this ranks with Cuaron’s as the best of the films.
In most of the series, the directors seem to simply transcribe the book onto the screen and then edit out what doesn’t fit into the 2 and a half hours or so they have to work with. Hence the uneven pacing, the scenes that don’t seem to fit, and the lack of context.
With the two best films, the directors seem to step back from the book and decide they are going to make a film. They stay true to Rowling’s vision, but also have their own vision of how the themes of the book can be drawn out in the particular medium of film. I think you’re right that dividing the book in two played a large role in allowing the space for this to happen in this film. I always wished that Cuaron would come back to direct another film, but I’m confident now that the finale is in good hands.
Highlights for me both featured, yes, Watson. Her opening scene with her parents and her dance scene with Radcliffe–two scenes not in the book, by the way, showcased her talents and beautifully drew out the larger themes at work. I also got the sense that the action sequences worked better in this film than the others, although I’m not sure why. One final strength I’ll add was the opening sequence that perfectly set the tone for the final two films–Voldemort’s evil and the dark cloud he is casting over the world.
My main criticism is the treatment of Dobbie. I had a feeling that they would feature his story arc as the climax of part 1 and it was appropriate to do so. My only problem was that he came across a bit too much as comic relief–the cute and cuddly character with the squeaky voice that makes everyone giggle and say “awwwww.” We weren’t given a sense of the depth of his character that had been developed by Rowling over several books. Maybe it was just too hard to do so within the confines of the film here, but this was the one part where I felt the drawbacks of the previous films coming out.
I fully agree with you on Watson’s acting. One of my favorite parts of the movie was when they were captured but it’s also one I have a really hard time watching. The screams by Watson was so realistic that it just sends chills through me, if they lingered anymore on that I’m sure it would’ve pushed for an R-rating.
I certainly hope you get a chance to catch Part 2 in theaters before it leaves and would love to hear your thoughts on it. I’m sure you already know the general consensus is that its pretty fantastic.