Significance Lost In The Prisoner of Azkaban

I finally saw the film version of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, and enjoyed it; I thought that they did a much better job of focusing on a more film-friendly storyline this time around rather than trying to recreate the book moment for moment. I also give the new director credit for finally daring to make the story SCARY. In the first two movies, Chris Columbus wimped out on the frightening parts of the plot, turning what had been good literature into saccharine children's theatre. This film, however, made a real effort to actually imbue SUSPENSE into the damn thing. Thank goodness the producers are finally beginning to step up to the plate and realize that Harry Potter isn't a warm and fuzzy book series, because Goblet of Fire, the next installment, gets seriously frightening at the end. Being my favorite book in the Harry Potter universe, I'll be pissed if they water it down. Similar to our current state of global affairs, the wizarding world is on the brink of war, and it is not supposed to be a friendly place.

Despite their progress in the levity department, however, the producers clearly made no consideration at all for the non-reading audiences as they were hacking merrily away at the plotline. People who don't bother to read the books (which is dumb in and of itself, but I digress) really missed out on a lot of key information in this film, such as the fact that Remus Lupin was one of the founders of the Marauder's Map (AKA "Moony") and that the other nicknames on the Map (Padfoot, Wormtail, and Prongs) referred to Sirius Black, Peter Pettigrew, and James Potter for their respective animagus abilities (turning into a dog, a rat, and a stag respectively). Perhaps the writers believed that this could be inferred from the film, but it's not even remotely clear. Audiences may guess that Lupin and Sirius were two of the names on the list, but they certainly wouldn't have known about Pettigrew and NOTHING about James and his transformative abilities. Also, by never explaining the fact that James Potter was also an animagus who became a Stag, then the importance of Harry's Patronus BEING a Stag was completely lost.

Also, although the Dementors were wonderfully scary, the movie never quite explained what it was that they do to people. Although this omission wasn't too grave, it made the scenes where Lupin offered chocolate to Harry seem weird. In the book, we know that the Dementors basically suck out anything good, happy, or fulfilling in the core of a person, and destroy souls by performing their horrible Kiss. Therefore, the cure for a brush with a passing dementor is to surround oneself with good, warm, happy, and fulfilling things - one of those being candy -- or more specifically, chocolate. With this understanding, Lupin's constant dishing out of treats makes sense, and even seems thoughtful, while in the movie his constant feeding of Harry was just. . . creepy.

Also, the film placed much more emphasis on the time-turner plotline than the book. Although this change was successful from a filmmaking point of view, it led the audience further away from the point of the story, which was to set up the Dementors, Sirius Black, and the animagus abilities of certain characters on the "chessboard." These important pieces will come into play later in the mytharc of Harry Potter, so by downplaying them, producers robbed the film of any greater significance to the overall storyline. Instead, the movie came across as "another brush with Voldemort" episode, which, had the book series chosen to go in this surface-level direction, makes for a much less engaging experience.

Finally, having a new actor playing Dumbledore was odd. Although he looked like Richard Harris, he sounded completely different and had a very unique take on his character. I didn't dislike it at all, but it was difficult not to be conscious of the change during the film. I'm sure as things progress and I get used to him as Dumbledore, then I won't be so easily distracted by it. Conversely, I thought that the acting by all three of the kids had improved immensely, especially in Dan Radcliffe, whom I've always considered the weakest talent of the trio. Perhaps working with all those amazingly talented actors like Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Kenneth Branagh, Fiona Shaw ( everyone must see her in Medea!), and Emma Thompson is finally starting to rub off on them.