Bolstered by a captivating performance from Daniel Radcliffe, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix serves up one visual delight after another for fans of the book series. Unfortunately, for those of us who have not read the books, the film fails to provide enough story information to go along with the spectacle.
*********MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!!***************
First Impressions
Right off the bat, I’ve got to let everyone know that I’m not a huge Harry Potter fan. It’s not that I hate the books, I just have never taken the time to read them. I did read the first book and thought it was OK (more of a tale than a story) and I have seen the first two films. I thought a majority of the special effects animation left much to be desired, but that the score by John Williams captured the essence of the young child/fantasy genre. In other words, I’m not really the kind of person who would wait in line past midnight for the next book.
But I do know some people who are (they live in my house), so therefore I respect that the stories and the characters have captured the hearts of millions.
For the most part, I enjoyed Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. It did seem to drag a bit throughout the middle (and I have a guess as to why), but for someone who is not a huge fan of the Harry Potter series I was relatively entertained. This was due in no small part to the performance by Daniel Radcliffe.
Because of my unfamiliarity with the subject matter, I found myself struggling to become a part of the story. Radcliffe’s performance was intriguing enough that I became emotionally invested in his throughline and thus, grew to care about the outcome of his personal issues. Again my wife, a tremendous fan of the series, was giggling throughout the entire film, so I recognize that my confusion came as a result of my ignorance of the Harry Potter myth.
Having said all that, the wizard’s battle at the end was worth the price of admission (a sequence that pretty much everyone universally accepts as being awesome).
But there were some parts that I felt were missing.
The Catalyst for Change
The thing that frustrated me the most about the story was that they introduced a perfect Impact Character for Harry, but then never used her.
When we first are introduced to Luna Lovegood (Evanna Lynch) we learn that she and Harry Potter share a common past — they both have witnessed death first hand. As a result of such a tragedy the two of them can see creatures that no one else can. This is a perfect setup for an Impact Character/Main Character relationship, something the Dramatica theory of story jokingly refers to as the “You and I are quite alike moment.” If you haven’t seen it yet, there is a great video montage of this relationship
The purpose of an Impact Character is to give the Main Character a reason for growing. It’s not enough to simply have a Main Character change their way of seeing things at the climax of a story. There has to be something that spurs a Main Character towards recognizing the real problems within them. The Impact Character fulfills this role by presenting an external representation of the Main Character. How many times have you looked at someone and thought, “That person is just like me”? Often times that similarity, combined with their different approach to life, is enough to make us question our own point of view. “If she’s just like me, then why can’t I be more like her?” This is exactly how an Impact Character works.
Most importantly though, this interaction with the Impact Character has to be something that happens over the course of a story - not something that happens right at the end.
In Order of the Phoenix, Harry does change at the end of the film, but his change seems to be one of dramatic convenience rather than the result of a well-crafted story. What we should have seen were several more scenes of Luna’s unique point of view and its impact on Harry. Both have seen death, but Luna seems to have a found a better way of adequately dealing with it. This world view, along with her unique relationship with Harry, would’ve worked better dramatically in providing Harry the impetus for change.
The purpose of an Impact Character is to give the Main Character a reason to grow
Instead of this kind of development, what we are given is the classic (almost cliched) montage scene of heartfelt moments Harry has had with his friends. As he lays before Voldemort, scenes of loving moments with his friends flash before him and provide Harry with the necessary ammunition to change. While I think this moment worked wonderfully for its intended audience, it felt a bit too convenient for this story on its own. I don’t feel it rang true for the rest of us who were coming to this story fresh.
In this way The Order of the Phoenix isn’t much different from Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ. Both films had audiences who brought important portions of the story with them to the theater. Gibson’s audience had their weekly Sunday religious services to bring while Rowling’s audience had thousands of pages of character development. In both cases, those who did not have a background in the subject matter were often left wondering why characters acted a certain way.
A Second Act Full of Molassess
But worse than leaving an Impact Character and subsequent Subjective Story Throughline out of a story is handing an audience both and then completely not developing them!
After their initial introduction to each other I felt certain that their passionate argument was going to center around their differing approaches towards dealing with death — something I did not expect going into a Harry Potter film. After their first introductory sequence with the Threstals, I couldn’t wait to see where their relationship was going to go.
Unfortunately I’m still waiting.
I think this is where my frustration and where my feeling of being stuck in story molasses came from during the entirety of the Second Act. My storymind had all the gears locked into place, yet had no road to run on. The expectation of development was there, yet it was not fulfilled. As such, I kept waiting and waiting for some more scenes of Luna with Harry. I felt they had a connection unlike any other in the film. Harry was struggling with his personal issues but didn’t have anyone there to aid his growth towards resolving them. It was quite a frustrating process to watch.
Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) seemed to take over every now and then as a sort of Impact Character, but his connection with Harry didn’t feel to me as dramatically unique as the one Harry had with Luna. It seemed more like it was resolving a relationship from the previous film1.
What was even more strange was that Luna and Harry had this Subjective Story concluding moment at the very end of the film. There’s a scene where Harry and Luna hold hands and share this moment as if to say to each other, “I understand what you’ve been through, thank you for your help.” So we start with a great beginning and end with an emotionally fulfilling ending. But what about all that important stuff in the middle?!
Without an Impact Character and a subsequent Subjective Story there is no catalyst for character growth.
As a result, Harry’s change seemed spontaneous and forced.
An Author’s Subconscious Intent
Hopefully some Harry Potter fans are still with me. If you are, then it must be driving you crazy how much of a big deal I’m making out of Luna Lovegood and her relationship with Harry Potter. You know that she doesn’t even come close to representing such a character in the original novel. Apparently (as I’ve been told) there is much more development between Harry and Voldemort than there ever is with Luna and Harry.
Again, I’m going with the film as it was presented to me.
As it turns out that the screenwriter, Michael Goldenberg, might have subconsciously been working towards developing such a relationship.
In the latest issue of Creative Screenwriting (Volume 14, #3), Goldenberg points out that:
“Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, more than previous adventures, is also a tale of what it means to be an outsider, a defining characteristic not only of Harry but of two characters [Luna and Sirius] with whom Harry can relate and whom Goldenberg found especially gratifying to write.”
This is very interesting, especially in light of my analysis above. If this report is accurate, we can imagine that Goldenberg’s pleasure in writing these characters came from the fact that they were so perfectly interlocked with Harry’s throughline; i.e., it’s natural to write such a relationship.
“[Luna] is really the other outsider not just in the sense that she’s short of shunned by the other students but also in that she’s experienced death firsthand,” a bond that Ron and Hermione cannot share with Harry.
What a perfect explanation of an Impact Character!
Goldenberg goes on to describe the scenes with Sirius Black and his chance at flexing his own “creative muscle.”
“There are moment and some scenes, ” he points out, “that aren’t in the book, or that are combinations of moments or scene in the book, that I put in to really establish the connection between them and the love between them.”
So Goldenberg felt compelled to “amp” up these moments. My interpretation of this is that in his effort to adapt the original source material his writer’s instinct called upon him to more fully develop an Impact Character Throughline and a Subjective Story Throughline. Unfortunately for me (and perhaps others who have not read the books) not enough effort was spent towards filling in these missing dramatic parts. More emphasis was placed on recreating events from the book rather than on creating a complete story.
Follow Your Instincts
Have you ever read something that you felt was written specifically for you? I have, in that same Creative Screenwriting article:
Goldenberg elaborates that, when he talks to writers just starting out, he observes “such a hunger to analyze and break down and figure out the rules or the formulas that you can lose touch with your own instincts.”
Uhhh, yeah, that sounds a bit familiar!
What can I say, analysis is fun for me and I really enjoy doing it. Besides, I think it helps to understand why something doesn’t feel right. In watching the film I honestly felt like the Second Act dragged on with little to no true character development. I was as frustrated as Harry was throughout that middle section. Now, this might’ve been a conscious choice - to make the audience feel the same things that Harry did. But to me, in analyzing the story, it seems more like certain key parts were missing.
If they had carried on with that relationship between Luna and Harry and developed it into something that dramatically resonated with the rest of the film, my analysis would’ve been one more of praise rather than a yearning for what could’ve been.
Analysis to me is a basis for successful creative expression. I want an audience to be able to feel and completely understand the meaning behind my narratives. A full and complete story is the foundation for that brand of artistic aspiration.
As Goldenberg says:
“ultimately, you have to put it [analysis and structure theory] all aside and then just get inside it and feel it, and write the movie you want to see.”
I couldn’t agree more.
Footnotes for this article
- Which I have not seen so I could be totally off on this one!↩
6 responses so far ↓
1 Richard Howse // Jul 27, 2007 at 1:06 am
Damn! You’ve ruined it.
No, I agree with you - that’s exactly what’s been missing. And not just from the Order of the Pheonix but from the final book - and short of spoiling it for everyone let me just say, that towards the end of The Deathly Hallows, when Harry prepares to meet death (come on, you all know he’s going to) the development that could have taken place between Luna and Harry is still missing in favour of reminiscences about the life his family had.
It’s a very good point you make, and something that speaks more of Rowling’s writing than Goldenberg’s adaptation. If you read the books (and they are quite good) you’d find that much of what happens, particularly the deaths in the last one, seem to occur more out of the writer’s want to clear the decks than anything that develops emotional impact or drives the plot forward - in fact most seem to happen off the page and we’re told about them later! Anyhoo, fell off topic there.
2 Graham // Jul 27, 2007 at 3:07 pm
James - I came to the film with about the same level of familiarity as you did, and I feel pretty much the same way about it, too. It’s entertaining enough, but not nearly as fulfilling as you want a story to be.
3 Mia // Aug 15, 2007 at 11:36 pm
There is a complete subjective throughline in this film. The problem is that it’s spread out between at least seven different characters, none of whom get more than a scene or two to impact on Harry.
First up is Luna, who, in the scene where she and Harry feed the thestrals, tells the distressed Harry how she got over her mother’s death by focusing on the family she’s got left. Next is Sirius, who, in the Christmas scene, allays Harry’s fears that he is becoming evil by promising to build a real family with him once the war is over. Then comes Snape, who, in the Occlumency scene, taunts Harry to control his reckless emotions, and compares Harry to his father. Followed by Hagrid, who, in the scene with Grawp, stops the defeated Harry from giving up by reintroducing the importance of family. Then there’s a few bits with Ron, Hermione and Neville reminding Harry that they are in this together. The sight of Hermione and Ron is what ultimately gives Harry the power to defeat Voldemort. And finally, the last scene is with Luna, who talks about her mother once again and shows her positive frame of mind towards death.
Luna appears the most likely candidate for impact character because she gets the first and last links in this chain. But each character impacts on angry Harry by bringing up the idea of family.
This sort of “mass impact character†is present in all the Harry Potter stories. The advantage of this approach is that J.K. Rowling can flesh out her detailed world with a gigantic cast, each of whom gets a moment or two in the spotlight. The disadvantage of this approach is that the emotional storyline feels hotchpotch, disjointed, and lacking. The final moment when Harry looks at Hermione and Ron and finds the strength to fight feels contrived because neither character has been carrying the emotional storyline up until that point. Harry’s change feels baseless.
It’s not impossible to do serial impact characters or group impact characters well. But it requires unity. The ghosts in A Christmas Carol work because there is a real continuity to them. Luna, Sirius, Hagrid, Hermione… these characters have nothing in common. Focusing the emotional storyline onto one character strengthens it, and gives weight to the ultimate change.
Harry Potter has a subjective throughline. But it is obscured it behind an epic ensemble detailed world. This imaginative world is part of the reason why the stories are successful. But when adapting the books to film, the complex world is inevitably simplified, and the absence of a well-founded emotional throughline is exposed.
4 Jim // Aug 15, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Wow! What a great comment. I had thought there was a bit of a handoff to Sirius but neglected to fully realize the influence from the other characters you mentioned.
This comment, and the recent article by Stephen King in Entertainment Weekly, really makes me think I’m missing out on something grand by not reading these novels.
Thanks again for contributing!
5 Mia // Aug 17, 2007 at 3:20 am
If you can’t recognise the emotional throughline until someone points it out to you, have the storytellers done their jobs? In the Harry Potter films the pieces are usually all there, but there are no connections between them. The books overcome this problem simply because there is always someone to explicitly point things out and pull them together: Harry himself, who’s internal thoughts we experience. In the book version of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Harry thinks very unambiguous things like, “There you go, Sirius. Nothing rash. Exactly the opposite of what you’d have done.†Ding! Ding! Ding! My “You and I are nothing alike†alarm bells are waking up the neighbours. There are countless other occasions where Harry’s narration creates links between elements, keeping the “mass impact character†cohesive.
The idea that all main characters need an external manifestation of themselves is essential for screen stories. In an era when the convention of voice-over narration is ridiculed, unless the emotional throughline is converted into dramatic action or dialogue, it can’t be communicated to the audience. The main character needs an externaliser, or their personal issues remain trapped inside their heads. But the conventions for novel writing are so very different. Being able to get inside the characters’ heads is a celebrated feature of novels. The role of the impact character is frequently taken on by a different part of the main character, and we witness the passionate argument taking place directly inside their mind.
This is part of the reason why Harry Potter succeeds as a book, but is lacking as a film. The first Harry Potter book is about a boy who thinks he is nothing, who is then burdened with increasing expectations. First he is told he is a wizard, but not just any wizard, the son of two amazing wizards. Upon entering the wizarding world he discovers he is incredibly famous, and has already defeated a Dark Lord. Everyone expects greatness of him, but he still thinks he’s just some loser. He is motivated to prove to the wizarding world that he’s more than just some kid who got lucky. Eventually the fate of the whole world rests on his shoulders. He accepts the responsibility and he succeeds in carrying it.
Some of this argument is presented through conversations or external actions, but it mostly occurs inside Harry’s mind as he lays awake in bed. Harry becomes both sides of the “I’m nothing†vs. “I’m a hero†argument. Living inside a character’s head as he debates his personal problems back-and-forth is another way to unify all the disparate sources influencing him. From one perspective, the impact character in Harry Potter is everyone in the whole story. From another perspective, the impact character is Harry himself.
The easiest way to translate this to film would have been to take the internal argument and turn it into a series of conversations between Harry and Hagrid. But the filmmakers suffered the curse of the dreaded “faithful adaptation†and didn’t have the power to radically change the narrative. So the subjective storyline was mostly ignored.
To successfully adapt a novel to a film, a screenwriter must be an expert in both audio-visual and prose storytelling. They must first recognise the ways the emotional argument is encoded verbally, and then translate it into events. This is why nearly all film adaptations of novels are inferior. The broad events gets translated accurately, but the emotional heart of the story gets overlooked because it is encoded in words, not drama.
The subjective storyline of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix the book is much more apparent, but also less sophisticated. The book features the same debate between control and recklessness, but without the theme of family undercutting it. Half the cast make Harry angry and impulsive, the other half tell Harry to be more disciplined, but there never tell him how to do that. The film improved this so much, drawing out the idea that holding onto family is what helps you manage anger and other uncontrolled emotions. Michael Goldenberg added poignant thematic moments to scenes that functioned in the book only as exposition or comedy. For instance, the great scene with Luna in the forest doesn’t exist in the book. It is Hagrid who shows Harry the thestrals during a lesson along with 30 other students, while vicious Umbridge tags along and derides Hagrid’s teaching methods. It has none of the emotional weight it does in the film. The only proper Harry-Luna exchange doesn’t happen until the whole ordeal is over (the scene in the corridor at the end). Likewise, the scene with Grawp is mostly a deus ex machina set up. Harry isn’t touched by Hagrid’s concern for “the only family he’s got left†at all, finding the notion of looking after a giant ludicrous.
If you’ve already seen a few Harry Potter films and read one of the books, it may be that Harry Potter just isn’t your thing. If you are thinking of reading the books, the main problem to look out for is pacing. There is a complete story in each instalment, but it takes forever to wade through the diversions and subplots to get to it. Similarly, the series-long story is drawn out over seven books, and always seems to be spread too thinly. With hope, in 50 years or so the books will be made into films by someone who has the power to question fundamental aspects of the story. Is there really seven films worth of good story here? Could I tell it all in one?
The Harry Potter stories are far from flawless, but they’re easier to appreciate if you understand that prose storytellers have the capacity to encode subjective throughlines in a way completely foreign to audio-visual storytellers.
6 Chris Huntley // Aug 20, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Mia — Marvellous posts. Very insightful, well thought, and beautifully communicated.
– Chris
Leave a Comment