Five things even I know about filmmaking (that the makers of Harry Potter don’t)

I went to see Harry Potter 7: Part 1 the other day.

I’m not sure why. I didn’t like Harry Potter 1, 4 or 5. (That’s not to say I liked 2, 3 or 6. I skipped them.)

This is strange to me, because I enjoyed the books, and I’m not one of those people who automatically hates film adaptations of their favourite novels. I think the movie is almost never as good, but that doesn’t make it worthless, and it’s always fun to see how the characters looked in someone else’s head.

Except with the Harry Potter films. These movies are well-acted, handsomely photographed, and beautifully scored, with terrific special effects - and yet, somehow, mind-bogglingly dull.

I think I’ve worked out what the problems with the franchise are. I may be too late, and filming on Harry Potter 7: Part 2 is already complete - but if it isn’t, and you’re working on the film, please pass this list along to the producer.

1: Length

Harry Potter 7: Part 1 goes for 2 hours and 26 minutes. This is slightly better than the average length of a Harry Potter film (2 hours and 29 minutes) but it’s a heck of a lot worse than anything Paul W.S. Anderson ever made.

If you want 90 minutes of AWESOME, this is the guy to go to.

Of course, some people complained that the Harry Potter novels were too long. I didn’t. It’s okay to have a long book, because you’re not expected to finish it in one sitting. You are, however, expected to watch a movie from start to finish without taking a break, so as a filmmaker, you have to make that possible for the audience. Who seriously has two and a half hours to spare in their day?

I did, last week. And I wasted it watching a bloody Harry Potter film.

YouTube has become so popular because even the 30 minutes it takes to watch a TV show exceeds the average person’s attention span by about 27 minutes. Hollywood needs to take notice of this.

Of course, a short movie isn’t automatically good. You also have to obey certain rules, such as:

2: The 3-act structure

Good movies aren’t just a bunch of stuff happening on the screen. Good movies spend the first third carefully introducing the characters and setting, the second third examing the problem they will be faced with, and the last third putting it all together in a climax. Each chunk has its own gradual build-up of tension, followed by a momentary release.

HP7: Part 1 was just a bunch of stuff happening on screen.

Pictured: stuff.

The film begins with a frenetic and barely coherent broom chase (like a car chase, but without orange carts to make it interesting) and then gets less and less interesting (an hour and a half of camping? Seriously?) This is the exact opposite of what is supposed to happen.

You could argue that the film actually had a five or six act structure. Perhaps it did, which would be fine, if it were a book. But a film has to be much more neat than that.

And when it comes to making a gradual build-up of tension, it helps if you understand:

3: The power of the unseen

The major drawcard of the Harry Potter movies is the special effects. Ghosts, elves, teleportation - people have read about these in the novels, and now they want to see how they look.

Here’s the problem. You know what’s scarier than a giant snake? Softly shifting darkness and a hissing sound.

Are you even trying to hide, Mr Snake?

Your imagination is more powerful than any special effect. This is why the monsters of the Harry Potter universe are most interesting when they’re only half-seen, or off-screen altogether. Most filmmakers would realise that. But this movie had a $250 million budget, so they had to spend it on something.

Filmmaker 1: “How about we save it for marketing?”

Filmmaker 2: “Why? It’s a Harry Potter movie. Everyone’s going to go see it, regardless of how few posters or trailers they’ve seen.”

Filmmaker 1: “Well, we could spend it licensing great songs for the soundtrack.”

Filmmaker 2: “Are you kidding? We already have a three-time Oscar nominee composing the score for us.”

Filmmaker 1: “I suppose we could give it back to the investors.”

(Both laugh)

Filmmaker 1: “Just kidding. Let’s blow it on lots and lots and lots of CGI.”

Filmmaker 2: “I’ve got it! We’ll remove Ralph Fiennes’ nose from every shot! That’ll cost a fortune!”

Filmmaker 1: “Brilliant!”

I suppose they could have spent the extra money hiring more actors. But the trouble with that is:

4: Too many characters spoil the broth

All great movies have one thing in common. Either they have a really small cast of characters (e.g. Castaway) or the cast is large but the movie focuses clearly on only one or two (e.g. Star Wars IV). This is because human beings can spare only a small part of our brains for storing information about fictional people.

HP7: Part 1 begins with Rufus Scrimgeour explaining to the wizard press that the Ministry of Magic will…

Wait. Back up. Who’s Rufus Scrimgeour? Was he in the last movie? Uh, never mind. Maybe that will be explained later.

Then Harry Potter has a dream in which Mr Ollivander is being tortured by…

Hang on, which one was Mr Ollivander? Is he new, or was he the guy who sold Harry his broomstick? Maybe it was his wand. Moving on.

Then we see some kind of dinner party, where the guests include Voldemort, Severus Snape, Peter Pettigrew, Lucius Malfoy, Draco Malfoy, Bellatrix Lestrange, Yaxley, Fenrir Greyback, Antonin Dolohov-

Hold it right there. Who are these people? Am I supposed to recognise them all?

Then we cut to Bill and Fleur’s wedding-

Who the heck are Bill and Fleur?

This trend hurts the Harry Potter movies more than anything else. The deaths of two of Harry’s friends in the broom chase should have been heart-wrenching, but instead, the audience just shrugs, partly because we’re not exactly sure who they were, partly because there’s plenty more characters to go around.

None of this would be a problem for someone who’d read the book recently, but it’s almost four years old now. You shouldn’t need a refresher course just to enjoy a movie.

Which leads me to:

5: A good movie shouldn’t be dependent on the source material

Statistically, you’re likely to have seen HP7: Part 1 (it took $864 million at the box office, so perhaps you saw it several times.) Let me ask you this:

Why?

Was it because you read a good review? Did the trailer intrigue you? Was there a producer or cast member whose work you particularly enjoy?

Personally, I loved Emma Watson in Attack of the Sith-Zombies.

Or was it because you liked the Harry Potter books so much, and thought you could relive them?

That’s it, isn’t it? Me too.

Jaws, The Prestige, The Godfather, Die Hard - all these movies were based on novels. But the filmmakers used concepts from the books to build completely new works of art. Whereas the Harry Potter movies are just retellings of the novels, completely dependent on them for popularity. They’re not art at all. Just more merchandise.

There’s a bright side to all this. Once HP7: Part 2 has come and gone, our memories of the films will fade - freeing up Britain’s dramatic royalty for more worthy projects - and the defining cultural event of Generation Y will be, once again, a book.

MITIFOTIT:
Most Interesting Thing I Found On The Internet Today

If you’re in the mood to hear people bitching about over-hyped films (and clearly you are, since you read this all the way to the end) you mind enjoy this serial killer’s review of Star Wars: Episode 1.

Download: FLVMP43GP