I should start by saying that this blog will most probably contain Harry Potter spoilers for both the sixth and seventh book. Although I doubt many people would read a HP blog post who had not read the books, I still thought it better to warn you.
So, today I was redoing the walls in my bedroom. When I redo my walls, it involves a lot of standing on the bed, making creative decisions, cutting bits of paper: you know, general merriment. And usually I couple this with a podcast catch-up. Today, it was the Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo Film Review podcast from Radio 5 Live. This detail is only important because it is, quite simply, the best hour of radio and as someone who lives in a household saturated in 5 Live, it is the only 5 Live Show I enjoy outside of my dad's company. Basically, you should all download the podcast. You will not regret it.
Anyway, this is all off-topic. While listening through the reviews of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince (which I would like to clarify was amazing, my favourite of the films so far and true enough to the book to retain the humour and the darkness), a point came up which I had noticed but was purposely avoiding dwelling on. I thought this film was magical, and therefore did not want to ruin my enjoyment of it by dwelling too much on the details (anyone who has ever watched a film with me will know I tend to dwell *quite* a lot).
The problem is in the ending. I will do this as quickly as possible: Dumbledore dying in the tower is slightly different in the book than in the film. While in both Harry is under his Invisibility Cloak and therefore unseen, in the book he had been stupefied and is thereofre unable to act in stopping Snape killing Dumbledore; whereas in the film, he simply 'chooses' not to. Of course, Dumbledore had made him promise not to and asked him to trust Snape. But still, Harry's choice to remain under the cloak is a exercise of free will. This may seem minor but it had one major effect - I did not cry.
I mean, I did. Anyone who has ever watched a film with me knows I would cry, but not at the same point I did in the book. What is so sad in the book is the frustration Harry feels about being physically unable to act. He is at one with the audience, together with us having to watch events play out of which we have no control, however much we might want to change it. As a dramatic decision, this pumps up the sadness and empathy to the max. This is mirrored in Sirius' death and the 'Black Veil' which Harry cannot cross and Cedric's, which came too quickly for any action to even be imagined by the mind of a grieving teenager. In the film, it is the score that made me cry and Fawkes (it was most certainly not Ginny's hugging of Harry considering her acting is worse than mine would have been).
This frustration about being unable to act is not a simply moment in the story, it is a theme of the books as a whole. Destiny. Harry is not in charge of anything that happens to him, anything he does; it was all meant to happen, it has been foretold in the prophecy. Although since this was not fully explored in Order Of Phoenix: The Movie, then it is no surprise this would not be considered here. But it is so important. As readers (I'll come back to film audience's in a minute), we know how much Harry feels like a fraud and always has done. Not dying at the end of the Killing Curse was not an action or proof of power but a fluke. In fact, most of Harry's 'triumphs' have, in his mind, been of luck and in fact, when he has tried to act heroically ('saving' Sirius at the Ministry), it was often backfired. Harry's free-will in this scene detracts from his destiny and raises a lot of religious questions which, frankly, the story does not warrant nor need. There are religious connotations to many HP arcs but this is not one of them.
If nothing else, this paints a very poor portrait of Dumbledore - something the films have done more than once (I am of course referring to his essential assault on Harry in GoF). Dumbledore knows Harry, maybe better than anyone, and should KNOW that Harry would want to act and, despite promising Dumbledore he wouldn't, how difficult it would be for Harry to remain in the shadows and keep his promise to his idol and mentor. To do that to a young boy whom you have just revealed a task which is essentially insurmountable is not fair, out of character and dangerous. Had Harry acted, it would have jeopardised Snape's position within the Death-Eaters as a spy and Harry's life which, if lost, would mean all knowledge of Horcruxes dying with him and any chance of peace for wizard kind. See, it is ridiculous that Dumbledore would do that.
Harry feeling like a pawn in someone else's game, and the insecurities in his own abilities that that brings, is vital to the playing out of 'The Deathly Hallows' and therefore, considering how pinnacle a moment Dumbledore's death is in this feeling, should have been explored faithfully to the story. More than anything, it makes the scene more heart-rending and gives the audience more of a chance to feel empathy for Harry who, in the films I suspect, is harder to empathise with. As a member of the audience who has not read the books (of course, here I can only speculate), I fear many feel the same as most secondary characters in the story do: that Harry is a hero, contantly saving the day. Whereas readers know he is a boy who has had a title of greatness thrust upon him before he can prove himself either way. However, it is a mistake to remove Harry's bravery in all situations (he would have acted against Snape had he been able, he is a Griffindor after all) as a shorthand for 'not as great as we think'. This is insulting to the character and the audience of non-Harry geeks who would have come to the same conclusion had Sirius' death been handled probably (but that is another blog for another time).
I can see the counter-arguments - Harry's seeming trust in Snape (as reflected in Dumbledore's trust) and choosing not to act because he thought Dumbledore was safe (which I doubt considering the words Snape was saying, their proximity to a long fall and Harry's inherent distrust of Snape) makes Snape's betrayal more poignant. Or not. Because I do not believe that Harry ever trusts Snape and, in fact, that is Snape's greatest asset to hiding within the Death Eaters. Had Harry ever trusted him, it would have suspicious for Voldemort and, if he found Harry had let him act out of belief he was good, Snape would have been dead. Fast. The betrayal Harry feels is therefore not of his own trust but of Dumbledore's, in some ways this makes him more angry with Snape and makes the betrayal *worse* because it has been done to a man wise enough to know better than to be betrayed.
Another argument that this will lead Harry to feel guilt. Well, probably not considering how much plot the next two films have but still - this 'guilt' is unnecessary. Harry has enough emotion what with no parents, the weight of the wizarding world on his shoulder, doubts in Dumbledore, doubts in himself, grief for over nine major deaths, worry for Ginny, worry for all the wizards he knows and loves, the ever present threat of Voldemort, no wand, no owl, no plan... I could go on.
Wow, this went on a long time. A lot of words to say 'what seems a small mistake is in fact a big mistake'. And, what's worse is how pointless a mistake it is: the spell would take less than 2 seconds to utter but make this world of difference. Let's hope they make less of these in the next two films - because after them, there will be no time to redeem them.
(I would like to reiterate that I loved this film despite this and other small mistakes [including Ginny's acting, lack of discussion on the Horcruxes and not enough development on the Harry-Ginny relationship to make it mean something] and will be able to watch it again without getting angry. You know, until the end.)
