Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Grade:
|
 |
Plot Summary:
You don't really need one, do you?
Opinion:
[Important Disclaimer: I have not read the books, so this analysis is based only on the two movies. I've included J.K.Rowling, the author, in the praise and criticism by name, though, because as many people have told me the first two movies are extremely faithful to the books--almost to a fault. It's entirely possible, though, that the books may contain more details that help clear up some of my complaints, and I welcome comments from readers who are more familiar with the Harry Potter universe and want to come to Ms. Rowling's defense. Such explanations will not invalidate my complaints, of course, because one shouldn't have to have read the book to understand the movie. Still, I'm entirely willing to give Rowling and the Harry Potter series the benefit of the doubt if someone can mount a logical and cohesive rebuttal]
I've grouped both of the first two Harry Potter movies together since in a sense the two are exactly the same. Not in plot, of course, but rather as movies--they share the same strengths and weaknesses, and I can't imagine anyone having a significantly different opinion of one from the other.
Assigning a grade is another difficulty--because I know the Harry Potter series wasn't written for me. My personal grade would be more along the lines of a
C for both, however from the standpoint of an average child--who is the films' target audience, of course, and wouldn't care about some of the plot technicalities I do--the film will be more of a success and perhaps the grade should reflect that. I can't give it an
A since there are still plot based (and moral) issues that I think kids
should care about, but a
B seems to be about right.
It's easy to see from the two movies why Harry Potter is a hit with children. Rowling's stories are very creative (if somewhat poorly plotted...see below) and involve a wide range of fantastic creatures and ideas which will easily trigger a child's imagination. More to the point, they are a child's fantasy come true--both stories involve children getting to do amazing things and having wondrous adventures. Like many children's stories, most of the adults are incompetent and/or stupid (and sometimes evil) which means the children are the ones that get to come to the rescue and have the adventures in the first place. (This will be of particular interest to kids who, quite commonly, feel adults are constantly telling them what they can't do and that being a kid is kind of useless. Children's stories (and movies) are the one medium where the tables are turned, hence one of the main reasons children will appreciate Rowling's stories more than adults like me--and the corresponding difference in grades. The poor behavior of the adults is addressed below also.)
I'm told there are many adults who like the Harry Potter series just as much as the kids, though, which I don't quite understand. While they deliberately and effectively recreate most kids' biggest fantasies (who hasn't dreamt of flying and using magic?), they still seem to be...unsatisfying on an adult level. Take the troll scene from 'Sorceror's Stone' for example--and compare it directly to the corresponding troll scene in "The Fellowship of the Ring", released a month later. One is somewhat cartoonish in nature, while the other is more intense and has a more urgent sense of danger. Okay, maybe comparisons to "Lord of the Rings" aren't appropriate--it's not Potter's fault that they came out so close together--but it does make it easy to show the difference between how a 'kids' movie and an 'adult' movie handle more or less the same scene.
The game of Quidditch is another example of something that works as a concept for kids but doesn't make sense from an adult perspective. Kids see a game where you can throw a ball around while flying on a broom (sounds like fun...), but any adult who is familiar with any organized sport would realize that Quidditch doesn't stand up as an actual game very well. The rules say each goal is worth 10 points, and if the "Golden Snitch" is caught, that team gets 150 points and the game ends immediately. In other words,
the team that catches the snitch wins the game--unless the other team happens to have scored
16 more goals than you, a
highly unlikely prospect. So, if the snitch is the only key to winning the game,
what's the point of trying to score goals at all? Why wouldn't you send
all of your team members save the Keeper after the snitch? That might not be allowed--perhaps only the team's seeker could catch the snitch (the rules seem to be unclear)--but even in that case, why would anyone watch or care about the people scoring the goals when, in fact,
they have no impact on the outcome of the game. That would be like a new professional sport in the US where most of the team plays football on the field while one team member shoots free throws in a small court alongside--and the guy who hits ten free throws in a row wins the game for the whole team. Who cares about the football, then?
In a sense, my opinion of the Harry Potter movies doesn't really matter (well...that's assuming my opinion
ever matters...) since the considerable box office and the millions upon millions of books sold speak for themselves. Still, given the massive popularity of the Harry Potter series, I can't help feel that they're slightly overrated--good, but not great. There are perhaps many other children's books that are just as creative (and less reliant on dishonest plot resolutions...see below) that deserve to be as widely read as Harry Potter, but then again, as William Munny said in "Unforgiven":
"Deserve's ain't got nothing to do with it..."
Content Analysis: (both PG--nothing objectionable...unless, of course, you care about the 'witchcraft' thing...)
Ah...yes--the 'witchcraft' thing. Unless you've been living in a cave, you've undoubtedly heard that many Christian fundamentalists have opposed the Harry Potter series for 'promoting witchcraft and Satanism'. This is no small matter, as the number of 'anti' Potter sites has risen proportionally with the rise of popularity of the original series. (See
www.exposingsatanism.org/harrypotter.htm or
www.therealpotter.com among many others--sharing space on these Christian group's web servers right next to their anti-Mormon sites, I'd imagine...)
I have a hard time taking these criticisms seriously, despite accepting the basic premise that witchcraft, fortune-telling, and the like are against the commandments of God. The problem is the Harry Potter universe isn't
real--and I seriously doubt any child who reads them thinks it is. The 'magic' world described in Harry Potter books is very clearly a fantasy universe, no different than that in "Star Wars", or "Lord of the Rings". Very few children are going to seriously believe there's an actual Hogwarts school of magic somewhere in Europe that will train them (if they find it) into how to fly on brooms, learn how to be invisible, and change into animals, any more than they believe that if they learn to use the 'Force' they can move things with their mind--or, for that matter, that the giant robots from another planet that turn into vehicles from the cartoons are real. (Interestingly, many of these same anti-Potter groups include "Star Wars" in their criticism of the 'occult', but not "Lord of the Rings" or C.S.Lewis's "Chronicles of Narnia". The latter two are thinly veiled Christian allegories, of course, which is probably the main reason they are considered above reproach, but they still depict 'unreal' use of magic and sorcery. Is there really a difference between the use of magic or is it that these groups feel Harry Potter doesn't have
enough Christian symbolism in it to make it okay?)
To be fair, there are some voices of reason within the religious community. The [Catholic] U.S. Bishop's Office of Film and Broadcasting made a
statement about Harry Potter books/movies which reads in part:
Parents concerned about the film's sorcery elements should know that it is unlikely to pose any threat to Catholic beliefs. "Harry Potter" is so obviously innocuous fantasy that its fiction is easily distinguishable from real life...
Exactly. [Info courtesy of
Decent Films which, as always, you should be reading every week. A special essay comparing Harry Potter to Gandalf and other fantasy universes, with a discussion of the moral issues involved, can be found
here.]
If children realize the books are fantasy, how likely are they to get involved in the study of 'magic' and 'witchcraft' in real life when they already know it's not real? Do these Christian groups have actual evidence that large groups of kids are turning to witchcraft (and I mean
real witchcraft, not just dressing up in Harry Potter costumes and acting like characters from the book) as a direct result of reading Harry Potter, or is it just the
depiction of magic use inside Harry Potter books that they object to?
Acknowledging that I wouldn't want my kids to start practicing (real) witchcraft or satanic/occultish rituals, I don't see what's so difficult about teaching the children ahead of time about true gospel principles and the right source of guidance and revelation. Even if Harry Potter wasn't obviously fantasy, the proper education will always allow children to discern what's real from what's not. As with the issue of home schooling versus sending kids to 'apostate' public schools, the issue should be moot IF you're paying close attention and playing an active part in your child's education.
Putting the witchcraft issue aside, though, there are still some (admittedly
minor) moral issues inside the first two Harry Potter that will be
discussed--along with plot related issues--in the next section.
In-depth Analysis:
Now let's delve into plot points and moral issues of the first two Harry Potter movies in detail...
There's a Latin phrase called
deus ex machina--or "God in the machine"--that's commonly used in reference to books, plays, movies and the like. The phrase refers to a difficult situation in a literary work that is not resolved by the main characters, but by an outside 'godlike' force which appears suddenly and solves the problem. This is typically a sign of poor writing by the author, showing that he/she couldn't think of a proper way to get the hero(es) out of the difficult situation on their own merits.
This "God in the machine" is used in the first two Harry Potter movies FOUR TIMES!
(1) In movie #1, Harry is outside after dark (where he shouldn't have been anyway...see below) and threatened by Voldemort. He is saved when a centaur jumps into the scene and rescues him.
(2) Harry is threatened by Voldemort again at the end of movie #1. When all seems lost he is saved by..."love"--which prevents Voldemort from hurting him.
(3) In movie #2, Harry and Ron are trapped in the spider's den and all seems lost. They are saved when the magic car shows up suddenly and takes them to safety.
(4) Also in movie #2, Harry is threatened by the basilisk and all seems lost. He's then saved by the phoenix which shows up just in time and claws the basilisk's eyes out.
Instance #1 is the least egregious of the four, and had it been the only one, I doubt anyone would have reason to complain (I wouldn't...). It's the middle of the movie--it's not time for a 'final showdown', so it's probably appropriate that someone steps in and postpones the confrontation until later. So let's excuse #1 entirely...
Instance #4 is the next 'best' (least worst?) if only because the phoenix doesn't completely take care of the situation--Harry still has to do some work on his own (rare for him--see below...) Also, Rowling at least introduced the phoenix earlier in the movie--although it's not clear how it knew that Harry needed help and where he was...
Instance #2 is particularly bad because it basically ends the first movie. It might have been more acceptable had it been explained better (perhaps some Harry Potter fan out there wants to help clear things up...) The only explanation from the movie is that Harry was protected because of 'love'--specifically from his parents. Okay...does that mean Harry's parents put a particular spell of protection on him because they loved him, or that their love automatically protected him somehow without them having to do anything? If the latter, why didn't their love protect each other from Voldemort? Wouldn't you think they loved each other just as much as they loved Harry? Is Harry the only Hogwarts student whose parents love him? If not, are the other students under 'protection' as well? Or is Harry's parents' love 'better'? Is this 'love' protection consistent through all the books/movies for Harry (in other words, he's immune from harm), or was this just something Rowling thought up to take care of the difficult situation she found Harry in and couldn't think of something better? For a movie-ending resolution, I'd expect a better, less arbitrary explanation.
Instance #3 is by far the worst of the four. How did the car know Harry and Ron were in the spider's den in the first place? They didn't take the car there... They didn't 'call' it, either... A better author would have thought up a way for Harry or Ron to use their magic, or perhaps think of something clever to say and talk their way out of the situation, but instead Rowling relies on the
deus ex machina to get Harry out of trouble...again.
One of the end results of the poor plotting is that Harry himself turns out to be a somewhat passive hero. He gets acted upon more than he acts himself. He finds himself in dangerous situations and instead of getting out of them himself with his magic or intellect, he relies on outside forces to swoop in and save the day. I could count on one hand all the times Harry actually uses his magic in the first two movies. (Out of all the students--and adults, even--Hermione seems to be the only one who uses her magic regularly.) Harry is the 'hero' of the books/movies but he almost seems like an outside observer to the events in the plot--which proceed with or without his participation. At the end, I wasn't really sure why I should particularly care about what happens to Harry throughout the series since he's one of the least active 'heroes' in memory.
Some words should be said about the conduct of the adults at Hogwarts--who consistently demonstrate incompetence (on
good days) and gross--borderline criminal--negligence on bad ones.
Some examples of things the adults handled poorly:
(1) Movie #1: Harry and company are disciplined for being caught outside after dark. Their punishment...being sent outside after dark. (?)
(2) Immediately after (1), Hagrid makes the situation worse by sending Harry off BY HIMSELF, which leads directly to Harry being placed in danger from Voldemort. (Luckily for him, the God--er, um...centaur was there to save him or else Hagrid would have had some explain' to do.)
(3) Hagrid is even worse in movie #2: He sends Harry and Ron into the spider's den,
knowing that the spiders don't actually know anything about the Chamber of Secrets, and
knowing that they would be in danger. Why? Apparently, (as Ron mentions afterwards) just to prove his innocence. Doesn't that strike anyone as rather selfish--putting his 'friends' in life-threatening danger for his--not their--benefit? Yet, at the end of the movie, everyone stands up and applauds Hagrid... Gee, I hope my kids don't take Hagrid as a role model...
(4) In movie #1, Dumbledore handles the class competition between the various houses where students are rewarded for how they perform in school. At the end, he announces that Slytherin has won...but then announces that because of certain 'extenuating circumstances' Harry's house gets some 'bonus points' which make them the winners. Everyone cheers, because, of course, Harry and company are the 'good' guys and Slytherin are the 'bad' guys who don't deserve to win because...well, they're the 'bad' guys. But, wait...since when is it fair to alter the conditions of a competition concerning class work at the last minute, especially when it changes the winner? Imagine if Gryffindor had won the competition, but at the last minute Slytherin got some 'bonus points' because, say, Lucius Malfoy had made a generous contribution to the school (something unrelated to the actual schoolwork performed by the students...) I doubt anyone would think that result was 'okay' or 'fair'. Why then is it 'fair' the other way around? That's a great lesson for the kids: it's okay to bend/change the rules of a competition as long as you get the result you want (and lets the people you don't like lose).
(5) Strike two for Dumbledore who does something equally boneheaded at the end of movie #2. At the final banquet, he announced that because of the heroic behavior of some students, he is canceling final exams as a reward. I'm sorry...canceling finals? Since when are final exams designed as punishment for the students? Isn't Hogwarts supposed to be a school? How seriously can you be taking their education when you cancel finals? Does Dumbledore consider 'no homework for a month' an appropriate reward for good behavior? Homework has a
purpose, of course... Yes, obviously, kids don't see it that way (and kids are the target audience of Harry Potter as mentioned) but this just emphasizes why adults like me have a hard time taking the Harry Potter books seriously--and in fact sends the wrong message to kids about homework and testing.
(6) During the Quidditch match in movie #1, Harry is in danger of falling from his broom because of a rogue spell (thought to be from Snape). Question: if you're playing a game at a school for
wizards, shouldn't there be a mechanism to prevent people from using magic and cheating? Why is it that none of the teachers (except for Snape, as it turns out) do anything when it's obvious that someone is using magic to alter the game? In movie #2, we have a similar situation where a rogue snitch goes out of control and threatens the safety of the players. Again, the teachers
do nothing. The situation is allowed to continue all the way to the end when Hermione--not any of the adults, mind you--is the one who destroys the malfunctioning snitch.
These are not minor points--Dumbledore and Hagrid are among the 'heroes' of the book, therefore it's more of a concern that their behavior is problematic considering that they are presented as the 'good' guys--people that the kids should be looking up to. Ironically, the most responsible adult out of the bunch seems to be Professor Snape, although he's still presented as being one of the 'bad' guys of the series.
This has been a fairly critical essay, although Harry Potter is not on my 'hate' list. There are far worse movies for kids to see (and far better, too...) and I admit (as I did at the beginning) that Harry Potter was not written for me, and that my feelings are somewhat irelevant--like asking someone who's non-LDS what they thought of
The RM. Also, since I haven't read the three (as of now) newer books that haven't been made into movies yet, and people have told me they get progressively better, I'll hold out hope that Harry Potter--the franchise--will continue to progress and live up to the hype.
Random Notes and Comments:
(1) There's actually an easy solution to 'fixing' Quidditch--remove the 150 point bonus for catching the snitch. The game would still end immediately upon catching the snitch, but it would have no effect on the score whatsoever. That changes the dynamic entirely, because if your team is losing you (the seeker)
don't want to catch the snitch, but would actually actively try to prevent your opponent from catching it (and ending the game with them in the lead). Then, if your team takes the lead, the positions would be reversed. When the score is tied, the seekers would be trying to keep themselves in position to catch the snitch (without doing it, of course) waiting for the instant the score changes. This would lead to more physical play from the seekers (grappling with each other), and would require that the seekers pay close attention to the score at all times. This solution would create a little bit of interaction between the seeker and his teammates (of which there is currently none...) and it would keep the regular goal scoring portion from being completely irrelevant--which it is now...
(2) The official name of the first book (and movie) is
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. The name of the book and movie was changed for release in the US because the publishers thought 'philosopher' was too intellectual and 'sorceror' was more exciting. Every scene in the first movie that mentioned the 'philosopher's stone' had to be reshot with the characters saying 'sorceror's stone' so that the two movie versions could be consistent with the two book versions.
(3) Look for a picture of Gandalf the Grey on the wall when Harry enters Dumbledore's office in the second movie.
(4) One of my other plot questions was how Quirrell got past the chess game into the back chamber at the end of movie #1. A couple of people have said you can see the rubble of previous chess pieces on the side of the board when Harry enters, showing Quirrell had played his own game earlier. If so, and the chess pieces magically recreate themselves after each game, why are there still three missing when Harry gets there?
(5) ...and I can think of a lot of things more secure than a 'chess game' lock, couldn't you?
