07.16.09 By: Sci-Fi Squad Staff
By: Eric D. SniderThe release of a new Harry Potter film always means a deluge of complaints about how it failed to exactly duplicate every single word of J.K. Rowling's sacred text, and Half-Blood Prince is no different. (Adam Quigley from Always Watching tweeted this amusing screenshot of the IMDb message boards Wednesday morning that sums it up pretty well.) Not having read the book since it came out four years ago, I didn't remember it in great enough detail to notice any major changes in the movie -- until the climactic scene in the tower, when something did stand out. And it stands out as an improvement over the book.
Spoilers for the book and the movie follow!
As readers well remember, that scene has Draco Malfoy confronting Dumbledore with the intention of killing him, as ordered by Voldemort. In the book, Harry is under the invisibility cloak at this point, so no one knows he's there, and Dumbledore has stupefied him so he can't act. Then the Death Eaters and Snape come along, and Snape finishes the job that Draco can't muster the courage to perform. Harry is powerless to do anything until Dumbledore is dead, which cancels the stupefying spell.
The movie plays out essentially the same way but with one key difference. Instead of being stupefied and invisible, Harry is hiding silently below the floor where the action is happening. Why? Because Dumbledore told him to, having already extracted from Harry a promise that he would obey whatever directions Dumbledore gave him.
I didn't see anything wrong with the way the book had it, but I instantly felt this change was an improvement. It means that instead of being powerless to save Dumbledore, Harry instead makes a conscious choice to obey his mentor's instructions. Heroes who choose to act (or not act) are always more interesting than heroes whose actions are determined for them.
Of course, even in the film Harry doesn't stand idly by while Dumbledore is killed. He bides his time down below, as instructed, while Draco and the Death Eaters make their threats, and when Snape arrives and does the deed, it happens too quickly for Harry to react anyway. The point is, the whole reason Harry isn't involved in the scene is that he chooses not to be, not because he had his free will taken away from him by magic. It's a deviation from the book, but I think it's an improvement. What do you think?
Filed under: News/Reactions, Discussion Posts, Movies We Love
Tags: assassinations involving invisibility cloaks, AssassinationsInvolvingInvisibilityCloaks, harry potter, harry potter and the half-blood prince, HarryPotter, HarryPotterAndTheHalf-bloodPrince
The Silent Dirgeat 7-16-2009
The way it plays out in the movie would cause Harry to blame himself for Dumbledore's death, since Harry just stood there and let it happen. He apparently doesn't blame himself, though. It makes no sense to me...
Susanat 7-16-2009
I disagree. He was silent because 1. Dumbledore told him to be, and 2. Snape showed up. Snape whom Dumbledore had just told Harry moments before to go get, and to tell Snape and only Snape what was happening. It showed he trusted Dumbledore's judgement of Snape, who then killed Dumbledore before Harry could react.
soysauce321at 7-16-2009
I agree. I never read the books, but from this description, the movie's version is much better. Now Harry has to face his decisions instead of blaming them on someone else.
MovieOpinionistat 9-04-2009
I don't manage how can you not see the lack of logic and the huge gaps in the film?
tastyburger08at 7-16-2009
There is nothing wrong with your reasoning for this change, but there was a huge mistake with this scene. Snape sees Harry underneath and then shushes him and goes up. The problem with this is that Harry and the audience were supposed to leave the sixth installment hating Snape with every fiber of their being. That part shows that he isn't an evil, back-stabbing Death Eater. The way he acts makes the audience not feel the anger their meant to.
revdradamat 7-17-2009
To someone who hasn't read the book, Snape's shhhing just makes it seem like he tricked Harry. It wouldn't tip off anyone who didn't already know.
Xerxesat 7-17-2009
How does him betraying Harry's trust paint him as not backstabbing?
Kevinat 7-20-2009
Of course its meant to instill a sense of trust in both Snape and Dumbledore. If Snape was a bad guy then why would he caution Harry to be silent, and then later save Harry from the other death eaters? He could've just killed Harry when he snuck up on him. Instead he warns Harry to be silent so that the others won't see him. I haven't read the books or seen any of the other movies (except the first one), but if thats not the reasoning behind Snapes actions then the movie simply defies belief. He and Dumbledore must have some predetermined scheme, and I'll be pretty surprised if he we don't hear about it and have everything worked out in the next one.
H-townat 7-31-2009
Snape shushing Harry was not a mistake, and you're making a huge assemption in asserting how the audience is "supposed" to feel about Snape. Snape's true loyalty was a matter of fierce debate before the final book came out, with many readers refusing to believe Snape was evil, in part because even Snape's own words could not explain away his numerous deeds on Harry's a Dumbledore's behalf. So if the audience is "supposed" to hate Snape, why did so many not hate him, and argue correctly as to why he must be on the right side? Could it be that they picked up on the subtle clues that Kloves emphasizes even more in the script? This is just an extra bit of ambiguity for filmgoers to argue over until the final film comes out.
Jeremy Laceyat 7-16-2009
Actually I'd whole-heartedly disagree with this. Harry wasn't stupified in the book, Dumbledore used Petrificus Totalus on Harry to immobilize him. This is important because Dumbledore sacrificed his chance to defend against Draco to stop Harry. Along w/ listening in on Snape and Dumbledore's conversation before retrieving the Horcrux, and this change with Snape, his ambiguity, which is the crux of the 7th book, is diminished along w/ the emotional impact.
bearxorat 7-17-2009
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm curious.
With Harry hiding under the floor and not needing to immobilize Harry, does Draco still disarm Dumbledore?
Also, I didn't leave the 6th book hating Snape. In my opinion it was very clear in 'Flight of the Prince' that Snape was trying his best to teach Harry what he needed to do while he was running away ('keep your mouth shut and your mind closed'). I was the only non-hater of Snape that I knew at the time.
meenakshim28at 7-17-2009
hii
Madisonat 7-17-2009
Well if you all would read the 7th book then this would all make obvious sense .
JeffreyVCat 7-19-2009
My biggest problem with the ending of this film was not the Snape bit, but the fact that the Death Eaters spend the ENTIRE film trying to get into Hogwarts, then when they do, they blow up some windows and leave. In the book (from what I hear) there was at least a battle that forced them out. In the movie, they just left to go and blow up Hagrid's hut (guess they don't like him). It was stupid. Snape and Malfoy, which were already inside the walls, were going to kill Dumbledore.
Not to promote my own content here: but my full thoughts are readable here: http://www.cinemasoldier.com/articles/2009/7/15/review-harry-potter-and-the-half-blood-prince-12.html
I am not a huge fan of this movie. I think it lingered too long and then made too little a deal out of the finale. This is from someone who has ONLY watched the films.
Seanat 7-20-2009
By the description it sounds like it was WAY better in the movie (which I saw) than the book (which I haven't read yet). I got tired
of the invisibility cloak a long time ago. It's way too conveinant... and the thought of Dumbledore using the stupyfying spell on Harry
doesn't sound right and the whole combination of the two seems like a plot contrivance and lazy writing... Also, for the one that said
Harry doesn't blame himself for Dumbledore's death, you obviously didn't watch the last scene of the movie.
MovieOpinionistat 9-04-2009
The whole movie was filled with gaps and left out crucial parts. Where the book focused on the "HALF-BLOOD PRINCE" as the title refers, then the movie focuses on the teenager relationships.
..I just know they're going to make a soap opera of the 7th movie..