Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone
dir. Columbus
Opens Fri Nov 16
Various Theaters
On my first day of college, a professor gave me what she thought was useful advice. I was using a pencil in creative writing class, and she said, “Mr. Humphrey. It is time to put away the toys of youth. For GOD’s sake, use a pen.” Though I humored her request, today, I’m still a big fan of the “toys of youth.” I’m fascinated by the concept of “remote-control, fighting robots,” chocolate-flavored drinks (especially Yoo-Hoo), and I still prefer children’s fiction over the more stodgy adult type. For my money, children’s fiction is far superior, if nothing else, because it’s more challenging to write. Not only does the author have to capture the fears, dreams, and woes of childhood in a non-patronizing way, they must develop tons of forward momentum to maintain the interest of readers with A.D.D. (such as myself).
Some of my favorite children’s authors are the immensely talented and dark-natured Roald Dahl (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Twits), Philip Pullman (The Golden Compass, and the rest of the Dark Materials trilogy), and J.K. Rowling (of the much-loved Harry Potter series). While each of these authors differ in significant ways, Rowling in particular has a knack for mixing the dark side of childhood with well-drawn characters and terrific, cliff-hanging mystery. And though there have been excellent films based on Dahl’s books, unfortunately J.K. Rowling has received the short end of the stick with the movie version of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone.
To its credit, the plot of Harry Potter remains faithful to the book. As a baby, Harry was dropped at the doorstep of some very ignorant relatives, after his parents (a witch and warlock) were killed by an evil wizard bent on the destruction of their child. Harry’s foster parents treat him like crap, until one day he’s invited to follow in the footsteps of his witchy mom and pop, and attend the mysterious Hogwarts School for Wizardry. Rather quickly, Harry discovers he is something of a celebrity around school because of the previously mentioned evil wizard’s inability to kill him. However, he and his school chums also learn Hogwarts is a place of mystery, and that the evil wizard in question is ready for another crack at Harry.
The film covers Harry’s first year at Hogwarts, and though it would be impossible for any film version to replicate the density of the book, it seems as if director Chris Columbus has focused on setting up a franchise, rather than an entertaining movie for kids and adults. When Harry Potter finds himself in serious danger, it almost appears secondary to introducing characters and exposition. The result is a fairly tedious Cliff Notes version of Harry Potter, in which we lose a lot of the fun, the darkness, and forward momentum found in the book.
And while I wouldn’t call the child actors who portray Harry, Ron, and Hermione horrible they are, simply put, dry as dust. In fact, the only people who light up the screen are Hogwarts’ faculty, populated with such great British actors as Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, John Hurt and, in the breakout role, Alan Rickman. Rickman is absolutely wonderful as the diabolical Professor Snape and brings layers to the character that can’t even be found in Rowling’s work. Unfortunately for all of us, he’s only in the film for five minutes–tops.
Undoubtedly, you will see children in line around the block waiting to see this movie. And really, there’s no point in trying to stop them. They’ll probably enjoy at least some of it, and as an adult, you can catch up on some much-needed sleep. However, do those kiddies a favor and slip them a DVD copy of Willy Wonka, or the cinematic adaptation of another great Roald Dahl book, The Witches. These are two movies that never let the concerns of adulthood get in the way of enjoying the “toys of youth.”
