Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – While the press salivates about the box office achievement of the last film in the Harry Potter series, it’s worth noting that, financial success aside, it also represents a victory for cinematic storytelling. We watched young actors Daniel Radcliff, Emma Watson and Rupert Gint grow into their roles and adulthood. We became mesmerized by a series that, with the exception of Michael Gambon taking over the role of Dumbledore after Richard Harris’s death, established a continuity of cast, production design and storytelling quality that equals, if not surpasses outright, Peter Jackson’s accomplishments with the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The only notably galling hiccup, production-wise, occurred when Alfonso Cuaron took over from Christopher Columbus in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban and took a few jarring liberties with the Hogswarts geography. At least that’s the sort of nuisance that can be overlooked in the context of a series that fashioned from J.K. Rowling’s words a magical and believable universe filled with charming characters and an imaginative, emotional take on the perpetual good versus evil narrative.
The important lesson learned over the course of eight films, of course, is not that love is a force more potent than evil or death, although that is naturally important, but that it’s best not to read books immediately before watching their film adaptations. A lesson that applies to any book-to-film adaptation. When the mind is freed from the chattering awareness of differences between celluloid and paper – the most striking to my mind in this case being Dumbledore’s tonal quality – it allows us to appreciate their independence from their source inspiration and see how well they earn their own laurels. Faithful to the books, yes, but also faithful to the scaffolding logic unique to filmed storytelling, a logic rooted in visuals and running times.
One can thus appreciate the decision to split the seventh, climactic Potter book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, into two parts. Although still unable to fully compress the hefty tome into a grand total running time of roughly five hours, the wise decision not to try but instead focus on those elements that follow best from the previous films’ results in an eminently satisfying, triumphant finale. Curiously, both parts suffer and benefit from the book’s pacing even though all the elements we see are necessary to the story. Though sufficiently brisk, Part 1 tends to drag, just as the book drags, especially when our young heroes quibble amongst themselves while attempting to chart a course in their bid to make Voldemort mortally vulnerable. With most of the plot and character exposition out of the way, however, with one all-too-brief exception to the delight of Alan Rickman fans, Part 2 zips along breathlessly as director David Yates continues to boost the series to exhilarating epic proportions. Beloved characters die, surprising secrets are revealed, and war is all-out as Harry Potter and friends confront the evil Voldemort – Ralph Fiennes in fine slithering form – and his army of Death Eaters. By the time Harry finally comes face to face with the immortality-seeking Voldemort the film, in both parts, it’s the sundae cherry for a film, and series, that has already delivered a sensational roller coaster of drama, comedy and magic.
Of course, there’s something poignant and bittersweet about the end of a cherished saga. Thankfully, Rowling’s clever way to wrap up the series, an epilogue also used to cap the film, provides satisfaction and closure without leaving her characters ripe for abuse in further sequels. The rest is legacy.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Parts 1 and 2. Directed by David Yates. Screenplay by Steve Kloves, based on the novel by J.K. Rowling. Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Alan Rickman, Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter, and Robbie Coltrane. 131 minutes. Rated PG-13 (for some sequences of intense action violence and frightening images).
