Movie Review – Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Overall Quality 4.5 / 5.0 (highly recommended)
No Gay Content

“Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” is my favorite of the Harry Potter movies (so far – as of this writing, we’re up to the fifth out of seven). Several elements come together in “Prisoner of Azkaban” that had not yet matured in the previous two films: the principal actors’ performances, the atmosphere, and a sophisticated story. But the real reason I enjoy this movie so much: it’s just plain fun, like an amusement park dark ride which takes the viewer through one colorful, exciting, magical, multilayered, multisensory scene after another. This is the first and so far only Harry Potter movie that stands on its own as a fantasy adventure film, without reference to the books or the other movies.

Sirius Black (a delightfully sinister Gary Oldman) has escaped from the terrible wizard-prison, Azkaban. And he’s reportedly looking for Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), whom he blames for his imprisonment. So Harry tries to play it safe at Hogwarts. Unfortunately, he finds that more difficult than usual, given the presence of the sinister Dementors, looking like Death incarnate.
The Dementors make a brilliant entrance near the beginning of this film in one of the most suspenseful, chilling entrances a villainous character has enjoyed in film. Certainly the Dementors shine as premiere evil creatures in Rowlings’ story. Frankly, they’re scarier than Harry’s nemesis Voldemort, who mercifully plays little role in this film. The Dementors, for all that they exist as special effects, also give Radcliffe a wonderful foil to act against.

Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint have all matured into their roles, bringing an authenticity to the screen that was absent in the previous two films. I was particularly pleased to see Hermione (Watson) enjoys a pleasantly meaty role in this movie. On the whole, Harry’s sidekicks Hermione and Ron (Grint) are underutilized in the films: They enjoy fully fleshed-out subplots in the books, which are then trimmed out of the movie versions.

Scriptwriter Steve Kloves does a fantastic job with this adaptation, staying faithful to the book and maintaining not only the major plot events but also the atmosphere and mood of the text. (Oddly, he was considerably less successful in adapting the next book, “Goblet of Fire,” onto the big screen; still, I have sympathy for him – of all the books, “Goblet of Fire” has probably been the hardest to condense into a movie). Meanwhile, new director Alfonso Cuarón takes the strong script and runs with it.

The film offers a darker mood to the film franchise, but also brighter visuals – and the two complement each other quite nicely. Actually, it’s a lesson I wish the later films would have learned. It’s true that the visuals contribute to atmosphere and mood; but the filmmakers are telling fairly rich stories here; they don’t need Harry to wear gray through most of the movie (as in “Order of the Phoenix”) to accentuate the dark themes. In fact, the gray just brings the future movies down, taking them past grim to the edge of depressing. But not so in “The Prisoner of Azkaban,” and that may well be what makes the film work so well for me: it’s got the moodiness, the dark edge that suggests more sophisticated themes, and it’s got visuals to delight and substitute for the magic and innocent whimsy that gets left behind with childhood. Add in gorgeous natural vistas of the woods and mountains surrounding Hogwarts, and we have a beautiful, sweeping adventure story.

If you’re a Harry Potter fan, you’ve likely already seen this film. If you haven’t read the books or seen the films, you might start with this well-made offering to see how it appeals to you. It’s the one film strong enough to stand on its own.

“Prisoner of Azkaban” is also the first Harry Potter movie to contain any sexual innuendo or metaphor. Each story Rowlings has penned grows successively darker, grimmer, and more violent; but the sexuality of her characters remains solidly early adolescent with nascent, uncertain fumbling. It’s understandable; she’s writing primarily for a young demographic. But it’s not realistic; 13-year-olds like Harry, Ron, and Hermione would just be finding their hormonal urges kicking into high gear and by the last book, they’d be shagging for their lives (they don’t, though – sorry if that spoils it for you!). Therefore, it was an amusing wink-wink scene when the film opens with Harry playing with his wand under the bedcovers.

Indeed, how can one dismiss the series’ most prevalent phallic symbol: the wand, the means by which a wizard makes his magic. And of course, Harry’s most famous and powerful accomplishment with his wand, revealed for the first time in this film, is the protective Patronus Charm. Specifically, Harry points his wand, and a huge white stream erupts from its tip, taking the form of a stag. Uh-huh. Well, at least we know Harry is growing up virile. At least by metaphor. At any rate, he’s certainly the right age for that to happen when he plays with his wand.

( WARNING – moderate spoiler follows if you haven’t already read the book or seen the film. I further explain the gay content, such as it is, but necessarily reveal some facts about the characters/plot that are used as plot twists by the story. I do not spoil the ending of the film).

Regarding gay content, “Prisoner of Azkaban” contains nothing explicit. One might argue the film contains, metaphorically, a hint of homophobia at the very end, when Harry finds Professor Lupin (a werewolf) packing his bags. Professor Lupin explains that it’s been revealed that he’s a werewolf and that he’s resigning rather have parents demand Dumbledore fire him or withdraw their students from school. He says that “people like me” would not be considered acceptable to teach children. So, yes, there’s a bit of metaphor there; and I admit Professor Lupin has a bit of a fey vibe in the film (he is resolutely not gay, however, as future books make clear).

But I am reluctant to take this metaphor too far: if we take a werewolf as a metaphor for a gay person, well, in the movie a werewolf (at least when he’s in werewolf form) is an evil creature that abandons human rationality for base animal instinct and immediately tries to prey on children, literally. Many parents do not want a gay person teaching their children because they believe, thanks to inaccurate prejudices, that gay people prey on children. Professor Lupin is a kindly, fatherly figure; in fact, he’s the most competent Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher Hogwarts has yet enjoyed during Harry’s time there. But when he changes, yes, he becomes a literal predator. If that’s the gay content, I’d just as soon overlook it.

For a more in-depth analysis of gay themes (such as they are) in the so-called Potterverse, check out my essay “The Gay of Harry Potter: Subtext and Omission.”