Hats off to Harry

>> The kiddie-lit sensation succeeds on the big screen in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

by MATTHEW HAYS

I confess to being woefully out of the loop on the Harry Potter thing. Before last weekend, I hadn't read any of the books, logged onto the Web Site, purchased any of the figurines, Lego sets, trading cards or stuffed variations of Potter, nor did I know what a "Muggle" was.

But after ripping through the first book, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, last weekend, I attended the screening on Sunday afternoon and found myself pleasantly surprised. The book confirmed what everyone had told me: solid storytelling, great characters, a consistent page-turner. At the risk of sounding like I'm hopping on the bandwagon, I must be honest in my appraisal: the film is a competent page-to-screen adaptation of J.K. Rowling's novel. (Sunday's screening turned out to be a who's-who of the parent set; former premier Lucien Bouchard was there with a couple of kids--presumably his own--effectively bypassing the simultaneous French-language screening of Potter that took place across town.)

For those who don't know, the plot is simple. Potter is a young boy who's stuck in a domestic hell. After being orphaned, he's living with his dreadful aunt, uncle and cousin, all of whom are vile and nasty to Potter. After a time, though, Potter learns that he is, in fact, the offspring of witches, and is soon whisked off to sorcerers' school where he trains in the basics of magical powers while meeting new friends (and staving off various clandestine enemies). Potter must now learn the ins and outs of a magic wand while attaining skills as a broom rider.



The flying Potter

While the plot is kept suitably easy to follow, the book has some lovely sequences that beg for cinematic interpretation. In keeping with Rowling's wishes, neither the book's story nor her personal vision have been messed with; everything has been cleared with the author who, reportedly, is pleased with the final cut. There are various evil creatures whom the children must stave off; there is the broom that must be mastered, in flying sequences that left me a bit queasy; and, perhaps most notably, there's a marvellous "quidditch" match played out on brooms that allows for some of the best airborne sparring sequences since Star Wars. Simply put, this is good fun, the kind parents won't mind their children dragging them to.

Much of the film's success lies in its casting. Twelve-year-old Daniel Radcliffe is quite exceptional as Potter, playing the boy with charm, while never succumbing to the Spielbergian cutesiness which so often mars childhood characters in Hollywood movies. (Steven Spielberg, incidentally, was the first choice to direct this movie, but declined the offer.) Rowling asked that casting calls remain on the British side of the pond, and thus the ensemble is loaded with A-list Brit talent: Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid the Giant, Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall, as well as Alan Rickman as Severus Snape and John Hurt as wand shopkeeper Mr. Ollivander, are all universally excellent.

However, the casting raises questions, too. Since there are many sequels planned, will Radcliffe continue to serve as Potter? The 12-year-old will undoubtedly be hitting puberty soon, and subsequent books in the series don't call for him to start heeding the booty call. I was left wondering: where will the series go from here, in lieu of actually drugging the young actor so his hormones don't kick in?



No place like Home Alone?

There, having praised the first Potter film, I did have some reservations about the feature. The director is Chris Columbus, famous for the first two Home Alone entries. After Warner Bros. solicited pitches from several directors, apparently Columbus and Monty Python alum Terry Gilliam were finalists for consideration. Columbus was chosen, clearly under the auspices of safety. What we get is a by-the-books adaptation of the original, less an actual cinematic work than a simple visual accompaniment to the book. Which is too bad, in a sense. I would have liked to have seen what a visionary like Gilliam could have come up with. Didn't they see Time Bandits? This man can direct ace children's fare, and do it well. There was no reason to shy away from someone actually being innovative and enhancing things on the road to the big screen. Thus, in choosing a competent director over a risk-taker, I feel that the Harry Potter movie opportunity was neither squandered nor championed.

Still, it's a good movie, and one every parent will undoubtedly be taking their toddler children to this season. No matter what semi-cynical adults like me might say, kids will see Harry Potter as nothing but sheer magic. :

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone opens Friday, Nov. 16