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.
No comments:
Post a Comment