Friday, November 16, 2001

Potter film visual achievement
By Emily Ward
Skiff Staff

Floating candles, eccentric ghosts, shifting staircases and a Quidditch field out back — if only TCU were more like Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

This magical castle and its bewitching residents have come to life on movie screens around the world in this year’s most highly anticipated film “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone.”

Perhaps the biggest question on everybody’s mind is how closely the film follows J.K. Rowling’s record-breaking novel about Harry Potter and his life at Hogwarts as “the boy who lived.”

Watching the movie is like seeing Rowling’s words transform into enchanting pictures — it’s truly magical and right on target.

For those who are not familiar with words such as “muggle” and “the golden snitch,” the story is about an 11-year-old boy living with his hateful aunt, uncle and cousin until one day his world turns upside down by his acceptance into Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

Harry soon discovers a secret, magical world to which he has never been exposed and where the name Harry Potter is known to everybody as the boy who survived a death curse from the evil Lord Voldemort. The story is about his first year at Hogwarts and how he becomes the boy he never thought existed.

From the opening scene on Privet Drive to the closing image of the Hogwarts Express, the “Sorcerer’s Stone” is most of what I imagined and a whole lot more.

Colorful costumes, extraordinary music, mind-bending special effects and a set design straight out of the book make this film a wonder to the eyes and a masterpiece to the ears.

Like Rowling’s first novel in the series, “Sorcerer’s Stone” would be nothing without those three best friends, Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) and Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint). Character portrayal in the film is so exact and perfectly executed, these three could likely be the main reason this film will be so loved by Harry Potter fans of all ages.

Rowling creates such beautifully natural characters who are archetypes of those people we have known all our lives: The brainiac, the faithful sidekick and the young boy struggling to live up to everybody’s expectations. Radcliffe, Watson and Grint so perfectly embody these characters through facial expressions, voice tones, body language and impressive acting that they are easily the best part of the movie.

What director Chris Columbu missed in his film, however, was good transition and a little patience.

The film was cut from about six hours of original footage, but somewhere in that editing, a smooth storyline became a medley of scenes that were too concise. The result was a lack of emotional element so loved by Harry Potter fans.

Portraying this novel must be one of Columbus’ greatest challenges to date, but it seems he forgot that following a novel doesn’t just mean telling the story — it is also about sharing the magic interpreted between the lines.

That warm, fuzzy feeling isn’t there when Harry and Dumbledore (Richard Harris) share their final conversation. It isn’t there when Harry sees his parents in the Mirror of Erised. It isn’t there when Harry receives his father’s invisibility cloak for the first time. Such moments are probably experienced best in the pages of a book, though, and not through the pictures on a screen.

Despite missing that element best portrayed in the novel, the “Sorcerer’s Stone” is enchanting, engrossing and almost as good as what many expect.

As for those unfortunate muggles who have not met Harry on the page, the movie should be just as good if not better than if it were being seen by a Harry Potter fanatic. However, if you are unfortunate enough not to know him yet, it’s strongly suggested you let Rowling introduce Harry Potter before Columbus does.

—Emily Ward
e.e.ward@student.tcu.edu