A (Tardy) Bitter Rant to Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (Part II)
''Part 2 -- Part II'' sounds weird, no doubt.
The Bad:
The Performances (Cont'd)
In Perspective:
The Prince's Tale
In focus, (behold an unpopular opinion) I was seriously expecting better performances from Alan Rickman and Michael Gambon during The Prince’s Tale montage during their bigger scenes (they were somewhat decent in their other scenes). In what was meant to be an emotional revelation, they were literally sleepwalking through their performances and didn’t play off each other very well. Oops. (Too early in the morning, I suppose.)
In particular:
''Lily?'' With the blankest stare of all stares, as if he had gone temporarily deaf, or can’t understand the Latin language very well.
''Always.'' Flatter than flat, without even batting an eyelid, stated in a very ‘’frog-like’’, monotone voice, stripped of all emotion. He really sounded like he meant it.
''Why are you so wooden?!''
Instead of feeling heart-rendered, I rolled my eyes at the ridiculous-sounding nature of the moment.
Result of a directing fail? (If I were the director, I would have yelled out from the behind the camera, ''You can do better than that.'') Yates has never been quite effective in directing his actors in meant-to-be-emotional or impacting scenes. On top of the poor directing present in this specific scene, there was poor writing involved. So I can't entirely place the blame on the actors themselves (because everything else they're in that's not HP, they're phenomenal), because they came through in their other scenes; almost. *smirk*
Addressing more direction (and cinematographic) flaws, I'm really not a fan of the specific camera angle chosen for the scene with Snape cradling Lily’s body (the shots leading up to that were, I guess decent or passable at best). I don't really approve of this exact addition to the film (a moment that was not unfavourably lost in the book); on the other hand the camera angle unfortunately took away from the moment (I’ll discuss more later about the peculiar camera angles in this film) along with the decision (Yates’, I presume) to mute the audio where weeping would have been heard. (Maybe that would have been too cringe-worthy, no?) The ultimate flaw in the way the scene was shot largely ruined it for me because it killed the atmosphere, and no I didn’t cry. How could I with a camera shot as awkward as this? Staring straight up through some guy’s nose and throat is considered emotional, I would have never thought so now that you point it out (I legit cringe any time I scroll past GIF sets of this on Tumblr).
Seeing doubles? The Village was considerably filmed better, with all the raw emotion intact. Yeah, I know. Unpopular opinion. It's an underrated film.
Maybe the scene/performance is better as seen through the daily rushes, a raw perspective?
Yates said he was aiming for something ''beautiful'' and ''poetic'', which can explain his decision in changing TPT in the script from a chronological scene-by-scene montage to a non-linear array of images, however, there was nothing ''beautiful'' about Snape's relationship to either Lily or Dumbledore or what followed. So throw back in that audio, Yates, however cringe-worthy. Reveal the gritty side that is reality.
Furthermore, Snape's death scene: the boathouse may have been a fantastic set (and the death was acted well... okay), but the change from a dusty Shrieking Shack to a ''romantic'' glass house near the lake chiefly ''killed'' the gritty and dark nature that is Snape's character, and the grittiness that is the reality of war. Romantic?-Voldemort wasn't marrying Snape; he was going to kill him. It makes you wonder if the filmmakers understand his character at all… ''Beautiful'' or ''romantic'' are not the right words.
Such ''Gothic romantic'' interpretations by the filmmakers somehow hurt Rickman's portrayal.
I am aware of the amount of praise the large body of critics and fans gave to Rickman for his ''turn of the shade'' as Snape... Rickmaniacs are campaigning 24/7 for an Oscar... Daniel Radcliffe calls it the ''performance of his career'' and has become his ''Oscar campaign manager... Rickman has since been long-listed for a BAFTA... Nevertheless, is his performance really that worthy? I thought he was decent the first time I saw the film, yet the more I watch, the worse he seems every time (in the flawed scenes mentioned), like there's very little to no life in his words or his expressions (well, he can't help the way his face is obviously, but at least exhibit some emotion within those unmoving lazy eyes), which is blatantly disappointing from an actor of his craft. Definitely a writing/directing fault there.
His personal interpretation of Snape in the previous films may have been vastly different from his book counterpart (Rickman's age may or may not have some effect on his different interpretation); however it was acceptable, looks aside. Although in each segment, it seems like his performances went down with the poor directing. Well, not every segment, but ever since Yates took over, I've been less and less impressed with his scenes (he was dismally out-shined by Gambon in Half-Blood Prince because of the poor writing/directing, with his ''Yes, I'm the Half-Blood Prince.'' versus Gambon's ''KILL ME!''). His best performance in this film was perhaps the prologue played to ''Lily Theme'' and (maybe) his death scene (albeit terribly shot). Largely everything afterwards fell hopelessly flat. He was considerably good, though not great. He could have done so much better if he were given the right direction. Oops.
The following doesn't exactly cover the performances, but is related to TPT:
What's more? In scenes during the montage that were meant to be set 16 years prior, I don't know what the costume and hair departments were thinking because it seemed to me that over the years Dumbles and Snape barely aged. My, how much they've grown!
This fault didn't directly affect the actors' performances, but it took away some believability that all of this ''meaty stuff'' happened some time ago, and subsequently spanned over the years. More like a fortnight.
Primarily in Snape's case, I didn't get a sense of progression from ''youth'' to ''maturity.'' This is practically impossible to achieve through time constraints alone, but given the nature of films where they are meant to be visual, this could have been done through just a simple element of appearance: dress.
Now, given Rickman’s drastic age difference to Snape’s actual canon age (which is screwed up in the films either way), this aspect altogether may have been sort of difficult to make-believable anyhow (60 plus ''youth'' doesn't equal a right product), but there still could have been some sense in change, and progression through the years, without going in the impossible direction of making a 65-year-old look like a late teenager (that would have been ugly).
Of course, there was a slight wig change (they went back to the Philosopher's Stone ''Rachel'' haircut) and anti-ageing make-up and technology involved with the task of making Snape look somewhat younger than 60, however ''waxy'' the end result became. (Were they aiming for 20? Doubtful. I place it closer to 30, like a creepy 30.*) But my, the differences in clothing! Dumbles, on the other hand, wow even larger differences! I literally couldn't tell the difference between past Dumbles and present Dumbles.
This calls for a Part III...
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"">
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"">___________________________________
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"">
*This is where I give a huge, pointless rant to clear up the flawed ages of the characters (don’t take me too seriously): Let’s face it, Potter faithfuls, the filmmakers never intended for the films to take place in the 90s. Not only is this evident by the characters’ wardrobes, but according to Harry Potter: Page to Screen, p. 403, the graphics department created certificates of Dursely Dudley’s ‘’achievements’’ from his respective school for the Dursley’s home, where the dates given on the certificates clearly state 2001, instead of 1991, 10 years ahead of the books’ canon time frame. This was likely intentional by the filmmakers, to present a more identifiable time period so audiences could better relate, and coincide with the year when the first movie was being made.
However, this creates inconsistencies. The filmmakers clearly made a mistake when they gave the b. and d. dates of Lily and James Potter on their headstone in DH1: 1960-1981. Too, Harry would be a lot older. And the Marauders Era, from what was shown, is clearly set in the 70s and early 80s. How does this add up?
So, a solution to all our problems and complaints: Move their death date 1981 up 10 years to 1991. They would have been 31 instead of 21 at their deaths, but hey they never even looked 21 anyways, not even in flashbacks, the filmmakers obviously made no effort to do so. Oh, were they meant to? (Of course, there would be a 12-year gap in events and Harry’s birth date would now be 1990, but does anyone honestly care?) This would make the Marauders, Lily, and Snape 10 years older than their canon ages, so now we can all stop complaining of how old the actors look. End of story. Good-bye. The end.
The Bad:
The Performances (Cont'd)
In Perspective:
The Prince's Tale
In focus, (behold an unpopular opinion) I was seriously expecting better performances from Alan Rickman and Michael Gambon during The Prince’s Tale montage during their bigger scenes (they were somewhat decent in their other scenes). In what was meant to be an emotional revelation, they were literally sleepwalking through their performances and didn’t play off each other very well. Oops. (Too early in the morning, I suppose.)
In particular:
''Lily?'' With the blankest stare of all stares, as if he had gone temporarily deaf, or can’t understand the Latin language very well.
''Always.'' Flatter than flat, without even batting an eyelid, stated in a very ‘’frog-like’’, monotone voice, stripped of all emotion. He really sounded like he meant it.
''Why are you so wooden?!''
Instead of feeling heart-rendered, I rolled my eyes at the ridiculous-sounding nature of the moment.
Result of a directing fail? (If I were the director, I would have yelled out from the behind the camera, ''You can do better than that.'') Yates has never been quite effective in directing his actors in meant-to-be-emotional or impacting scenes. On top of the poor directing present in this specific scene, there was poor writing involved. So I can't entirely place the blame on the actors themselves (because everything else they're in that's not HP, they're phenomenal), because they came through in their other scenes; almost. *smirk*
Addressing more direction (and cinematographic) flaws, I'm really not a fan of the specific camera angle chosen for the scene with Snape cradling Lily’s body (the shots leading up to that were, I guess decent or passable at best). I don't really approve of this exact addition to the film (a moment that was not unfavourably lost in the book); on the other hand the camera angle unfortunately took away from the moment (I’ll discuss more later about the peculiar camera angles in this film) along with the decision (Yates’, I presume) to mute the audio where weeping would have been heard. (Maybe that would have been too cringe-worthy, no?) The ultimate flaw in the way the scene was shot largely ruined it for me because it killed the atmosphere, and no I didn’t cry. How could I with a camera shot as awkward as this? Staring straight up through some guy’s nose and throat is considered emotional, I would have never thought so now that you point it out (I legit cringe any time I scroll past GIF sets of this on Tumblr).
Seeing doubles? The Village was considerably filmed better, with all the raw emotion intact. Yeah, I know. Unpopular opinion. It's an underrated film.
Maybe the scene/performance is better as seen through the daily rushes, a raw perspective?
Yates said he was aiming for something ''beautiful'' and ''poetic'', which can explain his decision in changing TPT in the script from a chronological scene-by-scene montage to a non-linear array of images, however, there was nothing ''beautiful'' about Snape's relationship to either Lily or Dumbledore or what followed. So throw back in that audio, Yates, however cringe-worthy. Reveal the gritty side that is reality.
Furthermore, Snape's death scene: the boathouse may have been a fantastic set (and the death was acted well... okay), but the change from a dusty Shrieking Shack to a ''romantic'' glass house near the lake chiefly ''killed'' the gritty and dark nature that is Snape's character, and the grittiness that is the reality of war. Romantic?-Voldemort wasn't marrying Snape; he was going to kill him. It makes you wonder if the filmmakers understand his character at all… ''Beautiful'' or ''romantic'' are not the right words.
Such ''Gothic romantic'' interpretations by the filmmakers somehow hurt Rickman's portrayal.
I am aware of the amount of praise the large body of critics and fans gave to Rickman for his ''turn of the shade'' as Snape... Rickmaniacs are campaigning 24/7 for an Oscar... Daniel Radcliffe calls it the ''performance of his career'' and has become his ''Oscar campaign manager... Rickman has since been long-listed for a BAFTA... Nevertheless, is his performance really that worthy? I thought he was decent the first time I saw the film, yet the more I watch, the worse he seems every time (in the flawed scenes mentioned), like there's very little to no life in his words or his expressions (well, he can't help the way his face is obviously, but at least exhibit some emotion within those unmoving lazy eyes), which is blatantly disappointing from an actor of his craft. Definitely a writing/directing fault there.
His personal interpretation of Snape in the previous films may have been vastly different from his book counterpart (Rickman's age may or may not have some effect on his different interpretation); however it was acceptable, looks aside. Although in each segment, it seems like his performances went down with the poor directing. Well, not every segment, but ever since Yates took over, I've been less and less impressed with his scenes (he was dismally out-shined by Gambon in Half-Blood Prince because of the poor writing/directing, with his ''Yes, I'm the Half-Blood Prince.'' versus Gambon's ''KILL ME!''). His best performance in this film was perhaps the prologue played to ''Lily Theme'' and (maybe) his death scene (albeit terribly shot). Largely everything afterwards fell hopelessly flat. He was considerably good, though not great. He could have done so much better if he were given the right direction. Oops.
The following doesn't exactly cover the performances, but is related to TPT:
What's more? In scenes during the montage that were meant to be set 16 years prior, I don't know what the costume and hair departments were thinking because it seemed to me that over the years Dumbles and Snape barely aged. My, how much they've grown!
This fault didn't directly affect the actors' performances, but it took away some believability that all of this ''meaty stuff'' happened some time ago, and subsequently spanned over the years. More like a fortnight.
Primarily in Snape's case, I didn't get a sense of progression from ''youth'' to ''maturity.'' This is practically impossible to achieve through time constraints alone, but given the nature of films where they are meant to be visual, this could have been done through just a simple element of appearance: dress.
Now, given Rickman’s drastic age difference to Snape’s actual canon age (which is screwed up in the films either way), this aspect altogether may have been sort of difficult to make-believable anyhow (60 plus ''youth'' doesn't equal a right product), but there still could have been some sense in change, and progression through the years, without going in the impossible direction of making a 65-year-old look like a late teenager (that would have been ugly).
Of course, there was a slight wig change (they went back to the Philosopher's Stone ''Rachel'' haircut) and anti-ageing make-up and technology involved with the task of making Snape look somewhat younger than 60, however ''waxy'' the end result became. (Were they aiming for 20? Doubtful. I place it closer to 30, like a creepy 30.*) But my, the differences in clothing! Dumbles, on the other hand, wow even larger differences! I literally couldn't tell the difference between past Dumbles and present Dumbles.
This calls for a Part III...
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"">
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"">___________________________________
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"">
*This is where I give a huge, pointless rant to clear up the flawed ages of the characters (don’t take me too seriously): Let’s face it, Potter faithfuls, the filmmakers never intended for the films to take place in the 90s. Not only is this evident by the characters’ wardrobes, but according to Harry Potter: Page to Screen, p. 403, the graphics department created certificates of Dursely Dudley’s ‘’achievements’’ from his respective school for the Dursley’s home, where the dates given on the certificates clearly state 2001, instead of 1991, 10 years ahead of the books’ canon time frame. This was likely intentional by the filmmakers, to present a more identifiable time period so audiences could better relate, and coincide with the year when the first movie was being made.
However, this creates inconsistencies. The filmmakers clearly made a mistake when they gave the b. and d. dates of Lily and James Potter on their headstone in DH1: 1960-1981. Too, Harry would be a lot older. And the Marauders Era, from what was shown, is clearly set in the 70s and early 80s. How does this add up?
So, a solution to all our problems and complaints: Move their death date 1981 up 10 years to 1991. They would have been 31 instead of 21 at their deaths, but hey they never even looked 21 anyways, not even in flashbacks, the filmmakers obviously made no effort to do so. Oh, were they meant to? (Of course, there would be a 12-year gap in events and Harry’s birth date would now be 1990, but does anyone honestly care?) This would make the Marauders, Lily, and Snape 10 years older than their canon ages, so now we can all stop complaining of how old the actors look. End of story. Good-bye. The end.