Subject: Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

From: Mark R. Leeper <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 19:17:18 -0000

HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE
               (a film review by Mark R. Leeper)

    CAPSULE: A child persecuted by his foster parents discovers 
    he is a great and powerful wizard.  J. K. Rowling's fantasy 
    (not just) for children comes to the screen in a very 
    faithful 150-minute (not just for children) version.  This 
    is a family film that usually manages to be more intelligent 
    than most adult films this year.  It is proof that a film 
    adaptation can be faithful and still be entertaining.  
    Rating: 8 (0 to 10), high +2 (-4 to +4) 

Let me get out of the way a couple of objections I went to the 
film fully knowing I would have.  First, I hate this title, dumbed 
down as it is for American audiences.  The original title of the 
book was "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" not "Harry 
Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone."  "The Philosophers' Stone" was 
an object sought in medieval alchemy.  It was a hypothetical 
substance with mystical properties like changing base metals into 
gold.  When the book was brought to America there was the 
assumption that Americans would find the title too esoteric so 
with one word change they could turn it into something from 
Dungeons and Dragons.  The film has the original title in Britain.  
Since said stone is only what Hitchcock would call "a McGuffin," I 
suppose this is only a minor complaint, but I wanted to get it 
out.  I also lightly lament the filming of this book that has 
gotten so many children to read and use their imaginations.  It 
will now no longer be read by children (or adults).  Instead 
children will for the most part hold the book in their hands and 
use the words to replay the film in their minds.  That is not 
their fault, but it is inevitable.  Of course being fair it may 
also get them to read the other Potter book and that will still 
require imagination and reading skills.  And it is probably a plus 
for the film that it is so accurate an adaptation.  The film 
really is, for the most part, the book made visible. 

The story, as every kid in my neck of the woods knows, is about a 
maltreated child.  He is sort of a male Cinderella or Cosette.  
When he was a baby he was given to his aunt and uncle to raise.  
In this family he is used like a labor-saving device, but with not 
as much concern for his welfare.  On or about his 11th birthday, a 
mysterious letter arrives for him, in spite of the best efforts of 
his foster parents to keep it from him.  It tells him it is time 
for him to learn wizardry at Hogwart's, a magical school of 
sorcery.  He also discovers in the dark world of magic he is 
already something of a hero.  And so begins his first year at 
Hogwart's.  Hogwart's is an education to the viewer not just in 
what wizardry school is like, but also in the English boarding 
school tradition that once was and some places continues to be.  
Students are put into competing "houses" that try to outdo each 
other in behavior and excellence.  As these things seem to go in 
stories, Harry's two best friends are people he meets on the train 
on the way to Hogwart's. 

Screenwriter Steve Kloves (who also wrote last year's WONDER BOYS) 
adapted Rowling's book accurately and with pretty much the right 
feel.  This is one film that shows magical sights on the screen 
but still lets the book drive the story instead of letting the 
special effects do it.  There are lots of ideas, some expanded, 
and many only hinted at, some that children will understand and 
others they will grow into.  The wide screen holds a magnifying 
glass to the book, showing flaws as well as wonders.  For example, 
Harry has only just arrived at the school and he is given a 
position on his house's sports team.  It would be severely 
understating matters to say his position is the most important on 
the team.  The rules are contrived by Rowling to make Harry a hero 
and the other players almost superfluous.  It is as if the rules 
of basketball were altered so that there was also a side game of 
thumb-wrestling for a hundred bonus points.  Toward the end of the 
film there is another such contrivance with a different 
competition.  Of course, Harry and his friends being heroes is 
much of the point.  Rowling and actor Daniel Radcliffe conspire to 
give Harry very little real personality so that any reader or 
viewer can easily project himself or herself into the space.  
Hence the viewer becomes the hero.  Where Harry does have 
personality, it is much more that of an adult than a child.  Harry 
is always polite to his elders and absolutely fair and loyal to 
his friends in just exactly the way that most children his age are 
not.  While the style of the book is flawless, and impressively 
well translated to the screen, the storyline is a little haggard.  
As mentioned, events are contrived to make Harry the hero.  As he 
tries to solve the school's mystery, clues seem to just drop into 
his lap.  As a running gag, many clues are simply told to him by 
the hugely indiscreet gamekeeper Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane looking 
like The Ghost of Christmas Past).  Meanwhile Harry and friends 
have to hold off an extremely nasty student who takes an early 
dislike to Harry.  Most of these plot elements are cliche. 

Visually the film is just about all you could hope for.  There are 
only a few obvious fluffs.  We have some gnomes with long spindly 
fingers, but when they grasp objects in their fingers they always 
use the next-to-last joint on the fingers.  There are some places 
where the CGI effects are little obvious.  A boy falling from a 
building looks like a computer image.  There is a "Christmas 
Carol" feel to the look of the hidden magic shops.  This is mostly 
a matter of interpretation by production designer Stuart Craig, 
but it fits the book.  Hogwart's is fantabulous as the anti-
sinister sinister boarding school with its huge vaulted ceilings, 
its drifting staircases, and its fog-shrouded forest.  And flying 
in everywhere are not the hackneyed bats, but owls who lend the 
place atmosphere and double as the wizardry world's messenger 
service. 

Many of the support roles went to well-established actors.  Of 
these definitely the most fun are Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman.  
Rickman does not have a whole lot of breadth in the roles he 
takes, but he plays his one petulant personality to the hilt.  Ian 
Hart from LIAM has a small role as a stuttering don.  Surprisingly 
high billing for surprisingly little work goes to John Cleese.  
John Hurt has a small throwaway role. 

People tend to ask me if films I review will be appropriate for 
their children.  I must report that toward the end when the magic 
gets fast, furious, and a little sinister the four-year-old near 
me was frightened to tears.  She was also a bit frightened of 
Fluffy, a near relation to Cerberus.  Some of even the older 
children were squirming at the some point in the two and a half 
hours.  But I suspect most of the audience will be back next year 
for HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS (which begins shooting 
November 19, rushed so as not to let Daniel Radcliffe get too old 
for the role).  I'll give this one an 8 on the 0 to 10 scale and a 
high +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.

					Mark R. Leeper
					[email-masked]
					Copyright 2001 Mark R. Leeper

==========
X-RAMR-ID: 30236
X-Language: en
X-RT-ReviewID: 266994
X-RT-TitleID: 1109764
X-RT-AuthorID: 1309
X-RT-RatingText: 8/10