Harry Potter and the Battle of Page to Screen

Since 2001we have watched Harry Potter grow up before our very eyes. Faithfully, every 18-24 months another chapter of the bespectacled, adolescent wizard manifests in cinemas. One huge disadvantage the Potter franchise has always had hovering over its head is that its story has already been told, its secrets revealed and its loves lost when the hugely popular novels are released, somewhat rendering the films redundant. Arguably the films would never have been successful without the legions of fans the books had already created, this being true of many book-to-screen adaptations, the so-called ‘built-in’ audience. I however represent those who have never read a word of J.K. Rowling’s Hogwartian texts, choosing to have my Potter served on celluloid. Though a little clunky, Harry’s first year at Hogwarts school of witchcraft and wizardry in ‘The Philosophers Stone’ had its charms (and a radiant John Williams score). Passively I went into ‘The Chamber Of Secrets’ not expecting much and came out with an affection for the world and characters presented. By this stage I was actually looking forward to ‘The Prisoner Of Azkaban’. Directed by Alfonso Cuaron, who took over from Chris Columbus, Azkaban fully embraced what Harry Potter could be as a cinematic experience. Some of its visuals are absolutely breath taking (Harry’s ride on the eagle / horse creature to a rousing Williams score). This third outing also threw great British thespian talents Gary Oldman, Emma Thompson and David Thewlis into a mix of already great British talent (Potter’s un-Americanness has always been a benefit). Add to that a time travelling subplot and a werewolf(!) I was convinced Harry Potter was the next Star Wars, Ghostbusters, Gremlins, Back The Future, everything I’d loved about the movies as a child. Then came ‘Goblet Of Fire’. It was seemingly at this point the Potter films began to rely heavily on assumed knowledge of the source material and the overall structure became weak and episodic. Perhaps this is the only way to present these Potter tales on film, as I am told these latter books in particular are the most dense, or it that padded? Something else that irked me about ‘Goblet Of Fire’ was a sudden infusion of modernity, the quidditch stadium scene for example. What I appreciated the most about Potter is the old fashion whimsy and complete absence of any techno gleam. Though ‘Order Of The Phoenix’ remained old fashion it still had an uneven structure and reliance on prior Potter history to navigate the inconclusive story. Which finally brings us to ‘Half Blood Prince’. It seems Warners Bros. delaying release of the film raised the anticipation for this chapter to near manic levels, Harry being absent from cinemas for two whole years. Apart from the first film I can’t remember such hysteria surrounding a Potter release. May be it has more to do with the abysmal films Hollywood has released in the last few months. Let’s face it, has anything been good since Star Trek back in May? For me ‘Half Blood Prince’ is the most polarising of Potters to date. While it definitely has all the same structural problems of its two predecessors, and is even more reliant on assumed knowledge from the book (the first 10mins made no sense to me at all) there was somehow a sliver of the magic felt in the first three films. Really, I think it has to do with the three leads, Radcliffe, Grint and Watson. These kids really know their characters and have matured to a place where they can show subtlety of emotion, especially when relating to each other. I simply cared more about them in this film. While the designs are reliably beautiful and the FX are seamless (thank god there was a quidditch match in this one) there are still many glaring problems. For instance, the whole story of the Half Blood Prince seems so secondary, a subplot at best, and the reveal of the Prince’s identity was very “Oh, by the way its...”. This chapter really should have been called Harry Potter and the story of young Voldemort. Another thing, and hopefully this was unintentional, is that there a many relationships between old men and young boys that come across uncomfortably. I’m not alone in this squeamish observation as I noticed the topic being discussed in imdb’s user comments. Let’s face it, Harry seems only vaguely interested in girls and I’m sure I read somewhere that J.K. Rowling has said Dumbledore is gay, just keep those wands in check boys *shudder*. Harry Potter is set to round out the decade and enter the next with ‘The Deathly Hallows’ split in two parts. I’m hoping with all that extra screen time I won’t have to head into the cinema with a copy of the book stuffed under my arm.

EDITORIAL: The Films Of 1984 - Part 1.

It was the year writer George Orwell prophesised big brother would be watching our every move. It was in fact a year we watched other people, on cinema screens, in films so grandiose and imagination-sparking that we are still talking about and loving them today. Home video had made its debut and was reasonably common place in many households, where VHS and Beta Max copies of Star Wars and Jaws were already baring signs of age. It is debatable whether or not the rise of home video was a factor, but 1984 was an astonishing year in cinema, the wealth and excess of Hollywood was flung at the silver screen with complete abandon. 1984 saw the debut of franchises that exist to this very day. Some of cinemas biggest stars experienced their greatest success, while new stars were on the rise and pop culture icons were born who still remain faithfully worshiped. When you glance over the list of films released in 1984 it is truly amazing that so many beloved, lauded and influential works appeared in the same year.
1984’s two biggest and most successful releases had much in common. Both blended comedy with other staple Hollywood genres. One was comedy plus cop action, the other, comedy plus FX heavy supernatural spectacular and both films included well known comedians who had forged their careers on TV. By now you should have guessed I’m referring to Beverly Hills Cop and Ghostbusters. Surprisingly (to me anyway) Eddie Murphy’s smart mouthed Axel Foley top the overall US box office in 1984, Dan Aykroyd and Bill Murray as proton packing Ghostbusters falling roughly 5 million short of the top spot. Beverly Hills Cop went on to produce two sequels, each of lesser success than the one preceding it. Paramount claims the trilogy has earned nearly 800 million globally. Ghostbusters, spawned one sequel five years later, that was for the most part, politely excused for its massive short comings. Ghostbusters however was arguably the pop culture phenomenon of the two films. Recently news of a third Ghostbusters outing, 25 years on mind you, sent fan boy hearts aflutter, not to mention a new video game and the release of the original film on Blu ray, evidence of the adoration the film still enjoys.

Also blending comedy with the supernatural, be it a tad more horror influenced than Ghostbusters, was Joe Dante’s Gremlins. One of Steven Spielberg’s early forays into producing and written by Chris Columbus (dir. Home Alone and the first two Harry Potter films), Gremlins has experienced a longevity in our pop culture psyche. I’m sure many vets can tell you they still get family pets named Gizmo. Though it had one sequel, funnily enough in the same year as Ghostbusters II, Gremlins was responsible for several imitations (Critters anyone?) and remains a favourite of many (like me) who were children in 1984. The gremlins of Gremlins recently featured in a BT commercial and in an incredible fan made film (see making of below) that saw the creatures take over scenes from Batman and Indiana Jones, even director Joe Dante had high praise for the homemade homage.
While Spielberg was producing Gremlins he was simultaneously in the director’s chair for his first ever sequel, Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom. Long before ‘Kingdom Of the Crystal Skull’ this Indy outing was the most polarising. Some called it unrelenting adventure, others called it gratuitous, and many parents thought it too dark and menacing. But when you think of Indiana Jones it is often scenes from Temple Of Doom that first come to mind. The banquet scene with its chilled monkey brains, the heart ripping lava dipping sacrifice scene, the mine cart, the bridge over crocodile waters and of course Kate Capshaw’s east meets west musical number to kick start the whole ride. Interestingly, there is a crossover with Ghostbusters, as Dan Aykroyd makes a blink-and-you’ll-miss-him cameo early in the film, at the airport when Indy, Willie and Short Round escape Shanghai .
As Temple Of Doom’s predecessor Raiders Of The Lost Ark had been released three years prior, enough time had elapsed for copy-cat adventures to hit the screen. One of the most fun and original in its own right was Romancing The Stone, of course, released in 1984. It was director Robert Zemeckis’ biggest project to that point and starred two of Hollywood’s biggest and sexiest stars, Kathleen Turner (before she became a man) and Michael Douglas (before he became an old woman). Romancing The Stone held its own against other Indy wannabes by stepping up the humour, the sex appeal and obviously, the romance. The chemistry between Turner and Douglas was immeasurable in its allure, leading to two further screen outings together, Jewel Of The Nile (a crappy sequel to Romancing) and War Of The Roses, a dark comedy directed by their Romancing and Jewel co-star Danny DeVito.

THE FILMS OF 1984 to be continued...

*Share your thoughts and memories of the films mentioned above by commenting on this post. In the meantime watch this video about the French guy who made the Gremlins fan film mentioned above. The films of '84 certainly ignited his passion... good on him.