Commentary on a video essay.
Spectacle and Narrative in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Commentary of Video Essay
This commentary and its accompanying video essay will be looking at the concepts of spectacle and narrative, and their inter-relation in the context of 2005 blockbuster Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Dir. Mike Newell). It also intends to examine the relationship between the narrative of the film and the narrative of the 2000 book on which the film was based (Rowling, J. K.).
The essay begins by looking at the Cinema of Attractions, and its relationship with the concept of spectacle. Tom Gunning coined the term Cinema of Attractions in 1986, describing films predominantly pre-1907, a “cinema that bases itself on … its ability to show something” (p. 64) which he believes became much less prevalent as narrative cinema became the dominant form. Tomasovic (2006) explores how a modern form of this cinema of attraction can be seen as “the new Hollywood policy, devoted to the project of the ultimate blockbuster. The attraction is the golden rule... vertiginous effects… speed of camera movements and editing, grandiloquence of special effects”1
The features that Tomasovic lists parallel neatly with Geoff King’s tautological definition of spectacle, as ““sequences that employ a heightened degree of spectacle or spectacular action: the ‘big’ explosion or the ‘big outburst of special effects, for example,” (2002, 184) and, as Lavik observes, “a continuum exists between these and relatively smaller moments of spectacle, such as star presence, violence, sets and costumes.” (2008, p. 171)
Rushton and Lavik both argue that there is no intrinsic opposition between narrative and spectacle, arguing instead that they are different axes on the graph of the film: “spectacle… was not an automatic riposte to the absorptions of classical narrative transparency; rather, the relation between them was far more complex than a simple binary division” (Rushton, 2007, p. 110) “There is no necessary opposition between narrative and spectacle… since neither the concept of spectacle nor the concept of narrative progression has been adequately theorized (at least not in a manner on which there is any sense of widespread agreement)” (Lavik, 2008, p. 174)
Lavik had previously observed however, that the spectacle could become commonplace through overuse, “Since what is extraordinary depends on what is ordinary at any given moment in time, any definition of spectacle should be thought of as very much approximate, provisional, and tentative.” (Lavik, 2008, p.172)
This phenomenon can be observed in the Harry Potter series, in the progression of Quidditch Matches, to the Dragon scene examined by the video essay.
Having contextualised the theory aspects of spectacle and narrative it is now necessary to consider the effect of the spectacle on the overall narrative of the film. To achieve this comparisons can be made back to the book. In general the Harry Potter films keep to the main plot of the respective books while avoiding excessive length by pruning out sub-plots, merging characters together, and conflating groups of scenarios in the book into a single scene in the film. Cartmell and Whelehan (2005) have suggested that the Harry Potter books in fact follow the traditions of Hollywood films in their storytelling manner and indeed in their modern marketing strategies (p. 39-42).
They quote Anthony Holden, who criticised the novels as “Disney cartoons written in words,” (Holden, quoted in Cartmell & Whelehan, p. 42), while remaining neutral regarding the pejorative intention of the criticism. Also they observe Rowling’s use of cinematic techniques such as a character-driven narrative, ‘flash-cutting,’ and action sequences interspersed throughout the narrative (p. 42-43). Further attention is drawn to the intertextuality that the books exhibit:
In keeping with the current penchant for intertextuality in postmodern Hollywood, Harry Potter… combines influences of and echoes to numerous other children’s texts… Additionally, it recalls the experiences of films… and theme park rides.
(p. 44)
Despite this cinematic style of narrative it was observed that the films “tried too hard to be the book.” This invites a comparison in the storytelling techniques of the two media.
Although it is hard to compare the pacing of narrative between a film and a book, due to the subjective nature of individual reading speeds, a rough analogue can be formed by looking at the proportion of the narrative time devoted to particular events. In the text of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire the dragon sequence is built up for two chapters, while the actual encounter lasts for just five short pages. In the film the build up to the sequence lasts for a similar proportion of the narrative2, but the encounter lasts for a much greater proportion; more than a ‘chapter’ of film time. This is not the first time such compression has been utilised in the series, as Burn notes
The narrative temporality in the book is a mixture of telling detail… and what the narratologist Gerard Genette called ellipsis, in which the time of the story is squeezed into much briefer passages of narrative… In the film, the reverse happens… ten minutes are played out more fully, and the more they are extended… the more Harry becomes a powerful hero.
(2005, 1)
A possible side effect of the extension of spectacular scenes to grab an audience’s attention is that other scenes will have to be cut down. Due to budget and time constraints a film necessarily cannot encompass every narrative aspect contained in books of the magnitude of the Harry Potter series. However the choice of what scenes and subplots to cut from the narrative can potentially polarise the audience reactions. Further to this essay, primary research into audience reactions could help determine whether or not this balance of spectacle and narrative leads to a successful film adaptation allowing the research contained herein to combine with practical work and allowing a more complete interpretation of the results.
Approx. 957 words
Notes
1 due to format of ebook, specific page references are not possible
2 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2000) has 37 chapters. The length of the film (2 hours, 17 minutes and 55 seconds) divided by 37 gives a very rough estimate of 3:44 as an equivalent proportion of narrative time.
Bibliography
Books
Cartmell, D., and Whelehan, I., 2005. Harry Potter and the Fidelity Debate in.
Aragay, M. ed. Books in Motion: Adaptation, Intertextuality, Authorship. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 37-49.
King, G., 2002. New Hollywood Cinema: An Introduction. London: I.B. Tauris.
Rowling, J. K., 2000. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. London: Bloomsbury
Tomasovic, D., 2006. The Hollywood Cobweb: New Laws of Attraction (The Spectacular Mechanics of Blockbusters). In: Strauven, W., ed. The Cinema of Attractions Reloaded. Amsterdam University Press. 309-320
Articles
Burn, A (2005) ‘Potter-Literacy - from book to game and back again; literature, film, game and cross-media literacy’, in Papers: Explorations into Children’s Literature Vol 14, No 3
Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies. 4 (1), 3-26
Gunning, T., 1986 The Cinema of Attractions: Early Film, Its Spectator and the
Avant-Garde, in Wide Angle, 8 (3-4), 63-70
Lavik, E., 2008. The battle for the blockbuster: discourses of spectacle and excess. New review of Film and Television Studies, 6 (2), 169-187.
Rushton, R., 2007. Absorption and theatricality in the cinema: some thoughts on narrative and spectacle. Screen 48 (1), 109-112.
Films
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, 2002. Film. Directed by Chris Columbus. UK/USA: Warner Bros.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, 2005. Film. Directed by Mark Newell. UK/USA: Warner Bros.
Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, 2001. Film. Directed by Chris Columbus. UK/USA: Warner Bros.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, 2004. Film. Directed by Alfredo Cuarón.
UK/USA: Warner Bros.