In the vast majority of book-to-film adaptations, I am a totally flexible viewer. There's no possible way to translate everything from a book to the screen, nevermind the highly individualistic experience of reading. They are different media, each with its own merits. Generally speaking, I'm not a "but that's not the way it was in the book!" kind of person, and a lot of times those kinds of people drive me nuts. There's just something about the Harry Potter movies that brings out the crazy nitpicker in me. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince very much, and thought it was a good movie and a solid adaptation of what is a fairly lengthy, exposition-heavy book. Still, I can't quite resist my own inclination to quibble, so here are some things I wish the movie had done differently/better:
- The tone
Despite having a fantastically choreographed introduction in the bridge destruction scene, the film never quite delved into what, in my opinion, is one of Half-Blood Prince's strengths - the backdrop of a world descending into darkness. The book gives the impression of incidents like the bridge collapse happening nearly every day, creeping over into the Muggle world and creating a sense of terror and dread among the wizards. Even the time at school is peppered with students being pulled from school, or learning that relatives have been attacked or killed. The film's treatment of Fenrir Greyback is emblematic of this muted sense of danger - on the page, Greyback is a uniquely manic threat and representative of the kinds of sadists and nutbags who like to hang around Voldemort: a werewolf who specifically targets children and who has a "taste for flesh" in his human form. Rowling gave a sense not only of a world where danger can legitimately be seen around every corner, but also of the world that the magic community thought they had left behind them when Harry became "The Boy Who Lived." This urgency and danger was never as omnipresent as it could have been in the film.
- The mishandling of the titular mystery
I can't be the only person who had the impression that partway through filming someone looked at the script and realized that they never told the audience who the Half-Blood Prince was, therefore necessitating that tacked-on-feeling, rushed explication by Snape in the film's waning moments. "I'm the Half-Blood Prince...Gotta run!" The condensing of the books for the films has resulted in the films having a bit of a Laguna Beach effect - that is, that it's about high schoolers who never seem to go to class. The film downplayed Harry's success with and growing attachment to the Prince's advice, as well as Snape's reaction to Harry using Sectumsempra against Malfoy. The mystery of the Half-Blood Prince runs through the eponymous book, drawing Harry and his friends into repeated arguments about whether the Prince is good, bad or benign - an argument that would be mirrored by the series' fans in the antsy couple of years that separated Half-Blood Prince from Deathly Hallows.
- Obvious foreshadowing of villainy
This is an issue I also have with the film of Goblet of Fire. What in the books are hintings of nefarious plots going on just outside of Harry's grasp are telegraphed to the film audience from very early on, draining the stories of a sense of sinister mystery. When Harry voices his suspicions to Prof. McGonagall about Malfoy having something shady going on after the cursed necklace incident, instead of asking for proof I half expected her to say, "Well, he has been skulking around the school in a suit like a crazy person who is clearly up to no good..."
- Moaning Myrtle
I know. "Liz," you say, "Moaning Myrtle is annoyance itself, semi-embodied as a preteen ghost." However, I found myself missing Myrtle in this film for two reasons. One, in the book of Half-Blood Prince, she serves to humanize Draco in his plotting, acting as a confidante to what at heart is a scared boy faced with an impossible task. The film, in my opinion, fails to drive home the fact that Voldemort essentially gave Draco this assignment to dick the Malfoys around and watch them suffer, as well as the fact that Draco is ultimately troubled about the idea of bringing the sadistic nutbag Death Eaters into the school where his friends are.
The other reason I missed Myrtle was brought home by one of the things the film did very well, which is Slughorn's memory. One of the things Rowling does in Half-Blood Prince is work to anchor Chamber of Secrets to the narrative of the later books - reintroducing the "how much do you trust the creepy book?" theme, formally labeling the diary as a Horcrux, re-emphasizing Ginny, Aragog's funeral. The mundane nature of the diary, as opposed to the more ornamental and symbolic Horcruxes, paired with the information gleaned from Slughorn's memory begs the question - how long after that conversation did Riddle decide to test out the magic by unleashing the basilisk on an unsuspecting little girl?
- Eliminated memories
In a lot of ways, the book of Half-Blood Prince is an exposition dump. There's a lot of information established about Voldemort and his past, and it's not a stretch to understand why the filmmakers thought it might weigh the movie down. There just seemed to be so much that got glossed over - Harry and Dumbledore have many more discussions about Voldemort, his progression from creepy kid to evil mastermind and several factors that play into the kinds of objects he chooses as Horcruxes. This criticism is partly rooted in the unseen Hallows films, which presumably at some point will have to include some explanation of what's going on (I honestly have no idea how anyone who hasn't read the books watches the movies). I will say, though, that I missed the memories that fleshed out family background and Riddle's attachment to Hogwarts and cursing of the Defense against the Dark Arts professorship.
- Character continuity
This isn't really David Yates or Steve Kloves' fault - it's more collective, I guess. A little bit of Columbus, a little bit of Rowling, maybe some Cuaron in there for good measure. As fabulously intense as Jessie Cave was as Lavender (the girl deserves all manner of props for throwing herself so wholly into the madness - the scene in the hospital ward was exquisitely mortifying) I can't help but be bothered by the "introduction" of a character who, in the books, has been around from the very beginning. Lavender (and Parvati, who got her moment in the "brief romantic interest" sun in the Goblet of Fire movie) is as much a member of Harry's Gryffindor class as any of the boys who have been clearly and continuously established in the films. Part of this is that no girl, not even Ginny, is half as interesting or well-written as Hermione in the books. It just continues to stick in my craw that each movie can somehow have a 5-second clip of something exploding in Seamus' face (oh, that Seamus and his shenanigans!) but the girls only get showcased when they want to mack on Harry or Ron. (Also, I'm officially adding Tonks to the list of Characters Whose Vibrancy on the Page is Dramatically Underserved on the Screen - lame but true.)
- Severed threads from Order of the Phoenix
I think Order of the Phoenix may be the best HP adaptation (tied with Prisoner of Azkaban) for successfully condensing a lot of material and maintaining the book's dark tone. Which, in turn, made it disappointing to see Harry's established distrust of the Ministry of Magic and the fallout from Sirius' death practically nonexistent. The retention of the "R.A.B." connection to the locket Horcrux makes it seem likely that Harry's inheritance from Sirius will come into play in the final movies, but it was still unfortunate to see such a solid narrative base neglected. This also connects to
- The final battle
On the one hand, this change is understandable. Both Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows end with massive fights at Hogwarts; they likely didn't want to seem redundant. (Although, if the last segment of story won't reach screens for another two years, what difference does it really make?) However, it seemed like so much was taken away from Dumbledore's death. Order of the Phoenix establishes that where Voldemort has the Death Eaters, Dumbledore and Harry have the Order and the D.A., and all of those groups have representatives in the fight at the end of the literary Half-Blood Prince. It felt wrong at the end of the film to see the Death Eaters, unchallenged, striding triumphantly out of Hogwarts. Add to that the seemingly pointless destruction of the Burrow, and you end up with some fairly unsatisfying confrontations where J.K. Rowling showed hand-to-hand magical combat that felt dangerous and had tangible consequences.
Like I said, though, there are things that I liked, and even loved about this movie. The scene in the cave with the Inferi was genuinely scary, improving on the book by offering a vivid visual landscape. The romantic storylines were mostly sterling - I don't think I'll ever be completely sold on the True and Epic Love of Harry and Ginny, but that's not really the film's problem. Emma Watson was a particular MVP in the Hermione/Ron "hormones amuck!" debacle (I mean debacle in the best way possible, the kind where you want to watch through your fingers because the emotional carnage is so real), as was the actor perfectly embodying "That Guy" as McLaggen (the finger-licking? Ridiculous.) One thing I think the filmmakers did a good job of setting up was the juxtaposition of interpersonal dynamics that lead to Ron's Locket of Doom Hissyfit Meltdown in Deathly Hallows, which should be delightful.
I also really like the relationships that are highlighted by the use of Quidditch. I know a lot of people find it kind of pointless in the movies, but to me it's one of the series' most authentic depictions of how teenagers deal with each other, establishing power hierarchies and hashing out partnerships and rivalries. Among all the other honorifics, Harry's a born jock - even if he wasn't "The Boy Who Lived," he'd probably still be kind of a BMOC, something I find really interesting.
Specific shout-outs also to Helena Bonham Carter and Evanna Lynch, who on top of being perfectly cast also own the screen whenever afforded the opportunity.
I'll end this treatise by linking to Katie's review, which is an excellent, thoughtful look at the movie.
