Kinematoscope

It's the fourth Transfigurations entry, everyone, and coincidentally the fourth in our six-part Harry Potter series (technically it will eventually be eight parts, but that's neither here nor there). Today, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

Multiple questions abound this time out- can a new director maintain the impossibly high standard set by Cuaron's last film? Why does Harry Potter's hair grow so much faster than mine does? Does J K Rowling want us to inherently distrust authority?

And most importantly, why hold an international, much-publicized wizarding competition that consists of two events (out of three) that spectators can barely see?



The Crew:

Steve Kloves remains our screenwriter. Meh.

Our new director is Mike Newell, mostly known for dramedy-type British films like Four Weddings and a Funeral and Enchanted April. After Cuaron declined to film two films back to back, Newell took the job fresh off Mona Lisa Smile, which in addition to being schlocky and mediocre did feature students- so perhaps the producers saw Newell as well-suited to handle the burgeoning relationship melodrama that the fourth book contains.

Click for More...

Patrick Doyle also takes over composing from John Williams, but stays mainly within the themes Williams previously established.

The Cast:

Our biggest notable addition is Brendan Gleeson as the wonderfully grouchy Mad-Eye Moody (sort of, see later). He's been covered in these here internets before.

MAJOR DIFFERENCES:

Well, once we get past the third book, Rowling just sort of goes nuts with the page counts (GOF clocks in at 734) and stuffs in the subplots. Newell and co. initially thought about making Goblet into two films (much like the upcoming pair of Deathly Hallows films) before deciding to condense it into one.

So things like the Quidditch World Cup (at least the match itself) are cut for time, the Weasley twin's gambling winnings bit, the characters of Ludo Bagman and Winky entirely.

House elves on the whole are nowhere to be seen, even Dobby and Hermione's growing S. P. E. W. movement (not something that would have translated. And Rita Skeeter's insiduous journalist has only one scene, which is part of a growing trend of the films toning down the parts of the book that are aggravating.

WHY YOU SHOULD READ THE BOOK

Well, it's longer, like I said. Moreover, it sets up the eventually revelation that Mad-Eye Moody is not himself a little better, by mentioning more than once that he was attacked early on, along with all of the Polyjuice potion hints.

It's also got classes in it, something laregly absent from all of the films- we usually see one or two Defense Against the Dark Arts lessons and one Snape class on film, but the books are still structured around the school year.

And as part of a larger world, the book has a HUGE advantage over the film- the filmmakers chose to exclude what I feel is one of the most important scenes in the book, near the end when Dumbeldore and Fudge have a sort of stand-off in the school hospital wing.

That scene (which sort of shows us why Dumbeldore is such a revered figure) sets up so much in the fifth book I keep forgetting that it's not in the film at all. Nor does the film explain what "Priori Incantatem" is in the slightest, despite the fact that it allows Harry to escape Voldemort with his life.

WHY YOU SHOULD WATCH THE MOVIE

It's funny.

Not something I'd really say about the earlier films, even the third, which is wonderfully atmospheric, but darkly so. Goblet of Fire manages to play the fish-out-of-water Moody to a T, get the Yule Ball chicanery just right, and is a showcase of moments invented just for the Weasley twins.

It has the advantage of building on the first three films, in that it doesn't have to introduce us to anybody- thus, after the initial rush through the World Cup and expositional Triwizard Tournament bit, it can stretch its legs a little and let us see Snape whack the back of our young heroes' heads for talking during a test, see Neville's love of dancing, and the twins repeating things five times fast while taking bets on the tournament.

And as stilted as it can be at times, turning the final task maze into a generic attack-hedge and madcapping the dragon and merpeople bits, the instant Harry and Cedric touch the Triwizard cup it completely nails the change in tone- the graveyard battle and especially the chaotic return to the field.


CONCLUSIONS

Goblet of Fire might be the closest film to the book that still has a life of its own. It streamlines the plot, but keeps the high points and contributes its own funny moments.

It would nice if it were as jam packed with magical details as Prisoner of Azkaban, but I can't have everything. A worthy entrant to the series, Newell's film would be a suitable substitute for the book, if you really don't have the time, but it's not the greatest experience on its own.

Of course, it's the first one I saw after becoming a fan of the books, so the differences might have struck me harder than before- I notice that Kloves kept Harry and Ron's extended disagreement (despite glossing over Harry's fight with Hermione in book three)- in his ongoing Ron exclusion, but Grint and Radcliffe managed some nice moments out of it.

OTHER (MINOR) DIFFERENCES/OBSERVATIONS

- I notice the Death Eaters in the film have KKK hoods. Totally subtle, guys.

- Bummest note in the film- the Weasley's tent at the World Cup is small on the outside but huge inside- a point that might've been deftly handled last film here gets a musical flourish and then Harry literally says: "I love magic!" Me, too, Harry. That's why we're all here. Thanks for spelling it out.

- Some people don't care for it, but I like Michael Gambon's much more reactionary Dumbeldore in this film, as he shakes Harry's shoulders when his name comes out of the Goblet. He's important to set the tone for what's to come, even if his scene of badassness was cut for time.

- Sirius in the fireplace ash in the film- meh. That seemed like FX just for the sake of FX to me.

- No Maurauder's Map in the film, as useful as it would have been..

- Not to hark on this, but people watching the Triwizard Tournament must be bored as hell: after a relatively exciting dragon first task, they get to watch the surface of the lake for an hour, and then the edges of a hedge maze, while merely guessing what could be happening. Nothing unites the international wizarding world like being bored out of your minds.

Next time on Transfigurations: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix- featuring Luna Lovegood! an entirely different screenwriter! more of Gary Oldman than his face! and possibly my favorite scene not in the books!

So after catching the last two Harry Potter movies on cable (or whatever) and generally scoffing at the acclaim for the books (or some reason I once felt that Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings fandom were mutually exclusive), I finally became a believer with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, our subject today in Transfigurations. Off we go!

The Crew:

Chris Columbus, tiring of rarely seeing his family AND RUINING OUR DREAMS, decided to merely produce this installment in the series. After Guillermo Del Toro and Marc Forster turned it down, Alfonso Cuaron was selected for the job.

After getting his start in Mexican tv, Cuaron proved no small shakes at translating literary coming-of-age stories to the screen with A Little Princess and Great Expectations. It was his Y Tu Mama Tambien, however, that attracted the filmmakers, though that film's overtly sexual post-adolescent themes are understandably muted here. He went on to make one of my favorite films of recent memory, Children of Men.

Steve Kloves returns on screenplay duties, while John Williams continues to compose scores and all. Our cinematographer (because this is the first time I've been compelled to look it up) is Michael Seresin, director of photography on such disparate films as Fame, Angela's Ashes, and Step Up.

The Cast:

Three major new additions greatly increase my appreciation for the series as well: David Thewlis plays the best teacher slash werewolf any student could wish for, and nobody plays crazy like Crazy Gary Oldman.

After Richard Harris's passing in 2002, Michael Gambon stepped into the role of Dumbeldore with a booming voice, a darker interpretation of the character, and a slight Irish accent.



NOTE: SPOILERS ARE RAMPANT HERETOFORE. HEREWITH? HENCEFORTH? THE POINT IS, THEY'RE EVERYWHERE!

Click for More...

MAJOR DIFFERENCES

From a plot standpoint, events are naturally condensed into a more breezy timeline, and some exposition is lost. What I love about this from a cinematic standpoint is that while the book feels the odd need to refresh us on many, many things (opening with the line "Harry Potter was a highly unusual boy in many ways.", in case we were not aware), the film can just sort of assume that we will pick it up as we go along, if we don't know already.

The film removes the extended subplot wherein Harry receives a Firebolt (a fancy Quidditch broom) anonymously, and Hermione reports it to Professor McGonagall, suspecting it might be from Sirius Black. This causes an extended rift between Hermione and Harry/Ron which lasts nearly half the book. The argument between Ron and Hermione about Crookshanks's pursuit of Scabbers is much less touched-upon.

Perhaps now that the three leads were finally old enough to start developing an onscreen rapport, it was decided not to split them up as much as the book does (Kloves also loves Hermione more than Ron, and wouldn't want to write her out very much. More on this later).

The final major thing left out is the explanation of exactly how Sirius Black betrayed the Potters, what the Fidelius Charm is, and so on. This is seemingly the beginning of a trend in which major plot points are just left unexplained in later films (which never bother me, since I've read the books now).

MINOR DIFFERENCES

Before the great feast to start the term we're treated to a performance of a chorus of children holding toads, singing the words from the opening three witches scene of Shakespeare's MacBeth. Were they practicing all summer for that or something?

The burgeoning and inevitable relationship between Ron and Hermione is planted in the films earlier, with a furtive hand-clasp during the hippogriff class. This is in addition to an awkward aborted hug in film 2.

The restriction on underage magic seems to flutter in and out of existence in the films- Harry is seen at the very start practicing lumos maxima with his wand (if you know what I mean), but doesn't worry about getting in trouble until inadvertently blowing up his aunt. My operating theory is that in the films magic is restricted, but they can't detect it remotely with "the trace" as mentioned in book 7. They just punish people for things they hear about, like the hover charm in 2 or the patronus charm in 5.

Also, cut for time in the film are nearly all Quidditch scenes and lessons where nothing important happens. Oh well.

WHY YOU SHOULD READ THE BOOK

The book has the natural advantage of time, once again, and in book three especially we're treated to the revelation that there was a full-fledged history going on before Harry Potter was even born, one that consisted of much more than an evil wizard named Voldemort doing bad things. The adults in all the early books were fun enough and all, but they never seemed to have stories of their own until the third book- finding out about the marauders, Lupin's lycanthropy, and why Snape hates Harry's father so much (part of it, anyway), I've always found more engaging than the general good/bad dichotomy, at least early on.

The book makes all of the connections between the present day and the past clear, as well- the movie, despite liking the Marauders' Map so much that they made it a key part of the credits and DVD production design, never explain who they were (nor does Lupin explain how he knows what the map is, when he sees it).

The movie does retain plenty of the dramatic appeal, especially in the climactic scene when all is revealed in the shrieking shack (though it's not explained why it's called the shrieking shack), and it's the implied history that made me pick up the books in the first place. But why they couldn't have mentioned the friendship of Lupin, Black, Pettigrew and Harry's father in more detail in the film is beyond me.

WHY YOU SHOULD WATCH THE MOVIE

Oh man, oh man. So many little things are happening, all around the edges of this movie. You can really tell that they spent more time on production, more time on FX, more time making it a cohesive vision. And as well they should- the Harry Potter books presented filmmakers with the opportunity to depict a world in which anything could be magical, at any time, but it took three films to run with it.

Just watch the first twenty seconds of this clip below (don't mind the foreign dubbing or brief red title thing):



As we pan into the leaky cauldron, we see a wizard absent-mindedly making his spoon swirl itself, a busboy make an empty bottle disappear, and the chairs put themselves up on the table. Just for a brief establishing shot of the Leaky Cauldron.

Beyond movie-only scenes like the candy that causes animal sounds, this attention to detail goes straight through- even the letters in the Harry Potter logo float in place this time, because why not. There's a giraffe running through all the portraits, brooms and quills that move on their own- every time I find something else I didn't see before.

It's also a great story, streamlining the plot of the book into a compelling mystery. Though it lacks the personal touches I mentioned above, it does include a new scene where Harry sees Peter Pettigrew on the Marauders' Map, which I like because it sets up the big reveal at the end a lot better- reading the book I don't see how one could possibly guess that Sirius Black is actually innocent until it's all laid out for you, but the implication that Pettigrew is alive in the film plants the seed in a more thorough way.

There are even some great lines that don't stem from the book at all- when Lupin is about to transform, Sirius tells him "You know the man you truly are Remus. This heart is where you truly live!". Or the spontaneously philosophical Dumbeldore off-handedly musing: "For in dreams we enter a world that's completely our own."

The camera-work is superb, as well- the seasons transition with the flight of birds, we transition straight through mirrors at inventive angles, or through the Hogwarts clock. From overhead we see dementors circling just as carrion crows did earlier, or a diminutive angle of a stone skipped over the lake telegraphs Hagrid's sadness at losing Buckbeak's appeal. It's magic behind the camera worthy of what's in front.


CONCLUSIONS: One? The other? Both?

I would definitely recommend both, and with a gun to my head I'd go with the film- Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is probably my favorite film in the series so far on its own merits (it might be because I saw it before reading the book, unlike the following three).

It finds a perfect middle ground between the faithfulness that such a popular book requires and the inventiveness that a great filmmaker can bring.

Based on the first two movies, I didn't feel motivated to read Harry Potter books because I just figured I was missing out on a decent kids' story.

After I saw this movie, I realized I was missing out on an entire world, such as I might find in dreams.


Leftover Thoughts:

- Per the DVD extras: Alfonso Cuaron assigned the three principals an essay on their characters. In an hilarious case of excellent casting, Daniel Radcliffe wrote a page, Emma Watson wrote sixteen pages, Rupert and Grint just didn't do it.

-Another worthy addition to the cast: Emma Thompson's appropriately bonkers Professor Trelawny chews just the right amount of scenery.

-Parodies of HPPoA that are worth your time: Cleolinda Jones's Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban in Fifteen Minutes, and the Rifftrax (downloadable .mp3 commentary from the MST3K guys) is a steal at $4.

Next week, of course, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire!

Welcome back to my feature comparing movies to their source material. We continue our six-part Harry Potter series with the second book and film, Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets.

NOTE: Again, all kinds of Harry Potter spoilers are rampant in this post, though mostly for this installment

The Crew:

As mentioned last week, our filmmakers are screenwriter Steve Kloves and director Chris Columbus.

The Cast:

Once again, the cast is huge and it really wouldn't do to recap everyone's storied career. Suffice it to say that our three stars, Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint, have all grown up a year and gotten better, and our already packed-with-ringers supporting adult cast adds Kenneth Branagh to its ranks this time out.



Click for More...

THINGS THE BOOK DOES THAT THE FILM DOESN'T

1. Not to hark on this or anything, but- Subtlety

It's the little things, people. I know that the subtleties of the printed page are completely different, but Columbus is just too "gee-whiz!" of a director to be right for this series at all.

Dobby, for example, is in large part directly translated from the book (Toby Jones's rasping voice-work I mostly could've done without), but is initially seen inexplicably jumping on Harry's bed, a completely out of character moment.

Or the stairs in Hogwarts castle, which merit but a sentence or two about how they shift about in print (and move mostly in the background in future films) get a musical flourish and their own camera shots in Chamber, and then Harry and co. pass by.

This attitude carries once again into a spectacularly overdone Quidditch match (where Harry flies through the stands, and Oliver Wood's broomstick is shattered by a bludger), Hermione immobilizing an entire roomful of pixies with one speel (instead of two at a time), and the important-to-the-plot breaking of Ron's wand- in the book, he finds it broken after the whomping willow pummels the car, but in the film breaks it himself whacking it on the steering wheel. This after the flying car nearly gets hit by the Hogwarts express, a completely new idea.

It's the difference, I think, of existing in a world versus presenting it. As exposition-y as Rowling's books can be, they sort of take the whole magic thing as a given, and don't waste time emphasizing it (at least not more than other things, like characterization and plot). Columbus is less interested in Harry than he is in the scar on his forehead (which shows up a lot more in these two films than later ones, where Harry's bangs cover it up).

2. Advance The Plot In A Timely Fashion

As we find out at the end of Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets, a lot of the master plot has to do with Ginny Weasley, and small scenes from the book that seem inconsequential at first glance back that back that up: she looks pale and sickly at a point, she looks mortified when she sees Harry with Riddle's diary, and she seems about to tell Harry and Ron something one morning before Percy walks by.

Are any of these scenes in the film? No, though we do see Ginny's Harry-related nervousness early on, and she's around the whole time.

Other plot elements get shuffled, but the scenes that dealt with them are preserved: Gilderoy Lockhart is still introduced signing books at the book-shop, but he doesn't announce he'll be teaching at Hogwarts- he just shows up there a few scenes later.

Similarly, Harry still arrives in Borgin & Burkes accidentally, but doesn't eavesdrop on Lucious Malfoy- the scene seems to be preserved mostly because Columbus wanted a disembodied hand to suddenly grab Harry's wrist. Magic!


THINGS THE FILM DOES THAT THE BOOK DOESN'T

1. Have Excellent British Actors Bringing The Adults To Life

Again, by far my favorite part of these first two films is the stacked cast. Here, we spend some time around Mrs. Weasley (Julie Walters), who scales back the more reactionary book character in a fun performance, and Mr. Weasley (Mark Williams), who has my favorite non-book line when asking Harry about Muggles: "Now tell me Harry, what exactly is the function of a rubber duck?"

Which is not to mention Alan Rickman's legendary Snape again (though I just did, I guess, because Snape is awesome), Maggie Smith's spot-on McGonagall, or Richard Harris as Dumbeldore- the late Harris's quiet, rasping Dumbeldore obviously stands out the most, since it contrasts with Michael Gambon's later interpretation of the character.

2. Pace The Big Finale A Lot Better

My problem with the end of the second book is that, after the first book's careful constructed obstacles, the finish is just four pages of Fawkes ex machina. In rapid succesion, Dumbeldore's pet phoenix shows up, pecks out the basilisk's eyes, drops the Sorting Hat in Harry's arms (which produces Gryffindor's sword), heals Harry's wound, and brings him the diary to destroy.

The film, in the rare instance of the cinema of spectacle helping an adaptation, spaces these moments out with a blind-basilisk chase-sequence and a small sword battle. Harry also stabs the diary all on his own.

I promise from now on that the "Things the film does" parts will be longer because the rest of the films do more things.

OTHER DIFFERENCES I NOTICED THAT ARE LARGELY INCONSEQUENTIAL

-When you use Polyjuice Potion in this film, you still have your own voice (but not, as we'll see, in the next one). Hmm?

-In an early example of Ron's lines getting given to another character (Steve Kloves seems to care very little for Ron), Hermione knows all about what a "mudblood" is.

-We do get to fly through the Harry Potter logo for the first time (a trend in all subsequent films), though the WB logo sort of falls out of the way.

-I mostly liked the way Parseltongue was depicted, though I find myself wondering why the basilisk only ever talked about killing things as it wandered about the castle. Why didn't Harry hear things like "I haven't molted in a while....this is really getting itchy...man, spiders sure are delicious...I wonder where they all went?"

-Hermione is a lot less of a scold in the films in general: here she seems hardly reproving of the boys arriving in a stolen car and damaging the whomping willow.

-I like the way Harry frees Dobby in the film better- hiding a sock in the diary, which Malfoy then hands to his servant. Tossing the sock over your shoulder seems like an iffy definition of "giving."

-The restriction on underage wizardy doesn't seem to exist in the early films- Harry gets no letter after Dobby uses a hover charm. More on this when we get to the fifth movie.

-Finally, John Williams score is once again a large culprit in the "golly gee!" sense that I dislike in these two first films.


CONCLUSIONS

So after two installments of Columbus-vision, I couldn't be happier to be moving on. The irony here is that if you're a book purist, these two films have been the hands-down best at keeping the story intact.

But that's the problem, they're not really films that way. The more you try to imitate another art form, the more you reveal that you can't do the same things.

Granted, Harry Potter isn't exactly a property that you can just hack apart in the service of movie-making, and it's not exactly a collosal failure that Columbus couldn't do both at once. But it's no wonder that the franchise went with an entirely different choice for the next film.

What Harry Potter books need are people who can tells stories with the camera to match the source material. Columbus was little more than someone trying to read the first two books to us as a bedtime story: serviceable enough, but he couldn't do the funy voices the way we like.

Next week, with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, we'll see how it's done.

New feature alert! I work in a library, and I love books. I also blog about movies. It seemed like a natural idea to do a feature comparing movies to their literary inspirations- then Tasha Robinson of The Onion A. V. Club started a terrific feature called Book Vs. Film, and I lost the enthusiasm to do my own. But as she’s been a bit busy with other things and hasn’t done one since March, I’m launching ahead with my own weekly movie adaptation feature, Transfigurations!

I take the title from the name for a type of spell in the Harry Potter universe, not only because my first six installments will be about that series (whoo!), but because it implies I can include movies based on comics, tv shows, video games, view master toys, and whatever else there is, even remakes, rather than solely books. Though I suspect that novels will be the majority. As it is, we begin a six part Transfigurations journey with Harry Potter And The Sorcerer’s (nee Philosopher’s) Stone, the first part of the best-selling seven-part bildungsroman.

NOTE: This entry may contain spoilers for all six movies and all seven books! If you, and the rock you live under don’t jibe with that, please don’t read it! Also it‘s very long and somewhat obsessively detailed, because that‘s just how Harry Potter fans roll.



Click to read lots More...

THE CREW:

The novel was of course written by J. K. Rowling, who I’m sure will someday write something not Potter-related. For now, she’s merely the richest woman in Britain (maybe behind the queen?), and a name immediately known to children, parents, and those of us that just like awesome things worldwide. Rowling acted as a consultant on the film, telling people what changes not to make, as well as insisting that the cast be British.

The movie was adapted for the screen by Steve Kloves, whose previous career consisted of writing and directing The Fabulous Baker Boys, and adapting an Oscar nominated screenplay from Michael Chabon’s Wonder Boys.

It was directed by (long pause, sigh) Chris Columbus. Columbus rose to fame writing (The Goonies, Gremlins) and/or directing (Adventures In Babysitting, Home Alone, Mrs. Doubtfire) madcap, mostly child-friendly comedies of the late eighties and early nineties. And while he surely must’ve seemed like a good candidate based on that pedigree, those films weren’t exactly nuanced or subtle, and Columbus had been on a major flop-streak leading up to HPatSS’s production. There wasn’t one person in the Warner Brother’s offices who raised his hand to say “wait, why are we handing the reins of this potentially multi-billion-dollar franchise to the director of Nine Months and Bicentennial Man? And the producer of Jingle All The Way?”? Columbus directed the second film in the series, and has gone on to mediocri-fy other things that people love like Rent and (presumably) The Lightning Thief.

THE CAST:

Really, the cast is too big to cover here, but it’s honestly the biggest strength of the entire series. Thanks to the inherent prestige of the project, veteran British actors all appear in the smallest of roles, making Rowling’s expansive universe seem a lot more three dimensional in limited screen time.

Add the lucky break of finding three well chosen leads amongst thousands of children in an open cast-call, and you very nearly redeem any complaints I might have about Columbus’s direction (which we’ll get to as we go along).

THINGS THE BOOK DOES THAT THE FILM DOESN‘T:

1. Smooth Exposition

Both versions of the story are presented with the problem of creating a universe, and cramming a lot of exposition into the first half of the narrative. Rowling manages it a lot more deftly, given the slower run-time of the page.

For example, Hagrid ends up with the task of explaining to Harry A) That he’s a wizard, and there are lots of wizards and witches that have schools and shops and such, B) That his parents were in fact, a witch and a wizard of some renown that died when he was a baby, and C) That said deaths were at the hands of an evil wizard named Voldemort. In the book, he does all this while growing comically more enraged at the Dursleys (Harry’s Aunt & Uncle) for never telling him about any of it:

“…Did yeh never wonder where your parents learned it all?”
“All what?” asked Harry.
“ALL WHAT?” Hagrid thundered.

Not until a page later does Hagrid drop the revelation that Harry is a wizard, which is an important moment with some atmosphere: “There was a silence inside the hut. Only the sea and whistling wind could be heard. ‘I’m a what?’ gasped Harry.”

In the film, this becomes an abruptly flat exchange with no fanfare: -“All what?” -“Yer a wizard, Harry.” Also, perhaps in order to move the pace along, they have Hagrid explain about Voldemort and the murdering and all several scenes later, after Harry’s gone shopping at Diagon Alley and gotten his wand (which means he might have been a bit befuddled when the wandmaker tells him that his wand’s twin “gave you that scar.”)

2. Subtlety

The slower, eventual revelation of magic in the book is another subtle part that I loved, but it's absent from the film entirely- the studio clearly must’ve worried about kids falling asleep with all the talking. Small bits like Hagrid leaning making a fire out of sight from Harry and the Dursleys (instead of just blasting fire into the fireplace with his umbrella) or Dumbledore not looking at cat-McGonagall when he adresses her, and then turning back to find her in human form (instead of us seeing her change shape right away). It’s just a part of the magical world slowly creeping in on the regular one (like the first, Dursley centric chapter that the film justifiably skips).

You certainly can’t fault the film all that much for not making any big departures from the book, best-selling as it was. I just wish it would've also retained the small amount of nuance that Rowling used so well.

Take the snake: Harry sees a snake at a zoo that seems like it can understand him, talks to it a bit, then Dudley pushes him down and in that moment the glass disappears, the snake slithers by a terrified Dudley- Harry “could have sworn” he heard the snake say thanks. In the movie, Harry gets knocked down, very obviously glares at Dudley- then the glass disappears, and we literally see the snake say “thanks” and slither away. Har har, Columbus. What hilarious hi-jinks. It’s not like it was a sly setup of Harry being a Parseltongue in later books or anything. Glad you’re having fun.

THINGS THE FILM DOES THAT THE BOOK DOESN‘T:

1. Special FX

There were, I’ll admit, some nice touches here and there that can only be in our imaginations in the book: The dissolving brick wall passage into Diagon Alley peels back in a fun, more complex way than a small hole growing “wider and wider” in the book.

The transition from baby Harry to 11-year-old Harry through the forehead scar is reasonably inspired (even if it’s got nothing on the zoom-through-the-WB-logo of the later films).

Mostly the effects seemed to just be content to do the best imitation of the way things were written, which is pretty sad, if you think about it. You’re only a huge movie studio with a giant budget for computer animation, Warner. Why does the mountain troll that gets loose in the girl’s bathroom need to look exactly like Mary Grandpre’s illustration?(from the US edition, below. On the right is the action figure of the film-troll):


The madcap scene when Harry tries wands at the shop and makes various things fall over or explode is the right idea- in the book the wands feel different to Harry, and fizzle sparks- there's no way to show that, so why not make things up? But aside from a few other differences (like the potion room in the final sequence being replaced by a more complex bit with the plant obstacle), they just did it by the numbers.

And a word on Quidditch- maybe the later films are just better at it, but anything involving a broomstick looked shoddily intergrated to me. Very awkward, flying imposed over bright backgrounds. Most of the broomstick flying seems to be in inclement weather in the later movies, lending them more drama and less cartoonishness.

2. (Very) Occasional Character Moments

-Early on, Dudley runs up and down the stairs to make dust fall on Harry in his cupboard, an addition I liked. Harry also commiserates a little more explicitly with the snake in the beginning, a rare deft touch.

-When Harry takes Potions for the first time in the film, Snape chastises him for not paying attention when he’s actually taking notes, which fits well. (Alan Rickman’s portrayal of Snape is hands-down the best part of the films not really implied by the book character at all).

-We also get the recurring motif of Seamus blowing things up in his face.

-Finally, when Harry faces off with movie-Voldemort, he’s offered a vision of a life with his parents, all he ever wanted, if he only gives Voldemort the stone. It’s a fun, Last Temptation Of Christ type moment, and even if it’s not perfect I respect the attempt to give Harry more of a narrative arc than “learning a bunch of new stuff while being suspicious of Snape.”

OTHER DIFFERENCE I NOTICED THAT ARE LARGELY INCONSEQUENTIAL:

-Harry doesn’t meet Draco before any other classmates, as in the book, at the robe shop, or even argue with him on the train. They meet randomly at the top of a staircase much later- it seems unbecoming of Draco’s introduction, since he’s the most persistently vocal of the series’ various antagonists.

-As much as I lament the “kiddiness” of this film, several of the book’s most playful touches are gone: There’s no sorting hat song, or school song. Nor do we hear of Dumbledore’s penchant for lemon drops, or of course his few words “Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!” Richard Harris does sprinkle in a few more winks than are canon, however.

-The deluminator in the movie looks more like a light saber than a cigarette lighter. Just saying.

-Harry goes to Hogwarts right after meeting Hagrid and buying his school things- does this mean his birthday is at the end of August, just for this first film? Is it best not to think about it?

-No introduction of the name “Nicholas Flamel” on the card in the chocolate frog box. Not that it has to do with the titular plot or anything.

-One of my favorite moments in the book is when Hagrid gives Harry the book of photos of his parents, and mentions rather casually that he just sent away to all of their friends for them. The gulf between the way he presents it and what it means to Harry near chokes me up every time. The movie, he just says “this is for you,” and then smiles importantly, once again overstating the moment.

-Flitwick looks a lot less humanoid in this movie than in later ones. I wonder when they just decide to retcon it? And will the goblins who play major parts in the upcoming Deathly Hallows two-parter look the same as the sort of creepy, felsh-tone goblins we see in Gringotts here?

-Harry doesn’t ask, in the film, why Voldemort would want to kill him in the first place, and doesn’t receive the subsequent non-answer, a very important thing later.

CONCLUSIONS:

I actually saw this film, and the next two, before I read the books (it was Alfonso Cuaron’s masterful handling of the third installment that finally drew me into the story). So it clearly didn’t bring the material to life as much as it wanted to, as closely as it hews to the book.

That’s the thing- and the rather obvious conclusion I’ll probably reach in this feature over and over- movies aren’t books. You can do so many different things with movies, but all of the movie magic for Harry Potter And The Sorcerer’s Stone is spent trying not to ruffle too many purist’s feathers, or else wasted on a madcap John Williams score that distracts from the movie like a mosquito buzzing in everyone’s ears at once.

I still enjoy watching the film in a nostalgic, since we’ve all seen the young leads grow up in front of us, and I do of course enjoy the story- now being a huge fan of the books. It's hard to consider the first installment of a seven (or eight) part series purely as its own entity, given what we know comes later.

The movie was of course tremendously financially successful- it’s hard to imagine what else Columbus would’ve had to do to prevent that. And he had a major role in assembling the brilliant cast that serves us so well later. So I’ve probably been too hard on this film (and the next one) in casual discussion. I mean, I still watch them both when I flip by on cable...

But given the depth and atmosphere of the third through sixth (so far) films, it’s hard to look back on this workmanlike debut of the cinematic Harry Potter universe with a wistful hindsight, wishing for a more unified series. Ah, well.

See you next week with Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets!