One of the first things that is evident in Chris Columbus second venture into the Potter is the passing of time. Thus, Chamber of Secrets doesn't inspire us to look forward, but rather to ponder the past - not just because Chamber of Secrets greatly differs from Philosopher's Stone, but because it is an entirely different universe altogether.
What I mean by this? Well, take a look at the first scene of the film. In Philosopher's Stone, the trio hardly seemed older than 8 (although meant to be 11) and Daniel Radcliffe's acting skills were nonexistent. Here, the kids look their age (12) and Radcliffe gives a troubled, angry performance that can be felt from the very first few seconds on. The first film, concerned with conveying to the audience the wonder and excitement of magic, was an homage to old-school filmmaking and Steven Spielberg, while his successor has learnt a few lessons from The Lord of the Rings and - of all people - Sam Raimi. Yes, the very Raimi who handed in his Spiderman in 2002, who brought the subjective angles that characterized his Evil Dead trilogy to mainstream cinema. Many of this technique, can be found throughout the second Potter, and there is the same mischievous, slightly sadistic and campy feel in Chamber that feels unique to Raimi's works. There's even an evil book at the heart of the matter! But I digress...
What makes, and breaks, Chamber of Secrets is that the film is based on the by far weakest book in the Potterverse. While more concerned with puzzle structures than Philosopher's Stone, both are swift whodunit's whose payoff is based on the lack of understanding of behind-the-scenes going on's on the side of the reader. Sadly, the book is written in such a fashion that almost anybody can guess the outcome after a few pages, including the books main villain, the secondary villain and the character responsible for the villain's "escape", which takes the punch from the punchline. There is also Dobby who may either be a genius comment on Jar Jar Binks (a character introduced late in a franchise due to it's cuteness whose annoying behavior is meant to appeal to children, here twisted into a masochistic troll who attempts to "save" Harry by harming him or exposing him to other great dangers) or the worst character in the entire franchise. Take your pick.
BUT, luckily, Columbus proves to be a skilled director here, as he manages to make the books shortcomings into the films strengths - Dobby is now a mischievous and campy semi-villain who DOES inspire some thought on his inclusion as a comment on similar characters on franchises, and it is a lot harder to guess what is actually going on, and only visible to the VERY attentive eye.
The positive traits go further than the adaptation: the additions to the cast are very strong, including Jason Isaacs as malevolent black magician Lucius Malfoy, who will play an important role throughout the rest of the arc, and , yes, of course, Kenneth Branagh's campy portrayal of a slimy, arrogant egomaniac. And indeed, the film does belong to the ginger's: the Weasley's shine as well and Rupert Grint improves considerably. Sadly, one of the films major shortcomings is the reduction of Ron to comic relief and moaning. It's strange the film spends so much time on him considering his one-dimensional writing.
However, while being Columbus fault, the intention may have been to further shed light on the films overruling theme, that of darkness in the innocent looking. While the world of Philosopher's Stone had a dark lord hidden, foes and a ghastly forest, the wonder of colorful magic was prevalent. Here, Harry and his friends learn that there are doors better left untouched, people better not addressed, paths that they have to evade. There is even the first mention of the "Mudbloods", those half wizard, half muggle - fascism even manages to creep into the imaginary universe of wizards.
Thus Ron's tendency to get into trouble and either cry or being ridiculed may suggest that the child slowly progresses into an adult world which he can't handle just yet, that the colorful is no longer prevalent, that darkness is slowly evading. Still, Ron breaking his wand, then taping it back together and performing utterly frustrating anti-spells for the rest of the film is one of the flaws that should have been fixed, no matter if the wand is of importance in the climax or not.
And just like the wand, the films shortcomings can be counted by either bad luck or Columbus desire to stay close to the book. It was very bad luck that this is Richard Harris last film - the veteran's failing health can be felt throughout his performance, as his voice is brittle and his pose at times painfully tired. It was a shortcoming of the book that the climax takes FOREVER and is, again, much too close to it's predecessor's revelation to really generate suspense. But still, most of the film, while managing to generate an atmosphere and some suspense, never truly generates the interest it should. For long stretches, Columbus relies on exposition rather than to show us real emotions, and while explanations and puzzle-cracking is relevant considering the nature of a whodunit, it doesn't make for a very magical experience.
Chamber of Secret's can probably best be likened to the age of the protagonists: 12 is the end of childhood, shortly before puberty. Harry and his friends slowly become aware of the power of Voldemort and the threats of not just the dark arts, but of vanity and egoism, and also of innocence and naivety (after all, two corrupted children are at the center of the narrative - one choosing to go down the road of egoism, the other being tricked to do so due to lack of experience). This clash of the "magical" world of childhood and the impending darkness of puberty, yet being somewhere between the two forces, results in an uncertainty in the protagonists as much as in the film. Harry even goes as far to ask himself if he may be the "heir of Slytherin" (thus the grand grand grand grand etc. grand son of the wizarding-world's first fascist), grimly foreshadowing his link to Voldemort, questioning his own spirit. While Columbus chose the style, mood and looks of a Raimi film, which works wonders on the source's more grotesque and campy elements, the film never goes all the way and never dares to cross the border of mainstream entertainment to become a work of art. It gives a promise of what's to come and entertains, but never really trusts its own capabilities, its own desire to be more than what it is.
So what is Chamber of Secrets? It certainly is an entertaining Potter film, but it is also lacking whenever it chooses to tell instead of simply show. It ponders on the good and bad in people and society and is rich with themes and symbolism. While dull in places, it never ventures into the territory of frustration though, so it still manages to please every fan who decides to give it a chance. Outshone by what was to come and triumphing over the franchise's worse titles, it rests somewhere between cinematic adolescence and adulthood, frozen and caught in time much like it's key villain.
P.S.: In addition, a thorough analysis of the films and novels many symbolic meanings can be found here.
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone: / / / / / / / wands out of 10.
No comments:
Post a Comment