When J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter books were first released, I somewhat snootily deemed the premise boring. A British boy wizard goes to school? Who wants to read that? (As it turns out... everybody.) In the Spring of 2001, when it was already an established phenomenon, I heard that they were adapting the books into films. I happened to see a movie poster and decided to look (as I always do) at who the composer would be. It was my hero, the most successful film composer of all time: John Williams. And I thought, if John Williams is involved, it's got to be pretty good. I mentioned this to my mother, who was with me at the time. She said that she had read the books, enjoyed them, and thought that I would enjoy them as well. Not long after that, I went to see Steven Spielberg's A.I. Artificial Intelligence in the theater—four times. Each time I went, the trailer for Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was included. It looked intriguing. So I decided to give the books a try and bought the first one.
Well. By Chapter Four, I had a feeling that I can't really explain. The next day I bought all the available books, somehow already sensing the enjoyment that was ahead of me. When the movie of Sorcerer's Stone was released, I had read the first four books and knew I would be a fan for life. My mother and I attended the movie together (we were the only members of our family who had read the books by then), and we would look at each other every time something was accurately portrayed in the movie, which was quite often. It was one of the most thrilling screenings I'd ever been to. And I have no real complaints about that movie. Sure, some things were changed, which happens with all adaptations. But, overall, I thought it was glorious, with spirited direction from Chris Columbus, a perfect cast, and a phenomenal score by John Williams, of course!
Columbus also directed the second movie outing, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. After that, though, he decided to let someone else take over the directing duties as he took on the role of a producer. Not only was Alfonso Cuaron brought in as the new director, but actor Richard Harris passed away and the part of Dumbledore was re-cast with Michael Gambon. There was also a lot of (made up) controversy in the press at the time, with people speculating about the child actors aging out of their roles, if Cuaron would steer the story in a weird direction, and if Gambon could live up to Harris's portrayal of Dumbledore.
I'm pleased to see that history proved the speculation wrong. By the eighth and final film, the lead actors were only three or four years older than their characters. That's not much, really. How many movies have we suffered through where actors in their mid- to late twenties are trying to play high school students?
I remember hearing people refer to Richard Harris as "the real Dumbledore." (Evidence of snobbery.) I think Michael Gambon did a wonderful job, capturing so many elements of the character as described in the book (minus the fancy robes), including his deep voice. (When I read the books now, the Dumbledore in my imagination looks and sounds like a mix of the two actors.)
Something else that pleases me greatly is to note that Alfonso Cuaron's vision for the movie—along with Michael Seresin's cinematography—influenced every film in the series thereafter. Portions of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban were shot on location in the Scottish Highlands, lending an authentic and realistic look to the surroundings. Some viewers of the first two films were confused by this, but those films were restricted by their budgets. The budgets for the films that followed were steadily increased. I felt like the changes made the grounds around Hogwarts resemble the descriptions in the books even more.
Are all Harry Potter films equal? Well . . . not quite. As the books went on, they grew steadily thicker, which only increased the challenges of adapting them to film. Indeed, by the time they made Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the filmmakers wisely decided to split it into two movies to do justice to the book. And as the movies went on, the amount of material cut from the films increased. Frustrating, yes, but ultimately necessary. I despair of people who still complain about this, acting as if the movies have somehow "ruined" the books. I think of the movies as companion pieces to the books, not as replacements. Everything we've loved about the books is still there to be enjoyed and treasured. Yet movies have a completely different sense of pacing and momentum and narrative. I would argue that there is a difference between "being true" to the books and merely depicting what's in them. Just by the sheer difference of the nature of the two storytelling forms, there must be changes. Sometimes they work, and sometimes they don't (we'll discuss this later).
It so happens that Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) is my favorite of the Harry Potter films. The look and feel seemed to hew even closer to the books, and we delved deeper into an already well-established film universe. It's not a perfect adaptation, and I have a few quibbles that I will mention, but by this point in the series, it finally felt like we'd really landed in the world of Harry Potter (no offense to Chris Columbus, who did an excellent job of setting things up and getting them rolling). Naturally, the films began to take on a darker tone as they went, exactly like the books, which mirror how our outlook on life can change as we grow older. By the time we got to Deathly Hallows, Harry's view of things had changed an awful lot compared to the near-constant sense of wonder in Sorcerer's Stone. (And for the record, yes, the fact that they changed the title for American audiences bugs me.)
In this story, we meet several new characters and creatures. The first is Aunt Marge (Pam Ferris), sister of Harry's dreadful Uncle Vernon (Richard Griffiths), who learns the hard way not to mess with a teenage wizard. We then follow Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) on a humorously harrowing journey to London on the Knight Bus, a fantastical purple triple-decker that transports him to the Leaky Cauldron, where he is intercepted by the Minister for Magic, Cornelius Fudge (Robert Hardy). By now, Harry has learned of the escape of Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) from Azkaban Prison. On the train ride to Hogwarts, Harry and his friends Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) have an encounter with a dementor, one of the spectral guards of Azkaban, as it searches for Sirius Black. Luckily for the kids, Professor Remus Lupin (David Thewlis), the new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher at Hogwarts, is on hand to shoo the dementor away. Once they reach the school, headmaster Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) informs the students that the grounds will be patrolled by dementors as they search for Sirius Black. (I've lost count of how many times we hear the name "Sirius Black" mentioned in the film, usually with an urgency bordering on hysteria.) We also meet Professor Trelawney (Emma Thompson), who specializes in the art of Divination (which, for any Muggles out there, is the ability to foretell the future).
A new creature encountered this time is Buckbeak the Hippogriff (sort of a bird and horse combination), used in a Care of Magical Creatures lesson by the newly dubbed Professor Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane). The scene reaches a climax with Harry taking a flight on Buckbeak's back around the castle and grounds. This is one of my favorite scenes in all the Harry Potter movies. Buckbeak looks even better than I had imagined, and the scene gives way to stunning visuals, accompanied by a powerful musical theme composed by John Williams. The scene is a little different than the one in the book, yet it is a perfect demonstration of movie magic, showcasing the differences in storytelling between books and film. (This is not an argument for one over the other; I love them both, but this is a blog mostly about movies.)
There are many familiar faces this time around, as well. Not only the crummy Dursley family, but Professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith), Professor Flitwick (Warwick Davis), Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) and his cronies, and, of course, Professor Snape (Alan Rickman). Watch the way Rickman enters a classroom and instantly commands attention. This film features Snape a little more than the others, and it is consistently rewarding.
We are also taken to Hogsmeade, a nearby village housing only witches and wizards, and introduced to the Marauder's Map, given to Harry by the Weasley twins (James and Oliver Phelps), which is not only a map of Hogwarts and the grounds, but shows the real-time location of everybody within the boundaries of the map. Harry's use of the map leads to a scene of delicious tension—and a little humor—as he searches for one particular individual.
A critical part of the story revolves around Harry's parents, their friendships with Sirius Black, Remus Lupin, and Peter Pettigrew, and a portion of the truth about why they were attacked by the evil Lord Voldemort (who doesn't even feature in this story beyond the mention of his name—which shall not be named, etc.). Because of their shared history, Harry and Professor Lupin have an instant connection, and Lupin agrees to teach Harry how to use the Patronus charm to repel dementors. However, we actually learn very little about Lupin until critical scenes later in the movie.
The plot of this third Harry Potter story is more complex than the first two in a way that I find highly satisfying. As Harry's view of his world changes, so, too, do the stories expand in scope and depth. Rowling does an expert job of introducing the wizarding world a bit at a time early on, before dropping us into the deep end in later stories. I can't remember having as much fun reading a book as I did the first time I read about Harry Potter.
I mentioned that I had a few quibbles. They contain spoilers for any poor souls who haven't seen the movie yet (which is now 20 years old!). My main quibble has to do with information left out of the film, making it impossible for an audience member who hasn't read the books to understand certain moments and details. For instance, just how did Sirius Black escape from Azkaban? How do Lupin and Sirius even know about the Marauder's Map? Who are Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs? How and why did Sirius become an animagus? Why does Harry's Patronus take the form of a stag? And it feels like too much is left unexplained about Peter Pettigrew. Just when we should be learning how it all ties together, we spend a little too long on werewolf scenes.
These quibbles bother me a little, but they're not deal-breakers. I still love the film (and, like I said before, the books are still there to fill in all the details). Alfonso Cuaron and his team gave the look of Harry Potter's world, and even the magic within it, a more "realistic" look than ever before, which also contributes to a sense of real danger. So many things are done extremely well, including Buckbeak, the Whomping Willow, and the use of a Time-Turner. The handling of time travel in this film is exceptional.
A few years ago, I took my parents with me to see the Utah Symphony perform Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban as part of the "Harry Potter Film Concert Series." At these concerts, the orchestra performs the score as the film is playing. This gives film music geeks, like me, a priceless opportunity to see exactly how a film score is structured and utilized. During the film, the audience applauded when favorite actors first appeared on screen (especially for Alan Rickman, who had recently died), but they also applauded at the end of most of the music cues, just as you would in a traditional concert. There were several moments when it felt like they burst into spontaneous applause because the score itself prompted it. (That also speaks to the genius of John Williams, who, sadly, left the Harry Potter franchise after this film. Although other composers were involved and did a fine job, Williams's original themes live on with their unique power to conjure fond memories of the wizarding world.) And, of course, the biggest applause was during John Williams's credit at the end of the movie.
I was able to return to see the Utah Symphony perform two of the Star Wars films. I've been a lifelong Star Wars fan, and I've been a member of some super-enthusiastic Star Wars audiences, but there was something different—something special—about that audience at Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. There were lots of kids (and some adults) in Hogwarts robes, lots of people wearing Gryffindor scarves, and less of the "fanboy" vibe you often get at Star Wars events. The audience was united in a different way, a more magical way, that I have difficulty describing. It all added up to one of the most stunning cinematic experiences I've ever had.
The stories of Harry Potter and Star Wars, at least in my view, both fall into the category of fantasy. (Star Wars contains many fantasy elements, and the setting alone—in a galaxy far, far away—prevents it from qualifying as strictly science fiction, which is usually based on stories and/or characters that originated on Earth.) Both franchises project traditional good/heroic values, although I've always felt that Harry Potter is much closer to reality, with even deeper meaning and more complexity. And I'm not saying this to rank one over the other, only to note the differences in their respective fandoms (which, with me as Exhibit A, feature a lot of overlap). Most kids instantly like Star Wars because it's cool. Most kids who love Harry Potter, though, have more of an emotionally complex connection.
I have a friend who didn't want her kids to read the Harry Potter books because she thought they were about witchcraft. That's like saying that Finding Nemo is all about swimming. It's a feature of the story but not the focus. The stories are about family and friendship, loyalty, compassion, telling the truth, doing the right thing in the face of adversity, increasing our knowledge through learning, keeping an open mind, dealing with a painful past, fighting to overcome evil, the joys and sorrows of teenage romance, standing up to bullies, and so much more.
I will always love Harry Potter. The feeling I got when I was reading the first book has never disappeared. I can’t predict the future, and yet, somehow, I knew all those years ago that I had begun an extraordinary, magical journey that could last my whole life. I love the books and films in almost equal measure. And I treasure this quote from J.K. Rowling: "Hogwarts will always be there to welcome you home."
No comments:
Post a Comment