The texture of a story

[vaneramos]

Last night I went to see Harry Potter 3 with djjo and danthered. Unfortunately, as one of the immeasurably small percentage of the audience who had not read past Book 1, I found the climax incomprehensible. Despite the minimal explanation required afterward, I won't let the movie off the hook. It should be intelligible to a non-reader. I knew what had transpired; but the apparent shift in character motivations did not make sense until afterward, when Daniel pointed out a small piece of information had deliberately been omitted all along. The moment of revelation was lost on me, in fact I'll have to see the movie again to catch it.

And I will see it again. Despite this flaw, I agree with the common concensus that it's probably the best of the series so far.

The shortcoming ironically highlights a point of discussion I had with Danny on the way to the cinema. I was talking about books, specifically the two I have been reading recently.

I paused reading E.M. Forster's Maurice—an unprecedented novel about erotic love between men, written in 1914 but not published until after the author's death in 1970—in order to read Philip Pullman's The Golden Compass, the first in a fantasy trilogy published within the past decade, slightly predating the Harry Potter books. It was a gripping read, one I could hardly put down after opening the first chapter. After finishing it last week I resumed Forster, but found I had lost the train of certain subtleties in the plot of Maurice.

Ninety years ago, novels were written to be savoured and absorbed. People read them at leisure without distraction and had time to consider them as a whole, richly textured, without skipping from chapter to chapter between subway stops and TV shows. Danny suggested older movies were written that way, too. I mentioned daisydumont's preference toward watching a movie over the course of several evenings.

Now we have given ourselves to the tyranny of too much information. If a book or movie doesn't provide a meaningless thrill every 15 seconds, the average person loses interest and turns on Survivor instead.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is far from fatuous, but I'm afraid a culture that runs on brief multimedia clips will increasingly bewilder those of us who refuse to immerse ourselves in it. Maybe I'm just getting old.

Comments

Spoilers in this comment

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

My confusion surrounded the identity of the rat. I understood what he turned out to be, but I was unclear why he suddenly became the villain. I missed the revelation (and this is where I feel the movie failed the non-reader) that the apparent antagonist had been trying to kill the rat all along, so I couldn't understand why he changed targets (and I object to the fact that he suddenly stopped acting psychotic: that was obviously a manipulative device, villain or not he still should have been crazed). Consequently the role of the professor who was his friend seemed even more incomprehensible.

Re: Spoilers in this comment

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

That part I understood. What I didn't understand is why Black, who had been after Harry all along, seemed to have changed his mind and was after Pettigrew. With so much information coming out at once, I missed the fact that he had never been pursuing Harry in the first place.

Agreed

[quirkstreet.livejournal.com]

I've read the book several times. I knew what to expect. This moment was, nevertheless, jarring to me too. My feeling is that the film did not handle the transition in our *understanding of Black's aims* nearly as well as it could have. There needed to be something, probably only on the order of a few seconds of hesitation, perhaps one or two lines from *some* character--Black, Hermione, some explicit rejuggling of the emotional pieces of the puzzle--to help smooth this for the audience.

Rowling handles this better ... the luxury of print storytelling is a big aid. She's good at the old trick of withholding crucial information without exactly playing unfair. Everyone *assumes* Black is after Harry, and we all run with that unproven assumption.

At that moment in the book, Black explains that he saw the rat in a family photo of the Weasleys in the newspaper. Well, they show that photo, very briefly, towards the beginning of the film, but omit the later explanation (as I recall). The pace of films, as you say, has become rather headlong. They would have benefitted from a very quick pause. Films don't do well with long expository things, but if they weren't going to explain how Black knew about the rat with the point about the photo, they could have come up with something a bit better.

Re: Agreed

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

I'm glad you agreed with me on this, Pete; now I don't feel so stupid. Actually I just got off a phone call with my daughters. Marian, who has read all the books a couple times at least, affirmed my opinion that part could have been less confusing. She also commented about the fast pace. Maybe I'm not too old-fashioned. ;-)

[leafshimmer.livejournal.com]

I loved Maurice--the book. I do wish the original ending had been retained by Morgan Forster.

The movie, though not without its charms, made some changes I found jarring, but at least the soul of the story survived. Unfortunately that was not the case with the film version of Passage to India.

I guess you're unlikely to see this for awhile. I look forward to connecting with you again in Sept. Hope you and your girls have a delightful summer!

HUGS, Shimmer

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

I would like to read the "original ending." The edition I have ends with Maurice leaving Clive in the alleyway outside Penge. In a terminal note, Forster calls this "the only possible end to the book." He explains that others encouraged him to write an epilogue in which Kitty encounters two woodcutters some years later, but it was dissatisfying. He also points out that it's anachronistic: England would not have been able to hide outlaws like Maurice and Alec past the First World War.

I'm back from my parents' and will be around for this busy weekend, then a quick visit to Toronto Sunday evening, a doctor's appointment, and finally away to the cottage on Monday.

Hugs,
Van

[daisydumont.livejournal.com]

i haven't read the PoA book, but i knew the storyline enough not to be lost. sorry you found it lacking that way. mostly i found the rhythm of the film vastly improved over the earlier two, and the settings were glorious. (recently i read a provocative post on lj somewhere-or-other explaining how cuaron had made a mexican movie! there are allusions to mexican folk culture in several places, like the sugar skulls.)

maurice was a good book, and i liked the film a lot. i'd never seen hugh grant before and was charmed to bits by him, though his character proved disappointing.

i think you're right about the short attention span of the culture nowadays. everyone wants instant gratification! (i'm guilty too, very often.)

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

I usually find Hugh Grant rather cardboardy as an actor, but he's worth seeing as Chopin in Impromptu, about the composer's affair with George Sand. I hadn't heard about the film version of Maurice, though. I must look it up.

That point about the Mexican flavour is interesting. I found the sets in the PoA film, especially the grounds of the school, much more satisfying than in the others. It was more gripping than the first two, too.

[currawong.livejournal.com]

I think that the second of the Pullman trilogy, "The Subtle Knife ", is the best. In volume three, "The Amber Spyglass", I think he gets carried away with his own ambition and scope and produces a very overblown fantasy that is likely to lose the readership for which it was ostensibly designed. In Engand and Australia, the first volume is called,"The Northern Lights".

I find the "Potter" books too "samey". They get longer and longer but, essentially, read one...you've read them all.

My favourite Forster quote? It goes something like this: "I should like to love and be loved, and yes, even hurt, by a young man of the lower classes. That's my ticket!"

[vaneramos.livejournal.com]

I wonder when he wrote that quote. He did have a lover, Bob Buckingham, who was a policeman.

I have only read the first Potter book. It was a while ago, but I remember sometimes getting annoyed with the writing style. I'll have to read the rest though; my daughter has been on my case about it.

I hope "The Amber Spyglass" isn't too disappointing. Unfortunately I took it on the train by mistake, rather than "The Subtle Knife," so I didn't have any reading to do.