MuggleNet | Beyond the Veil

It's been a while since I last tromped these hallowed grounds or laid my eyes on the famed water tower. The Warner Bros. lot is abuzz with security, journalists, and publicity staffers. Tonight I am the guest of an old friend, a noted (or notorious) editor and critic with an online film-industry rag. My pocket jingles with a keychain full of press credentials, but for once, I don't need them. At this given moment, I'm just an ordinary fan waiting to see the new film Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Tonight I'm Joe F. Public.

I've been standing in a cramped hallway for some time now. The line of hundreds has been searched, probed, and sterilized; they begin to disappear into the theater. Now, only a dozen souls remain. And remain. A poor PR representative emerges and we all know what she's saying before her mouth ever opens. It's unheard of: accredited press members don't get "bumped". One reviewer threatens to call his editor; he does indeed work for a publication of some significance. No dice. My friend offers to stand in the projection booth. It's not going to happen, we're told. The theater is packed to capacity and they don't dare risk the wrath of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. In this instance, that would be the fire marshal.

Though I try, I can't hear a word. The movie has already begun and the score is drowning the voices out. Moments later, a chorus of screaming children drowns everything else out. They, in turn, are finally silenced by an "AVADA KEDAVRA!"... from the movie, of course, not from some evil Warner security-wizard, as much as the thought makes me laugh.

Warner Bros. was breaking some old rules for the marketing of the new Potter film. It turns out that certain press members were permitted to bring large numbers of guests to the screening. Those guests were mostly children. Theirs, their neighbors', the Siamese-triplets from down the block... you get the idea. Imagine that: kiddies commandeering a private theater reserved for established film critics and journalists. I'm told many of them ended up sitting on the aisle floors, too. It's a brilliant strategy. At the cost of a few ticked-off writers, the Harry Potter franchise gained countless "enhanced" reviews. Hey, if I was a film critic driving home in a packed car with overjoyed youngsters babbling endlessly about the movie's greatness... again, you get the idea.

I walk back to the parking lot, slightly steamed, slightly more intrigued. I flip out the cell phone and start making calls. I smell something, maybe a story. I came as Joe F. Public. I sure didn't leave that way.

The Harry Potter PR machine keeps on rolling like a tank munching down a wet hillside. I've been "rebooked" into another press screening and offered tickets to the IMAX press-only showing at Universal Studios. IMAX is a... unique... way to view Harry Potter, depending on whether you enjoy noticing things like the 5 o'clock shadow on Dan Radcliffe's face. By way of an apology, the PR department also slips me two tickets to the "industry-only" screening; those are generally for producers and players and people with incriminating photos. How many screenings of this damn film are there? Well, in SoCal alone, there were at least a dozen. Yeah, that's high. Some studio films barely have one advance screening. In one city. For everyone.

I decide to do a little homework, so I check a couple of websites and about a million bulletin boards. There's more than a week to go before Goblet hits cinemas, yet more than 1,500 people have rated, commented, or reviewed this movie already. Keep in mind that for every one person who bothers to post something on the Internet about a movie, nine others have seen it and done nothing of the sort. It could be lies. A thousand people could have lied and decided to brag to strangers. Even worse, a thousand people could have seen the movie and decided to brag to strangers.

Warner Bros. was up to something here... or onto something. Anyone connected within 1,600 degrees of separation had an opportunity to see the movie before it opened, and on Warner's tab, no less. That strategy doesn't seem particularly orthodox considering that Harry Potter is an established "power" franchise: with a sequel of this magnitude, they could nix all publicity and the film would still open over $70 million in the US. So why the ultra-aggressive campaign? What markets are they trying to suck in that haven't already been nailed down?

Perhaps the answer is simple: everyone. They're trying to rope in everyone, particularly the "everyones" who haven't yet read the books or seen the films. All nine of them. The mantra tossed around the creative industries is that "boys don't read and girls don't see action movies". Any fears of not capturing a young male audience disappeared after the first Potter film broke loose. The films, in turn, made readers out of boys. Or, in a compromise, listeners: the audiobooks are surprisingly popular on high school and college campuses with the male crowd. The iPod is a hip alternative to a 700-page hardcover. Shocked, I am.

Or perhaps the answer isn't as simple as that. The franchise had been sagging, each film earning out slightly less than the previous one. The decision to release Prisoner of Azkaban during the summer, amidst heavier competition, was not a financially sound one. Maybe it was simply about demographics: both the audiences and the actors are growing up before our very eyes. Was the campaign designed to hook a new wave of youngsters, or to usher in and "graduate" the original audience to a PG-13 Harry Potter?

I talked to one PR staffer who suggested... strongly... that the intent of the aggressive campaign was to be, well, aggressive. No chess-and-war battle strategy, no intense Slytherinesque manipulations of the marketplace. Just saturate, baby. Perhaps the only thing different about this film's marketing campaign was its scope. Yeah, it could be lies. But let's just marvel at the juggernaut for a minute. Let's believe.

The fans love it. Of course they do. I attended a midnight premiere in Los Angeles, playing witness to droves of young adults (and, frighteningly, some older ones too) dressed in Gryffindor scarves and "Hug-a-Slytherin" tees. By this point, I've seen the movie at least four times and can lip-synch some of the dialogue. The showing I attended received a standing ovation. Fans always tend to gush over the newest addition to their bandwagon, at least for a little while.

Then they come to their senses and realize that Jar-Jar Binks might not be such a good thing after all.

So what did the fans love? It had more humor. It was more mature. It was darker. It flowed better. Best of the series, they said, and said again. I'm getting the slow, sinking sensation that no one really knows why they love it. There were a few complaints: some were annoyed at how much had been omitted or the choice of omissions. I heard more than one comment about Michael Gambon's "angry Dumbledore" and a few quibbles about Voldemort. One person described Ralph Fiennes's performance as "a dark lord in serious need of a Valium". Beyond that, Harry's growing and riches are flowing. All is right with the Muggle world.

We know what the fans think. So what does Hollywood think? In the eyes of many Hollywood producers, Potter is just "another super-franchise", no different from Batman or Spiderman, or even Lord of the Rings. These are all products adapted from other mediums: bid high, bid fast, and it's yours to gamble on. For the few and prideful still left in this town, discovering/growing a new cash cow like The Matrix remains the ultimate jackpot.

In Manhattan, where the printed word reigns supreme, Harry Potter is utterly irreplaceable: a once-in-several-lifetimes phenomenon that exceeded both dream and reality. In Hollywood, though, Harry is just one star amongst many. Though Harry has finally gotten his own 'Quidditch-World-Cup-sized' post-Oscar party, consider this: even with some of the Hogwarts' alumni in attendance, what do you think would happen if Kobe Bryant were to show up?

But enough about Kobe Bryant and Hollywood business: I still want to know what Hollywood thinks of Harry, at least creatively. For that answer, I called up a filmmaker that I know... and that you probably know, too... which is why he will, wisely, remain unnamed. The man is uniquely qualified for this job because: (a) he possesses a frightening and obsessive knowledge of all things HP, and (b) he has directed at least one installment of a "super-franchise".

For starters, I ask him a half-question about Goblet of Fire; I won't be able to speak again for another 36 minutes. His first words are: "I want to disembowel [Goblet of Fire director Mike] Newell." Okay. I'd buckle up if I were you.

He continues. "I don't have a lot of positive things to say about the film. My belief is that, with a film like this, you either make it strictly for the fans, or you assume that not a soul in your audience has ever read the source material. [Goblet] does neither. Even if you've seen the previous films, you won't be able to follow along unless you've read the book. On the flip, if you're a hardcore fan of the series, you're gonna be plum pissed at how much was left out... crucial, crucial things were omitted from the storyline..."

Let me interrupt that quote. I spoke with a few Muggles myself and asked what was so crucially omitted. Ignoring any minor complaints, ("Dobby was left out! Noooooooooo!") here are the three most repeated answers:

- The film does not specify why, during the duel between Harry and Voldemort, the wands locked up ("Priori Incantatem", only briefly mentioned at the film's end before Dumbledore changes the subject and begins delivering odd snippets of wisdom).

- There is a missing twinkle in Dumbledore's eyes when he learns about Harry's blood being used to help resurrect Voldemort; this is supposedly relevant in Book 7.

- A line Voldemort is supposed to speak, and does not, which will come into play later in the series ("I have traveled further along the path to immortality than anyone." or something similar). Apparently this line is paramount to Dumbledore's deductions in Book/Movie 6.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming: "Azkaban was the first film to leave the books behind and branch off into actual cinema... [Azkaban director Alfonso] Cuaron threw in a giant scoop of angst, of atmosphere... almost every daylight scene is overcast, not sunny. There is a scene that breaks my heart, the scene where Harry can't go into town and has to talk with Professor Lupin about his parents, on the bridge. John Williams's score riffs into a single, lonely flute... I think it's a flute, anyway. That one scene showed me something that I hadn't really considered until that point: being Harry sucks. He longs for all the things he'll never have... his parents, peace of mind, maybe a quiet life. His soul is wounded."

"Think about the 'Patronus' spell that Harry casts. In the book, a wizard must be thinking happy thoughts to cast it. The movie's viewpoint clearly suggests that the emotions must be powerful, gut-wrenching... not necessarily happy. Think about the feelings you experience when remembering an old lover or a friend who died. That's angst, that's pure angst. That's beauty, that's cinema, and that's a director's decision. There are other scenes like that... underscoring the tragedy rather than focusing on the magic. To me, that's the heart of the whole series. I think everyone in the audience relates to that."

I asked why (he thought) Goblet of Fire was missing that aspect. "Short answer, Newell either wasn't aware of it or decided not to go there. Long answer, Hollywood types only want happy endings, no matter how dark the film is. They don't believe a mainstream audience wants to be subjected to emotions like that. As a result, there is nothing gothic about Goblet except for the graveyard scenes. Hogwarts is reduced to a mere prep school. Both the fantasy and the tragedy have been stripped from this movie. This movie is concerned only with Harry worrying about girls and pimples and his image, all of which are valid teenage issues. And what does that leave? A dragon-filled episode of 'The OC'."

(For the record, I do not watch 'The OC'. However, I would be delighted to watch an episode where a dragon was set loose in Newport Beach... ahem...)

I don't like singular opinions, so I called upon several other screenwriters and directors, relaying the above comments. Most agreed. Some did not. One remark that I absolutely must quote, at least in part: "You shouldn't be talking to writers and industry people. No one in this business knows [crap]." Yet another: "Is your director on the right path? Yes. But 'dark and angsty' is awesomely risky, almost impossible to pull off correctly. Goblet of Fire is a dark film, yet it skillfully avoids the mood you're talking about. The box office always has the final say. The producers made the right decision."

Outside of the screenings and the midnight showing I attended, I questioned dozens of moviegoers. There were definitely those who enjoyed the movie for the exact reasons that the director got so worked up: Harry actually gets a few moments of happiness in this one, more worried about girls than dark lords (for a bit, anyway). But... the great majority of astute viewers were, indeed, pleased with the film's darkness and showed much appreciation for the "angst/tragedy" vein. The "3rd Episode" of Star Wars went over well enough. Dark material seems to play just fine in true-blue children's entertainment.

So now we know. We know what the fans think, what producers think, what some filmmakers think, and by now, we know what the mainstream thinks. Everyone thinks something different, yet we all think exactly alike: Harry's The Man(TM). Harry Potter is alive and well, at least for the moment. I can safely predict that the next movie will be a hit, and the one after that.

Wait. There has to be more to it. It's something the director said... I can't place my finger on it...

Next week, in Part II of "Beyond the Veil", the glitz and glitter of Hollywood is left behind as TK turns his inner eye to the future (and to the New York publishers). What comes after Harry Potter? The answer might just blow your mind. Or at least surprise you. Are Muggles ready for the dark side, a walk in a Slytherin's boots, so to speak? Okay, sorry, I'll stop now before I turn into that Skeeter woman...

MuggleNet is an unofficial Harry Potter fan site. Please email us if you have any questions or concerns. MuggleNet's original layouts were designed and created by Navy. All subsequent layouts by Dylan Spartz.

373 muggles currently online

BEYOND THE VEIL, Part I