SHOOT-BACK HERE | E-MAIL THE AUTHOR

FROM PRINT TO SCREEN

November 14, 2002

THE HEART BEHIND THE MADNESS

Offering a recount of the Harry Potter phenomenon and the rags-to-riches tale of its creator, J.K. Rowling, would be like describing a modest science-fiction film made by George Lucas in the late 1970s. Potter-mania is global and Ms. Rowling is a billionaire. The bespectacled wizard has captured the hearts and minds of millions of fans, young and old. Terms like muggles, Hogwarts and Quidditch and names such as Harry Potter, Hermione Granger, Ron Weasley, Albus Dumbledore, Rubeus Hagrid and Severus Snape, while not completely ubiquitous, are at least now as familiar as Mickey Mouse, Superman, Peter Pan, Dr. Seuss and Winnie the Pooh. What a surprise it is to discover, then, that underneath the mountains of cash and hype rests a winning story as ardent and refreshing as the birth of these other timeless treasures.

HARRY POTTER & THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS is the second installment of the series and finds Harry still dealing with his loathsome muggle guardians, the Dursleys. He is paid a curious visit by an odd house-elf named Dobby, who warns Harry not to return to Hogwarts; otherwise a terrible fate will befall him and his friends. He is essentially imprisoned in his room by his Uncle Vernon and is rescued by his friend Ron and the older Weasley brothers in a flying car. After spending a brief respite at the bewitched Weasley homestead, Harry and Ron, having missed the train, use the flying car to travel to Hogwarts, a life-threatening trip in and of itself. The school year does not begin promisingly as Harry and Ron are cited for such an inappropriate use of magic but this is only the beginning of their troubles as Dobby’s creepy omens begin to take shape. Soon students are being literally “petrified” as the mythical Chamber of Secrets opens and all of Hogwarts is placed in danger. Harry finds himself at the center of this tremendous struggle and must summon all of his brazen wits to uncover the terrible forces at work.

The great pleasure of the Harry Potter series lies not in the plots but in the celebration of characters and life at the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. The myth Rowling has crafted is somewhat standard in fantasy fiction: a young magician discovers dormant powers within himself, the presence of such and the weight of his destiny making his struggles into adulthood that much more laborious and substantial. This plot line has been a staple in the fantasy genre ever since young Arthur pulled Excalibur out of a chunk of stone. However, Rowling stands above most would-be contenders thanks to her meticulous and hilarious observational powers.

And I do mean hilarious. Very few books make me laugh out loud but THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS is one of them. The trademark of the Harry Potter series is the liberal sprinkling of that singular British wit often imitated but so rarely conveyed. Dry, irreverent, ironic, the Brits have a way of understating absurdity with jocose poise. While all Americans (and some Brits—Benny Hill, Monty Python, anyone?) tend to go over-the-top in comedy, there is a school of British humor that is sophisticated, the droll delivery an antidote to its ridiculous and outlandish circumstances. Rowling employs brilliant sardonic humor to offset and highlight the farfetched, bizarre and grotesque events of her tale. It could almost be considered tongue-in-cheek or satirical if she didn’t hold such obvious love for her characters.

“OH, BUT THEY’RE JUST KIDS BOOKS” – ROUTINE MUGGLE QUOTE

Rowling paints all of the characters in THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS with economical precision. They are bold and subtlety takes a back seat but these are distinct personalities. Harry, Ron and Hermione once again anchor the tale and while their repartee isn’t as sharp or prevalent as in the first novel, these three are so well-crafted you wish they were real kids. Harry is martyr-like, the routine savior albeit a reluctant one, suffering intense attention because of his folkloric background. He desperately wants to be just one of the students at Hogwarts but invariably, he rises to the occasion with courage and confidence when forced to act. Ron is your best friend, the beautiful loser, a steadfast companion. He constantly swallows his fears in service to his friends. Hermione is both the heart and brains of the operation. Despite being one of the top students, she sticks by Harry and Ron and helps them escape the trouble in which they routinely find themselves. Despite her constant disapproval, she proves to be an invaluable ally. When she is threatened in THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS, Rowling injects a very personal timbre into Harry and Ron’s struggles: they are no longer just fighting for themselves and Hogwarts. They are fighting to save Hermione.

A host of familiars return in THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS: Albus Dumbledore, the kindly headmaster of Hogwarts; Professor McGonagall, his second in command; Snape, the creepy potions teacher; Hagrid, the lovable groundskeeper and unofficial protector of Harry’s crew; and Draco Malfoy, Harry’s nemesis. Rowling also introduces a roster of new faces in the second installment: Gilderoy Lockehart, a smarmy celebrity professor more interested in self-promotion than teaching; Moaning Myrtle, a former student’s ghost who haunts a condemned bathroom; Dobby, the house elf; and Draco Malfoy’s father, Lucius, a conniving wizard who proves that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Rowling shades a few established characters with more in-depth lineage—we learn Hagrid’s history—while saving a few plot twists for the climax. A fiery phoenix, an enchanted diary you can literally “fall into,” mandrakes, gnomes, hidden passageways, headless horsemen, a rousing Quidditch match and an impressive display of increasingly powerful magic all spice up the events within THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS. Yet readers will continue to take as much if not more pleasure from simply observing this colorful assortment of familiar yet completely implausible oddballs during their day-to-day activities than learning about the intrigue that haunts them.

There has been a backlash against Rowling and it is to be expected. With great success come great heaping servings of sour grapes. People are comparing her to Tolkien, to Baum, to C.S. Lewis, the old masters of the fantasy genre, and declaring that she comes up notably short. This ludicrous accusation is more a reaction to the blatant marketing of the Harry Potter brand than Rowling’s plentiful skill. Both Rowling and her esteemed forefathers create an alternate world and tell an Odysseyian story within it. But in their day, the classic writers were mostly unappreciated. Because of her time and space, Rowling benefits from great acclaim worthy, or perhaps in excess, of her talents. However, she should not be condemned for the fame and rewards denied writers in the pre-Information Age. And the tumult of popularity should never overshadow the merits of Rowling’s extraordinary efforts.

Harry Potter and novels like THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS will continue to be rightfully treasured in decades to come. Rowling offers an exciting yet customary tale for the kids while entertaining older readers with a rich assortment of characters in a mythical setting and taking whimsical note of their conflicts and resolutions. You can dismiss THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS and the Harry Potter saga as “kids books” and you can turn a blind eye to the widespread praise they routinely receive from every corner of the critical world. But it is undeniable that Rowling engages the heart, mind and soul on several levels. Her prose absolutely demands that the page be turned and by novel’s end, makes one long for the next visit to this incredible land. That level of proficiency, my friends, is called literature. Rowling is a reminder that magic, real magic, rests in the imagination.

ADVENTURES IN SPIELBERG-SITTING, NO IMAGINATION REQUIRED

I hated the film version of HARRY POTTER & THE SORCERER’S STONE. The genuine pleasure of J.K. Rowling’s work stems from characterization and human—er, in this case, witch and wizard—interplay. In their rush to paint the picture, Chris Columbus, Steve Kloves and the producers forgot to tell a meaningful story. For a 2-½ hour movie—and it felt twice that—THE SORCERER’S STONE managed to tell us absolutely nothing about any of these characters and as a result, it drained any understanding, empathy and interest we may have felt for them. (One can’t help but wonder what Steven Spielberg, perhaps the best director of children in movie history, might have conjured with this story. At the very least he would have invested an entire act to tell Harry’s tragic history before moving on to his fanciful transformation at Hogwarts.)

I do believe in this cast. Daniel Radcliffe is a fine Harry but isn’t given much to do but stand around wide-eyed. Emma Watson and Rupert Gint resonate much more clearly in their roles. The supporting players are unimpeachable in their presence and metier: Richard Harris (R.I.P., Rich, we’re gonna miss ya), Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane, Fiona Shaw, John Cleese and in this latest installment, Kenneth Branagh. The visuals are fine, given their complexity, and will only improve as the franchise moves along. The pieces are in place for a great adaptation, which places the blame for the first episode’s agony squarely in the laps of Columbus, Kloves (a screenwriter with an immaculate filmography until now) and the producers, of which there are too many to list.

Harry Potter has universal appeal because he is an underdog. Children relate to him, Ron and Hermione because they are like them: overlooked, picked on, timid, mischievous, curious and full of awe. Harry Potter’s young fans hiss at bullies like Draco Malfoy and rejoice when Harry’s gang wins the day. Concern must be established for Harry. He is an orphan. He lives a horrible life outside of Hogwarts. He has no friends and his birthdays are forsaken. Ron and Hermione bind with him because none of them realize their own potential and virtues. Like all children, they mostly focus on fear, which heightens their amazement when presented with a startling reward. Kids notice the simple aspects of the world that adults ignore and are continuously awestruck by their presence. That is the blessing of childhood. THE SORCERER’S STONE failed to capture any of that reverence, wonder or curiosity. The film neglected the relationships and portrayal of the main players.

Rowling imbues her novels with a lot of action and unfurls a large canvas filled with ancient lore and adventure, but she always presents these events through the eyes of her characters. Columbus, Kloves and the makers of the Harry Potter films need to follow her example. They are trying so hard to “wow” the audience, they neglect to “wow” the people onscreen, the ones we’re supposed to believe inhabit this strange and astonishing world. When an audience cares about a character, that character’s amazement becomes our amazement, their dread, failures, raptures and victories transposed into us. With Rowling, Harry’s experience becomes our experience. With Hollywood, the experience is one of indifferent special effects run amok.

Peter Jackson dedicated close to an hour simply introducing the characters and myth of THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING. He understood the importance of the backstory and the interpersonal relationships so key to Tolkien’s fictional legacies. Film is a visual medium so emotions must be shown, not told. Simply filming Harry living under the stairwell and suffering life with a bunch of blowhards isn’t going to invoke much sympathy or understanding for Harry, only dislike for his despicable caretakers. The audience must spend quiet moments with the characters of THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS without a special effect or portentous film score hammering false emotion in surround sound to distract us. These are children; they need to behave as such for THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS to be successful in any way. When you see a pretty picture, you say “Cool. Pretty picture.” When you learn that the picture depicts the one area not decimated by a recent hurricane, you just stare in appreciation and wonder.

THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS is 161 minutes: ten minutes longer than THE SORCERER’S STONE, whose excessive running time produced only bloated Hollywood dross and sore butts. THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS is also significantly longer than BAMBI (70 min), THE WIZARD OF OZ (112 min), E.T. THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL (115 min), IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE (130 min) and PINOCCHIO (88 min), arguably the 5 greatest family films of all time. (And before anyone clobbers me for leaving out one of their favorites, at 161 minutes, THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS is also considerably longer than SHREK, MONSTERS, INC., TOY STORY I & II, FANTASIA, SNOW WHITE & THE SEVEN DWARFS, BEAUTY & THE BEAST, MARY POPPINS, THE LION KING, OLD YELLER, ALADDIN, DUMBO, WILLY WONKA & THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY, BABE, SLEEPING BEAUTY, CINDERELLA, WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT? and any of the MUPPET MOVIES.) Two hours and forty-one minutes is an epic and it will be inexcusable if THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS fails to find time to present the humor, disposition, apprehension, mystery, conflicts and friendships of the novel. If cuts need to be made in transferring the soul of the story to the screen, so be it. But the generous vitality, wit and zest of Rowling’s writing must be preserved in order to achieve something greater than just selling lunch boxes and video games. Tomorrow the CHAMBER OF SECRETS circus opens at your local googolplex. We’ll see if the Rodeo Drive ringmasters can duplicate the magical marvels of Rowling’s world.

“There's a bit of magic in everything, and some loss to even things out.” –Lou Reed, Magic &Loss

SHOOT-BACK HERE! | ARCHIVES