Since the advent of CGI rendered miniature models and rubber monsters obsolete, Hollywood has found a new licence to scour the fantasy genre for inspiration. Results, however, has been mixed. The Lord of the Rings proved box office and Oscar gold, but the Narnia series appears to be stumbling, and work on Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials has been halted just one movie in. Then of course, at the forefront of the trend, is Harry Potter.
Given the phenomenal global sales, it was inevitable that the film industry would come calling on Hogwarts, and early financial rewards were guaranteed. But do the films deserve success in their own right?
Alan Rickman and Jim Broadbent Feature in an All-star Cast
In common with its predecessors Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince certainly looks the part. With audiences increasingly used to seeing the impossible made possible before their eyes, it takes truly special special effects to create an impression, The Half Blood Prince manages it in the opening moments, as the magical sight of wizards materialising in swirls of black smoke is somehow rendered realistic.
Meticulous attention to location and costume aid the effects in immersing muggles into the fantasy, but the greatest strength of the franchise remains the cast. Not the young leads - though they are improving - but the support. Make up and wardrobe can make an actor look like a witch or wizard, but it takes true acting talent to bring such a character to life, and while nobody is capable of pleasing every one of the millions of Potter fans, stars of the caliber of Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman and Jim Broadbent have a better chance than most.
Can the Film Please Die-Hard Potter Fans?
The only solution to these problems would be to make the film longer, but in truth it feels long enough already. The final installment in the Potter saga is set to be made into two films, which seems to acknowledge that three hours is simply not long enough to do justice to a long and well-loved book.
Do Childrens Books Make Good Movies?
It might be considered that film is simply not a good medium for Potter. The Lord of the Rings succeeded because the plot - though epic - is relatively straight-forward. Perhaps a lavishly made mini-series might better convey the enchantment of Rowling, as it has done for Dickens. A more extreme argument would be that screen writers should go back to their own imaginations, and leave books alone. Many will say money talks and adaptations are inevitable, but Charlie Higson has resisted attempts to film his Young Bond series, determined that children must read, or miss out. Rowling, who has certainly done her part in engaging children in books, has chosen the route of faithful adaptation, it has to be said, with mixed success.
has many ingredients of a good fantasy film. But it has faults too, faults that are endemic in literary adaptations, and which stem from the fact that the story is too complex to be properly told in a short time. Obviously many scenes from the book are missing, but worse are those which appear to have been crow-barred in. Lots of time is spent developing the sub-plot of the characters burgeoning love lives, and while this provides amusement it comes at the expense of the main plot. Unfortunately this is the case to such an extent that the task Dumbledore sets Harry makes little sense, and even the title seems to refer to only an obscure part of the film.
