Tyler Wilson

Posted: Wednesday, Mar 19, 2008 - 10:27:05 pm PDT
Email this story Printer friendly version

 

Tyler Wilson

The book was better?

Wizard devotees must be pleased about the decision to split "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" into two separate films. So much happens in the final installment of J.K. Rowling's series that one movie just can't cover it. Wait, what am I saying? Why should I pay twice as much for one story?

People always want to compare a movie to its written source, and the attitude generally boils down to, "the book was better."

This comparison doesn't make any sense to me.

Books allow readers to take ownership of a story. Readers provide their imagination, and therefore the visual presentation of the story.

A good filmmaker uses visuals to create his or her own interpretation. It's a singular imagination taking ownership of the source material. An adaptation therefore cannot simply be a visual copy of the story told in a novel. It is no longer the novelist's story, or even a reader's story. It has gone through the filmmaker's personal filter.

When I watch a movie based on a novel I've read, I try to disregard the source material. A good movie must tell its story faster, and the composition of each frame must provide relevant details without "telling" the audience everything.

By that logic, I don't think film adaptations are fundamentally lacking in detail. They just provide different details.

I tend to prefer adaptations that aren't afraid to veer off the structure of its source. Filmmakers shouldn't be afraid to tinker with plot and character elements to make a better movie. I'll take "Adaptation" over any straightforward interpretation of "The Orchid Thief" any day.

Because of all this, I'm wary about the decision to split "Deathly Hallows." Yes, more of the book's plot will make it to the big screen, but the filmmakers are running the risk of killing the franchise's cinematic energy.

If I'm being honest, I could cut a couple hundred pages out of the middle portion of "Deathly Hallows." It isn't a spoiler to tell you the young wizards spend a bulk of this middle section hanging out in the forest.

I'm convinced the important elements of "Deathly Hallows" can be told in a single, 150-minute narrative. You can stuff two movies with all the characters and action you want, but it shouldn't take four or five hours to tackle this story's central conflicts and themes. I worry the padded length will only result in a lagging storyline.

Of all the movies, I liked last year's "Order of the Phoenix" best. Even though it's adapted from the longest book, director David Yates managed to make the tightest "Potter" film without rushing the necessary plot. The right stuff was taken out, and the meat of "Order of the Phoenix" was told in a visual, energetic way. Splitting "Deathly Hallows" seems more like a marketing decision than anything else. This is the last Potter book and Warner Brothers is hoping to stretch an extra $300 million out of its film franchise. Regardless, "Potter" purists seem to be happy with the decision. In the end though, these purists will still say, "the book was better." Then, in 20 years, some visionary young filmmaker will try it my way and remake "Deathly Hallows" as a single film. Then we might have something.

Tyler Wilson can be reached at twilson@cdapress.com.