The Goblet of Fire: Story Focus and the Dangers of Book Adaptation

Rating: 7/10 (21 June 2018)

Preface:
Having just finished the finals to my undergraduate degree I decided to re-watch all the Harry Potter films together, and it was relaxing in front of these classic films that I noticed a problem. The Goblet of Fire follows the Prisoner of Azkaban, arguably the best of the films second only to the grand finale, and pales in comparison. Many of the complaints concerning the film focus on its closeness to the books, noticing that a great many details were dropped for time reasons. Changing aspects of the book is not always an issue; the third film omitted much of the backstory of Harry's father, and heavily condensed the emphasis on Hermione's impossible timetable that made the time-turner plot twist seem more sudden. Goblet by comparison appears to be one of the closest and most faithful films of the series, yet its issues lay with the more essential aspects that it omitted. This in turn created a slight identity issue in the narrative exemplified by severe pacing issues at its start. This highlights that its issue lay in how close it wanted to be to the book, which cased it to fall short. This is not to say that Goblet is a bad film; it is very enjoyable and does what it does very well. It simply falls short narratively for the issues it faced in adaptation.
Review Proper:
The Goblet of Fire's pacing problem is tantalisingly clear from the very start, with a first act that hurtles forward. We are introduced to the villain, Barty Crouch Junior, in the first scene, and then the Quidditch World Cup, and then to a Death Eater riot that disrupts it, all within 12 minutes. The speed of which this occurs almost causes whiplash as I was left wandering why we were taken to the Quidditch World Cup if all we saw of it was the two teams flying towards each other before a quick cut. The riot afterwards similarly lasts a mere minute as we see a flash of chaos before Harry is quickly knocked out for the important plot point that follows. Hogwarts becomes the stage of the story after 15 minutes of story, which is far earlier than other films and comparatively feels like the film wanted to be in Hogwarts as quickly as it could.
We can infer fairly clearly from this rush to Hogwarts what the narrative of the film wants to do. This rush into Hogwarts suggests that the meat of the narrative, the story of the film, lies in Hogwarts. As the bulk of the Hogwarts plotline is the Triwizard tournament, implicitly the film shows that it wants to tell the story of the Triwizard cup more than who put up the dark mark and why. The introduction of the schools in the great hall sequence is longer than Barty Crouches' appearance at the camp riot, which is odd considering the finale of the film is Harry's showdown with Voldemort rather than the final task in the tournament. Issues such as this highlight that more run-time was devoted to the Triwizard cup than to flesh out Barty Crouches' past and motivations, which is odd considering the former is really just a plot catalyst and highly developed side story. The film, after all, is called Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, not Harry Potter and the Triwizard Tournament. It is this issue that permeates the narrative of this film.
That said, the film finally settles down when the tournament story leads the plot, having many character driven scenes as Harry is forced into the tournament and the dangers to his life mount in ever more dangerous tasks. This is where the film shines a bit more because the film finds focus. It keeps to the telling of the tournament, regaling plot points and action set pieces to ramp up interest and tension. We also are given hints towards the grand reveal of the tournament itself; Mad-Eye is fantastically played by Brendan Gleeson, who delivers a masterful act as the menacing but seemingly trusting Defence-Against-the-dark-arts teacher who is not who he seems. There is enough of Barty Junior to add weight to his reveal, and Voldemort's reveal is the true highlight of the film as it is the one time the film stops and takes in the gravity of story taking place.
The second act onwards demonstrates that this is a good film. It is riveting, engaging, and the ending is superb emotionally and visually. However, the opening highlights an issue that prevents this from being a great film, which is story focus. The first act sets up the importance of Barty Crouch Junior to the story but omits most of Crouch Senior until his death and pensive appearance, omitting entirely the story of how he placed the imperius curse on his son to stop him re-joining Voldemort. Seemingly irrelevant material except until we consider that this "side plot" is central to the story. To explain what I mean, I refer primarily to the general story arcs of the book and particularly to what its story is about.
So the Goblet of Fire focuses on two consecutive issues: the Triwizard tournament, and the return of Voldemort. The book is about the return of Voldemort, and this is demonstratively clear because the story concludes with Voldemort's return, for which the tournament is only the story's catalyst. The tournament ensures, by means of a timely portkey, that Harry arrives to bring about Voldemort's return. The tournament is a plot catalyst rather than the subject of the story. The mystery that drives the true story is "who put Harry's name into the Goblet of Fire?". This question causes the story to progress as we learn about Barty Crouch Junior, learn of his troubled family relationships, and discover why he is aiding Voldemort and why therefore Harry is led on an inexorable path towards a showdown with Voldemort. Crouch Junior is central to this story arc, and thus he needed to be fully fleshed out as a character, and his motivations made clear. This was established in the books with resounding depth by Rowling but lacks depth in the film because his story arc was distilled, and Crouch Junior was reduced to a "loyal servant of Voldemort".
As such, the book is exceptional for providing two concurrent plot threads, one of which dominates the story (the tournament) despite being, effectively, a red herring deceiving us on what the story is truly about. The book overtly tells the story of the tournament but provides a constant stream of clues about Crouch's story arc that moves the true story forward. The film by comparison omits many of the clues that drive the book's narrative, providing a mere 4 scenes for David Tennant. Too much focuses is placed on the tournament. This highlights a key issue in book adaptation, namely that details must be omitted to provide a coherent story but not to the detriment of the narrative.
The Goblet of Fire is no failure on this part, because it expertly adapts the tournament side of the narrative. However, most of the set up for the story's cathartic reveal comes from the first act, with the Quidditch World Cup and Crouch's introduction. Too much of this was skimmed through so that the story could get into Hogwarts as quickly as it could, rushing to the lesser of the two stories.
Conclusion:
I have been perhaps unduly harsh against the Goblet of Fire, because it is a good story, and had to deal with a huge problem: how do you adapt a book that has potentially 5 hours' worth of cohesive film material in it? The answer the film presents is focus; emphasise the story points of one of the two main story arcs to provide a coherent narrative for the audience to follow for two hours. Where the Goblet of Fire fell short of being a great film was it simply, to my mind, focused on the lesser of the two stories. The Triwizard tournament is a distraction in the books from the more important mystery of who put Harry Potter's name in the Goblet of Fire, who Barty Crouch Junior was, and why did he want so desperately to bring about Voldemort's return. The film answered only the most basic of these questions while delivering on all the action for the tournament, succumbing to the distraction this action provided. The confused first act of the film demonstrates this issue; the first act of the book's story was dedicated to setting up Crouch Junior, establishing Crouch Senior's controlling character and introducing Winkie the house elf. With this cut down, the first act had little to stand on and wobbled.
I'd like to conclude here by asserting that this shows not that the Goblet of Fire was a poor adaptation, but instead illustrates the danger long books pose to story telling in film. The solution the Goblet of Fire poses makes the film good but pulls it short of being great.