# Alan Rickman hated JW's score of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone



## MusiquedeReve (Sep 27, 2022)

Alan Rickman's personal diary is going to be published and this article picks out some juicy tidbits therefrom, such as:

"The actor, however, took issue with other “Potter” films, blasting the “hideous score by John Williams” in “Sorcerer’s Stone”..."


----------



## Composer 2021 (Sep 27, 2022)

The score fits the film like a glove. What a nonsensical opinion.


----------



## ed buller (Sep 27, 2022)

I saw that !...bit odd

best

e


----------



## patrick76 (Sep 27, 2022)

That’s a very, very strange way to describe that score. Hideous? I really don’t understand that at all.

Perhaps the statement is taken out of context somehow?

Personally I think that score is brilliant. Obviously I’m not alone in that belief.

Well, I suppose it doesn’t matter anyway. He was great in those films as well.


----------



## ism (Sep 27, 2022)

In fairness, that's exactly the sort of thing Snape would say, isn't it.


----------



## ed buller (Sep 27, 2022)

ism said:


> In fairness, that's exactly the sort of thing Snape would say, isn't it.


True....he thought it should be done by NIN

e


----------



## Roger Newton (Sep 27, 2022)

My aunt thought he was great. She gave him guidance on one of his first big parts on TV. Namely, Mr Slope. He was a brilliant actor. Music is simply personal taste. It doesn't always jibe with the personal taste of others.


----------



## youngpokie (Sep 27, 2022)

I guess he forgot to add "sarcasm" emoji.


----------



## The Retroblueman (Sep 27, 2022)

Well, to be fair, any fule know that Alan Rickman does his best work with a Michael Kamen score😉


----------



## José Herring (Sep 27, 2022)

If the actor noticed it means that the score changed his performance in a way that he didn't want. Good thing he wasn't the director. Because that score is the only good thing about that film! There I said it, I've never been able to sit through any Harry Potter. But, I've listened to JW brilliant score many times.


----------



## Roger Newton (Sep 27, 2022)

José Herring said:


> Because that score is the only good thing about that film!


Absolutely correct. These films to me are a load of crap. I've read a few passages from the books and let's face it, it's hardly what you would call literature. It's like reading a horror story. The music though to me, is very musical and sounds good.
I'm not singling out HP films particularly. Most of these type of Hollywood bollocks are all the same. Moronic.


----------



## José Herring (Sep 27, 2022)

Roger Newton said:


> Absolutely correct. These films to me are a load of crap. I've read a few passages from the books and let's face it, it's hardly what you would call literature. It's like reading a horror story. The music though to me, is very musical and sounds good.
> I'm not singling out HP films particularly. Most of these type of Hollywood bollocks are all the same. Moronic.


I'm not alone then. I always thought I was. My most unpopular opinions especially on this form. 
I have to bite my tongue so much on this subject. I tried to watch the first HP film. I couldn't sit through it. I generally love these types of films, but this one just not my thing.


----------



## Bee_Abney (Sep 27, 2022)

I think the score is brilliant and fits the first two films well. But I don't like it; and other music, more informed by later books, could have given the films a different flavour from the start that I might have enjoyed more. But, I wasn't a child when I first saw it; and my tastes veer very much towards darkness, despair, unfulfilled yearning and the rehousing of bodily organs. They should not have aimed the films at me!

The films were sentimental, possibly more so than the books; and the sentimental fantasy-evoking music fits them well - the first two most of all. But they didn't have to be sentimental; children's films and books can have as wide a range of tones as adult fiction can. But the music suits the films. And sentimental - a simplifying of the emotional registers - music can still be enjoyable in itself to many.

Whilst we are airing unpoplular opinions about film music though: I generally want far less of it. There's far too much for my liking; and it can be seen as crowding out a scene with too much interpretative direction. Which I'd expect a lot of actors to dislike.


----------



## marius_dm (Sep 27, 2022)

Yeah, can’t understand the HP hype personally. Not sure what the intended audience is really (adult children?). The music is good though usually.


----------



## Marsen (Sep 27, 2022)

I think, all Potter films are at the bottom of quality, and that´s why Alan Rickman hated, to be part of them.
The scores are brilliant though.

I can enjoy good movies for children, but could not stand even 10 minutes of this pita series.

Maybe Rickman just throw his embarrassment over the whole production, which of course was unfair.
He was an extraordinary character actor, RiP!


----------



## ism (Sep 27, 2022)

Bee_Abney said:


> Whilst we are airing unpoplular opinions about film music though: I generally want far less of it. There's far too much for my liking; and it can be seen as crowding out a scene with too much interpretative direction. Which I'd expect a lot of actors to dislike.



The first couple of films were so ploddingly ... I don't know what the word is ... maybe "faithful" to the books. It's such a "safety first" approach. 

Which is maybe the same thing as saying the the adaptation of the 
narrative is deliberately unchallenging, channeling safe trope sof the genre of children's films adaptations. 

And in fairness to the director of the first two films, the first couple of books themselves, though the have some lovely passages, are similarly, sometimes ploddingly, faithful to their genric forebears (Though quite a rich masala of forbearers). It's only later that books can make any claim to becoming in any way genre-defining. Though I think there are hints of this starting emerge in the third book.


And similarly, it's only in the third film the director seems to be a able to to deviate from the ploddingly "safety first" "faithful-to-a-fault" adaption. 

So my point here, I think, is that I think you make a very interesting point vis-a-vis what it must have been like to be an actor in the films, especially the first couple. 

Perhaps Rickman experienced them music as a part of the adaptation's determination to crush out any traces of the actor's individuality into the requisite "safety first" sensibility of the adaptation?


And Snape as a character really is kind of a cardboard "Tom Brown's School Days" sort of villain in the first book. It's only much later that he becomes remotely interesting as a person.

It's also interesting that Rowling, right from the start, told Rickman some of where Snape's story coming from. Which would have made Rowling and Rickman that only two people to have any sense of Snape beyond the cardboard baddie of the early films.

Although this is a part of the development of the books also. As an 11 year old, Harry just isn't going to perceive the bitter and bullying teacher as much of anything beyond the a cardboard baddie. But then s Harry himself begins to see the world in more dimensions, the free indirect style of the prose slowly, subtly, opens up in later books, and we get, however implicitly, more of Harry's increasingly textured view of the character. (Until by the end he's naming children after him.)

Incidentally, I also disagree that this isn't good literature. It obviously isn't good modernist literature, stylistically, at the sentence level (with a few excepts of very lovely, but very brief passages). But there's are other literary qualities that you don't have to label as literary technical to enjoy as a 12 year old.


----------



## HarmonKard (Sep 27, 2022)

ism said:


> In fairness, that's exactly the sort of thing Snape would say, isn't it.


Yeah - really. Maybe he was in character when he said that?


----------



## Bee_Abney (Sep 27, 2022)

ism said:


> The first couple of films were so ploddingly ... I don't know what the word is ... maybe "faithful" to the books. It's such a "safety first" approach.
> 
> Which is maybe the same thing as saying the the adaptation of the
> narrative is deliberately unchallenging, channeling safe trope sof the genre of children's films adaptations.
> ...


Using the word 'literature' in a way that doesn't apply to all prose fiction is pretty complex. I always stay away from it. It includes descriptive elements (which you've challenged) but also evaluative ones about the quality of execution of the elements so described.


----------



## Crowe (Sep 27, 2022)

As a potterhead, I think the early films are fine. From 4 onward it derails and Fantastic Beasts is disgraceful to me.

(I believe) Alan Rickman was a pretty reasonable fellow. Dunno what to make of such a quote, so I just won't make anything of it for now.


----------



## BenBotkin (Sep 27, 2022)

By Grabthar's hammer... what a saying.


----------



## robgb (Sep 27, 2022)

Roger Newton said:


> I've read a few passages from the books and let's face it, it's hardly what you would call literature. I


I really hate elitist bullshit like this.


----------



## JDK88 (Sep 27, 2022)




----------



## ed buller (Sep 27, 2022)

Roger Newton said:


> I've read a few passages from the books and let's face it, it's hardly what you would call literature.


they are kids books !...let's be fair

best

e


----------



## Pier (Sep 27, 2022)

By Merlin's beard!

Obviously Harry Potter is not high literature. The latter books are better IMO but still aimed at teenagers and young adults. Nothing wrong with that though.


----------



## Crowe (Sep 27, 2022)

I am 34 and I will die here, on top of this hill, proclaiming Harry Potter to be fantastic in all its utterly nonsensical and questionably plotted glory.


----------



## Laurin Lenschow (Sep 27, 2022)

Crowe said:


> I am 34 and I will die here, on top of this hill, proclaiming Harry Potter to be fantastic in all its utterly nonsensical and questionably plotted glory.


You just summed up what I am about to express in a very long post


----------



## robgb (Sep 27, 2022)

Pier said:


> By Merlin's beard!
> 
> Obviously Harry Potter is not high literature. The latter books are better IMO but still aimed at teenagers and young adults. Nothing wrong with that though.


What is high literature? I'm a working writer. I write fiction for a living. The fiction I choose to write is crime, mystery, thriller, and supernatural thrillers. At one time or another every single one of these genres has been looked down on by the "literary elite." But it's all bullshit. There is no high literature. There are only books you like and books you don't. I frankly can't stand what passes for "high literature" these days (or most other days). But that's my personal preference. After a certain threshold of writing competency, it's all subjective.


----------



## robgb (Sep 27, 2022)

By the way, I have an acquaintance who worked with Alan Rickman and she said he was an absolute nightmare to work with. I have no way of confirming this. I only know what she told me.


----------



## Pier (Sep 27, 2022)

robgb said:


> What is high literature? I'm a working writer. I write fiction for a living. The fiction I choose to write is crime, mystery, thriller, and supernatural thrillers. At one time or another every single one of these genres has been looked down on by the "literary elite." But it's all bullshit. There is no high literature. There are only books you like and books you don't. I frankly can't stand what passes for "high literature" these days (or most other days). But that's my personal preference. After a certain threshold of writing competency, it's all subjective.


I 100% agree in the end it's all subjective.

I don't know what high literature is either but, whatever it is, Harry Potter is not it


----------



## Marsen (Sep 27, 2022)

Crowe said:


> I am 34 and I will die here, on top of this hill, proclaiming Harry Potter to be fantastic in all its utterly nonsensical and questionably plotted glory.





Laurin Lenschow said:


> You just summed up what I am about to express in a very long post


And this is absolute valid to say, cause everyone has its own favorites.

But I had to defend Alan Rickman, cause no one fools the Sheriff of Nottingham.


----------



## Great Zed (Sep 27, 2022)

Never watched the movies, but the scores have some of the most mind-bendingly beautiful orchestrations I've ever heard. I really wonder if he was being sarcastic.


----------



## liquidlino (Sep 27, 2022)

Ah, I think that's a british-ism... he doesn't mean hideous to criticise the score, he means hideous in that the score perfectly portrays hideousness required to support the story.


----------



## Laurin Lenschow (Sep 27, 2022)

(Part 1/3)

This post turned out to be even longer than I expected (took me several hours to write - yes, _that _is how much this series matters to me). I hope this post is interesting to anyone who doesn't know and/or like the Harry Potter series - if you want to finally understand what all the fuss is about, this is the right place. 
I also hope this will be a bit satisfying to read for my fellow potterheads who possibly had similar thoughts but lacked the time to put them into words.

To make this wall of text somewhat digesteable I broke it up into individual sections and hid them behind spoilers with fitting headlines. I also had to make several posts as there is a limit on how much you're allowed to write in a single post. Feel free to skim it or maybe pick the part that peaks your interest - massive kudos to anyone who acutally gets through all of it 



Spoiler: Introduction / the aim of this post



Personally, while I am surprised (and a bit confused) by Alan Rickman's opinion on the early HP soundtrack, I don't see the need to make such a big deal out of it. However, as someone who grew up with this series, I want to leave this not very well organized collection of thoughts here in order to represent a possible alternative many of the negative comments about both the books and the films in this thread. All of this is not to say that people who are criticising the series are _wrong _- when it comes to art there is no such thing as being "right" or "wrong" anyway.

...and please don't respond to this saying that Harry Potter isn't art, just because the prose isn't to your personal liking or because you think the movies are too faithful to the books. Anything that offers the possibility to creatively express a concept (and even more than that) can be called "art". I could get into some ideas on how to actually judge what "good" art is - despite what I just said - (e.g. effectivenes of communication) but this post is already long and I haven't even finished the introduction, so I'll save that for another time...

So, to wrap this introduction up: I am not trying to prove that the HP-critics are wrong as that would be a foolish endeavour. I also want to make very clear that nothing in this post is supposed to make a statement about J.K Rowling - I believe that you can seperate the art from the artist, so all of the following defence and praise is directed towards the Harry Potter series, not towards it's creator.

So, I have stated what I don't want to do, but what _do _I want to do?
I want to provide the perspective of a "true fan". And yes, I am aware that I'm not at all objective, but please allow me to point out that this position also comes with some advantages: I know this series inside-out (I read the books at least six times and must have watched the films more than a dozen times each) and I've absorbed heaps of background information about the books and especially about the production of the movies. This does make me think that I can provide a valuable or at least remotely interesting perspective to anyone who never even got through a single one of the films or books and finds the love so many people feel for it nothing but confusing.

To finally close this introduction and give myself some credibillity and justification for writing this I would also like to add that I am currently studying the german version of cultural sciences and that I am an aspiring writer who has won multiple awards for his short stories.


----------



## Laurin Lenschow (Sep 27, 2022)

(Part 2/3)



Spoiler:  What the story of Harry Potter is to a fan



I will break this section into three parts, all of which are important to explain my (and I think most fans') love for the Harry Potter series. First I will give a very brief summary of the plot so that anyone who doesn't know at least the most important plot points won't feel lost later on. Second I will provide some short ideas for an interpretation of said plot points to show that the story has a lot more depth than some people may think and third I want to touch on the structure and tonal shift of the series and why this ties into nostalgia so well.




Spoiler: Summary of the series' plot



Harry Potter is a 10/11-year-old boy who lives with his aunt and uncle as his parents allegedly died in a car crash when he was a baby. He learns that he is a wizard and that his parents, who were a witch and a wizard as well, were murdered by an evil wizard by the name of Lord Voldemort. Voldemort tried to kill him as well but failed to do so as the killing curse rebounded (the reason for that is a big mystery - at least at that point), leaving Harry with nothing but a lightning scar, a scar he is famous for in all of the wizarding world. 
Harry is sent to a boarding school for young witches and wizards were he learns to use his magic and meets new friends. He learns that Lord Voldemort isn't dead but weakened and that he still has loyal followers who strive to bring him back to power. During his *first two years* at Hogwarts Harry and his friends prevent two such attempts. He also learns that the reason Voldemort failed to kill him was his mother's sacrifice. Her love protected Harry from the killing curse. In the *third *novel/film it is revealed that the location of Harry's parents was leaked to Voldemort by one of their friends - a friend who has been assumed dead but is actually alive and returns to his master at the end of Harry's third year. 
In the *fourth *year Voldemort and his remaining followers set up a rather elaborate (and admittedly unnecessarily complicated) plan to capture Harry and bring Voldemort back to his full physical and magical strength. Said plan is mostly successful, but Harry manages to escape back into safety before Voldemort can kill him. 
In the *fifth *year Voldemort gathers his strength and recruits more followers. He tries to get his hands on the magical recording of a prophecy about him and Harry, who is "the one with the power to vanquish the dark lord" and has "power the dark lord knows not". 
In the *sixth *year Harry learns more about the past of Lord Voldemort who was once just a little orphan boy named Tom Riddle, as he magically explores the memories of some of the people that crossed his path. By this he finds out that Voldemort uses certain objects ("Horcruxes") to hide pieces of his soul in them. As long as these objects are intact, he can not really die. If he is to be defeated, the Horcruxes need to be found and destroyed first. At the end of the sixth book/film Voldemort and his followers take over Hogwarts, at the beginning of the *seventh *year they take over the ministry of magic and thereby become the rulers of the magical world. Harry and his closest friends spend the seventh year hunting down and destroying the horcruxes, towards the end they secretely return to Hogwarts. The students and some of the old teachers rebel against the opression by Voldemort's followers and a large battle for the future of Hogwarts and the entire magical world is fought. 
During this battle Harry learns that he himself is one of the Horcruxes - Voldemort doesn't know about this, he never intended to make Harry a Horcrux. In order for Voldemort to become mortal again, Harry has to die by Voldemort's hand. Harry sacrifices himself and lets Voldemort kill him. Without knowing this beforehand, he (Harry) thereby becomes the master of death (the explanation for that would be too long - I'll touch on this again in the interpretation part) and is offered the choice to come back to life. He does so and defeats Voldemort.


 


Spoiler: On the themes / A brief interpretation



In my opinion the overall message of the Harry Potter series is that love is stronger than the fear of death and even than death itself.
The name Tom Marvolo Riddle (btw. an anagram of the sentence "I am Lord Voldemort") created for himself is french and can be translated as "Theft of death" (or so I'm told - I don't speak french), and this is what he is all about: the pursuit of immortality. While trying to achieve this goal he murders anyone who gets in his way - and this is not a byproduct of this quest but rather a necessity, as creating a Horcrux requires comitting a murder. Murder (this is stated explicitly in the books) is unnatural and breaks the soul apart. I don't think this detail needs any further interpretation - instead I would like to add that there is also a way to heal the soul again: deep and true regret.
Harry on the other hand possesses a "power the dark lord knows not". It is also quite explicitly stated in both the books and the movies what that power is: love. It is his mother's loving sacrifice that protects him from the killing curse and it is Voldemort's inability to feel or even understand love that ultimately leads to his downfall.
It's also love and friendship that motivate Harry to ultimately sacrifice himself so that his friends and everyone who is somewhat "good" has the chance to live in a free world without Voldemort. He willingly comes to Voldemort and allows him to kill him. It is this decision that makes him the true master of death - he isn't able to come back to life because he made some clever preparations beforehand but because he truly and honestly _wanted _to die. He had accepted his faith and that was it that allowed him to rise above it.

...given how scarily long this post already is I will leave it at this most general and brief of interpretations although I am more than happy to elaborate later if anyone should be interested in more thoughts on this. But before I close this section I do want to add one more thing: You can go _incredibly _deep on this stuff, which imo shows that this series is so much more than just a couple of entertaining books/films for children. For example: There is an old (real-world) document describing the process of making the Philosopher's Stone. During this process you actually get three seperate stones (a red one, a white one and a black one) that are then used to make the actual Philosopher's Stone. The names of Harry's three father figures throughout the series are "Albus Dumbledore", "Rubeus Hagrid" and "Sirius Black". Why is this important? Well, "albus" is latin for "white", "rubeus" is latin for "red" and I won't have to tell you what the word "black" means...










Spoiler: On the tone & narrative structure and why they tie into nostalgia so well



Each book (and almost each film - the seventh novel was split into two films) covers one year of Harry's life. At the beginning of the story he turns eleven, at the beginning of the seventh novel/film he turns 17. Throughout the story the tone becomes darker and darker as beloved characters die and the series deals with increasingly sinister topics such as torture betrayal. In each installment of the series Harry is about as old as the target audience. The readers grow up with Harry - looking back at this experience it almost feels like he is an old childhood friend or maybe even the person many people secretly wish to be and therefore the second life they had growing up, a gateway into a vast and rich world full of fascinating magic and thrilling adventures.


----------



## Laurin Lenschow (Sep 27, 2022)

(Part 3/3)

Originally I was planning on responding to some of the criticism in this thread but I've been going on for long enough at this point, so I'll pick just one:



Spoiler: The first couple of films were too faithful to the books



(@ism) Yes, in some way you can see it as a "safety-first" approach. However, when Rowling sold the rights, the filmmakers had to promise her to stay true to the books, so you can't blame it entirely on being afraid of taking risks. I would also like to mention that there is even a part of the Harry Potter fanbase that thinks the movies aren't close enough to the books. Personally I think an adaptation should stay true to the original while making the story work in the new type of media and in my opinion the Harry Potter films meet this criteria.





Spoiler: Why all HP films have great music



Also, as this is a music-focussed forum after all, I will link a post I wrote some time ago about the music of the films and especially about why the ones that came after John Williams don't get enough credit:

Why the music is frickin' awesome!



Let me close by saying that I'm kind of sorry for this absurdly long mess of a post. However, I do ask all of you for your forgiveness as the Harry Potter novels are part of what made me want to become a writer myself when I was seven - a dream I am still chasing, 13 years later. The Harry Potter movies are what got me interested in film music and even orchestral music in general - another passion that has only grown stronger as time goes by. Therefore the Harry Potter series is easily the piece of fiction that has had the most severe impact on my life and seeing a thread that deals with both the quality of the films and general story it was simply impossible for me to remain silent.
If anyone actually made it to the end: I applaud you. Now I will go to sleep - it is 3:20 am in Germany.


----------



## robgb (Sep 27, 2022)

As for The Harry Potter series, I have my problems with Rowling's writing style in the books—far too many "wrylies" for my taste (look it up)—but I think that by the end of the series she had written an amazing saga that stands as pretty much a masterpiece. Is it "high literature?" Who the fuck cares?


----------



## Pier (Sep 27, 2022)

Laurin Lenschow said:


> Therefore the Harry Potter series is easily the piece of fiction that has had the most severe impact on my life


The first HP book is one of the top 10 books most printed of all time and it's only like 25 years old. Its influence will be significant for decades to come.

Even if it was the worst book ever written (it's not) it brought the habit of reading long form content to entire generations. That in itself is a huge accomplishment.


----------



## FireGS (Sep 27, 2022)

robgb said:


> I have my problems with Rowling's writing style in the books—far too many "wrylies" for my taste (look it up)








Don't think this is what you meant.. but I now do know what you mean, as I sit here smirking at you wryly.


----------



## robgb (Sep 27, 2022)

FireGS said:


> Don't think this is what you meant.. but I now do know what you mean, as I sit here smirking at you wryly.


It doesn't apply only to screenplays. The expression has been around for a long, long time and generally refers to adverbs in fictional dialogue of any kind, not just parentheticals (which is what we called them in the stone age, when I was writing screenplays). The reason you see it referred to in screenplays so much is because that's what most young writers are trying to write these days..


----------



## rhizomusicosmos (Sep 27, 2022)

Yes, I was taken aback by the word "hideous" at first. But then I though he may have been thinking about the intentional grotesque nature of the writing -- channeling Dans Macabre and Symphonie Fantastique, et. al. The world imagined by Rowling and the films draws very heavily on the grotesque and is often hideous in a way. The music reflects this in a somewhat overdetermining way that is part of what we consider "cinematic". Perhaps JW was really channeling Danny Elfman.


----------



## Chris Schmidt (Sep 27, 2022)

Man, even when he wasn't playing Snape, he was a doomer and hated everything.

Guy was so method.


----------



## Great Zed (Sep 27, 2022)

rhizomusicosmos said:


> Perhaps JW was really channeling Danny Elfman.


I could've sworn I read an interview where he said he was influenced by Elfman while writing the theme, but I can't seem to find it anywhere. Does anyone remember it, or am I imagining things?


----------



## José Herring (Sep 27, 2022)

Marsen said:


> And this is absolute valid to say, cause everyone has its own favorites.
> 
> But I had to defend Alan Rickman, cause no one fools the Sheriff of Nottingham.


Wait a minute. Now I recognize him. He's the bad dude in the first Die Hard.


----------



## MartinH. (Sep 27, 2022)

MorphineNoir said:


> Alan Rickman's personal diary is going to be published


Is this something he wanted or permitted? If not, this seems super not OK to me. And if he did, then what the fuck too, who would want their diary to be published??? The whole point of it is being private I thought...


----------



## gamma-ut (Sep 28, 2022)

Having diaries published is hardly unusual. A lot of politicians and celebs keep diaries with the intention of having them published.


----------



## Roger Newton (Sep 28, 2022)

BenBotkin said:


> By Grabthar's hammer... what a saying.


I watched that one the other evening. Funny film and brilliantly executed.


----------



## Laurin Lenschow (Sep 28, 2022)

Roger Newton said:


> Just because people have no idea of what a good film even looks like (simply because they don't actually know), that's not your problem, It's theirs. If they took the trouble to learn what constitutes good, they would never watch crap like HP.


So, enlighten us: What _does _constitute "good"? 

Edit: And also would you mind telling me roughly how much of Harry Potter you have seen and/or read to come to your conclusion about the series?
I hope these questions don't come across as condescending or toxic, I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## Henu (Sep 28, 2022)

I have a Lego Harry Potter tattoo on my leg. You know nothing, _muggles_.


----------



## LatinXCombo (Sep 28, 2022)

_De gustibus non est disputandum._


----------



## Pier (Sep 28, 2022)

José Herring said:


> I tried to watch the first HP film. I couldn't sit through it.


IMO the first one is the worst. I like the HP franchise but I can't watch that one either even though the music is fantastic.

Chamber of Secrets is also quite mediocre.

Prisoner of Azkaban directed by Alfonso Cuaron is generally well regarded. After that one, he went on to direct Children of Men and Gravity which are amazing movies.

Goblet of Fire was the first one without JW and it shows. It has the worst music of all films IMO. It has some good dark moments but in general it's also quite mediocre.

IMO the last 4 films directed by David Yates are the best ones. I find they really nailed the tone. Half Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows I in particular are my favorites of all the franchise.

Edit:

Not Peter... *David* Yates.

Thanks @Antonio Zarza for the correction.


----------



## Antonio Zarza (Sep 28, 2022)

Pier said:


> IMO the first one is the worst. I like the HP franchise but I can't watch that one either even though the music is fantastic.
> 
> Chamber of Secrets is also quite mediocre.
> 
> ...



I think is David Yates the name of the director of the last 4. 

For me the best is the third with Cuaron for sure.

About the subject of the thread I think everybody has the right to think whatever they want, even if we are not agree with that opinion. Also Rickman is death so we can’t ask him why he thought like that, or If he wrote it on porpoise in his diary knowing it would be released or anything, that could be the ultimate trolling hahaha


----------



## Robin Thompson (Sep 28, 2022)

Pier said:


> Goblet of Fire was the first one without JW and it shows. It has the worst music of all films IMO.


Woah there, I'm a JW groupie as much as anyone but you need to back up off my man Patrick Doyle. Harry in Winter is an absolutely gorgeous piece of music, and the rest of his score is great too, if more modest than William's work.

Anyway Desplat's scores are clearly the worst of the series, or at least the most forgettable. Good composer, poor choice for the project.


----------



## Pier (Sep 28, 2022)

Robin Thompson said:


> Anyway Desplat's scores are clearly the worst of the series, or at least the most forgettable. Good composer, poor choice for the project.


Other than the main JW theme, the melodies and themes I can recall from memory are from Desplat and Nicholas Hooper... so I obviously disagree about forgettable 

Coming back to Goblet, I feel the Patrick Doyle score is trying to imitate JW without really succeeding or having a character of its own. This is fairly obvious when watching the movies in order (which I admit I do every year or two).


----------



## Laurin Lenschow (Sep 28, 2022)

Robin Thompson said:


> Anyway Desplat's scores are clearly the worst of the series, or at least the most forgettable. Good composer, poor choice for the project.



There are some great ones by Desplat as well though - Dragon Flight, The Obliviation, The Tunnel and Lily's Theme come to mind!


----------



## Soundhound (Sep 28, 2022)

Have no dog in all this, know nothing about the Harry Potter movies. But I'm an Alan Rickman fan, wonderful actor and always hilarious. I don't think this was posted in the thread yet, so just in case.









‘An unbelievable Die Hard rip-off’: two decades of Alan Rickman’s withering film reviews


When the Harry Potter actor died in 2016, he left a trove of revealing diaries – which included some very frank critiques of movies of the time




www.theguardian.com


----------



## Robin Thompson (Sep 28, 2022)

Pier said:


> Other than the main JW theme, the melodies and themes I can recall from memory are from Desplat and Nicholas Hooper... so I obviously disagree about forgettable
> 
> Coming back to Goblet, I feel the Patrick Doyle score is trying to imitate JW without really succeeding or having a character of its own. This is fairly obvious when watching the movies in order (which I admit I do every year or two).


Well we're doomed to disagree as Goblet is easily my favorite film of the series. I'm well aware I don't have a ton of company in that opinion. 😂

I don't think that's fair though to say he's trying to imitate Williams. Doyle is a well-established composer with his own style and Goblet is of a piece with it. I will allow his score didn't really pop with me when I first heard it in the film. It's quieter and often not very melodic, but listening on album revealed the rich textures of it for me. When it's light it's joyous and cheeky, and when it's dark it's gnarled and murky and haunting - if he's imitating anyone it's Howard Shore more than Williams, and doing a fine job of it.

I've the opposite feeling on Hooper btw - love the energy his catchy melodies bring on screen, but his rather flat, dry orchestrations are almost grating to listen to on album without the sound fx to hide behind. And I don't care for Desplat's alone or in context.



Laurin Lenschow said:


> There are some great ones by Desplat as well though - Dragon Flight, The Obliviation, The Tunnel and Lily's Theme come to mind!


Obliviate is... nice. But his score just slides off my brain like oil on water. I'd almost describe it as stingy - he gives the bare minimum necessary to keep the scene alive and nothing more.


----------



## Pier (Sep 28, 2022)

Robin Thompson said:


> I've the opposite feeling on Hooper btw - love the energy his catchy melodies bring on screen, but his rather flat, dry orchestrations are almost grating to listen to on album without the sound fx to hide behind.


Of course I listen to a lot of soundtracks on their own, but ultimately these were written for a film and IMHO that's the context they should be ultimately judged in.

That said, I like the "rather flat and dry orchestration". One man's dry emptiness is another man's focused minimalism.

BTW I don't think the music hides behind the effects. It's an unavoidable balancing act between the music, effects, and dialogue.


----------



## Jaap (Sep 28, 2022)

10 points; taken from Slytherin!


----------



## Robin Thompson (Sep 28, 2022)

Pier said:


> Of course I listen to a lot of soundtracks on their own, but ultimately these were written for a film and IMHO that's the context they should be ultimately judged in.


You are very correct of course, and I should retract my phrasing a bit. I do judge it in that context, and I think Doyle's score works great in context (he's at least half the reason Amos Diggory crying over Cedric still brings a tear to my eye EVERY SINGLE TIME EVEN AFTER 15 FREAKING YEARS UGH). It just doesn't draw much attention to itself so I didn't realize what worked about it until listening to it alone. And while I don't enjoy Hooper on album so much his music does indeed serve the films very well.


----------



## Pier (Sep 28, 2022)

Robin Thompson said:


> he's at least half the reason Amos Diggory crying over Cedric still brings a tear to my eye EVERY SINGLE TIME EVEN AFTER 15 FREAKING YEARS UGH


Yeah I concede the ending of GoF is great 

Edit:

Maybe I should rewatch all the movies this weekend, again, for science.

(not all movies actually, I typically start with Azkaban)


----------



## Drundfunk (Sep 28, 2022)

Well, I knew he was evil the moment I saw him taking hostages at Nakatomi Plaza....


----------



## ism (Sep 28, 2022)

No disrespect to Forrester, or to precocious 11 year olds. But as a policy, forbidding 11 year olds access to (good) children's literature in favour of E.M. Forrester sounds like a pretty awful thing to do to most kids.

Not that I don't agree about conspiracy to turn kids into sociopaths. I remember watching Nicleodean with my Niece when she was about 8, being quite horrified with the fundamentally exploitative nature of the content, and wishing she would stick to things like Potter instead. (And now one of the kids in that exact Nicleodean socio-path-inducing show has a book out detailing just how horrendously abusive growing up in the the ambient sociopath of the Nickelodeon production environment was)

Potter, on the other hand is different. Not that anyone needs to like it, but it does have depths in of empathy and morality, while (crucial) managing to not to be didactic (well, mostly). And this is a part of what sets it apart from sociopathic Nicleodean pablum as good art.

And the Snape's story arc is really quite moving in terms the representation of empath in the book. Which is why Rickman's comments are interesting, as he would have been a party to at least a part of that narrative a decade before anyone else by Rowling herself.

Of course, E.M. Forrester is good too. And power to any 11 year old who prefers reading Forrester. The idea of an 11 year able to genuinely appreciate Forrester is pretty cool really. It's the forceable deprevation of children's literation in favour of an enforced diet of Forrester for 11 year olds that sounds, well, borderline abusive to me. (Though still better that Nickelodeon).


----------



## youngpokie (Sep 28, 2022)

Roger Newton said:


> Graham Green





ism said:


> E.M. Forrester


Subtle, but very good!


----------



## tmhuud (Sep 28, 2022)

I think I fell asleep during EVERY HP film so far. Much to the chagrin of my other half.


----------



## ism (Sep 28, 2022)

Bee_Abney said:


> I think the score is brilliant and fits the first two films well. But I don't like it; and other music, more informed by later books, could have given the films a different flavour from the start that I might have enjoyed more. But, I wasn't a child when I first saw it; and my tastes veer very much towards darkness, despair, unfulfilled yearning and the rehousing of bodily organs. They should not have aimed the films at me!


Speaking specifically to the "darkness, despair, unfulfilled yearning and the rehousing of bodily organs" aesthetic, maybe this might help your appreciation of Potter.

I have an African friend (a very brilliant and successful artist in Europe), who just doesn't like Potter. Having grown up in arural Africa imbued with magic and witchcraft, he found the Potter films incredibly dark and creepy and unpleasant.

He concedes, that perhaps had he grown up with the disenchantment of the English, he would probably feel different. But himself he finds the just too dark and creepy to be fun.

So maybe this is a lens that might aid your Harry Potter appreciation?

Just a thought


----------



## patrick76 (Sep 28, 2022)

ism said:


> Yep, there's no genuine difference of opinion, no matter how interesting, no matter how authentically representative of diversities of thought, no matter how dialectically generative, that a good cultural wars framing can't turn into a worse than worthless dumpster fire.


Yes, it’s interesting how HP has been involved in culture wars since its beginnings really. Some religious groups, in the U.S. at least, have been pretty vocal about the sinister (lmfao) HP. 








“I didn’t read Harry Potter when I was growing up. And I wasn’t alone.”







www.vox.com


----------



## LatinXCombo (Sep 28, 2022)

Pier said:


> Huh? You didn't read Tolstoi, Montesquieu, Joyce, and Cervantes as an 11 year old? What a loser!
> 
> In case it's not obvious, that was sarcasm, but that's exactly how you're sounding with these comments of yours.


Any one of which would've been better than the novelization of _West Side Story_ they made us read. 

The...fucking....novelization??!? 

Public schools, man.


----------



## Pier (Sep 28, 2022)

LatinXCombo said:


> Any one of which would've been better than the novelization of _West Side Story_ they made us read.
> 
> The...fucking....novelization??!?
> 
> Public schools, man.


When I was around 11 I was in French school and they made us read Voltaire, Moliere, etc. As an adult I think those were terrible choices too.

Back then I was deep into Tolkien, the Dragonlance Chronicles, the DeathGate Cycle, that sort of stuff.

If it wasn't because I already loved reading, they would have probably destroyed that.


----------



## dzilizzi (Sep 28, 2022)

I prefer Harry Potter books any day over something like The Grapes of Wrath. I don't need to be depressed by a book. That said, the movies did kind of suck. My husband and I had read the books way before the movies came out. I found the movie so hard to follow because it jumped around so much and left out bits that would have made it make sense. The music is good but repetitive. And then it just kept getting darker. I really started to wonder how these could be children's books. 

And? Alan Rickman will always be the voice of God to me. Love that movie.


----------



## AmbientMile (Sep 28, 2022)

I know that Ron Howard has said that in movie making, there are only a few stories, maybe only one. But I still find this absolutely hilarious!


----------



## dzilizzi (Sep 28, 2022)

Roger Newton said:


> Never pander to soft headed wokes. Just because people have no idea of what a good film even looks like (simply because they don't actually know), that's not your problem, It's theirs. If they took the trouble to learn what constitutes good, they would never watch crap like HP.


How can you say this? You know the best movie ever is "Son of Godzilla!" The acting is amazing. The drama! The excitement! The mismatched voices and mouth movements! I still wonder how it didn't win an Oscar. People just have no taste. Well, I think it was missing Mothra. Maybe that's it. 

I've come to the conclusion that, for me, "taste" usually = "why the hell did I watch this awful movie? Now I'm depressed and annoyed. " I want entertainment. 

I once read a review of some stupid comedy movie - one of blockbuster types that makes millions. The big city newspaper that recommends art films tore it apart. It was awful. Why would anyone want to see it? A waste of screen space. The local paper said pretty much the same things about it as far as how bad the writing and acting was, but their conclusion? Great family entertainment! They knew their audience. 

I'd still rather read the book.


----------



## LatinXCombo (Sep 28, 2022)

AmbientMile said:


> I know that Ron Howard has said that in movie making, there are only a few stories, maybe only one. But I still find this absolutely hilarious!



So his argument is that Harry Potter is just another remake of Akira Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress?


----------



## Bee_Abney (Sep 29, 2022)

ism said:


> Speaking specifically to the "darkness, despair, unfulfilled yearning and the rehousing of bodily organs" aesthetic, maybe this might help your appreciation of Potter.
> 
> I have an African friend (a very brilliant and successful artist in Europe), who just doesn't like Potter. Having grown up in arural Africa imbued with magic and witchcraft, he found the Potter films incredibly dark and creepy and unpleasant.
> 
> ...


That's fascinating! I've known religious Europeans who live in their own sub-culture of spiritual warfare, where the devil works through pop culture and prayer can make you invisible to six foot six angry satanists.

In many places in the world, such ideas are not so much the sub-culture as a weekly (if not daily) part of the wider community's shared understanding. Of course, the internet provides us with easy access to specific cultural bubbles; and cookie-fed algorithms make it show up wherever we look.

For many of us, the tragedy of fantasy fiction is that it is only fiction. For many of us, we fear the 'reality' of its threat to us (and 'the children').

It's a funny old world, made of fragmented perspectives and needless fretting and friction.

I wish I could find a good book to live in.


----------



## MaxOctane (Sep 29, 2022)

Drundfunk said:


> Well, I knew he was evil the moment I saw him taking hostages at Nakatomi Plaza....


I could never trust him again after his wife unwrapped the Joni Mitchell CD, and she realized that he'd given the gold necklace to Mia instead. _A classic fool._


----------



## rhizomusicosmos (Sep 29, 2022)

Bee_Abney said:


> I wish I could find a good book to live in.


Proust's _In Search of Lost Time_ is a place I wouldn't mind retiring to. I could see myself spending my days as a gentleman flaneur in the streets of fin de siecle Paris or delighting to chamber music at some aristocrat's salon du jour. But I could do without the politics and Marcel's Oedipal neuroticism.


----------



## Living Fossil (Sep 29, 2022)

Question to the native-speakers:

Could it be that Rickman used the word "hideous" in the meaning of "overwhelming" in the sense that the music has such a presence in those movies that it almost becomes visible?


----------



## Roger Newton (Sep 29, 2022)

You're all reading too much into it. Alan Rickman was a pretty plain speaking guy out there on the left wing. Came from a poor background. A great actor. He absolutely made Die Hard. Put it another way, Rickman and Willis would have been worlds apart politically. Rickman said what he thought. Sadly, he was also an extremely heavy smoker. He had a great style and could be funny without even trying.

As an aside, I accidentally walked smack into Melanie once in a studio. I blamed myself of course.


----------



## Bee_Abney (Sep 29, 2022)

Roger Newton said:


> You're all reading too much into it. Alan Rickman was a pretty plain speaking guy out there on the left wing. Came from a poor background. A great actor. He absolutely made Die Hard. Put it another way, Rickman and Willis would have been worlds apart politically. Rickman said what he thought. Sadly, he was also an extremely heavy smoker. He had a great style and could be funny without even trying.
> 
> As an aside, I accidentally walked smack into Melanie once in a studio. I blamed myself of course.


I hope she took it well!


----------



## Roger Newton (Sep 29, 2022)

Oh yeah. This was 50 years ago mind you. At least.


----------



## Bee_Abney (Sep 29, 2022)

Living Fossil said:


> Question to the native-speakers:
> 
> Could it be that Rickman used the word "hideous" in the meaning of "overwhelming" in the sense that the music has such a presence in those movies that it almost becomes visible?


I don't believe 'hideous' can be used that way without a lot of context to support the non-standard useage. Such context could have been in his head; but it would be a very creative interpretation.

Could 'hideous' mean evoking hideousness? The way, for instance, that 'morbid' is used both to describe the morbid thing and to describe the evocation of morbidness? I've never heard it used that way. Perhaps in some specialised contexts, or when speaking poetically (so, not the literal meaning of the word in plain English).

Rickman was a big fan of a wide range of music and was known to be very careful about the things, sounds, and such that he valued to have around him. I think it is just likely that he didn't like Williams's score personally. I wouldn't read it as a judgement on its suitability to the films or technical merits.


----------



## muk (Sep 29, 2022)

Looks like quite a few people experience cognitive dissonance because of Rickman's statement. They like Rickman as an artist, and assign weigth to his opinions and judgements. They also like John William's music. How to deal then with Alan Rickman not liking William's music for Harry Potter?

Bending the meaning of Rickman's statement out of shape isn't the right way, I would say. It doesn't do him any favours. Had Rickman meant to say something else than 'hideous', he certainly had the intellectual capability and command of language to do so. Trying to interpret the statement every which way that suits us is not taking Rickman seriously. No, I am certain Rickman actually meant hideous when he wrote it. Had he meant anything else he would have expressed it.

That leaves us with the fact that Alan Rickman apparently intensely disliked the music for Harry Potter. I would say it's a misjudgement. And that's fine. Even the most intelligent and educated people get it wrong sometimes. I still take them seriously and listen to what they have to say. Especially if they don't have the same opinion as me.


----------



## Houdini (Sep 29, 2022)

Usual hyperbole and dismissive opinions, what a shame really.

I was a child when the books (and later movies) came out. They changed my life in so many ways that a post on a forum for composers won't do them justice. But anyway...

I was an only child growing up in a non-traditional family environment and I experienced death and unresolved grief from my pre-teen years. Harry Potter was often a form of escapism, imagining the magical environments, the characters, the taste of butterbeer, the smell of the forest, etc. The books offered me great insight about concepts that I highly value today, such as selflessness, bravery, loyalty, friendship, love, sacrifice.

They might not be considered "high literature", but why does that matter? Due to my academic background, I was later introduced to the greats of the Slavic tradition, such as Solzhenitsyn, Bulgakov, Gogol, Dostoyevsky, etc. None of them had such profound impact in me and this is what matters to me in the end.

About Rickman's opinion on the music, it's ok, none of us is perfect.


----------



## Living Fossil (Sep 29, 2022)

Bee_Abney said:


> I don't believe 'hideous' can be used that way without a lot of context to support the non-standard useage. Such context could have been in his head; but it would be a very creative interpretation.
> 
> Could 'hideous' mean evoking hideousness? The way, for instance, that 'morbid' is used both to describe the morbid thing and to describe the evocation of morbidness? I've never heard it used that way. Perhaps in some specialised contexts, or when speaking poetically (so, not the literal meaning of the word in plain English).


Thanks for pointing this out!
These are things that sometimes are hard to grasp as non-native.
In German, there are lots of words that can be used with very different meaning depending on context.

p.s. as to the fact that Rickman does or does not like HP: 
While I don't care too much neither about Harry Potter films nor JW's music in general nor the actor A. Rickman while respecting all of them, I think it's generally a good thing if people are free in expressing controversial opinions.


----------



## youngpokie (Sep 29, 2022)

Bee_Abney said:


> I don't believe 'hideous' can be used that way without a lot of context to support the non-standard useage. Such context could have been in his head; but it would be a very creative interpretation.


Makes sense. But how do you interpret the part immediately prior to that:

"The film should only be seen on a big screen. It acquires a scale and depth that matches the hideous score..... etc".

To me, the only way the _entire_ paragraph makes sense is when I understand "hideous" as frightful, shocking - or, indeed, overwhelming or evoking hideousness, distress, etc.


----------



## Living Fossil (Sep 29, 2022)

youngpokie said:


> To me, the only way the _entire_ paragraph makes sense is when I understand "hideous" as frightful, shocking - or, indeed, overwhelming or evoking hideousness, distress, etc.


exactly, that was my thinking too


----------



## LatinXCombo (Sep 29, 2022)

muk said:


> That leaves us with the fact that Alan Rickman apparently intensely disliked the music for Harry Potter. I would say it's a *misjudgement*. And that's fine. Even the most intelligent and educated people get it wrong sometimes. I still take them seriously and listen to what they have to say. Especially if they don't have the same opinion as me.


Agree generally but with the exception of the word I boldfaced.

It wasn't a mis-judgment; it was just a judgment. 

His judgment was based on how the music made him feel when he listened to it, as with all of us when we listen to music. 

Your judgment that the Harry Potter score is good is also right. It makes you feel good too. 

it's possible for us to experience similar things, but feel differently about it. Humans are complicated creatures.


----------



## muk (Sep 29, 2022)

LatinXCombo said:


> It wasn't a mis-judgment; it was just a judgment.



It depends on how you interpret the meaning of the term hideous. If you think it's a statement about a purely subjective feeling, then I agree. That wouldn't be a misjudgement. If you think it also contains a statement about the quality of the music, then yes, that's a misjudgement.


----------



## Roger Newton (Sep 29, 2022)

Houdini said:


> About Rickman's opinion on the music, it's ok, none of us is perfect.


Exactly. Rickman was as easily a good an actor as Williams is a musician.


----------



## Bee_Abney (Sep 29, 2022)

youngpokie said:


> Makes sense. But how do you interpret the part immediately prior to that:
> 
> "The film should only be seen on a big screen. It acquires a scale and depth that matches the hideous score..... etc".
> 
> To me, the only way the _entire_ paragraph makes sense is when I understand "hideous" as frightful, shocking - or, indeed, overwhelming or evoking hideousness, distress, etc.


I think the whole should be read in the spirit of whimsicaly, ironic drollery. If not full on waspish campery. He's writing to amuse himself. I don't think it helps much interpreting 'hideous' in part because of this, but also because of other such statements that may be made from time to time.

Consider the following: 'I hate action films; but if you are going to watch an action film, you should watch it on the big screen. The loud bangs and breadth of the image will then match the inflated absurdity and pomposity of the awful cretinous monstrosity of an excuse for a film with which you have chosen to sully yourself.' (Not my judgement, nor that of Alan Rickman! Just an illustration.)

My statement there is camp (extreme, precious, grandiloquent), critical to the point of meanness, humorous in intent (whether meant or not), and bordering on paradoxical. The paradox is not explicit. Implicitly it is something of the kind 'You shouldn't watch that' combined with 'You should watch that (on the big screen)'.

Consider an example where the paradox is explicit, but is not actually a contradiction. 'You shouldn't kill Dave. But you should use an unregistered gun to kill Dave.' This would be a contradiction (but still good advice) if both 'shouldn't' and 'should' were prudential. So: 'It is in your interests not to kill Dave. But it is in your interests to use an unregistered gun to kill Dave' is a contradiction, and should be reworded to avoid it. But if the 'shouldn't' is moral and the 'should' is prudential, there is not even a contradiction. It's still a paradox; but not a contradiction and the whole could, for all that, be true.

'The film should only be seen on a big screen.' This actually leaves it open whether it should be seen at all. As in 'I'm not sure if this is art; but, if it is, it should only be seen in a gallery and not a classroom.' Without the extra context, I would read 'it should only be seen on a big screen' as at least implying that he didn't think that it _shouldn't_ be seen at all; but it certainly does not imply that it _should_ be seen. I don't think anyone would read it that way; but it certainly doesn't imply that it should be seen, which some may suppose.

But his judgement on the film or the music is not the important thing. He was an artist, with his own aesthetic vision and temperament; that can very well differ from Rowling's, or Columbus's, Williams's or yours or mind. As a wonderful actor, cast in a role that suited him so well, he was able to use his own aesthetic judgement and skills as an actor to serve the film and the audience perfectly. In my opinion, of course (and this is not a statement of whether I liked it or not).


----------



## youngpokie (Sep 29, 2022)

Bee_Abney said:


> I think the whole should be read in the spirit of whimsicaly, ironic drollery.



I agree with this, for sure, but perhaps I am processing it in a totally different context than your subsequent example ("I hate action films, but if you're going to watch it" ...etc).

To me, the complete paragraph is an example of ironic exaggeration in the sense that the British use with total perfection, and in the same vein as they use "ghastly", "would you mind terribly" and "dying for a cup of tea".

But perhaps there is also a way to understand Rickman's use of "hideous" in a more literal way. From what I had read before, he was trying hard to find an angle to Snape that went beyond the cartoonish villain. Supposedly he had a private conversation with JK Rowling early on where she revealed to him something from Snape's background that was not known to the rest of us until much later (I might be mistaken in some details). This was the key Rickman needed and that's why he decided to stay with the movie franchise.

Personally, I read the books first, as they came out, and I always thought the same way about Snape - to me there is depth to him that made him one of the most vivid characters in the series. I also found the novels very dark, sad and almost sadistic based on the amount of evil and hideousness depicted in them. I remember putting the book down when Dementors were introduced and trying to imagine how exactly they did their thing, what it meant and what that metaphor was intended for by JK Rowling. The best scenes in the books are the tragic scenes. I never had a warm and fuzzy feeling reading the books. When the movies came out, it felt like they were a bit cartoonish in some respects and minimizing the ugly and the scary because of the audience, ratings, genre limitations, whatever.

To summarize this other interpretation - yes, it's a lot of assumptions and context on my part, but this is why I think that (a) Rickman saw Snape as a tragic character, (b) Harry Potter characters live in a dark bad world full of hideous evil, (c) once the movie is on a big screen it then finally rises (matches) to the level of the score and its depiction of that hideousness.

But in either interpretation, it seems to me he felt the score was stronger than the movies themselves. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong in every way but it does feel like I'd have to twist myself into a pretzel and pretend the words preceding "hideous" don't exist in order to claim he really hated the score.


----------



## Pier (Sep 29, 2022)

Isn't anyone else bothered by someone publishing and profiting from his private personal diary?

If I was dead and someone published my private diary I'd be rolling in my grave!

In all seriousness, there's definitely historical value in private diaries... but maybe they should have waited a couple more decades.


----------



## dzilizzi (Sep 29, 2022)

Pier said:


> Isn't anyone else bothered by someone publishing and profiting from his private personal diary?
> 
> If I was dead and someone published my private diary I'd be rolling in my grave!
> 
> In all seriousness, there's definitely historical value in private diaries... but maybe they should have waited a couple more decades.


I was thinking this also.


----------



## Bee_Abney (Sep 29, 2022)

"The diaries were written by Rickman with an eye toward publication, starting in the early 1990s until his death in 2016."









Decades of Alan Rickman’s diaries will be published as a book in 2022.


Alan Rickman once said that “talent is an accident of genes—and a responsibility,” and in autumn 2022 we’ll get to see more of Rickman’s talent, responsibly shared. Canongate has acquir…




lithub.com





I don't know if this is true. His widow has been involved, and his friend Emma Thompson wrote the foreword.


----------



## FinGael (Sep 29, 2022)

Houdini said:


> Usual hyperbole and dismissive opinions, what a shame really.
> 
> I was a child when the books (and later movies) came out. They changed my life in so many ways that a post on a forum for composers won't do them justice. But anyway...
> 
> ...


Thank you for sharing.


----------



## handz (Sep 29, 2022)

I have no power to read this whole debate. But the issue here is I think the classic - do not meet your heroes. Alan was a marvelous actor, Snape or Hans Gruber, Sheriff of Nottingham .... But well, maybe his musical taste wasn't the same as ours. And yeah, it sucks, it always sucks to find such things about your beloved celebrities. 
The score for HP is absolutely flawless, I still consider it "new stuff" in JW's career and it gave us a ton of absolutely classic best of JW thematic material. I really wonder why Rickman wrote this, maybe there was something behind it we never will find out, maybe he was tired of hearing everyone playing the celeste melody everywhere... who knows..


----------

