CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › David Yates
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

David Yates

post #1 of 8
6/19/11 at 12:02pm
Thread Starter 

I'm kind of fascinated by David Yates as a director. He's a TV director who did great work with the State Of Play mini-series and has, for my money, managed to stamp his own style and identity onto the Harry Potter films. Half Blood Prince and Order of the Phoenix are my two favourite films in the series, just because of the consistent style of them. He seems to have a great talent for fantastical action sequences and he's got some great performances out of the cast.

 

As such I'm kind of intrigued about what he does next. My natural assumption is that he'd become a Martin Campbell style 'director for hire' who delivers well made, well shot, products without any real attachment to the property.

 

But what do y'all think?

Reply
post #2 of 8
6/19/11 at 12:13pm

Interesting that you praise Yates for putting his own style and identity onto the Potter films but naturally assume that he'll become a journeyman director like Martin Campbell.

 

I actually don't disagree with you about the comparison to Campbell though.  I'd say the major difference is that Yates has shown the willingness to stick around for some long-form storytelling in theatrical films, whereas Campbell only seems to come back to reboot (Goldeneye, Casino Royale) and declines to come back for another installment right away.

Reply
post #3 of 8
6/19/11 at 12:22pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

Interesting that you praise Yates for putting his own style and identity onto the Potter films but naturally assume that he'll become a journeyman director like Martin Campbell.

 

I actually don't disagree with you about the comparison to Campbell though.  I'd say the major difference is that Yates has shown the willingness to stick around for some long-form storytelling in theatrical films, whereas Campbell only seems to come back to reboot (Goldeneye, Casino Royale) and declines to come back for another installment right away.

 

I think Yates style just comes across in the tone and atmosphere, but I don't think there are any particular identifiable flourishes in the films. The thing I like about his Potter movies is how naturally he treats magic, just having it happen and not really making too big a deal of it. It gives the films a nice sense of naturalism and it makes the big moments (like the Voldemort/Dumbledore duel) feel big.
 

 

Reply
post #4 of 8
6/19/11 at 12:35pm

I LOVE the Voldemort/Dumbledore duel.  For once, the flicking of wands felt GRAND and epic (in a way that wasn't just different colored energy beams arm-wrestling).  That, and the Ministry escape in Deathly Hallows Part I (love the image of Peter Mullan just rampaging forward) are my favorite action beats in Yates' films.  The filmmaking in those sequences have a great sense of 'occasion' that I wish Yates utilized more in others.  The fact that he doesn't make a big deal out of everything in order to make such moments pop is a valid point.  I just wish he pushed it a little more.  Unlike those two scenes, most of Yates other big magic moments feel like scenes that just... happen.

 

But I have to give the man kudos for getting the small intimate character moments so right.  The Dumbledore of Half-Blood Prince is the film where I finally felt the movies got the character right.


Edited by mcnooj82 - 6/19/11 at 12:56pm
Reply
post #5 of 8
6/19/11 at 12:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post


But I have to give the man kudos for getting the small intimate character moments so right.  The Dumbledore of Half-Blood Prince is the film where I finally felt the movies got the character right.



On this, we agree. I only saw a twinkle of that Dumbledore once prior ("Professor! We did it!" "Did what? Good niiiiiiiight. *hums*"). He's on for the entirety of Half Blood Prince.

Reply
post #6 of 8
6/19/11 at 12:55pm

Remember the Mike Newell-approved rabid-bulldog take on Dumbledore?  Heheheh

 

SO weird. 

Reply
post #7 of 8
6/19/11 at 1:13pm

I kinda got the impression Newell wanted him to be Gandalf, but that's SO not his character. Yates gets a pass on Phoenix only because Dumbledore *is* just a colder character in that book.

 

Sidenote: It's still so weird: 8 movies, Dumbledore was the only character whose actor needed to be replaced. Even the extraneous one-line characters from the books are all the same actors. Amazing, but weird.

Reply
post #8 of 8
6/19/11 at 1:19pm

I remember reading a CHUD interview with Gambon back when Goblet of Fire came out... where Gambon talked about the choice to play Dumbledore as less 'in-the-loop' than he was in the books.  It sounded like a valid interpretation at the time (how threatening can any threat be as long as Dumbledore remains calm?), but it came off ridiculously off in execution.  Slobbery, is the word that comes to mind.  But then, everyone in that movie seemed to have their hormones raging. 

 

Now there's an instance in which milking the moments did the movie no favors.  I really didn't like Goblet of Fire that much.  I get what Newell was going for (LONG HAIR FOR EVERYBODY!!!), but it felt like such a blatant misfire in trying to amp up the series.  MAH-BOYEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

 

I may blow a lot of hot air about Yates' tendency to play things low-key, but if playing it up means Goblet of Fire... no thanks.

 

EDIT:  Turns out it was an interview with Mike Newell and David Heyman:

 

Quote:
DH: Also look at how Dumbledore in particular has changed. This is the first time that we’re aware that things are getting beyond his control, and he’s not particularly comfortable with it.

MN: Yes, that’s very interesting actually. Michael (Gambon) was very game. I think that he had not wanted to be the same figure that Richard Harris had been, a figure of enormous Olympian authority who’s never caught on the hop. He wanted something to do, simply because he isn’t Richard Harris, and what he found in this one is that Dumbledore is fallible, not omnipotent, and indeed is behind the game. A great deal of what he does is about being inadequate rather than super-adequate, which is obviously much more interesting to play.

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › David Yates