MCN Blogs
Ray Pride

By Ray Pride Pride@moviecitynews.com

Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix (2007, ** 1/2)

A SPOOKY SMALL GIRL WITH WIDE, UNBLINKING, ALMOST PROTUBERANT EYES POINTS A WAND IN SPACE AND CONJURES A SPECTRAL HARE, wild and bounding, that energetically clatters and crashes across a hallowed space: more of this, please. In Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix, functional as narrative passageway from the things of youth to the damaging disappointments of adulthood and responsibility for its young charges, there is much motoring of plot phoenix_038.jpgfor the readers and viewers who find J. K. Rowling’s multi-billion-dollar enterprise worthy of deeper, greater and longer concentration. (An uncommonly obsessed Potterphile accompanied me to the screening, and the blanks she filled in later only reinforced the idea that this movie is not at all intended as a coherent, standalone picture for those who do not read children’s lit.)
The small girl is Evanna Lynch, an Irish nonprofessional, who, as the lore insists, badgered Rowling herself as to how ideal she would be as young “Loony” Luna Lovegood. Here is a performer who has only to lift her chin slightly to suggest not just an old soul, but an old soul that’s been stoned for eons on the finest of fumes and dandelion wine. Bonnie Wright, who has almost nothing to do as Ginny Weasley, is also a striking casting choice, but reportedly has much on her hands in the book-movie-heated conversations to come. And of course, there is the matter of Daniel Radcliiffe’s cheekbones, a weapon in their own right. Lynch’s delivery of the line “You’re just as sane as I am” approaches profundity, while “I hope there’s pudding” gathers both a child’s hope of satiety and a genial otherworldliness. Blissed out, seemingly stoned to highest heaven, her smile is bliss. (Every shot she’s in beats any frame of Helena Bonham’s ineffectual and Carter’s dispatched madwoman murderer, done in wild-maned polecat getup that resembles her husband, Tim Burton, on a day without caffeine.)


There’s a grill-bar on my block that’s more restaurant or local than sports bar, but the TVs are on, and one recent night, the backroom held Brazilian soccer fans; in front someone’s talking “our lineup” and “our pitching depth” while taking in baseball; and a Porky Pig voice is talking about clay courts for tennis. I felt the same way a few nights later watching this Harry Potter entry. There are codes and context and facts and ventures grooved along the runnels of the brains of the sports adepts or the Harry fans, but to an outsider, there is the occasional pretty picture or arresting image. The Order of the Phoenix opens nicely in a grassy patch of suburb and the grainy azure sky goes to gray, black, bleak and beyond like an apocryphal Gregory Crewdson tableau. Later on, nestled in the corner of a frame is the loveliness of a Christmas fir that bears its own personal snowfall. (Harry’s flash-frame visions of terrible things seems drawn largely from Ken Russell’s eye-blink edits in Altered States.)
Well enough in the margins: first-time director David Yates is a practiced BBC hand, whose output includes dramas Sex Traffic and the Richard Curtis agit-rom-weepie The Girl In the Café. There are a few glimpses of the characters in London, such as at Kings Cross and along the waves of the Thames, that open up the cloistered scenes of feigned magic and perfumed sentiment, more the making of pictures than of drama. Plot turns and character traits seem arbitrary and casual rather than rooted in comprehensible mythology or resonance with larger cultural artifacts and tradition.
Still, political metaphor rears its head as the characters await the apparition of the apocalyptic Lord Voldemort. Bureaucratic threats pile on like duck pecks, with standardized tests and talk of how of “disloyalty” will be punished and “security” is preferable to freedom. The boss of it all is relentlessly despicable and terribly unpleasant Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton), dressed in dowdy garb of fathomless puce and pink and mauve and rhubarb marmalade. (Radcliffe has referred to Umbridge as “a cross between Margaret Thatcher and Freddy Krueger.”) Umbridge invokes the name of the Ministry of Magic to issue picayune edicts the equivalent of students being told that “Bong Hits for Dumbledore” is forbidden speech. (Illegal forms of torture in order to retrieve information from children are also indicated as pro forma in the new world disorder.) The familiar faces from English acting that have littered the early films make modest cameos, with Alan Richman getting the most time to purr, as well as eye-blink glimpses of Ralph Fiennes, Robbie Coltrane, Maggie Smith, Julie Walters, Warwick Davis, David Thewlis, Fiona Shaw, Gary Oldman, Emma Thompson, Jason Isaacs, Richard Griffiths (very ill-treated), Brendan Gleeson, and the mutteringly magisterial Michael Gambon.
J. K. Rowling’s own story, it’s worth repeating, from single mother escaping the Glasgow chill to scribble her first book in warm cafes to keeper of her own queendom, generally holds more fascination than this glum thunderation. (The flurry of interviews and thumbsuckers keyed to the final book and to this film that you can find on the web is daunting.) Yates is set to direct the next film, before the violent climax of part seven, the beneficiary of the standing, practiced production, along the lines of the infrastructure the Broccoli family keeps together between the eons of Bond entries. It was a keen surprise to see that Yates chose as his cinematographer Slawomir Idziak, whose work includes Three Colors: Blue, The Decalogue, The Double Life of Veronique, Gattaca and Black Hawk Down. The darker palette (except for a late conversation where an elder explains a raft of backstory to Harry after several violent battles) does have a pictorial consistency.
Better than perfunctory, but hardly necessary, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix gets Warner Bros.’ bottom line from one fiscal year to the other with practical grace.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Movie City Indie

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon