Harry Potter Revisited

[poliphilo]

I was tough on the Harry Potter movies when they first came out (not a patch on the books I said) but I notice I tend to settle down and watch them whenever they come on TV. Last night it was Order of The Phoenix. "What's this?" asked my mother. "Harry Potter." I said. "No wonder I don't understand a word of it!" she replied.

There were several attempts to replicate the success of the Potter franchise but none of them caught on. For instance I caught a few minutes of something starring Nicolas Cage the other day. Sorcerer's Apprentice it was called and it was crap. There was a kid in it who whined. Then ten years passed and he'd been transmogrified into an equally whiney adult. No, no, no, no- that's not the way to do it!

Comments

[sorenr.livejournal.com]

They are perhaps not great art, but I think it's perfectly good storytelling, and that matters a lot.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

It does.

The Potter movies are made with love and conviction. Nothing is skimped. They're never cynical.

[strange-complex.livejournal.com]

Funnily enough I watched most of Order of the Phoenix last night with my own mother. (I'm holding the fort in B'ham for the weekend while my Dad has what I think is his first overnight stay away for at least 18 months.) I had to provide quite a lot of contextual explanation so that she could follow what was going on, but she said she could see the appeal, and thought that if she'd been young when they came out she would probably have been quite into them. She still insisted on turning over to Dave at 9pm to watch an old episode of QI she's seen multiple time before, though. :-/

Personally, I think the films are at least as good as the books, and quite probably better - though of course it's difficult to compare two different mediums meaningfully.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I don't think my mother would ever have been into HP. Even as a young woman she used to sleep through most TV shows.

Order of the Phoenix is my favourite of the books. It has an almost Dickensian grungeiness- which is lost in the whizz-bangery of the movie. On the other hand the movies have their own virtues. I think the characters- as embodied by the cream of the British acting profession- are more vivid on screen.

[halfmoon-mollie.livejournal.com]

I concur, the Harry Potter books were just wonderful for everyone who read them. The movies are pretty good, I try to remember that they are someone else's idea of how things look. Their idea of Quiddich was not anything at all like I imagined it. When I was off my feet after my surgery I reread every single one of the books. Alan Rickman was not my idea of Snape, either...his voice, maybe. I finally sat down and saw the last movie, a few weeks ago. The books give a much clearer idea of the relationship between Snape and Harry's mother Lily, but the last scene in the movie, when Harry says to his son 'Albus Severus....you are named for...." you know the rest. I must admit, that scene in the movie brought a tear.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

The books have their strengths and faults. And so do the movies. It probably helps to separate them- and think of the movies not as a version of the books but as existing in their own right.

I enjoyed the books- but they didn't particularly draw me in. The same goes for the movies. I feel very little connection with the characters. I enjoy visiting them in their world but I don't take them home with me.

[heleninwales.livejournal.com]

At the weekend I was staying with my daughter and we watched the first Harry Potter film with my eight-year-old granddaughter. I enjoyed it much more than I expected and now, because we only got half way through before it was bedtime, I think I might re-read the rest of the story to remind myself of how it ends.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Harry Potter is very moreish...