Looking at Deathly Hallows As One Movie

brian6 · November 2011

I just wanted to hear your opinion on this. We all had time to process DH 1 & 2, but does your opinion of the movie change when both parts are combined? I watched the movie again tonight and I kept thinking back to Part 1 in order to visualize DH as one film. What do you think?

Bane · November 2011

I see it as one long film, the filmmaking style changes between them but so does the style of the book. When I read the book I felt like the first 2/3 was completely different from the last third. I know Yates has said that he approached each part as two different styles, but honestly that was probably going to happen regardless by the nature of the text being adapted.

I simply see Part 2 as the climax of the Deathly Hallows, and the entire story. They're not two different films to me. If they were, they could easily exist apart but I do not find that to be the case. The way Part 2 opens seamlessly plugs right into the end of Part 1. Yes they feel different and yes they were released six months apart, but they're still both "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," each part makes up the adaptation of the final book. And again by the very nature of the book, each part was going to feel different regardless of what the director said or did. I'm not saying Yates was dishonest and he clearly employed different filmmaking techniques between each part, but again, he had to. Part 1 was slow and methodical. Part 2 was more overblown and theatrical. So yes, they're different. Just like the book.

I mean, the way Part 2 plays out completely trusts that the viewer has seen Part 1, because otherwise nothing would make any fucking sense at all. If Part 2 were a completely separate film it wouldn't need Part 1. But it does. And vice-versa. People are going to disagree and that's fine or whatever but that's most definitely how I see it.

Darth Ledger · November 2011

They are mirror images of the book.

[Deleted User] · November 2011

I think they work better as independents pieces of filmmaking

Richard · November 2011

I think it works as one big film yeah combined wont make it feel diffrent.

Richard · November 2011

I think it works as one big film yeah combined wont make it feel diffrent.

But Rich, didn't you feel like it was a different film when they got to Hogsmeade?

Not to me, I think if you had seen the whole film as a whole in the first place it would work out fine.

[Deleted User] · November 2011

For me, the tone of the movies are really different. The pace, the narrative, even some technical options like the cinematography.

Making a parallel, I would compare to Kill Bill vol. 1 and Kill Bill vol. 2. I don't know about you guys, but I could never imagine it as a one movie. It doesn't match.

Bane · November 2011

I don't feel that it's a "different film" because of location change or whatever. That would be like saying that that part in the book was a "different book."

Bane · November 2011

Making a parallel, I would compare to Kill Bill vol. 1 and Kill Bill vol. 2. I don't know about you guys, but I could never imagine it as a one movie. It doesn't match.

Funny you mention that because Kill Bill wasn't originally separated into volumes. Tarantino wrote it straight through, just as Steve Kloves wrote Deathly Hallows straight through. But after the fact he couldn't quite get it down to being just one film. In fact as the script stood, Heyman said they had a decision: either split it or make it one really long film.

Bane · November 2011

The screenplay for Kill Bill was online during production and even before it was eventually split into volumes. Same thing happened. The script ended up being too long and they decided to split it.

TheDoctor · November 2011

I do not think the script for DH was written straight through then split. I think Kloves attempted to do it, the split was made official, then they were written for each part.

Bane · November 2011

I do not think the script for DH was written straight through then split. I think Kloves attempted to do it, the split was made official, then they were written for each part.

That may be the case, but regardless, Kloves still adapted the entire thing and didn't make an attempt to make the script different for the sake of it being a different film, he just followed the events as they are in the book. So either way.

Bane · November 2011

It's just the nature of the book. The first 2/3 are deliberately slow and then the third act, the climax, is deliberately grand and large-scale. It's all the same story. They do not work apart. If they were two entirely different films, there would be no questions or plot threads left up in the air. The studio and filmmakers pushed them as two different films solely on the fear that they didn't want audiences to feel like they're buying a ticket for half of a film, for an incomplete one.

Bane · November 2011

I mean in a big way, Part 2 is simply the missing third act of Deathly Hallows "Part 1." That is absolutely the case. It's just that Rowling's storytelling was far too elaborate and dense for a normal third act. When I read the book I thought that the final third could be a film itself because of how much story there is and how different in tone it is from the first two acts. Part 1 is the first two acts and Part 2 is the third act. Therefore I do not see them as entirely separate films, because they're both telling the exact same story that's in the book, it was just too much for one movie.

Bane · November 2011

What makes them feel disjointed is the opening of Part 2. It recaps the end of Part 1 and then moves to Hogwarts, and Snape. The nature of the editing, music, and Yates' signature opening montage helps segregate it, but if they didn't split the movies, it would have likely just carried without the opening montage of Part 2, without seeing Snape, just going from Dobby's burial to them speaking with Ollivander and Griphook. If they kept it as one film without that opening montage it would have been totally seamless.

GodricGryffindor · November 2011

Both parts need each other.
It's the same book, same
narrative.

What's difficult for me is
that Part 1 has an established
climax and it works quite well.
If you look at it as ONE film-
the pace and the rythm of the film
drops drastically from Malfoy
Manor to Shell Cottage.

G.G.

GodricGryffindor · November 2011

BTW,
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: The Complete Journey"
is, without a doubt,
my favourite film
of all time.

G.G.

brian6 · November 2011

BTW,
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: The Complete Journey"
is, without a doubt,
my favourite film
of all time.

G.G.

Same!

Toini01 · November 2011

Most of the people look at it as if DH1-2 are 2 different movies not because the first one is slower than the second one but because in DH1 we NEVER see Hogwarts, we are almost always in sets that we didn't know (even at the ministry of magic there were quite a lot of new sets) and Harry is on his own with Ron and Hermione while in DH2 we see almost only sets we knew (Gringotts, Hogwarts...) and Harry has the entire castle on his side. In DH1 he had to hide from the magical world while in DH2 he clearely faces Voldemort and his army with the help of the entire castle.

Looking at Deathly Hallows As One Movie

Comments