June 9, 2004

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

My main criticism of the Harry Potter films up to now was that they were controlled by a businessman instead of an artist. Though both were well worth watching and piled on plenty of charm, they never attained greatness because of the stilted direction by Chris Columbus, the hackiest hack in the history of hacks. I will never understand the studio logic that awarded the job to Columbus over his main competition, Terry Gilliam. Gilliam is the internationally known visionary who directed modern classics like Brazil and The Fisher King, and whose unique style seems a perfect fit for the series' baroque world of witches and wizards. Columbus is best known for Home Alone, Mrs. Doubtfire and Stepmom.

Luckily, Columbus decided to drop out for the third film so he could direct an upcoming project called NFL Dad that seems closer to his typical milieu (the studio says it's "about a temperamental head coach who ends up adopting a kid; by becoming a father, he learns to be a better man and a better coach and he takes his team to the Super Bowl." Hooray!). But even if he didn't quit, it would have been a wise decision to fire him. After only two films, the series seemed to be in an insurmountable rut. My girlfriend, who saw the first but skipped the second, asked me what she missed when we sat down to watch the third installment, The Prisoner Of Azkaban. All I could think of was an unexciting Kenneth Branagh character who doesn't return this time around, a poor man’s Gollum named Dobby who doesn't return this time around and a flying car that doesn't return this time around. Not to mention that these three new additions accounted for maybe 7 minutes of a 161-minute running time. Though it was an improvement over the first film in terms of developing its characters, much of it seemed like an excuse to show off big CGI spiders and snakes, adding nothing to the saga as a whole.

Though executives erred on the side of commercial concerns initially, their early mistakes are forgiven with this masterful third film, helmed by the genius Alfonso Cuarón. Though I expressed doubt that the gritty auteur behind Y Tu Mamá También could revert back to the kid-friendly mode that spawned A Little Princess back in 1995, he proves that he is a filmmaker who doesn't rely on heavy doses of sex or shock to impress. With every frame, Cuarón effortlessly attains the mystery, dread and awe of the stories that Columbus lacked the talent to bring out. There is a real darkness here, not a manipulative "spiders are scary" darkness, but the psychological darkness of a young boy whose parents were murdered who sometimes acts like he'd rather kill their killer than be reunited with them.

I thought Cuarón's contribution to the series would end at the classy kiddie style he brought to Princess, and while the slick, sumptuous visuals here mark a huge improvement over its predecessors, I was also reminded of Y Tu Mamá's subtle renderings of the confusion of adolescence. Though Harry doesn't shack up with an older woman, he's no longer the happy go lucky innocent he once was, and it will be interesting to see if the next film continues this arc.

Unlike Chamber of Secrets, there are lots of new things to like here. David Thewlis is a welcome addition to the cast as the dapper replacement for Branagh's character, and Gary Oldman is genuinely scary as a wizard Charlie Manson. The big special effects sequences, like Harry's encounters with a griffin and a shapeshifting creature, are particularly impressive for the simple reason that they try to convince us that we are not watching computer effects instead of depending on our suspension of disbelief.

Saying that this is the best Harry Potter film is like saying Meryl Streep is a better actress than Melanie Griffith. The real praise that can be bestowed on The Prisoner Of Azkaban is that it can proudly stand with any entry into the fantasy genre that Hollywood has ever given us, from Star Wars to The Lord Of The Rings.