While directed by an American and produced by a Hollywood studio, the new Harry Potter movie is unmistakably British. To be more precise, it is a British movie with lots and lots of money and special effects, which makes it some strange L.A.-London amalgam. Written by a Scot and featuring a veritable Who’s Who of English actors, the movie is so British that in England it is actually titled Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, as opposed to the American Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. Apparently, American children do not know what a philosopher is, so in order to avert widespread chaos and confusion, 20th Century Fox chose the more recognizable “sorcerer.”
Realistically, the movie could be titled, Harry Potter and the Alchemist’s Granite, and every kid in America would still go see it. Apparently, J.K. Rowling’s stories have been translated into more languages than any book except the Bible. Millions of children have rediscovered the magic of reading due to this bespectacled wizard and are anxiously waiting to see their imaginations projected onto a movie screen. Is there any possible way to please the millions of fans who have devoured these novels? The simple answer is no. So, director Chris Columbus was screwed from the start.
Admittedly, Harry Potter is a competent movie. It will most likely be the most successful children’s movie ever. This review will dispense with a plot summary; if you do not know what it is about then for God’s sake pick up the book. It literally takes a few hours to finish off, and one could feasibly read the novel in less time than it takes to watch the movie, which clocks in at two hours and 45 minutes. Therein lies the rub. The filmmakers attempted to both keep it short while staying as true as possible to the novel, and it still came in close to three hours. This alone is indicative of the godlike respect that has been given to J.K. Rowling and her work. Yet such an attempt to balance faithfulness and audience patience is the film’s major flaw.
Two options are available to those who wish to successfully adapt books into films. They can either totally stick to a novel or work to interpret it. One is not necessarily better than the other. Stephen King’s The Stand needed to be an eight-hour mini-series and was infinitely better than any feature length film could have been. Yet, the same author’s The Shining succeeded under the divergent imagination of Stanley Kubrick and tanked in its own indulgent ABC mini-series. The makers of Harry Potter try both options and fail.
Even with its lengthy running time, too much is crammed into this movie. Sub-plots are touched upon and deserted, characters appear and disappear, and the few who have not read the book will find themselves confused at subtle yet essential plot points which require a certain amount of background information. One suspects that it would have been better to cut out several scenes and make the story tighter, but to do so would enrage the fans and cause the equivalent of a kiddie soccer riot.
That point aside, there are a few other troublesome flaws. Yes, one wishes that every character was not introduced by his or her entire name, blatantly providing exposition such as, “Hello Professor Dumbledore, Headmaster of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.” One would also hope to see a film in which the answer to all questions are not revealed by the villain in the final 15 minutes, ? la Scooby Doo. Finally, one would desperately desire that Chris Columbus and his director of photography would keep their fingers off the zoom button. The desire to push the camera in every time a character speaks an important line seems more appropriate to a first-year film student then it does to the director of Home Alone and Mrs. Doubtfire, two of the highest grossing comedies of all time.
Even with all these grumblings, Harry Potter cannot help but entertain. As “Rubeus Hagrid, Keeper of Keys and Grounds at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry,” Robbie Coltrane gives a hilarious performance as a tough but tender giant. Rupert Grint, playing Ron Weasley, outshines his two young co-stars by far. And Alan Rickman is just Alan Rickman, even though they try to make us believe his name is Professor Snape. The production design is truly magical, as the sets and background teem with an affectionate eye for detail. Most impressive, however, is the Quidditch match set piece, a thrilling special-effects wonder. The kids zoom by ridiculously fast on broomsticks that emit sounds more appropriate to an F-16. Perfectly choreographed, the scene genuinely excites and utilizes the big screen and surround sound system of a good theatre to their maximum potential.
Overall, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s/Sorcerer’s Stone is a fun movie. Although billed as a kid’s flick, do not be fooled by its fervent young fan base. You too can be entertained by children’s films, especially this one. Read the book, see the movie and tide yourself over until The Fellowship of the Ring comes out next month. Then we’ll talk about wizards. Gandalf versus Dumbledore?no contest.
