From Page to Screen: 'Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban'
Filed under: Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Warner Brothers, Harry Potter, From Page to Screen
Few adaptations have been pored over and scrutinized for adherence to cannon as intensely as the Harry Potter films. Every omission and deviation gets pounced upon immediately. Speculation ran rampant that each of the later, longer volumes would be split into two films to accommodate J.K. Rowling's sprawling storylines, until it was finally announced that the last book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows, actually will be. In a few weeks, I'll take a look at the prospects for David Yates' Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, due this November. This week, I want to look back at the sole Potter installment to date where the film not only did right by the book, but expanded it, improved it, brought it to life. And that would be Alfonso Cuarón's Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.
I'm usually lavish in my praise for the film; I'm fond of saying that I like it better than Cuaron's purportedly more "serious" works like Children of Men and Y Tu Mamá También. What I don't often get a chance to mention is that I'm much less enamored of the novel on which it's based. Don't get me wrong -- Rowling's Azkaban is still Harry Potter, and as such it's fast, and funny, and filled with all sorts of wonderful, world-building detail. But when I read it, shortly after tearing through The Sorcerer's Stone and The Chamber of Secrets, I couldn't help but be a bit disappointed. It seemed a little contrived, I thought, and overdramatic; a little cheesy. The climax involved a lot of ALL-CAPS YELLING to signify big emotion, the whole thing feeling like it was about to turn into a wizard soap opera. And I remember rolling my eyes at the time-travel, which felt like a cheat despite being gracelessly telegraphed a dozen times.
So what went right? How did my least favorite Harry Potter novel become the crowning achievement of the franchise, book or film? It wasn't really the screenplay by Steve Kloves (the screenwriter of every movie in the series except Order of the Phoenix), which is solid and does most of the right things, but is also basically par for the course. Instead, Azkaban is elevated by a set of brilliant and inspired moves on the part of Alfonso Cuarón, proving that all the hand-wringing over who directs Harry Potter has been justified, after all.
Most crucially, Cuarón lets the characters – especially Harry, Ron and Hermione – spread their wings and function outside the confines of Rowling's plot. The pleasure is in the details, the little stuff: the way Ron grabs Harry's shoulder and turns him around when Draco Malfoy and the Slytherins start their taunts; the way Harry instinctively shields Hermione with his body when the dementors start circling in the film's frightening climax. The scene where Harry goes for a ride on the hippogriff moved me to tears, because it's not just a frivolous CGI frolic – it's Harry's momentary, joyful solace from the harsh reality that awaits him below. In Cuarón's hands, the characters behave like people, like teenagers, and like friends. Rowling is often able to accomplish this in her novels via the omniscient narrator, but that's hard to replicate on the screen if all you're doing is transplanting the book's storyline. Cuarón took the time to translate the characters' humanity into the language of cinema.
Along the same lines, the climactic confrontations in and around the Shrieking Shack don't threaten to become ludicrous. The same fierce anger is there, but now it's plausible, because throughout the movie Cuarón allowed Harry to get angry – to yell and rage and kick furniture – as everyday teenagers might, and not necessarily just as the plot required. (Even Rowling was never really able to pull this off.) It's also Daniel Radcliffe's finest moment as an actor; he does anger and dismay much better than the resolute heroism that the other films have mostly demanded.
Cuarón's second most impressive accomplishment is making Hogwarts feel like an actual physical place, with a determinate geography. He accomplishes this partly through his penchant for lush, beautiful long takes, a technique that lets screen spaces retain their geographic integrity much better than a barrage of cuts, and partly through simple paying attention. Chris Columbus' versions of Sorcerer's Stone and Chamber of Secrets made Hogwarts very picturesque and impressive, but it was not until Azkaban that I felt like I had a feel for Hogwarts as an entity (at least beyond the image I had from reading the books).
Aside from being valuable in its own right, this goes a long way toward making the elaborate time-traveling third act coherent, and even rousing. When the characters spend significant amounts of time stalking themselves around the Hogwarts grounds, doing their best not to be seen, it helps tremendously to have a sense of where they are in relation to each other (themselves?), where they've come from, and where they're going. What in the book seemed kind of like a poorly foreshadowed stunt becomes genuinely suspenseful, a highlight of the entire franchise. And it's all because of how rigorous Cuarón is, how careful, how precise.
The end result is this: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is the only one of the Potter films that breathes independently of the source material. It's not the most faithful adaptation, or the most "complete" one, but it's far and away the best. Cuarón understands the story, and he understands the characters – their personalities, their angst, and their pain. But most importantly, he understands movies. I like all the Harry Potter films – by and large, they all do an adequate job of putting Rowling's books on the screen, and the books are pretty darn good. But Azkaban is the only one that breaks free and reaches for greatness on its own.
Related Headlines
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. I have to totally disagree with your take on the movie and book. The book is in my opinion the best of the series, closely followed by Half-Blood Prince. The reason is simple. None of the other books so effortlessly maintained breakneck pacing, while still developing characters, particularly Harry and his relationship to his deceased parents. The tone is wonderfully dark. And for once (much like HBP later on) Voldemort doesn't physically show up. He is a shadow. A distinctly evil possibility, or even inevitability. That makes his influence on the book that much stronger.
The movie, while directed extremely well, suffered from the writing. I don't care so much about adhering to the books. My favourite film in the series has to be OotP, and that one cut out loads of stuff. The problem with PoA is that it cut out crucial character development. The relationship between Harry and his father is barely explored, and they drop the whole plot about the marauder's map. Also, the film didn't seem to quite get the tone of the book quite right. And again, that is not a comment on the direction, because the direction actually helped push it back toward the right path. The problem, once again, lies in the writing. There is almost no emotion in the film. And whatever emotional scenes there are are terribly handled. Really, the only thing I can say good about the film is that Cauron took the series in a wildly different, and far better direction with his work. It set the stage for GoF and OotP, which are both great. I am eagerly looking forward to what Yates does with HBP. I hope it lives up to the spirit of the novel.
Posted at 11:58PM on Jun 11th 2008 by Corey Atad
3. I have to completely disagree (course my comment sorta does in itself) with your assessment.
OotP was absolute garbage. Not quite as much as 4 but nonetheless. POA, if I recall correctly, had much more input from Jo than the others. Yes, I'll grant you that POA does have faults story wise, but which one doesn't? That's the difference between mediums.
Moreover, 5 doesn't touch on half the storylines that play a crucial part later. And Sirius' death? Really? That was done well? The fight? Blurs on screen? The statue is non-existent and instead we have glass flying places. OotP was atrocious. And I think one of the reasons was Kloves departure. He at least had a coherent story throughout the first 4, regardless of what he omitted. In 5, they chopped and added things together without any regard for precedent.
5 also has very little emotion. A criticism you say POA has none of. Now, I'm with you if you thought POA's crying scenes were horrible. That's because Daniel can't cry to save his life. Anger is his strong suit. And as the original post points out, it's the small character things that are important. It's the small things that build character. 4-5 don't have an ounce of them. And, I don't count Cho as one of them. That was pathetically played.
Posted at 12:12AM on Jun 12th 2008 by Kyle
4. I hear what you're saying, but you're completely wrong.
Let's start with the fact that Sirius' death was handled way worse in the book. Also, let's not forget that in the third film Sirius was not developed properly. His relationship with Harry never made total sense. That would be because of the actual important stuff they cut out. Because it never made sense we didn't feel a particularly strong connection to him as a character. When he died in that blur it was made worse because we never totally cared about him.
And it's true that 5 doesn't touch on a lot of things that become important later, but clearly neither did 3. And at least 5 got the tone of the book right and then went on to improve it by shortening it and quickening the pace.
The Cho thing was a bit lame, but the emotion was there. Harry was upset and angry. That was basically what book/movie 5 was all about. And it was played very well. Very well indeed.
Posted at 1:56AM on Jun 12th 2008 by Corey Atad
5. >>>>>There is almost no emotion in the film.
To each his own, of course, but I think this is nuts. There's more emotion in 'Azkaban' than in any other 'HP' film, or any 'HP' BOOK. I tear up just thinking about parts of it.
Posted at 8:11AM on Jun 12th 2008 by Eugene Novikov
6. You nailed it. (Though I disagree that it was the worst book, because in my opinion, #2 takes the cake for that.)
It's hands down the best Potter movie. And for all the right reasons, as you've said. Ironically, like Erica said, it is the most reviled movie of the series. Yet nothing comes close.
In 1 & 2 you set the cinematic fanbase of kids with the good versus evil, happy go lucky feeling. It's euphoria and utopia. To be sure, they pretty much mirrored the books in tone.
Then in 3 it got dark, as with the books. Fear was introduced. Puberty was introduced. Things started to build and unravel. Euphoria was replaced with seriousness. And this is why 3 stands out. It's the perfect balance.
However, 4 came along and you had the maze eating people. You had no character building. You had a dragging plot. It was the antithesis of 3.
Then number 5 came along and all they did was replace the human element of 4 and add special effects. Hell, the special effects didn't even follow the book. (Why do CGI glass when you can do a CGI statue that moves (as in the book)?). 5 did gain a leg up because it actually explored some of the characters. The DA sequences were nicely done. Fred and George were done pretty well. Small things.
And that's what it boils down to: the small things. And that's why I don't think 6 is going to be very good. Yeates has yet to show he can pay attention to small things. He just throws up CGI.
Posted at 12:05AM on Jun 12th 2008 by Kyle
7. POA is my favorite movie as well, but it's also tied for my favorite book. I cried during the hippogriff flying scene for the same reason. Plus, John Williams's score, particular for that scene, was amazing and brought out the emotion that Cuaron brought out. I wish he was doing part 1 & 2 of Deathly Hallows... :(
Posted at 1:15AM on Jun 12th 2008 by Christina
8. THANK YOU!! I have been saying for the longest time that POA was my favorite movie of the Harry Potter bunch, and now you have eloquently written about why it is my favorite. But I must say that the book is also one of my favorites, so I disagree there. My only qualm with the movie is that they didn't explain how Lupin knew who the Marauders were or how he knew how to read the Marauder's Map. They could have taken out some of the pacing scenes (the little bird that flew into the Whomping Willow) in order to explain that vital information. If they're going to take the time to introduce the Map in the first place, they might as well explain everything about it. That's the Potter Head in me talking...
Posted at 1:44AM on Jun 12th 2008 by Erin
9. I agree and disagree with you... I think 'Prisoner of Azkaban' is the *best* adaptation of the *best* Harry Potter book! Alfonso Cuaron is brilliant and I wish, I seriously wished that they had taken some sort of fan poll as to who the fans would want as the director for 'Deathly Hallows'. I think most would've gone in favour of Cuaron! Thanks for pin-pointing exactly how Cuaron's directorial vision contributed so much in making this the best HP film. Hogwarts truly came to life in this film and everything from the Dementors, Gary Oldman's brilliant Sirius Black, Buckbeak and the Marauder's Map was brought to life beautifully making this, at least for me, the most magical Harry Potter movie experience! I've written a review of it on Imdb:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0304141/usercomments-1475
Thanks!
Posted at 4:00AM on Jun 12th 2008 by Leena
10. This movie also featured an amazing score that resulted from the collaboration from Cuarón and John Williams, it's by far the best of the series and it really enhanced the atmosphere and the most iconic sequences of the book. I really wished Cuarón directed Deathly Hallows, specially after the experience from Children of Men; he's truly a gifted and original director that creates beautiful visuals that match the excellence of the books.
Posted at 10:11AM on Jun 12th 2008 by Antonio A
11. I completely agree with your assessment of the movie. It is definately the most cinematic, taking out pieces of the book that would have been clunky onscreen. There is actually a lot of dialogue lifted directly from the book, which people always seem to overlook. I read the book immediately before seeing the movie for the first time and was pleasantly surprised by how well they adapted the dialogue. I can't understand how the third movie seems to be the most hated amongst my fellow potter fans. The fourth and fifth movie had far worse adaptations. After just rewatching the fourth film, I couldn't believe how little they developed Cedric's character. In the book, he was at least given enough "onscreen" so that the reader could be really affected by the ending.
I wish Cuaron was coming back for the final movie. He would do a great job. I am a bit angry that they decided to split the final book, rather than the fifth. I mean, most of the seventh consists of Harry, Ron, and Hermione wandering around in the woods. It's not that exciting.
Posted at 12:24PM on Jun 12th 2008 by Margaret
12. I wouldn't describe myself as a Harry Potter fan, but I did see all of the movies when they came out, though I haven't read the books. "Prisoner" is one of my least favorite of the films, in fact it was my least favorite before "Order" came out. To me, "Prisoner" dragged on because I felt like it contributed little to the grand saga of Harry Potter. I didn't feel like I learned anything new; the greater story was at a standstill.
My favorite movie was "Goblet" for the opposite reason: the resurgence of the villain, Cedric's cold-blooded murder and the impact it had on our hero propelled the series forward with newfound momentum. I couldn't wait to see what would happen next.
I felt "Order" sort of killed that momentum, though, and brought everything back to a standstill. The bickering over whether or not Voldemort had actually returned, the secondary nature of the Order of the Pheonix itself, fighting an epic battle you never actually see, and Voldermort's underwhelming cameo didn't thrill me at all. Plus, the movie sort of assumed you read the books; the room where the Order fights the Death Eaters seems awfully important but I, having only seen the movies, had no idea what it was.
Posted at 5:30PM on Jun 12th 2008 by François
13. While I disagree with your assessment of the book (it's one of my favorites in the series), I applaud everything else you've said. Prisoner of Azkaban is far and away, and without a doubt, the best of the Potter films; it is beautiful and majestic in a way that none of the others have been, and Cuaron is to thank for that.
I loved the first two Potter films as well, even though they pale greatly in comparison, but after Azkaban, the movies have left me cold. Goblet of Fire was a frantic, hurried retelling of the best book in the series, and Order of the Phoenix, while marginally better, also suffered from feeling rushed. Neither of those films have much grace or beauty to them, things which cannot be said of Prisoner of Azkaban.
(And you're right. The Hippogriff scene brings me to tears every time.)
Posted at 7:15PM on Jun 12th 2008 by AJ Wiley
14. i really appreciate you writing this, Eugene. seriously, the only thing i disagree with is your saying that POA is the worst book. it's not the best, by far, but to me it has always seemed like it was a huge leap forward from the first two, much like the movie. sadly, the movies haven't quite followed the upward trend in quality that the books arguably did.
Posted at 1:30AM on Jun 13th 2008 by caleb
15. Wow. I'm not sure we watched the same PoA movie. My wife and I were both cataclysmically disappointed by what we saw. There are huge elements of the book that revolve around characters like Dobby and Sirius... and Cuaron just ignored them in favor of shrunken heads. Why take up screen time with things that are never to be part of any later book, while consciously electing to donate precious minutes to elements that may be pretty, but do absolutely nothing to advance the overall epic storyline?
I must admit that when I watched it, I was impressed with the darkness... but all the praise melted away when Harry jumps on the Firebolt and flies off. Based on the actual story line that the brilliant author penned, that was about halfway through the book. Figuring that this must be some kind of Intermission, I sat and waited for the movie to start again so we could see the other half. It never did. And that's about what we were left with... half a movie.
Perhaps somebody someone will take the project seriously and make a new Prisoner of Azkaban movie... or at least re-edit the first one to get rid of the shrunken heads and put in characters that really matter later on.
I liked GoF, but felt it moved too fast. At least they tried to get more into the movie, rather than inserting other things. OotP ranks as one of the most inclusive movies, with an excellent flow, pace and editing. However, Cuaron left us with two incredibly frustrating elements that no director has yet to fix. 1Jeans and sweatshirts at Hogwarts. Unthinkable, and completely against the director's stated vision. And 2. Dumbledore in his pajamas for three straight movies. Where are the beautifully majestic robes we saw, and expected, in the first two movies?
Please, go back to the author's original vision. If you have to bring back Chris Columbus, do so. The movies should be visualizations of the books... not an opportunity for "artistic" directors to strut their stuff... and deviate so far from the original that it might as well have a different name. ("Eragon" is the ultimate example of this dreadful phenomenon).
Posted at 7:59AM on Jun 13th 2008 by Anthony
16. >>>If you have to bring back Chris Columbus, do so. The movies should be visualizations of the books... not an opportunity for "artistic" directors to strut their stuff
Wow, that sounds horrendous. We certainly have different ideas of what adaptations are supposed to do.
Posted at 9:45AM on Jun 13th 2008 by Eugene Novikov
1. I love that you wrote this up. In some HP fan circles, this is the most reviled movie of the bunch because it strayed from canon and omitted plots. But I think this movie set the standard for the future instalments with regard to the tone and visuals. I think it also showed the future writers and directors that it is OK to change things for the better. The first two films were so close to the book, that I could literally follow along in the books scene by scene. I enjoyed going into the later movies, ready to be surprised by scenes and moments brought in during the creative process. Thanks for writing this.
Posted at 11:19PM on Jun 11th 2008 by Erica