Let’s recall that the Deathly Hallows are three powerful artifacts: the Elder Wand, the Resurrection Stone, and the Invisibility Cloak. The one who possesses all three supposedly becomes the Master of Death, but that’s hardly relevant. Despite its name, the second part of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” is dedicated to the urgent collection of the remaining Horcruxes (other artifacts in which the immortality-craving Voldemort imprisoned his soul) and the so-called Battle of Hogwarts, which is meant to put an end to everything. The villain initiates the latter precisely because he learns about the quest of the three young wizards who are systematically destroying his dark soul…
In an ideal world, devoid of “torrents” and digitized books, the new and final Harry Potter film should have boosted DVD sales of the previous installments to truly astronomical levels. And it’s not just about the “hype” inevitably generated by posters plastered all over the city: even arriving at the screening for the trailers shown before the film, you end up spending the first ten minutes feeling like you’re an hour late and missed all the important stuff. For the uninitiated, all these Horcruxes and Elder Wands that rain down on their heads from the very first minute like Bellatrix’s treasures (which nearly bury the invading Potter alive in the vault) must seem like utter nonsense. However, this is a rather free assumption: it’s easier to imagine a world without “torrents” than without people who aren’t at least generally familiar with the “Potterverse.”
Moreover, ten minutes is quite enough for the brain to kick into gear and connect what’s happening on the screen with those memories of our ten-year shared book-and-screen acquaintance with Potter. The epic scale, the darkness, and the doom hanging over the towers of Hogwarts along with the protective field and the frazzled Dementors – all this inevitably captivates even the biggest skeptics, whether for or against it. Any viewer who giggles inappropriately risks getting a nudge from their neighbor – because it’s not right to laugh when history is being made.
It’s understandable that there are still many criticisms of the “Potterverse.” There’s the hardened Radcliffe, the overweight Grint, and Emma Watson, who’s busy posing for Vogue covers, all of whom had the audacity to outgrow the charming children who were once selected for the filming of “The Philosopher’s Stone.” The pathos, the posing, and the complete lack of self-irony, which inevitably plague all stories about the global struggle between good and evil. And what can we say about the unfortunate David Yates, who has been directing the franchise for the last few films? He castrates the plot and is definitely not Alfonso Cuarón, whose “Prisoner of Azkaban” has been used to reproach all the directors of the franchise for seven years now.
Evaluating Yates’ Contribution
The thing is, it’s actually impossible to assess Yates’ work with any degree of objectivity anymore. His films are indeed imperfect: rushed in some episodes, “The Hallows…” inevitably sags in others, and the final battle with Voldemort seems endlessly long, if only because we all know the outcome of this mess in advance and saw its first shots six months ago. This, perhaps, is Yates’ main problem.
Wielding huge budgets and, in general, an incredibly large film production, he still tells a story that is bigger than himself and, most importantly, bigger than the two-and-a-half-hour screen format chosen for it (yes, in general, even bigger than a five-hour format – because both final parts were actually filmed simultaneously and based on one book). So, I just want to express my gratitude to him for managing to keep this unruly troika on its uneven track and even bring it to the finish line, battered but still very lively. So lively that it’s hard to believe: but this is it.