Counterpoint: Harry Potter Directors

First of all, (and yes, some would argue MOST important of all) I'm Dan Akroyd in this equation and you're Jane Curtin.

Now that's out of the way, on with the show.

Turbo and I tend to agree a lot - with one particularly heavy caveat, he tends to be overly-critical. I know, I know, some would say that I'm the pot calling the kettle black, however I find that I'm usually okay about stuff that he's over-analyzed to death. He'd probably say the same thing about me and then it probably has more to do with personal taste and subject matter. BUT - Harry Potter is this weird part of our dynamic. For one thing, the guy has an encyclopedic knowledge of the source material that I don't have. Don't get me wrong, I love the HP universe (no - not the printers - just stop reading if you thought that was what I was talking about), but Tom takes it to another level. Where I've re-read the novels a few times and re-watched the movies a dozen times, multiply that by 5 and you'll get how insanely awesome and in-depth his knowledge is over the whole 'verse (Firefly reference FTW).

Secondly, and as he covered in his Point article, we vastly disagree on the HP movies. While I'd love to go in-depth about my feelings and thoughts over every installment, this being Counterpoint, I will only talk about the movies Turbo and I disagree on.

Prisoner of Azkaban is without a doubt the best movie in the series. It is a step-up from the previous "kiddie installments" with better, drawn-out performances from the young actor's with a more adult and darker tone. It is highly enjoyable with a quick pace and wildly entertaining visual style. Cuaron is an extremely kinetic director - which I fully appreciate. Fluidity and movement of the camera should be a cornerstone for all filmmakers. Tarantino himself said that he'd quit directing because it was a young man's game - a game of high energy and movement. Photographs are for photographers, cinema is for director's (are you listening David Yates?).

Cuaron also handled the time travel aspect of the story deftly and logically, which few director's (I would argue) could or can.

The previous scene just might be my favorite moment in the entire FILM series (Yates fucked up the pivotal final confrontation with Voldemort in HP7P2 - more on that later). Yes, I know, the Patronus was sort of messed up in Azkaban, but this was remedied later - because it HAD to be, for story purposes - but let's look beyond that. Within this one given scene, between acting, camera work, music, and the appropriate narration of an absolute literal conquering of light over dark we enjoy a profoundly triumphant moment. THIS is filmmaking people. This is why any director is good and this is why Azkaban stands as the best of the series.

At this juncture I'm tempted to rip David Yates a new arsehole. But that wouldn't be fair.  I own his HP movies...I enjoy them for the most part.

Look folks, at the end of the day, we're talking about all around decent, if not, great movies that can only really be harped on by fans of the books. No matter who directed any given film they ALWAYS had great material to work with. Some would argue it would either be their folly or their wisdom to adapt properly or not.

But if you're asking me, or calling me out, my dislike/distaste for David Yates' HP films stems from two factors:

One: They are mostly plodding, slow, dry, and emotionless pieces that just tend to lumber on.

Two: The way Lupin looked as a werewolf is a nitpick, frakking up the final duel and screwing up other such emotionally satisfying and significant scenes are major problems.

These points are really one and I will attack them as such as the following will show:

Google it...many people have noticed that David Yates invested zero life into the HP series. As one person on some forum put it, "he sucked the magic out of it." I completely agree with this. Every emotional moment and pivotal sequence he almost methodically ruins.

His movies are dull and by the numbers. What's odd is that he seems to be zombified (it's a word) in a way towards relentlessly adhering to the book - when it's not important. He will nail stuff that Turbo (nitpicker) cares about, but doesn't really matter. But when it comes to the massively important stuff - he ignores, set's up incorrectly or completely fails at. Yates is decent at foreplay but he can't get you to orgasm...or even close.

Think about it...All the emotionally investing and satisfying segments of the books that are held within the Yates films are devoid of emotion or proper timing (maybe that's it, his pacing sucks). From Dobby's death to even Molly's utterance of, "not my daughter, you bitch", it's just not properly done. It doesn't hit you right. It's always slightly OFF.

Sure, these CATACLYSMIC events are in the movies, but they're not felt. It's all sort of dutiful. Of course some of these moments HAD to be in the movies...usually for story progression, if not, well - the fans would hang the WB executives if they weren't included. Grimauld Place was ripped from MY brain too, but that's because J.K. Rowling wrote such vivacious stories that it was hard to mess these things up. Shouldn't a set designer be praised more for this than Yates? Should Yates be THANKED for things that any director would have done - especially under studio pressure? I don't think so. Especially when everything else sucks and he fails at providing that extra PUSH towards emotional release. Which begs the question, is Yates just going through the motions, as his resume would indicate? A television director that is used to an episode to episode kind of job and pace?

David Yates' final screw-up came with the final duel.

Let me ask you something...what's more interesting this:

OR, what happens in the book:

Voldemort is fighting multiple opponents within the Great Hall (where everyone else is fighting, if you've seen the movie) when Harry reveals that he's alive. Voldemort is immediately scared because he's deathly afraid of...well, death. He's worried now that Harry has something or can do something that he can't do (which has always sort of been his fear) and he's hesitant to attack. The whole Hall shuts down and everyone is just watching as Harry calls Voldemort out for being a complete asshat. They pace around each other, at any moment prepared to strike...Harry even gives Voldemort a chance to surrender, a chance to change, a chance to redeem himself...it's more than he deserves. Because at this point, Harry has the upper hand, he knows it even if the audience doesn't. It's a much more triumphant moment than what Yates gives us: Harry defeating Voldemort with us barely understanding why and without an audience. In the book, when Harry defeats Voldemort, the Hall nearly breaks down with people cheering, laughing, and crying, all in victory...

This is what I'm talking about people. Yates CUTS the heart out of Harry Potter everytime. Even in the moments where we sort of feel something - compare that to the book and WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN...well, then you will feel my pain.  

I can find things to enjoy out of ALL the HP movies, but in the end, Yates' films are obvious and cold. They rely too much on camera filters and seem to have been made by someone who studied the Cliff's Notes versions of the books. Cuaron might have changed some things, but at least it felt like he CARED.

Sidenote: The cast and crew had been making HP movies for over four years by the time Yates came around...a family already existed. He just fucked with it - in a weird pedophile way.