Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
***SPOILERS CONTAINED HEREIN***
The Harry Potter film franchise and I have a tradition. Ever since Sorcerer’s Stone, every time one comes out, I vow I’m not going to bother seeing it in theaters. And every time I do anyway.
I absolutely loved the books, which, like so many other young people, I awaited and devoured. I think they’re a model of how to create and expand an imaginary universe, how to power an epic with keen characterization on all scales, and—most importantly—how to make an archetypal story feel new and vital. And as the books progressed, Rowling introduced a new level of thoughtful themes: sympathetic antagonists, a shallow news media, an Orwellian government, and a (timely) mood of life during wartime, as young people grow up to face an increasingly less secure world.
My problem with the movies is not a question of aesthetics or infidelity (or casting, for that matter, which is mostly as perfect as it gets). My problem is that the movies often feel less like free-standing narratives and more like theme park rides, where animatronic reenactments skim along the highlights of an already beloved universe. Not to slag them—theme park rides are popular for a reason, but they don’t often enough take on a life of their own. If anything, the movies reveal how Potter is, at its core, just another dark-lord-vs.-prophesied-hero fantasy. My favorite film so far was Prisoner of Azkaban, if only because it seemed the most adapted, brought the most charm of its own. But that’s more or less how I felt about movies 1, 2, 4, and 5.
And yet, with movie 6, I found myself enjoying it more than any Potter film since Prisoner of Azkaban. It’s smooth and fast without feeling (too) rushed, and it slows down (enough) for character interaction. Its effects are employed with creativity. Even the camerawork often feels imaginative, alternately playful and somber, courtesy of director David Yates. Perhaps it’s because the book is a transition and not a self-contained adventure, but the script at times (at least until the end) actually feels adapted: themes are illustrated, a climax is built up to. In its best moments, Potter 6, while not a masterpiece, is surprisingly effective.
The typically complicated plot of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, as anyone who’s read the book can tell you, finds even darker times descending on Rowling’s magical boarding school. An evil lord is on an open rampage, faith in Dumbledore—the comforting authority figure of the wizard world—has started to waver, and Harry is coming to the frightening realization that adults aren’t any more equipped to handle the problem than he is. And then there’s a new professor, a series of divulging flashbacks, a mysterious textbook, an assassination conspiracy, and really, if you don’t know, it’s easier to just read the books. 7 books, several thousand pages…once you get going, it should take about 2 weeks at most.
Not everything in the movie works, but what does work, works well: a fight in the bathroom, Harry and Dumbledore in the cave, the added slow-building framing device of Draco fixing the cabinet (hooray for adapting!), and several other moments that feel as well-realized as one could hope. Ditto the performances. Daniel Radcliffe is fast maturing into a charismatic leading man (even if his film character is just an archetype). Rupert Grint’s Ron gets more to do than be a token sidekick, the excellent Michael Gambon adds a shade of vulnerability, and Jim Broadbent, as the new addition, keeps up the every-famous-British-actor-ever pedigree. But Tom Felton’s Draco Malfoy, in particular, is a surprise stand out: sniveling entitlement (EVIL sniveling entitlement) gives way to overwhelmed fear, and Felton, his character given room, evokes the right mix of enmity and sympathy. All of which doesn’t mention crowd-pleaser bit performances by Evanna Lynch and Helena Bonham Carter, whose ultimate goth girl villainess seems unable to say anything unless she’s shrieking or whispering sultrily. If nothing else, the movie puts on a good show.
The most noticeable adapting decision is, of course, the focus on teen romance, which the film spends a lot of time (mostly successfully) mining for laughs. It is, I admit, a strange angle to choose: arguably the darkest of the books here becomes the movie that errs closest to a romantic comedy. As far as humorous soap operatics go, it works, but in retrospect it seems odd considering the wealth of material they could have focused on instead: the villain’s past, the titular Half-Blood Prince, the reign of terror inflicted on the outside world, and the set-up for the next movie, all of which are largely put aside. Much of the middle, then, is a snogging melodrama powered by charismatic actors. I can’t decide what that says about the film franchise’s purpose, but between the action sequences, soap operas, and lush F/X, it’s hard to shake the feeling that it’s still skimming, still missing the full narrative potency. When Snape reveals at the end, in dramatic close-up, “I am the Half-Blood Prince,” it hardly seems to matter—it’s just a moment from the book, weightlessly visualized. And when the film departs from the novel to ditch a fight scene, or set fire to the Weasley’s house, or blow the whole “is Snape evil?” question by having him appear next to Harry, I wasn’t sure I cared. The books are still the franchise flagship, this is still ancillary.
So ultimately I’m not sure where I land. In the theater, I enjoyed it for the smooth ride and lively show that it is, so much so it surprised me. But “enjoy,” perhaps, is still faint praise for a book series that made fans out of (most of) a generation. The pleasures of Harry Potter should be a bit more lasting; here, most evaporate when the lights come up. My hope remains that in 30 years or so, when the Potter book series has gone from a millennial sensation to a stone-cold classic, someone who grew up on the novels will remake the movies. But for two and a half hours at the multiplex, it shoots off enough sparks and doesn’t disengage.
3 out of 5 stars.