Potterheads and cinephiles often applaud Harry Potter and the prisoner of Azkaban as one of the best films in the franchise. Most of the credit goes to the director. Alfonso Cuaron, which brought breathtaking visuals and new emotional weight to the story, showcasing the dark side of the wizarding world in the third installment of the series. At the same time, no Potter film is without flaws, and despite Cuarón’s masterful direction, Harry Potter and Prisoner of Azkaban also remains tarnished by the script, which omits important details from the books, relying too heavily on the audience’s familiarity with J.K. Rowlingraw material.
Harry Potter and the prisoner of Azkaban sees Harry Potter of the same name (Daniel Radcliffe) to return to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry in their third year. However, an alleged killer named Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) roams the wizarding world in search of Harry, supposedly to kill him and avenge Lord Voldemort. As the story progresses, Harry learns of the stark connection between Black and his parents’ deaths as he continues to grow and mature alongside his high school friends.
Outstanding Cuarón Style in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Cuarón brought this maturity to cinematic life with a distinct mixture of frivolity and darkness. At the time, an independent filmmaker who had just released the acclaimed 2001 film. And Tu Mama TambienCuarón took Harry Potter directorial reins Chris Columbus in 2004. While Columbus led the first two Potter films with his characteristic innocence and child-friendly fun, Cuarón espoused a more artistic and atmospheric approach to Harry Potter and the prisoner of Azkaban. He used bluish tones, less polished sets and costume designs, and a pinch of horror iconography to give Prisoner of Azkaban with a slight fright and heightened realism. Ultimately, this slight bleakness fits in with the film’s overall place in the franchise. Harry Potter and the prisoner of Azkaban serves as a turning point between the fabulous wizard’s stone and Chamber of Secretsand more epic-fantastic Goblet of Fire forward.
A deeply visual storyteller, Cuarón also fills in Harry Potter and the prisoner of Azkaban with more aesthetic nuance than other films in the series. For example, he intersperses allusions to the motif of time, such as frames of clocks and the moment when the wizard is reading a book by Stephen Hawking. Brief history of time in the Leaky Cauldron. These little moments foreshadow the time travel plot that Harry Potter and the prisoner of Azkabanending. He makes similar subtle references to werewolves throughout the film, all the way up to Professor Lupin (David Thewlis) reincarnation in the third act.
Steve Kloves Azkaban The script omits important details in the third act.
However, this is the third act Harry Potter and the prisoner of Azkaban where holes begin to appear in the fabric of history. While much of the film remains faithful to Rowling’s book, key details are left out of the climax, which is not necessarily the product of director Cuarón, but rather the result of a flawed script. Bye screenwriter Steve Kloves did an overall stellar job adapting the rest Potter novels for cinema, except Order of the Phoenixwho wrote Michael Goldenberg—Harry Potter and the prisoner of Azkaban definitely lacks background information and explanations that are crucial to the plot.
It is noteworthy that one of the most important discoveries in Harry Potter and the prisoner of Azkaban is that Sirius Black is an innocent man, and the real enemy who betrayed Harry’s parents is Peter Pettigrew (Timothy Spall). Movie does reveal it, but does it rather chaotically. In the book, Sirius and Lupine pensively lay out the truth, explaining their friendship with James Potter and how Pettigrew framed Sirius for his betrayal. The film, on the other hand, has few such details, and most of them are simply glossed over in the stuttering, screaming fight between Lupine, Sirius, and Harry. The movie doesn’t even mention that the Marauders - Moony, Wormtail, Tramp and Barb - are Lupine, Pettigrew, Sirius and James respectively.
In fact, the movie doesn’t even reveal that James Potter is an animagus, let alone a deer animagus. While Lupin, Pettigrew, and Sirius’ animal transformations are shown in action, they leave out the important backstory why these friends decided to become Animagus together. This story and its intricacies concern not only Harry Potter and the prisoner of Azkabanbut are a consequence in the future Potter movies. Without understanding the connection between the Marauders, it is impossible to fully understand Harry’s perception of his late father. Likewise, without knowing that James turns into a deer, no one sees the significance of Harry’s Patronus.
The connection between the Patronus and the animal is never mentioned in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.
Also, regarding the topic of Patronuses, Harry Potter and the prisoner of Azkaban the script never explains that a full Patronus must take the form of an animal. Throughout the movie, when Harry yells “Expecto Patronum”, only silvery clouds of light come out of his wand. While this is true of the book, the movie overlooks the fact that these cloud Patronuses are unfinished forms of the spell, and that once Harry perfects his Patronus, it will appear as a creature unique to him - in his case, a deer.
This, of course, makes the film’s emotional climax quite confusing for those who haven’t read the book. When the Kiss of the Dementors is a few steps away from taking the souls of Harry and Sirius, Harry looks across the pond and sees a glowing white deer. The deer then explodes into a ball of light, scattering the Dementors before Harry passes out. When Harry woke up in the hospital wing, the first thing Harry thought was that he saw the reincarnation of his late father. Without basic knowledge of James’ Animgus, or the simple fact that Patronuses are supposed to look like animals, this becomes completely pointless.
Harry Potter Movies must hold their ground with or without books.
Some may object that Harry Potter movies are made for fans of the books and everyone should read the books before watching the movies. While this argument may make sense, it still doesn’t exempt the film from a full narrative. Even if all viewers read the book, the movie still has to make sense. Consider some of the best book adaptations of all time −Lord of the Rings, flying over Cuckoo’s Nest, To Kill a Mockingbird. While the books are revered, the films still stand on their own, telling the full story with a fresh perspective of a new medium. They are worthy art forms in their own right, not additional additions to the source material.
Again, most Harry Potter cinema make manage to stand up for themselves, and viewers can usually appreciate them even if they are unfamiliar with the books. However, it seems a shame, or at least a strange paradox, that one of the weakest Potter scripts were attached to one of the best directors Potter cinema. Alfonso Cuarón, who would put only this one Potter film and then return to independent award-winning projects such as children of men, The force of gravityand Romaattends the same school as Peter Jackson and Christopher Nolan. He was an up-and-coming director at the turn of the millennium who was given the blockbuster franchise mantelpiece and did a great job. He brought his unique talents and vision to the series, but never lost the spirit of the Potter universe. Unfortunately, this time the script for Harry Potter and the prisoner of Azkaban just had too much faith in the readership.
Source: Collider
