Harry Potter et les reliques de la mort : 1ère partie

A sullen Minister of Magic Rufus Scrimgeour (Bill Nighy) sets the mood for this seventh and penultimate instalment of Harry Potter. "These are dark times, there's no denying," he intones gravely, pointing out the grim state of affairs facing the nation- murders, disappearances and raids- but reassuring the public, as any politician would, that his Ministry has it all under control. Of course, he is only bluffing, and it doesn't take long before the palpable sense of doom and despair convinces you otherwise.

Welcome back to the magical world of Harry Potter, one that began with wonder and joy, but has since become shrouded in death and darkness. Still visibly distraught from the death of his mentor Professor Albus Dumbledore, Harry is now tasked to continue with the mission of the late Dumbledore- to find and destroy the remaining Horcruxes (accursed objects containing fragments of Voldemort's soul). It doesn't get any easier, since Voldemort is nearing the height of his powers, and his bidders have infiltrated the bureaucracy to paint Harry as a wanted criminal.

There are fewer and fewer allies around- even those within the Order of the Phoenix may have since betrayed their ranks- and the first half hour quickly establishes the danger and urgency of the situation at hand. Members of the Order, including Mad-Eye Moody (Brendan Gleeson) and Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), attempt to escort Harry to safety- but even that mission is met with an attack from the Death Eaters, culminating in a dizzyingly exciting high-speed flying-bike chase that shouldn't disappoint fans looking for some action sorely missed in the last movie.

Indeed, naysayers who think David Yates doesn't know how to stage thrilling action sequences should think again, as he demonstrates amply that he is just as capable when it comes to staging them. He also displays an uncanny knack for milking suspense out of scenes- in particular, Harry, Hermoine and Ron's daring raid on the Ministry of Magic and their subsequent visit to Godric's Hollow, Harry's birthplace and home to Bathilda Bagshot, a magician and dear friend to Dumbledore. These brim with nail-biting tension, and Yates plays them out nicely to set your pulse racing at the end.

The crux of this film however lies in the relationships between Harry, Hermoine and Ron as they set off in the middle of the film across the bleak English countryside on their quest to discover the means to destroy the Horcruxes. On the run from Voldemort, the trio find the immensity of their journey taking a toll on them. Harry and Ron's friendship begins to fray as Ron grows suspect of Hermoine's affections for Harry. Meanwhile, Harry can barely conceal his frustration with getting no headway and starts losing his temper at Ron.

Infused with a profound sense of isolation and loss, this middle stretch in the film may be tedious for some impatient viewers, but fans will be rewarded with probably the richest depiction of the relationships between the characters since the first two movies. One scene where Harry and Hermoine suddenly decide to dance together to the tune of Nick Cave's The Children playing on the radio is lyrical in its depiction of their desperate attempt to find levity in a world that affords none. Yes, their friendship strong and deep since the beginning will be tested, and Yates delivers an emotional payoff towards the end of the film that is truly poignant.

Thanks to the decision to split the final book into two films, Yates doesn't hurry through these scenes. Instead, he allows the audience to experience the frustration, jealousy and uncertainty of his characters, and allows for Radcliffe, Watson and Grint to display some fine acting with the minimalest distraction from any visual effects. The additional time also turns out to be a blessing for fans and audiences, allowing them the opportunity to see their favourite supporting characters back on screen- most prominently of course Dobby the elf who returns to give the movie a touching finale.

Amidst the gloom, screenwriter Steve Kloves again provides for rare welcome moments of levity. Harry's escort mission is aided by magical decoys of Harry, one of them wearing a bra. To get to the Ministry of Magic, one needs to flush oneself down a toilet bowl. These occasional sparks of humour enliven a film that is otherwise ominous and menacing. Kloves however fumbles slightly with the lengthy expository, and those who have not read the book will find themselves struggling to catch up with the significance of certain characters (e.g. Sirius' brother, Regulus Arcturus Black) and certain events (e.g. Bathilda turning into a slithering serpent).

Still Kloves never had an enviable task to begin with, and Yates- at his most confident here- guides the proceedings along admirably, unfolding them briskly at the start, then settling in for a deliberately measured pace and finally picking up speed for as much as a climax as this first- parter can have. His assuredness also shows in his artistic choices, especially a wayang-kulit-like animated sequence telling the story of the Deathly Hallows.

Though we know better than to expect the grand showdown between Harry and Voldemort by the end of the film, there is still a distinct sense that what we have seen so far is only a build-up for something bigger and far more astounding. But even as a prelude, this seventh film is notable in its own right, a tense and thrilling experience darker, scarier and more mature than any of its predecessors

Up until now, I was convinced that from the 4th book onwards, Harry Potter-books had become too complex to make into film: Goblet of Fire was a sore disappointment. Order of the Phoenix left many Potterheads wanting more, even if it wasn't a bad film per se (personally I thoroughly enjoyed it, even though I felt they left out too much). Half-blood Prince -while visually stunning- did not capture the brilliance of the book. With "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows", I think the makers have finally succeeded in crafting a movie that was both fun to watch for casual viewers while also catering to the needs of the hard-core fans who know the books by heart. The decision to split the movie into two parts may be judged as a financial one by some, but I'm convinced it was the only possible way to make this work. The movie was cut off at the perfect time as well, having the viewers yearn for more without being too abrupt.

I don't want to give away anything, so I'll just say this: Hats of to you, David Yates. One can only hope the second installment will continue in the same vein...

If you've read all the Harry Potter books, then you should know that, as the series went on, they essentially became an allegory for totalitarianism. Certainly one can see that in "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1". Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson reprise their roles as Harry, Ron, and Hermione, respectively. The three are now having to live almost in secret due to the almost fascistic takeover of the wizarding world by Lord Voldemort's (Ralph Fiennes) minions. In fact, while the three are undercover in the office building, the factory looks like something out of Nazi Germany or Stalin's USSR: the employees robotically help to publish material which pushes a fear of the "other" (in this case Muggles, or non-wizards). Harry, Ron and Hermione are like the French Resistance, one might say.

Anyway, it's a good thing that they broke the final book into two movies. So far, they're doing a really good job not only bringing the magic to the screen, but also warning of the dangers that totalitarian entities - represented here by the Death Eaters - pose. I recommend it.

Tom Felton, Jason Isaacs, Helena Bonham Carter, Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane, Warwick Davis, Brendan Gleeson, John Hurt, David Thewlis, Timothy Spall, Imelda Staunton, and Julie Walters reprise their roles from the previous movies, with new additions Bill Nighy and Rhys Ifans.

Ever since the release of the first Harry Potter movie in 2001, I've wondered how a TV miniseries of the books would have fared. The movies so far have had difficulties showing enough of the books' events within a reasonable time slot to keep the story flowing. They've all had to omit significant plot points, which has not only disappointed the more literal-minded fans but risked the integrity of the story. This was most painfully evident in the fifth movie, "Order of the Phoenix," which awkwardly attempted to fit the longest Potter book into just 2 hours and 15 minutes of film. The result was a movie that felt choppy and barely coherent, almost dreamlike. The two best films up to now--the third and the sixth--worked in part because they took the most risks, often departing substantially from the narrative of the books, to the consternation of many fans. I was not one of the fans complaining, because I figured that as long as it wasn't a miniseries, the best approach was to interpret the story rather than present the events exactly as they appeared in the books.

Dividing the seventh book into two movies has given a taste of what a miniseries might have been like. "Deathly Hallows: Part 1" is a more faithful adaptation than any of the previous films. This surprised me a little, because the portion of Book Seven it covers is actually longer than the entirety of some of the earlier books. (As I was rereading it a few months ago, I correctly guessed where they'd end Part 1--it's at an important turning point in the story that occurs close to the two-thirds mark.) Most of the film's sequences are exactly as I had envisioned them, and sometimes better than I had envisioned them. I especially liked its approach to the Riddle-Hermione scene, to the matter of protective enchantments around their camp (which is handled with a nice dose of spookiness), and to a spell that distorts a character's face. Apart from the oversimplification of a few plot details here and there, any flaws in the story come straight from the book. The two-and-half-hour movie drags at some points, but then so did the book, particularly in the forest scenes. The plot concerns Voldemort's takeover of the wizarding world and pursuit of Harry, who goes into hiding with Ron and Hermione but repeatedly endangers them and himself in his daunting efforts to find and destroy a set of objects that keep Voldemort immortal, aided only by a few enigmatic clues Dumbledore has left him.

It is not a very accessible film for non-fans. People who haven't read or seen any of the previous installments will probably be lost. It never once pauses to explain the Harry Potter universe or anything about the background to these tumultuous events, not even a prologue like the one that began the third of Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" films. The good news is that it doesn't condescend to the audience. The bad news is that if you don't know or can't remember things like what a horcrux is or what happens when you point a wand at someone and say "Obliviate," you might have trouble following the story.

As a fan, however, I loved it. It's just well-filmed, and I had notably fewer complaints about acting and special effects than I had for the previous movies. The CGI is relatively unobtrusive, and there aren't too many fake-looking moments. (The house-elves look especially good this time.) Ralph Fiennes finally appears to have settled into the role of Voldemort, after having delivered somewhat phoned-in performances previously. The kids, who get to dominate more scenes than in any of the other films, when their presence was counterbalanced by a plethora of seasoned British performers who are mostly absent here, have really grown into their roles. They were well-cast from the start and always had a certain raw talent, but early in the series they possessed some of the amateur qualities common to young actors. They have become increasingly proficient as the series has progressed (which I suspect was what the studio intended when it eschewed the tradition of casting older actors in child roles). Here they display the kind of camaraderie that can only be developed gradually, after having acted together in several films, and it makes the scenes that deal with their relationship feel natural and unforced.

I actually look forward to seeing the movie again at some point, just so I can sit back and take in more of the details. I think I didn't appreciate it enough the first time, distracted as I was by my knowledge of what happens in the book and the lack of any significant divergence in the film's depiction. There is not a lot in this film that will surprise fans; the enjoyment comes from seeing how vividly it is all brought to life.

As Harry and Ron and Hermoine and everyone else has grown up, so have the audiences with the Potter franchise. So it should make some sense that by the time the seventh book has come around that it's coming down to the wire: the big showdown between Harry and the Man-We-Don't-Speak- His-Name, oh, whatever, Voldemort. It's usually that the mid-point movie (i.e. Empire Strikes Back) is the darkest one, but there was a quasi-dark ending to Half-Blood Prince, so it makes more sense that the filmmakers take Rowling's Deathly Hallows and turn it into what it should be: a ripping good apocalypse yarn.

I kid a little, but it is a movie with a lot of black contours and desolation, as the trio might be walking through the British version of The Road minus some of the gray-scale photography. That, and the main 'plot' being that Harry has to find the horcruxes, which are items that could be used by Voldemort for very evil purposes. But then the next problem comes as how to destroy them? It's this section of the film, after a very entertaining section where the three go in disguise as full-grown-ups (a funny and intense scene in the Ministry of Magic), that it gets into a rhythm that is not what one would expect in a big- budget holiday blockbuster. A lot of it is sitting around contemplating, waiting, trying to figure things out, and if the audience gets impatient it's not due to the filmmaker's making it bungled but because the characters are having trouble figuring it out too, and we feel for them.

Talking with my wife about the books in relation to the movies, I'm told that book seven is meant to be a character piece for a large part of it when they're in the woods (indeed it's something like a hundred pages of these woods scenes with the three, or sometimes two, of them frustrated in figuring out the symbols and suspense of running from the gestapo- like figures of the Dark Lord). But is Rowling as good at characters as she is at clever plots and intricate details of magic? Yes and no. Yes in that she makes good characters that we want to be around (for the most part, sometimes Ron gets on ones nerves), and no in that they are at best two dimensional figures, even with Harry, and there's only so much character to explore. But there are instances where one can excuse the tedium of some of these woods scenes. A moment where Harry and Hermoine have a levity pause and dance to music could be seen as extraneousness, but when it has the music of Nick Cave signing sad blues, why carp?

David Yates' direction has found after a few of these movies- Order of the Phoenix still the best of his efforts but not far ahead of this one- and he has a classical style as far as big-budget high-action-adventure movies go in Hollywood. He can let an actor's rhythm speak for itself, and he has a really wonderful scene for a whole mess of top-tier British talent (i.e. Ralph Fiennes, Alan Rickman, Helena Bonham Carter et all) in the opening scene at Voldermort's castle. When it's exciting such as a fast-paced chase in the sky, it's exciting, and when it needs to slow down there's still attention to be paid to what's going down. Only a few points that a non-book reader such as myself such as a wedding scene for a minor character from movies past and a few points of reference for a couple of items or characters get lost on me.

This is the kind of production that has great attributes and only a couple of damning liabilities, though the former outweighs the latter. There's a sequence where the story of the Deathly Hallows- how the three men who made deals with death for items and things- is told with a unique animation style that has silhouettes and figures that look like a Tim Burton special. It's one of the most breathtaking passages in any Potter movie, sophisticated to the point of impressing any serious fan of fable-storytelling. But the downsides... well, again, some of the pacing in those woods scenes are less than great. But more than that is a kind of curious aspect to the climax, which without spoiling much involves a character who we've only seen in one other Potter movie (I leave this non-spoiler for those who haven't read the books - those that do know what I mean already), and it's a tragic fate for the character. It's a fine moment of drama, but it lacks the punch that was likely there in the book as it's a character who is barely in the film itself and will need some memory-digging for the character's significance before.

But as far as movies where artistic integrity takes place over dumb-loud action and is able to weave visual fx with the practical side of sets and costumes and things with the CGI is very commendable. It's no wonder that Guillermo del-Toro came close to directing this movie, as it appeals to a sensibility that reads the fantastical and supernatural as part of the world, even if one can't see it quite at first. Oh, and the other downside I almost neglected... it's the first part of a two-part finale. It's like getting a half slice of a BIG epic movie, so it's still big, but half-big. But as far as half-slice epics go, it's one of the best in the franchise.