Comments | hp_essays: PoA Film Marauders Explanation, Explained

mcpotterdore in hp_essays

PoA Film Marauders Explanation, Explained

Dec 06, 2007 11:00

One of the biggest gripes amongst HP fans is that a great narrative detail of PoA the book was omitted from the PoA film: The explanation of the Maurauders and their relationship. Now granted this ommission sort of shock to me as well. What would have easily been a half an hour backstory of Lupin's school days with James, Sirius and Peter was ( Read more... )

Comments 18

ryf December 6 2007, 19:21:02 UTC

Mod note: Could you please put a LJ-cut on this? It is pretty long.

siriaeve December 6 2007, 19:22:04 UTC

Could you please consider using a cut tag on this post? Thank you.

Siria,
Community co-mod.

sistermagpie December 6 2007, 19:48:10 UTC

Don't take this post as "Thinking outside the book," but more of "Thinking inside the film".

The most obvious answer is that films don't work like books. You're watching and listening to things, which means that if anything they need to be clearer, not more subtle. I can't imagine why anybody should be having to bother making their own connections to things like rats and wormy tails or dogs and padded feet or stags and prongs and James while they're having to pay attention to what's going on in front of them. If you haven't read the books you might not even have any idea you should be trying to make any connections. Not that I can really speak on the movies since I haven't seen them-but just going by these few lines it seems like they establish they were friends rather than many details about the friendship.

mcpotterdore December 6 2007, 22:07:34 UTC

The most obvious answer is that films don't work like books. You're watching and listening to things, which means that if anything they need to be clearer, not more subtle. I can't imagine why anybody should be having to bother making their own connections to things like rats and wormy tails or dogs and padded feet or stags and prongs and James while they're having to pay attention to what's going on in front of them.
However there is little difference between mulling over an idea after reading a book and after watching a film. The film doesn't necessarily have to still be in front of them when they think about these ideas. Take for instance films like the Matrix which spawned and entire sub-culture analyzing the ideas behind the Matrix, all of which is entirely based on duality of the content and subtle ideas that were never clear to begin with.

If you haven't read the books you might not even have any idea you should be trying to make any connections.Once again this falls into line about people shutting off their brains when ( ... )

sistermagpie December 6 2007, 22:13:25 UTC

But we're not exactly talking about mulling over the film as a whole, we're talking about catching a little detail that somebody said and building it into a backstory that in the book is actually written out--for a reason. I don't think that has anything to do with people turning off their brains in the movies. A person might think a lot about the movie after they come out and do so very seriously but not focus on some little detail that led to a fact the movie itself didn't think it was important enough to include. It's one thing to think about the nature of Time Travel, for instance, and another to think about something like these names when the movie isn't much concentrating on the stuff. From what I remember people telling me about the movie, it just seemed like too many steps to get to an answer that a non-book reader wouldn't even have reason to know was worth it.

mcpotterdore December 6 2007, 22:31:21 UTC

But we're not exactly talking about mulling over the film as a whole, we're talking about catching a little detail that somebody said and building it into a backstory that in the book is actually written out--for a reason.

Once again, not written out but reinterpreted. It's the way the backstory that was explained that was written out for the reason of pacing and time, however the content still exists.

I don't think that has anything to do with people turning off their brains in the movies. A person might think a lot about the movie after they come out and do so very seriously but not focus on some little detail that led to a fact the movie itself didn't think it was important enough to includeHowever it was important that it was included, once again it it's subtle presentation and nearly every single piece of dialogue being relevant. Just because someone missed it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Often films when they exhibit a tight script and engages the viewer that it prompts the viewer to analyze each and every detail of which ( ... )

shyfoxling December 6 2007, 21:26:19 UTC

Padfoot probably presents the more difficult idea considering that not everyone owns a dog and are familiar with dogs but should at least realize from most pictures that dogs do have somewhat padded feet.

"Padfoot" is actually one folkloric name for a large black spectral dog. Black dogs have a significant place in English folklore -- see http://www.mysteriousbritain.co.uk/folklore/black_dogs.html for instance.

snorkackcatcher December 6 2007, 21:54:30 UTC

I'm afraid you haven't convinced me. :) As sistermagpie said, it needs to be clearer in a film -- you have no opportunity to pause and think about what's going on (if you're in the cinema, anyway) in the way you do with a book, and you have fewer lines to work with.

mcpotterdore December 6 2007, 22:15:09 UTC

I'm afraid you haven't convinced me. :) As sistermagpie said, it needs to be clearer in a film -- you have no opportunity to pause and think about what's going on (if you're in the cinema, anyway) in the way you do with a book, and you have fewer lines to work with.
Actually I think you proven my point. The idea that they did have fewer lines to work with is why the ended up making such dialogue (even throwaway ones) to be subtle and have more meaning that you think. Once again it's about efficiency. As I said in a previous reply, just because it is a film that shouldn't mean it shouldn't challenge you the same way the novels did. The depth of analysis in any creative medium shouldn't be limited just because it is a different medium, it just means the ways you analyze are different.

Still despite the post not being able to convince you, the connections are still there and the explanation is still there.

vvvexation December 6 2007, 23:32:58 UTC

Actually I think you proven my point. The idea that they did have fewer lines to work with is why the ended up making such dialogue (even throwaway ones) to be subtle and have more meaning that you think.

No. Proving that the meaning would have had to be subtle if it was there at all is not the same as proving that it was there at all. All you've shown is that very careful viewers might have been able to guess, but never to know for sure, things that they would have had no reason to guess if they had not read the book. I strongly suspect you yourself would never have thought of these things if you hadn't read the book first.

mcpotterdore December 7 2007, 03:17:56 UTC

No. Proving that the meaning would have had to be subtle if it was there at all is not the same as proving that it was there at all. All you've shown is that very careful viewers might have been able to guess, but never to know for sure, but never to know for sure, things that they would have had no reason to guess if they had not read the book.An interesting point, however to what degree are we not sure of certain things? If there fine line between subtle and downright elusive what can be said of Lupin saying "Mischief Managed" being certain or uncertain? If not just to point out that perhaps there is more to be examined with the Marauders and who they are within the film ( ... )