Harry Potter's Film Debut

How can a movie based on a book stand on its own two feet? Is it even possible for a movie to be faithful to the book and yet its own work of art?

These questions have plagued readers, movie watchers, and screenwriters ever since the art of filmmaking came into being. Why, we wonder, does Mary Poppins work but Inkheart fall flat? What makes The Two Towers an excellent adaption and The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian a huge failure? One could even go as far as saying that this is one of the most important, unresolved issues in Hollywood today. Book after book is adapted to the screen, and yet no clear answer seems to have risen to the top. Directors and screenwriters continue to glance indecisively between safety and originality.

In his film version of J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, Chris Columbus decides to take the safe route. Instead of deviating from the plot, he sticks to it as closely as a wizard to his wand. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a big screen adaption of a book remain this faithful to its originator. Before last night, I hadn't even thought it possible; now, my uncertainty is gone. Yes, ladies and gentlemen of the audience, it is possible to be faithful to the original, despite what many Hollywood screenwriters protest.

And yet, despite its faithfulness to Rowling's ingenious tale, the film still feels a little flat. In their fear of alienating Harry Potter fans, Columbus and Kloves stood a little too near the original story. Somehow, what was so delightful in the written word didn't translate very well into film format. Don't get wrong, the film did have some strengths I'll explain in a minute; I'll also explain at the very end of the review why the movie was such a spectacular financial success. It's merely that for the well-developed palate, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone will frequently drag a little.

But Harry Potter did have, shall we say, a few Golden Snitches in some of its actors. Richard Harris plays a very good Dumbledore and Maggie Smith chills the bones and warms the heart as Professor MacGonagall. One can only imagine the pleasure they must have had from playing these roles. Alan Rickman, however, takes an honorable mention for his portrayal of Severus Snape. Only an actor as good as he could play Colonel Brandon, the ultimate hero, and then Severus Snape, the torn wizard.

The three main children, Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson, worked incredibly well together; their friendship has a genuine flavor. Considering that all three were at the beginning of their acting careers, you can tell that they must have been working through this once-in-a-lifetime situation together. Radcliffe plays a good Harry, though I must say he was easily overshadowed by more stellar acting. Grint did exactly what he was supposed to: be the comedic relief for most scenes.

But Emma Watson simply steals the show. Where others simply fill their roles, Watson embodies hers and gives an already lively character even greater life and color. Her portrayal of Hermione Granger was by far the best performance in the film. Perhaps part of my admiration is that Hermione is probably, hands down, the hardest little girl character to portray I've ever come across. The screaming teenager with a crush, the little ballet student, the hurt younger sister, the sassy and disrespectful daddy's girl: these are the typical roles for little girls in Hollywood these days, a fact which merely reflects the views of our culture. But Hermione is different - in many ways, she reminds me of my own mother. Incredibly intelligent, sassy when appropriate but perfectly capable of being serious and respectful, and above all humble about her failings. Such a role is very hard to make admirable to today's little girl, but Watson comes through with flying colors.

But why was Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone so very popular? Because it's exactly the sort of film that appeals to children between the ages of 9-12.

Deep down, every child wants a good story and great adventure with out the stupid humor and offensive material we're supposed to believe appeals to them. This much I'll say, Harry Potter does provide this. Unlike the newer Parent Trap, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone maintained a surprising level of innocence. And I believe it was that innocence, that maintenance of good on one side, bad on the other, that made Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone the eighth grossing film of all time.