HARRY POTTER FILM MARATHON - Chamber of Secrets

One of the first things that is evident in Chris Columbus second venture into the Potter is the passing of time. Thus, Chamber of Secrets doesn't inspire us to look forward, but rather to ponder the past - not just because Chamber of Secrets greatly differs from Philosopher's Stone, but because it is an entirely different universe altogether.

What I mean by this? Well, take a look at the first scene of the film. In Philosopher's Stone, the trio hardly seemed older than 8 (although meant to be 11) and Daniel Radcliffe's acting skills were nonexistent. Here, the kids look their age (12) and Radcliffe gives a troubled, angry performance that can be felt from the very first few seconds on. The first film, concerned with conveying to the audience the wonder and excitement of magic, was an homage to old-school filmmaking and Steven Spielberg, while his successor has learnt a few lessons from The Lord of the Rings and - of all people - Sam Raimi. Yes, the very Raimi who handed in his Spiderman in 2002, who brought the subjective angles that characterized his Evil Dead trilogy to mainstream cinema. Many of this technique, can be found throughout the second Potter, and there is the same mischievous, slightly sadistic and campy feel in Chamber that feels unique to Raimi's works. There's even an evil book at the heart of the matter! But I digress...

What makes, and breaks, Chamber of Secrets is that the film is based on the by far weakest book in the Potterverse. While more concerned with puzzle structures than Philosopher's Stone, both are swift whodunit's whose payoff is based on the lack of understanding of behind-the-scenes going on's on the side of the reader. Sadly, the book is written in such a fashion that almost anybody can guess the outcome after a few pages, including the books main villain, the secondary villain and the character responsible for the villain's "escape", which takes the punch from the punchline. There is also Dobby who may either be a genius comment on Jar Jar Binks (a character introduced late in a franchise due to it's cuteness whose annoying behavior is meant to appeal to children, here twisted into a masochistic troll who attempts to "save" Harry by harming him or exposing him to other great dangers) or the worst character in the entire franchise. Take your pick.

BUT, luckily, Columbus proves to be a skilled director here, as he manages to make the books shortcomings into the films strengths - Dobby is now a mischievous and campy semi-villain who DOES inspire some thought on his inclusion as a comment on similar characters on franchises, and it is a lot harder to guess what is actually going on, and only visible to the VERY attentive eye.

The positive traits go further than the adaptation: the additions to the cast are very strong, including Jason Isaacs as malevolent black magician Lucius Malfoy, who will play an important role throughout the rest of the arc, and , yes, of course, Kenneth Branagh's campy portrayal of a slimy, arrogant egomaniac. And indeed, the film does belong to the ginger's: the Weasley's shine as well and Rupert Grint improves considerably. Sadly, one of the films major shortcomings is the reduction of Ron to comic relief and moaning. It's strange the film spends so much time on him considering his one-dimensional writing.

However, while being Columbus fault, the intention may have been to further shed light on the films overruling theme, that of darkness in the innocent looking. While the world of Philosopher's Stone had a dark lord hidden, foes and a ghastly forest, the wonder of colorful magic was prevalent. Here, Harry and his friends learn that there are doors better left untouched, people better not addressed, paths that they have to evade. There is even the first mention of the "Mudbloods", those half wizard, half muggle - fascism even manages to creep into the imaginary universe of wizards.

Thus Ron's tendency to get into trouble and either cry or being ridiculed may suggest that the child slowly progresses into an adult world which he can't handle just yet, that the colorful is no longer prevalent, that darkness is slowly evading. Still, Ron breaking his wand, then taping it back together and performing utterly frustrating anti-spells for the rest of the film is one of the flaws that should have been fixed, no matter if the wand is of importance in the climax or not.

And just like the wand, the films shortcomings can be counted by either bad luck or Columbus desire to stay close to the book. It was very bad luck that this is Richard Harris last film - the veteran's failing health can be felt throughout his performance, as his voice is brittle and his pose at times painfully tired. It was a shortcoming of the book that the climax takes FOREVER and is, again, much too close to it's predecessor's revelation to really generate suspense. But still, most of the film, while managing to generate an atmosphere and some suspense, never truly generates the interest it should. For long stretches, Columbus relies on exposition rather than to show us real emotions, and while explanations and puzzle-cracking is relevant considering the nature of a whodunit, it doesn't make for a very magical experience.

Chamber of Secret's can probably best be likened to the age of the protagonists: 12 is the end of childhood, shortly before puberty. Harry and his friends slowly become aware of the power of Voldemort and the threats of not just the dark arts, but of vanity and egoism, and also of innocence and naivety (after all, two corrupted children are at the center of the narrative - one choosing to go down the road of egoism, the other being tricked to do so due to lack of experience). This clash of the "magical" world of childhood and the impending darkness of puberty, yet being somewhere between the two forces, results in an uncertainty in the protagonists as much as in the film. Harry even goes as far to ask himself if he may be the "heir of Slytherin" (thus the grand grand grand grand etc. grand son of the wizarding-world's first fascist), grimly foreshadowing his link to Voldemort, questioning his own spirit. While Columbus chose the style, mood and looks of a Raimi film, which works wonders on the source's more grotesque and campy elements, the film never goes all the way and never dares to cross the border of mainstream entertainment to become a work of art. It gives a promise of what's to come and entertains, but never really trusts its own capabilities, its own desire to be more than what it is.

So what is Chamber of Secrets? It certainly is an entertaining Potter film, but it is also lacking whenever it chooses to tell instead of simply show. It ponders on the good and bad in people and society and is rich with themes and symbolism. While dull in places, it never ventures into the territory of frustration though, so it still manages to please every fan who decides to give it a chance. Outshone by what was to come and triumphing over the franchise's worse titles, it rests somewhere between cinematic adolescence and adulthood, frozen and caught in time much like it's key villain.

P.S.: In addition, a thorough analysis of the films and novels many symbolic meanings can be found here.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone: / / / / / / / wands out of 10.

HARRY POTTER FILM MARATHON - Philosopher's Stone

When it was announced that Chris Columbus would helm the Potter franchise, my heart sank. It still does whenever I think of this utterly bland, quite uninspired choice, considering that Terry Gilliam, ex Monty Python and director of such classics as Time Bandits, Brazil and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, was writer J K Rowling's favorite for the position. He apparently met with producers, which resulted in a long meeting - the end of which saw Gilliam exit the office building, head for his car and drive full speed over the Mulholland Drive for hours as he was "that angry" that he, apparently, was not to the studio's liking.

So, I had only finished the first Potter book and found myself disheartened that the film could turn any good. Kicking off this series of articles on the various Potter films with Philosopher's Stone is as disappointing as sitting in the seat and watch the "fun romp" that is the first in the franchise unravel. Although, I must say, as I sat down last week to run through a lengthy Potter-film-marothon, the film revealed itself to be not quite as utterly horrible as I remember it being. To show you how sketchy my memory of that film was: I was absolutely sure that the exterior of Hogwarts was considerably changed on the DVD version to match the latter incarnation. However, a quick search found neither images nor accounts for a change. So this is not that horrible at all, is it?

Well, it depends. Chris Columbus had made a decidedly "kids" film, equipping a child-like gaze for his cinematography. Throughout, Columbus seems as enchanted by the magic on display as young Harry, who witnesses it for the first time. The sweeping camera highlights each and every quirk that can be found in this wonderland of living chocolate frogs, rubber-masked goblins and baby dragons. This is, after all, a kid's film. And one decidedly shaped after those of the past, namely Steven Spielberg's best work and 90s (or late 80s) B-movies.

Back when Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone was released, one of the main problem critics attested was the "messy" use of old school effects and CGI. Yes, the rubber masked Goblins... Looking back, the film feels almost charmingly naive and old-school, even though some of the effect's do lack in subtlety and craft (Flitwick's look here, which is decidedly different from later incarnations, is that of a yellowish dwarf with flesh-toned hands and no facial movement whatsoever). The main problems that critics had with the film still feels glaringly obvious though. And, sadly, it lies with the cast.

Given how many good actors lend their names to this film (John Hurt as wand-maker Olivander was a very charming surprise), it is frustrating that the actor portraying Potter fails to deliver a fitting job - something both Rupert Grint and Emma Watson manage. Daniel Radcliffe not only doesn't meet with the rebellious side of his character, he also feels closer in acting to aforementioned late 80s kids movies, and rather resembles Kevin from Home Alone than Max from Where the Wild Things are. This is a dutiful and obedient Potter, and not the slightly mischievous outsider with the messy hair that can never be combed into order. So the most interesting element of the early Potter books is absent in the films - that of actual characters. But as mentioned previously, both Grint and Watson convey their parts rather well. And then we have, of course, Alan Rickman, who shines and almost OUTshines the entire movie with his depiction of Severus Snape, whose best moments were yet to come, and Richard Harris, who proves to be a wise, calm and sympathetic Dumbledore.

As far as adapting a source material goes, the film also stays true to the book, only skipping one large sub-plot (that of the baby dragon), which is not really missed as there is always something going on in the narrative - even if it is only a Quidditch match (one of the few moments that take the viewer out of the film and actually could have been left on the cutting room floor, if it wasn't to show Harry's skills). There is little here that can be analyzed as far as subtext goes - we have some interesting ideas on schizophrenia (although some of the books background is sorely missing) as well as an outlook on the franchise's latter themes of struggle with a bigger-than-life-power, none of which transcends what is depicted on film.

So let's jump ahead and take another look at the way the film is made - Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is an attempt to re-introduce the "old fashioned" blockbuster, the B-movie inspired fantasy film we all came to know from when we were kids. Sadly, there was something called The Lord of the Rings that sufficiently proved that something much grander, much more exciting was ahead for Blockbuster-movies. Thus, we are left, ten years after its completion, with an artifact of times passed - an homage to Spielberg, the B-movie, old fashioned, colorful, handcrafted films that made us excited for what was to come, that we begged our parents to watch dozens of times at the cinema in a row. It is sad, though, that Columbus lacked the subtlety and craft to inject the film with real quality and artistic interest. It is a spectacle, yes, and one that Hollywood seemingly has forgotten (compare this film to something like Green Lantern and the ten years will feel like decades), but it is also tame, watered-down, softened and, in the end, disappointing, even if its darkest moments may provide slight goosebumps. But what do you expect from a film that tames the protagonists messy haircut?

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone: / / / / / / wands out of 10.