I really don't know what the appeal of Harry Potter is these days. Between the years that have passed since the release of the original books, the shear incompetence displayed in the attempts to venture out into other mediums (boy, the script for that Cursed Child screenplay sure was wacky, and don't get me started on the Fantastic Beasts movies), and J.K. Rowling's, shall we say, insanely controversial opinions, what was once the most profitable property on Earth likely isn't the draw it used to be in some circles. For me, the Potter series was an integral part of my childhood; my mother helped me learn how to read with the first book, I got a personalized invitation to Hogwarts on my eleventh birthday, and the books and movies have held a spot on the shelf on every home I've ever lived in, and likely always will. Those books still hold weight in my life, as I've gone back for countless re-reads over the years, and my latest trip through inspired me to try and find content out of a story that I've held so dear. That's why I'm here today, in hopefully what will be the first post of eight, to compare that text that I've inhaled so many times with the lucrative silver screen adaptions, in an attempt to determine which version I enjoy more. If this isn't a project that you personally are interested in, I completely understand; some were never taken by the Potter obsession in the first place, and some refuse to engage in a product that has been tainted by the actions of it's creator. But if you wish to push on, I can promise that you'll find that my thoughts are completely my own, and might even be entertaining to read. I feel very differently about each of these seven books, and the eight films that accompanied them, so there will certainly be a lot to dig into. Let's begin.
The Book:
I want to start each of these analyses by running through my take on the material I know best, the books. Sorcerer's Stone (which is how I'll be referring to both versions throughout, as I am in fact an uncultured American) was clearly a passion project for Rowling, and the text certainly displays the genuine enthusiasm and care she had for the start of this journey. It's quaint and feels small in stature in comparison to the six books that follow it, but even though it feels more like a book intended for children than anything else in the series, it's not been dumbed down for a younger audience, approaching mature topics with a more whimsical flair. The characters are fun and diverse (I mean that in terms of personality, not skin tone), and the world feels so full, bustling with intrigue and potential. My major negative for Sorcerer's Stone is the lack of stakes; the titular Stone is only vaguely hinted at for the first two-thirds of the book, and Professor Quirrell as the twist villain was extremely underwhelming, to the point that even sticking Voldemort to the back of his head couldn't make him intimidating. It's a good way to introduce that audience to this creative new world that Rowling had imagined, but it does seem a little too cute to be a part of this grand tale.
The Movie:
This is one of the few Potter films that I've seen on multiple occasions; I'm just not much of a movie buff, I typically prefer the week-by-week engagement that comes from watching a TV show. But I still can enjoy that art of a well-crafted movie, and I thought this one was pretty great. Obviously, there was a serious drawback of having so many of the main characters be portrayed by children, but the youngsters did enough to hold up their end, and allowed the magnificent adult cast to step up and lead. Alan Rickman as Snape is the major highlight, and I didn't feel like he got anywhere near enough screen time to truly carry this film to greatness, as it really seemed like there was an obvious effort to get Harry, Ron, and Hermione out there as much as possible to really establish their dynamic, as well as helping Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson develop their skills, which I do understand. Watson is wise beyond her years here, the character's sass and attitude suits her well, I've always felt that this was the best version of Hermione. I think the biggest advantage this film had over the books was the ability to add significantly more spectacle via special effects and wide-ranging camera shots, and it looks glorious for something released almost two decades ago. Everything about the look of Hogwarts was great, the Quidditch scene had just enough motion to make you forget about how confusing the rules of this made-up sport are, and Ron's chess battle near the end was an appropriate final showdown. Even though I really enjoyed this movie, I will say that the pacing was a little wonky, especially at the start with Harry and the Dursleys. That dynamic didn't get a whole lot of exploration despite it being essential to Harry's character, and the introduction to the magical world moved extremely quickly, likely completely bewildering anyone that hadn't read the books. Once the film settles into the main storylines, everything progresses at a good clip, cutting some of the more useless content, like Harry and Ron feuding briefly with Hermione, the midnight duel with Draco that went nowhere, and much of the drama surrounding Norbert that had no bearing on the rest of the series. This was a really solid and entertaining two hours of work.
Final Verdict:
I'm going to go with the movie here, as though I may cherish the book, I think it just feels too out of place in comparison to what came next. The movie blended together the wacky magical world and all-encompassing battle between good and evil into a far more cohesive final product, and outside of the opening twenty minutes, I don't think reading the book was necessary at all to enjoy it, which is the highest praise you give an adaptation. Give it a watch if you have and don't understand the Potter hype, I promise it'll be worth it.
Movies 1, Books 0.
If there's enough interest in this post, I'm more than happy to continue on to Chamber of Secrets, and see if the books can even up the score.
- Henry
Comments