The Refining Process: Films, Books & Canon Variation
On the Films, and Variations from Book Canon
- The Refining Process -
There's a tendency within fandom to judge films almost as enemies to the canon. Even though we accept that by virtue of the fact that it must be different to fit the constraints of film we seem to be less forgiving about omissions and alterations than maybe we should be. It's easy to realise why. We're in the middle of the series in the films and books. Nearly every character can make difference in the final book. Minor characters can become major, linkages between plot threads can emerge. There's still everything to play for.
Why then should we pay attention to the films' 'new' canon? Because the films are limited by time etc, certain plots, characters and nuances are lost. Precisely because of this, the films can be helpful in giving direction to those who want to guess the main plot of the series. It's almost a refining process. It can aid deciding which characters might be more important than others.
~ * ~
I think it's fairly obvious that the films help us prioritise what happens in the books. The films, in their derivation, allow us possible permutations to the plot and/or characters. Crouch Jr. does not appear in the Riddle House scene in Goblet of Fire, but JK Rowling has explicitly been quoted as saying that it could have happened like that. This is not to say that the films are equal to the books, but it is safe to say that the films may act to round out the edges, and give a correct, if slightly altered, view of the series. Not least, it provides a different way to approach the characters. Crouch, in his dedication to his master, would certainly confer with him and Pettigrew. The allusion to the Goblet of Fire plan later in the book bolsters the validity of the film's early scene.
The films need to be set out in such a way that they cannot contradict what is to come in the next (an easy task for the writer and director - simply read them) and future, unpublished books (which is slightly more tricky). In fact, in each installment, it should plot out the endgame. It follows then, that it will not be focusing on elements that are important to Book X or Y, but do not fulfil the general movement of the plot of the series. It may even foreshadow events.
~ * ~
It is here that Harry Potter books and film lovers have a unique experience. Unlike Lord of the Rings, Narnia, or indeed any other series to be transferred onto the big or small screen, our series has not yet reached a conclusion. Neither the filmmakers nor we know exactly how it will end. It's a unique adventure, having to wait two years between installments, taking that time to try and formulate theories and piece together plots. Addition, we have films coming out every so often to further add to our experience. Doubtless, fans coming to the series after 2007 (we estimate) will have a completely different experience. At this point, we don't know how much the films derive from the books in true substance because we haven't finished the series.
~ * ~
Lupin was completely absent in the Goblet of Fire film - could this be an indicator that his role was played out in Prisoner of Azkaban and will now only really provide back up in future books, or is it decision to hold off until a pay-off in Book VII? Might it be simply a casting/timing decision? If I am to put my faith in the films staying as true as possible to the main plot, I think it is likely to be the first suggestion.
It's sad, because we each of us tend to clutch to our favourite character. We may put too much faith in these favourites. Maybe we overstate Sirius, or James Potter's importance, when the films (as guided by JK Rowling) understate them and focus on more pertinent plot details. If Winky the House-Elf has vanished from the Goblet of Fire film, then perhaps it is because Winky will contribute nothing major to Book VII and the series' resolution.
Another example of the film focusing on one aspect to the detriment of another is the treatment of Lily and James. The focus of the films has always been on Lily. She is the more important parent than James. We should have guessed that from the Prisoner of Azkaban Film; we were handed enough proof of it later with The Half-Blood Prince. Arguably she was brought to prominence in the film at the expense of James - there was Lupin's 'new canon' comments about her, emphasizing her in a conversation about both of Harry's parents. Even James' involvement with the map was omitted. It simply mustn't have been that important to the main plot.
From this theory, it is fairly safe to say that neither Peeves (completely absent from film series) and Dobby (absent from the Goblet of Fire film) are important to the plot. At our most conservative, we can with almost certainty say that Dobby is less important to the plot than Neville. At our most speculative, we can theorise that Filch's presence in all four films is representative of some hidden importance
From watching the films, I have the impression that the Marauders are not as important to the plot as we the fans thought or hoped. They were excluded from the Prisoner of Azkaban film and unmentioned in Goblet of Fire. When The Half-Blood Prince was published, the prominence was indeed reduced, as foreshadowed by the films.
Dean Thomas and Theodore Nott have extraordinary and detailed back-stories. Unfortunately, we can be fairly sure that they are not relevant to the main plot. (Dean has never been as verbose either text or script-wise as Seamus or Neville, vanishing completely in Prisoner of Azkaban, while Nott seems destined to be Just Another Sylerthin.)
Bellatrix Lestrange may not the key scene setter we all think she's going to be. Whether we can attribute her absence in Goblet of Fire to timing or casting issues, there could at least have been a mention of her name or some foreshadowing if she was that vital. However, it may be too early in the series to introduce her - it will be worthwhile to see exactly who is cast as her for Order of the Phoenix. The more famous or prestigious the actor, obviously the more important a character she may be in Book VII.
Similarly, I think the casting of Tonks will tell us a lot about any role she may play in Book VII
Sirius' absence from Goblet of Fire, except for as firewood, seems to be a good tell-tale sign. He's not as key to the plot as we all hoped and believed. This seems to be borne out in The Half-Blood Prince. We might be gearing up to see Sirius as a way to get to R.A.B. rather than anything else.
SPEW may merely be the author's attempt to further highlight the double standards of the Wizarding World. It was dropped completely from Goblet of Fire, echoing the Half-Blood Prince's omission. Consequently, it is difficult to see it, in itself, as germane to the main plot.
Dobby's Helping Hand: I think in simple terms Dobby's help to the plot finished in Chamber of Secrets and the films so far have certainly proved it. However much he pops up for character moments and slight plots in the books, he won't return for the Order of The Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince films - it's too easy to write over him with more important plot point/characters, e.g. Neville in Goblet of Fire.
I imagine the Neville/Gillyweed adaptation of the Goblet of Fire film was a clever way to substitute a lesser character for a more important one. The change brings his character nearer the front, which is telling and may be a convenient way to set him up for his role in the Order of the Phoenix film.
The very off-hand reference to his parents in the trial is a little confusing. (The scene was over before I myself realised they had referred to the Longbottoms; my non-fan friend didn't get any of it and had to have the connection between Neville and the trial explained after the film. For the record, he stated that very few could get a quick reference to tortured victims' names and any student at Hogwarts, and I agree.) This is either a set-up for a substantial part of the next film, or the swift closure of a plot that has little to do the main arc. The latter does not seem to fit in with the films' pattern. The Goblet of Fire film can be seen as introducing Neville properly - I cannot fathom any other reason why time is spent on that lovely scene of Neville practising dancing other than to show character development. Due to this and his presence in the Department of Mysteries in the next book, it is probably the former, setting up a few key moments in the next film. None of us can safely predict what will be left in and left out the Order of the Phoenix film, given the mammoth source text, so Neville's plot line is far from certain. In spite of those nuggets, after the Goblet of Fire film, we have solid confirmation that Neville's theme is only more important that any House-Elf theme. Beyond that, we can only speculate with a reasonable amount of confidence that his increased screen time is representative of his contribution to the main plot.
~ * ~
I have listed here a few ways the films' differences have hinted at priorities in the main arc. I would be interested to see if anyone spotted any possible Horcruxes from the films; I myself will be keeping an eye out in the Order of the Phoenix film to see if a certain locket gets mentioned or shown in Grimauld Place, or indeed, if Sirius' younger brother receives a mention.
Rather than the film completely destroying canon, as one unhappy Marauders' fan described the Prisoner of Azkaban film, it views the storyline through a different lens, quite literally. This new aspect can give us more clues. This can be the advantage of the films emerging in delayed tandem with the books - watched wisely, they may just nudge us in the right direction.