Loved the Film of Half-Blood Prince!
I loved the film, thought it was a great ride. Not sure I'd count it as the best; I thought the third film, Prisoner of Azkaban with its director, Alfonso Cuarón, was the most stylish and smart, and Goblet of Fire the most moving. (I cried when Cedric died, his father's reaction was so heartrending, while this film didn't quite take me there.) But this latest film was wonderfully paced and acted and I thought did a better job of storytelling than the book. The film ran 151 minutes, and yet felt so short--not breakneck, but never, never, ever dragged.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is what brought me into the HP fandom and SSHG ship because it hooked me with the mystery of Snape's character--that doesn't mean I think it's a standout piece of writing. What often annoyed me about the book was the pacing. Especially all the time given to the Pensieve Scenes where the story would stop dead--the film only gives us two--the crucial two. Riddle as a young orphan (I actually felt for Tom there) and the crucial discussion Riddle had with Slughorn. The film takes some liberties with the book, particularly of compression, but I think on the whole it makes the right choices. Snape fen I imagine might be disappointed--not much of him in his titular film, only 6 scenes with him (I counted, Renita) where he's not just in the background, but they were the crucial ones.
Several performances stood out to me. One was definitely Tom Felton's Draco, dangerous and desperate. Another was Broadbent's Slughorn. Anyone who has read my WIP, Book of Shadows, or some of my rants might glom on I don't much care for the character. The books so emphasize his vanity, his greed, his favoritism towards the connected. Jim Broadbent though gains my sympathy for the character, the underlying tragedy of a proud teacher who mentored a monster who killed a beloved student.
And Michael Gambon as Albus Dumbledore? He reminded me why I loved the character.
Yes, yes, I know. We're Snapey fans here, so that means my union card might get cut up for admitting that. But the fact is that Dumbledore was a general with few good choices and Snape is not his victim, but someone who chose to enlist in that war under him. To deny that is to deny Snape a lot of his dignity and agency, and make him some weak tool. I can't help but feel for Dumbledore in the cave scene and admire him for being willing to sacrifice himself. He's not just some cold, master chess player sacrificing other pieces--he places himself on the board. There's a moment in the film, not in the book, where Dumbledore asks Draco to let him help, and says he "once knew a boy who made all the wrong choices." Given what we know of Dumbledore's background with Grindelwald, he might have been speaking of himself--and according to the trailer he was speaking of Tom Riddle--but he could just as well mean Severus Snape.
I think the most moving moment in the film is towards the end, when the students of Hogwarts lift their wands to remove the Dark Mark floating over Hogwarts.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is what brought me into the HP fandom and SSHG ship because it hooked me with the mystery of Snape's character--that doesn't mean I think it's a standout piece of writing. What often annoyed me about the book was the pacing. Especially all the time given to the Pensieve Scenes where the story would stop dead--the film only gives us two--the crucial two. Riddle as a young orphan (I actually felt for Tom there) and the crucial discussion Riddle had with Slughorn. The film takes some liberties with the book, particularly of compression, but I think on the whole it makes the right choices. Snape fen I imagine might be disappointed--not much of him in his titular film, only 6 scenes with him (I counted, Renita) where he's not just in the background, but they were the crucial ones.
Several performances stood out to me. One was definitely Tom Felton's Draco, dangerous and desperate. Another was Broadbent's Slughorn. Anyone who has read my WIP, Book of Shadows, or some of my rants might glom on I don't much care for the character. The books so emphasize his vanity, his greed, his favoritism towards the connected. Jim Broadbent though gains my sympathy for the character, the underlying tragedy of a proud teacher who mentored a monster who killed a beloved student.
And Michael Gambon as Albus Dumbledore? He reminded me why I loved the character.
Yes, yes, I know. We're Snapey fans here, so that means my union card might get cut up for admitting that. But the fact is that Dumbledore was a general with few good choices and Snape is not his victim, but someone who chose to enlist in that war under him. To deny that is to deny Snape a lot of his dignity and agency, and make him some weak tool. I can't help but feel for Dumbledore in the cave scene and admire him for being willing to sacrifice himself. He's not just some cold, master chess player sacrificing other pieces--he places himself on the board. There's a moment in the film, not in the book, where Dumbledore asks Draco to let him help, and says he "once knew a boy who made all the wrong choices." Given what we know of Dumbledore's background with Grindelwald, he might have been speaking of himself--and according to the trailer he was speaking of Tom Riddle--but he could just as well mean Severus Snape.
I think the most moving moment in the film is towards the end, when the students of Hogwarts lift their wands to remove the Dark Mark floating over Hogwarts.