Film review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone

A showcase of special effects, a marvel of brilliant casting

I devoured all of the Harry Potter books in marathon reading sessions and eagerly awaited the showing of the film version of J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter and The Sorcerer’s Stone. But as the date of the local release of the movie neared, I found myself getting edgy and fearful of what I would see on the screen. What if it is not what I imagined? What if it fails to meet my expectations? It will be very difficult finding those rediscovered moments of wonder and innocence dashed to pieces by insensitive filmmaking.

As many already know by now, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone is the tale of an orphan boy living with his abusive aunt, uncle and cousin. He learns on his 11th birthday that he is a wizard who must now go to Hogwarts, the boarding school where he will be taught how to use his powers. It is at this point that the adventure begins as Harry discovers his capabilities, meets new friends, learns how to cope with unkind teachers and bullying classmates and avoids being killed by the evil Lord Voldemort, who it turns out, murdered his parents.

J.K. Rowling effortlessly put down on paper Harry’s experiences and millions of readers all over the world are now in the theaters eager to find out if the movie is anything as exciting and heartwarming as the first book of the series.

It is. But only if you have read the book. Given their mindset, what the producers should have made was a mini-series for television. As it is, the first Harry Potter film is an indulgent showcase of special effects, cinematography and production design. The editing is episodic and is more concerned with getting the most impressive scenes into the film than exploiting the more important elements of a boy discovering love, the beauty of friendship and the power of good over evil. About two hours into the picture, there is this mad rush to tell the story of the sorcerer’s stone and tie up all the lose ends. By that time movie-goers are so tired of the eye candy they couldn’t care less about what happens.

Of course, I admit the movie is a marvel of brilliant casting. Every character looks as they were described in the book. Hagrid (Robert Coltrane) is huge, kind and bumbling. Dumbledore (Richard Harris) is benevolent and so full of wisdom. Snape (Alan Rickman) is slithery and hateful. McGonagall (Maggie Smith) is the high-strung headmistress personified. Dursley is fat and obnoxious. Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Glint) are not allowed by the script to go beyond wise-cracking dialogue and wide-eyed amazement but they do look like the great friends any kid can wish for.

As for Daniel Radcliffe, a touch of mischief on his Harry would have been nice. His portrayal comes across as too intense at times. This however should not be taken against him, because what Radcliffe lacks in little boy charm, he makes up for by bringing large doses of sensitivity into the role. This makes his Harry Potter truly emphathetic. Watching him with his soft green eyes, one could not help but be reminded of those boy orphans in the novels of Charles Dickens. The only problem here is that just as it is not easy to imagine Oliver swashbuckling his way through the riff-raff of London, it is also hard at times to see Radcliffe as the boy hero.

I also have the highest praise for the production design by Stuart Craig. It must have been a lark, having the opportunity of realizing Hogwarts, Diagon Alley, Platform 9 3/4, the Gringotts bank, the owl post and all those other places and events so richly described in the book. The photography by John Seale is also superb. Take note that in praise of fantasy, the world of muggles is kept gray and murky while that of the wizards is appropriately magical in its wealth of atmosphere. You can almost feel the cold in the lake surrounding Hogwarts, sense ancient wisdom in the school’s magnificent corridors and hear and feel the excitement in the quidditch field during the game. And because the story takes place in no definite real time or place, it was most interesting to find Victorian England mixing with the forests of Transylvania.

This fidelity to the book should easily win the hearts of Harry Potter purists everywhere and really seems like the wise move. Can you imagine the uproar he would have generated if the characters looked different or if Hogwarts and those other places did not look like the way they were described in the book? Even if he had made a huge box-office hit that would win loads of awards, there was still the danger that Columbus would have been crucified or at the very least lambasted for having the temerity to take liberties with such a beloved novel.

On the other hand though the result is a film that tried to have everything but couldn’t. Better to watch a thrilling game of chess than see Ron cope with his insecurities. Better resolve difficulties with wands and broomsticks than show the cruelty of racial prejudice against muggle-born Hermione. Better a battle with winged keys than the pain of growing up orphaned in a strange world for Harry. After all the hoopla, it can be rightly said that Columbus had more success with depicting the heart and mind of a child in his oh-so memorable Home Alone than in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone.

Take note though, a lesson was learned and we can look forward to a more rewarding film experience with Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.