The Sorcerer's Stones Harry Potter hits puberty.
Posted Tuesday, July 10, 2007, at 6:21 PM ETTo listen to Slate's Spoiler Special about Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix , click the arrow button on the player below:
You can also click here to download the MP3 file, or you can subscribe to the Spoiler Special podcast feed in iTunes by clicking here.
There's nary a Quidditch match to be found in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (Warner Bros.), the fifth and antepenultimate installment in the series based on J.K. Rowling's monster-selling fantasy novels. What with the now-15-year-old Harry's boiling hormones and sullen demeanor, not to mention a possible return of the noseless world-destroyer Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes), the mood around Hogwarts is far too grim, and the stakes of the impending battle too high, to lighten things up with a game of broomstick polo.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponThe Order of the Phoenix book did find time amid all the existential gloom to throw in a Quidditch match, and a rollicking one at that. But the notion of faithfulness to the source material changes a bit when your source is 870 pages long. Phoenix is the longest of the Harry Potter books so far, while the movie version is the shortest of the movies, at two hours and 18 minutes. The director, David Yates, best known for his fine work in British television, is no Alfonso Cuarón (who made Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban such an enthralling head rush), but he does an elegant job of rolling out this exposition-heavy middle chapter of the saga. With a plot dominated by political infighting at the Ministry of Magic, Order of the Phoenix could easily have been as dull as one of those Star Wars prequels, a CGI-enhanced version of congressional coverage on C-SPAN. Instead, the movie is brisk and lively, if not exactly action-packed.
The most arresting special effect in the Harry Potter film franchise has been one that requires no technology at all: watching Daniel Radcliffe grow from a round-faced, owl-eyed 10-year-old to the rangy, high-strung young man he's become. Radcliffe is a notoriously serious and hardworking actor—in his spare time between Potter movies, he's not clubbing with Lindsay Lohan but appearing as the tormented lead in the West End production of Equus. At times, that work ethic gets in his way here: He projects Harry's teen angst with a somber earnestness that's occasionally strained. But that seriousness can also work on the character's behalf. Harry Potter isn't Ferris Bueller; he's a tough and lonely orphan who's had to figure out early that growing up is no ride on a Nimbus 2000.
Any fan of the books knows the story already, and I don't want to ruin it for those that don't, but briefly: In Harry and his pals' fifth year at Hogwarts, the stalwart headmaster, Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gambon), is in the process of being overthrown by Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton), a Ministry-appointed prig who wants to whip the students into shape for their upcoming wizardry exams, the OWLs. Her blind allegiance to standardized testing, not to mention her relentless chipping away at civil liberties, recall a certain U.S. president, but the analogy is never overplayed. Sublimely outfitted with fuzzy pink suits and an impressive collection of decorative kitten plates, Dolores Umbridge is an inspired villainess, and Staunton has the time of her life in the role. The whole Hogwarts faculty is so beautifully cast, it reinforces the American impression that in Britain great actors must be piled up on the side of the road in heaps. David Thewlis, Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, and Emma Thompson are all superb, even if they all get a frustratingly short time on-screen this go-round. Emma Watson and Rupert Grint, playing Harry's loyal friends Hermione and Ron, inhabit their roles as comfortably by now as old vaudevillians.
While Umbridge pursues her no-wizard-left-behind policy of educational reform, trouble of a more metaphysical nature is brewing. The enemy of all good wizards, He Who Must Not Be Named (but who is now more or less casually referred to as Lord Voldemort) has begun amassing his army of Death Eaters for a fresh assault. A prophecy predicts that Harry will one day have to face the Dark Lord one-on-one (hence the nail-biting about the last book in the series, due July 21). In the meantime, there are still plenty of satisfying smackdowns to be had: The one between Dumbledore and Voldemort at the end of this film is visually arresting, even if magic battles, with all their wand-waving and spell-saying, work better on paper than on film.
As in all the Potter movies so far, the production design (here by Stuart Craig, who worked on two of the previous films) is beyond genius, from the living paintings to the Deco-on-drugs Ministry corridors to the town houses that split in half to reveal hidden buildings inside. And the Hogwarts school, densely imagined and lovingly created from the ground up, is one of the great examples of movie architecture, up there with Kane's Xanadu and the Bates Motel. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix pulls off a feat that would have been impossible in my own adolescence: I left it dying for school to start again.
SPONSORED CONTENT
Lithwick: It's Time To Retire the Solicitor General's Morning Coat
Slate's Movie Club Crawls Into Kate Winslet's Uterus
How Do You Shut Off Natural Gas to an Entire Nation?
Help! Do I Tell My Girlfriend That I'm Taking Viagra?
Terrible Economic Ideas That Won't Go Away
He Gave His Wife a Kidney. She Divorced Him. What Does She Owe Him?
Remarks from the Fray:
I'm a huge fan of the books. Regardless of their popularity, JK Rowling is a wonderful author and has painstakingly put together a 7 part mystery series that boggles the mind. I think the character of Snape is proof that she is a wonderous writer - for 10 years we have all wondered if Snape is good or bad, that is how expertly she has written that character. Even after the 6th book, we still don't know if he's good or bad! That still boggles my mind!
But, on to the review. I'm glad the person liked the movie and appreciated it for what it was. I'm tired of hearing from critics that it's just a transition movie, or even that they couldn't follow the plot. Yes, in a way, it is a transition movie as it was a transition book. But I'm almost positive that once we get done with the 7th book we will find out that something in the story was important to the conclusion, because that's just how JK Rowling is. If you can't follow the plot and a 10 year old can, maybe you should get your IQ checked. Or take the time and read the books, too. Reading is fundamental, you know.
But, I have one beef with this review and with other ones that brought up similar points - I'm tired of hearing about how Umbridge and Ministry are like the current Administration. I heard that about the Star Wars movies, too and I think that if that's the way you see it, then you completely don't understand what the bad guys are doing.
I don't think that JK Rowling was trying to make any particular political point about current administrations and politics in any country. I think she was making a general political statement against fascism and against racism of any kind.
Yes, Umbridge is a fascist. She wants control. You think that's only the Republicans? I have one phrase for you: Fairness Doctrine. What happened to free speech? How about another one: terrorist deniers. Bush planned 9/11? The terrorist won't want to hurt us if we just talk to them and give them what they want?
In the book (and the movie) the Ministry refuses to see the threat of Lord Voldemort's return because they think it's made up by Dumbledore to seize control. But the ministry is wrong! Gee, who does that sound like?
Umbridge doesn't want the "children" to use their wands to learn how to defend themselves because they don't need it in her opinion. Sound familiar - gun-control lobby anyone?
It may have a political undertone, but to compare it with current events when it wasn't meant to be that way, is just pointless. It's just a way of them infusing the review with their political views, which again, is their right, but takes away from their journalistic integrity. They get in a jab and they feel better for it, but unless they are going to write an essay on it, and not a review, they should just not do it at all. I go to movies to be entertained, and unless it's supposed to have a specific political or social point, I don't need it drilled into my head by dozens of (liberal) critics. It's a cheap shot at best and takes away from what is an otherwise well-written, thoughtful review.
--ladykrystyna
(To reply, click here.)
(7/13)