The Film: Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azakaban (2004)
The Principals: Alfonso Cuarón (Director). Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Michael Gambon, Gary Oldman, David Thewlis, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, and many more.
The Premise: Nearing the beginning of his third year at Hogwarts, Harry Potter’s intolerable home life with the Dursleys finally blows up and sends him on the run. He ends up safely back amongst the wizarding world, but finds that his running away was rather dangerous as a supporter of the deposed Lord Voldemort is on the loose and looking to kill him. Harry returns to school for a new year fraught with changes as soulless floating horrors patrol the school and Harry is watched closer than ever. Soon though, Harry will learn more about his past than he’s ever known as new friends and new enemies reveal themselves.
Is It Good: It’s very good, and now with the cinematic saga of the Harry Potter story complete it is safe to say that it remains the best of the films.
There are a few qualifiers to that statement, however.
The Harry Potter franchise has done something on film that no other filmmaking endeavor has ever attempted: to make eight films across a mere decade that retain a consistent cast, story, design sensibility, and emotional continuity. Sticking so close to the source material means that different chunks of the franchise have different quirks, and Prisoner of Azkaban sits among the first four films which each still placed priority on traditional storytelling. With Order of the Phoenix, the fifth film, the franchise begins shifting into high gear, and momentum and accumulated imagery empowered the filmmakers to make fewer allowance to traditional narrative concerns. All of this to say the first and second halves of the franchises are just as different in pace and structure as they are in tone and maturity of subject matter, and Azkaban –decidedly still among the more traditional films– is far and away the best of the bunch. It’s beautifully shot, brilliantly cut, and perfectly bridges the shift from the innocent exuberance of the early material to the heaviness of what is to come. It does this so well in fact, that the fourth film is a profound step back that is saved only by the introduction of several brilliant actors.
I guess that’s what happens when you hire a real filmmaker.
Is It Worth A Look: Of course it’s worth a look if you like the franchise, and I would even suggest that it’s not a bad hopping-on point for people who have remained curious about the franchise but don’t have the patience to slog through the more naive pair of films that precede it. In fact, my rewatch of this film was accompanied by a friend who had never seen a Potter film or read one of the books, and yet seemed to turn around on the idea of the franchise, with only a few footnotes of explanation coming from me. But let’s talk about the film…
Alfonso Cuaron was the first new director to be hired on the franchise after Chris Columbus jump started everything with the first two films Sorcerer’s Stone (MOD) and Chamber of Secrets (MOD). With his introduction came several shifts in the aesthetics of the photography, costuming, geography and directing. Obvious details like the change in the design of the Hogwarts grounds, or the characters wearing street clothes for much of the film mask more subtle shifts in approach to direction, blocking, and editing transitions. Cuaron had not yet made Children of Men and cemented himself as a new master of linear visual storytelling at this point (promise we’re still waiting on him to follow up on, by the way), but you can’t help but notice the stark contrast in the sophistication of his composition and camera movement from what came before. The last sequence in particular is nearly a masterclass in callback and visual rhythm.
Most importantly –despite not being familiar with the books or films before being hired– Curaon gets Harry Potter, and there great little touches here that feel wonderfully prescient when looked at with hindsight. It would be another movie or two before Yates would finally get a handle on the material and get as good a grasp on the character dynamics as Cuaron showed here (Newell just failed completely in this regard). The hints towards Hermione and Ron’s burgeoning love, Snape’s instinctual shielding of the trio in the face of danger, every bit of the material that takes place in the shrieking shack… pitch perfect. Cuaron also guided the introduction of Michael Gambon as the new Dumbledore, a choice that would ultimately be the franchise’s greatest asset. I’m simply baffled by any who prefers Richard Harris’ wispy and prototypical old wizard- a figure that would never have fit in as the franchise progressed. Gambon however, has always perfectly captured the dark humor, wit, and ruthlessness of Dumbeldore- something which began here. Observe his quiet discussion with Snape about the safety of the castle, or his beautiful scene with Harry and Hermione where he both proposes and explains a dangerous and complex mission without every saying a specific word, all with that voice that rivals even McKellen at exhuding wisdom, warmth, and power. Remarkable stuff.
Finally, Cuaron navigates a shift in tone that was ahead of its place in the series. The Harry Potter series does not really make a gradual shift into darkness, it hints and suggests and alludes before finally drawing a dramatic dividing a line in the sand and forcing its hero to face reality all at once. That happens later, but here Cuaron mixes the innocence (often demonstrated by the focus on small magical novelties) with the dark stakes of the coming war (demonstrated by potential soul-consumption) in a way that, again, makes Goblet of Fire seem like a step back.
In terms of traditional storytelling, accessibility, and top-to-bottom sophistication, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban remains the crown jewel of a massive, glittering franchise that will remain a classic for decades.
Random Anecdote: This was the first Harry Potter film I watched in theaters, the first to be shown in IMAX, and the last to be sold on VHS tape. It is the lowest grossing Harry Potter film, though it is the 30th highest grossing film of all time (worldwide). It’s also the highest grossing film to prominently feature a rat.
Cinematc Soulmates: The rest of the Harry Potter series , Hellboy, A Little Princess.
—-
Do you agree this remains the best Harry Potter film? Enjoying the Potter MOD’s this week? We’d love to hear from you. You can find me on twitter, lay something down in the comments below, or hit the conversation on the boards.
—-
16 comments
This is certainly my favorite as well, and was the film that actually got me into the series. I found Columbus’ films so flat.
I’m definitely in the minority with this not being my favorite (far from it), but I can live with that.
by far my favorite of the series. first potter film I saw in the theater, as well as the entire way through. The first two columbus films were, and still are a chore to sit through. If you are showing Potter, for the first time to anymore over the age of 12, show them this one first, then work your way back.
I like this movie, but im still annoyed with the way Cuaron depicted the patronus.
I think this may be the only Harry Potter movie that is actually worth watching. Having not been a fan of the first two, but feeling obligated to see the course through the rest of the films, this one showed promise with some genuine emotional moments and great cinematography. As the series has progressed though, I really get the feeling that every movie is just the same movie over and over again, with slightly different flourishes, most of which consist of teen angst set against the exact same backdrop other than truly original stories. The fourth and fifth films feel like almost the exact same films beat for beat, and the sixth one was just kind of boring. Haven’t caught either of the most recent ones…I will eventually, but more because of wanting to complete what I started rather than any real desire to see what is going to happen. I’m sure the books are much better but I feel like this story could have been better told and been more memorable over the course of one film, maybe two.
As a blinding white shield comprised of positive emotion that drives away dementors, and when cast with enough power takes on a corporeal form? They are depicted nearly word-for-word how the book describes. Care to elaborate on your annoyance?
I’ev read all the books but this is still the only Potter film I’ve seen. And I thoroughly enjoyed it but have zero desire to see the rest. This article just cemented that for me, cheers 🙂
Couldn’t disagree with you more about Harris/Gambon. Harris got it completely – Dumbledore is a benevolent, kindly, as you say prototypical wizard in the first two books, but Harris would’ve been more than capable of conveying Dumbledore’s true power and strength as the series progressed. Gambon has never read the books. By his own admission, he didn’t really know what he was playing for the first few films. There are moments in the series where he portrays Dumbledore in a way which is just anathema to how Rowling wrote him. Just completely wide of the mark. The most jarring is his ill-tempered fury in GOF when he grabs Harry and bawls at him about how his name got into the Triwizard Cup. Totally misunderstanding the character and rendering him unrecognisable from the books. That’s just not Dumbledore. Granted, that was mostly Newell’s fault, but it was just tragic that Gambon had no real idea of the nature of Dumbledore as written. Dear Jesus I’m a geek.
PS – great article, thanks.
Phil, I couldn’t have said it better myself. Harris’ Dumbledore was exactly how he was in the books. Gambon’s Dumbledore always had some weird attitude like he was angered most of the time.
I loved Prisoner for all the reasons stated above (very nicely done, btw). But Order of the Phoenix really blew me away, perhaps because it was my favorite book, perhaps because it just squashed Goblet of Fire as a film and really took the series to a new level. I think Yates instantly got the style and mystery of the world that Cuaron handled so brilliantly, but he pushed it even further by avoiding some of Cuaron’s more annoying habits — like having important exposition take place in mumbles, behind corners, outside of invisibility cloaks. The conversation in the Three Broomsticks, for instance, is just awkward and random.
However, I think this article helped to remind me of the brilliance of Azkaban, and that while Order will remain my favorite, Azkaban probably still is the best. Though I am ever leery of Azkaban-bias coming from a movie-buff’s hard-on for Cuaron to the detraction of Yates’ very fine work.
I’m glad Yates is finishing the series and wouldn’t have anyone else over him.
Oh, and thank you for posting that last pic. It’s a tiny few seconds of the film but so, so important (and heartwrenching).
I would have to disagree with your assessment. Rowling increasingly wrote Dumbledore with an edge of darkness and anger. There may be individual moments that don’t match up, but they remain in-character, and much more so than the benign grandpop-style wizard that Harris played.
Different person here, but I was slightly annoyed by it too. The shields that Harry made while practicing were fine, but in the book, when his Patronus formed into the stag, it ran across the lake and attacked the dementors. In the movie it just stood there and radiated light. I liked them better in the 5th movie when they show them running around the room.
I agree that Harris was a terrific actor who would have been able to play the darker shade of Dumbledore as the series progressed. Though, I have to admit that revisiting the series has made me turn around on Gambon and I like what he did with the character anyway. Since I haven’t read the books, I don’t have any point of reference and it doesn’t really bother me.
Many cite this as the best one… Of the first three, it definitely is. Cuaron brought an interesting sensibility to the material and he seemed really interested in just making a fun adventure movie rather than fussily try and recreate the books on screen.
It’s the turning point because the films start feeling less episodic and more like complete movies. As someone pointed out, that could be because of the nature of the source material itself. But, still… It’s almost like Cuaron’s work opened the door for the future films to really “adapt” rather than simply “translate.” The series really improved as a result.
“Rowling increasingly wrote Dumbledore with an edge of darkness and anger.” Please cite examples. Because she really didn’t. At least nowhere like the anger Gambon brings – petulant and ill-tempered. Again, not Dumbledore, in any way shape or form.
That’s my problem with it exactly. It’s not a problem with the movie, its just something that as a fan of the books has always irked me. From OotP on they were perfect.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.