Shakespearian Architecture

Rating: Null/10 (17 November 2002)

Spoilers herein.
I did not like the first Potter film. Indeed, I've been generally unimpressed by all the manufactured Hollywood spectacles that have been moving through the promotional pipeline. So this one caught me unawares. One element of its craft was done so very well, that it alone had me captured for the three hours or so: Architecture.
Film is about more than just recording a play. It is all about using tricks unique to film to place us within the story. The most powerful and unique of these is the placement of the camera within the space of action: psychologically or architecturally. Shakespeare was all about this psychological placement, which is why reading one of his plays is in many ways better than seeing it. Directors have certain tricks to place the camera within the shared mind of the actors when the matter of the film is deep enough. But that's possible in only a handful of films. In most cases, the opportunities are architectural: namely placing the camera within the physical space of action in extraordinary ways.
But alas, doing so requires skills and funds that are generally lacking. On blockbuster films, they are spending a gazzillion dollars anyway so why do it right? That's why I hit `Spider-Man' so hard on IMDB: it had every excuse to use architecture well with all the vertical cityscapes and swooping within them. Well, our wait is over. Someone in Potter, Inc has made the decision to instill this film with an architectural eye. I presume that is because they are looking at the long run of the franchise, which after all is up against some well-financed competition. Longevity could mean over ten billion dollars.
So we finally have something worth watching from a spatial perspective.

The notion of an architectural film, started with Orson Welles' `Othello,' on which he spent everything he had over many years. Until then, the camera was attached to a virtual human who acted as a ghost or god. All the shots were nominally at eye level and when they weren't, they were at places you would imagine being if you were a ghost. That is to say, they were all in generally possible places or perches. Welles' camera already in `Kane' was placed in locations that no ghost would pick because they were impossible: below the floor for instance.
In `Othello,' the camera is not attached to any human, but to the buildings themselves. Every camera is attached to a surface and moves with that surface as if the building itself were alive, perceiving what was going on, and reporting it to you. Walls, floors, corners, posts, various embellishments take on roles as characters in the shots, so a frame would as likely include one of these elements as a human and every shot has some explicit reference to the space. Some interesting experiments have been made since then by Tarkovsky, Greenaway, dePalma and Gilliam, and in single films like `Liebstraum' and `Million Dollar Hotel.' But no attempt ever had the art and special effects budget of this film.
Watch how often they `establish' the complex at Hogwarts, sometimes seamlessly entering the scene. Watch how often the camera covers the interior space more than the kids. Watch how the position of the camera is in places that only the building would know about. Watch when the camera moves, it moves in the plane that a surface of the space would have.
They decided to do this because they could afford people who could do it, and it subtly improves the effectiveness of the magic. Lucas doesn't know how to do this, even with his amazing structures.
This decision is driven home with the Shakespearian approach and references:
--Harris here plays Prospero, in a very literal sense; the player/magician in his last real performance. Some of the shots are taken from Greenaway's `Prospero's Books,' which also deals with a book that animates characters in the film that enter the world and space of the film. Many references here from `Books.'
--The cinematographer (Roger Pratt) is Gilliam's. Now that Sacha Vierny is dead, he's probably the most architecturally aware experienced man in the business.
--He's also worked for Branaugh who is the best filmer of Shakespeare ever. His `Frankenstein' was both architectural and Shakespearean. Branaugh appears here in a parody of his `Wild West' role with was a parody of Professor Marvel in `Wizard of Oz' who (it is widely believed) was based on the Shakespearean of `Huck Finn.'
--Even in the minor role of Father Weasely is Mark Williams, who is defined by his role as the inept performer in `Shakespeare in Love.' Fits how redheads are used in Shakespearean productions.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.