Alas, Cuarón had other fish to fry-notably two of the best films of 2006: Children of Men, which he adapted and directed, and Pan’s Labyrinth, which he co-produced. The third, by contrast, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, was directed by Alfonso Cuarón, who gave himself the space and latitude to inject a bit of humanity into the furiously plotted proceedings. Doubtfire fame) resembled cinematic books on tape, loyal yet somehow lifeless. The first two, directed by Chris Columbus (of Home Alone and Mrs. The films, however, have followed an alternative trajectory. And that’s even before I arrived at The Epilogue That Must Not Be Named. By the time I reached the conclusion of the architecturally scaled final tome, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, with its multiplying MacGuffins-seven Horcruxes, three Deathly Hallows, two turtle doves -I confess I was glad to be done. The epic sweep (and increasingly epic length) of the final books proved, at least for myself, less congenial to Rowling’s talents than the taut plotting and drawing-room deduction of the earlier installments. In place of the sequential yet self-contained conundrums of the early books, the saga entered a longer narrative arc, as the war between good and evil that had lurked in the wings gradually assumed center stage. The final three books-perhaps inevitably, perhaps even wisely-gradually dispensed with Rowling’s original formula. That was for me, however, the series’ printed-word apogee. How the Movies Succeeded Where the Books Failed The 9 Strangest Harry Potter Controversies
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |