Harry who? Harry What? I'd gleefully ducked the hype until this week, free from the wood grain pages of an unattractive tomb. Some have called it the next Wizard of Oz. Already a classic before it's had a chance to crumble out of the stove like a pre-cooked Swanson's potpie. What's the verdict? Does it smell like poop? Heads down, children! Here comes the scoop: Warner Brother's new crowning jewel The Sorcerer's Stone is a thinly veiled remake of the 1984 Judd Nelson masterwork Making the Grade. Tossing magic into a 17 year old script is lofty at best; Harry and Ronald passing as respectable Eddie Keaton & Woodrow Palmer III knockoffs without much thought or effort. Potter triumphs at resurrecting a prep school premise that has played well throughout the years.
From the get-go, Harry Potter seemed about as appealing as an obese man bathing in corn chowder. Looking at early trailers had the same effect on me as staring at a handful of sand, all earth-toned and uninteresting in shades of tanish-brown. I'm not trying to trip the cuff of the pant leg here. I'd hate to ease myself onto the same plate as those cooler-than-thou hipster sh*t-f*cks who excel at taking the obligatory non-conformist stance on anything resulting in mass popularity. It's just not in my fish tank-like bones to play hater on something so beloved, especially when I know little to nothing about it. I'll admit; the Orange has missed out on fashionable words, unable to enjoy fiction at a faster rate. The ring of the bowl is the only pleasurable place I know to delve into any given great work of literature. If I'd chosen J.K. Rowling's master thesis, I'd still be in the bathroom today, paralyzed from the waist down. My evacuation interests aren't weaned on schoolyard babble about Quidditch Matches and Muggles. Let's face facts: B. Alan isn't exactly in the designated demographic when it comes to these novels.
About the Harry Potter series: What do I care? Maybe if I'd picked up the book when I was twelve, I'd be heading into the theater with my head down for that perfect seat. Before opening credits, my bladder would be drained 16 times in 10 minutes out of sheer nervous anticipation. Back in the day, I used to peruse the M.Y.T.H. Adventure series with great fascination. Damn pirates, they never made that into a movie! That fact alone could account for this grudge I'm holding. The core audience for Rowling's satanic child welfare tale is made up of the preteen-tween-teen set and women in the 25-45 year old age range. Already; you shouldn't give a f*ck about what I have to say. Unlike the gay forty year old man with the Malibu tan sitting in front of me furiously scribbling notes, I'm smart enough to know this fact. That's why I've turned to someone else for their opinion. No, I didn't kidnap some kid from the mall. Movieweb already has that angle covered with Corey Padnos' review. Instead, I went out on a limb for you folks.
I'm totally fascinated by the middle-aged women who live and breathe this series like it was their life-support system. I don't understand why those targeted to the Oxygen Channel are having such a clit-on for something (from my point of view) aimed at children. Back in the 80s, my mom grudgingly took me to see movies like The Goonies and The Explorers with teeth clinched and a mind set solely on buckets of popcorn. Why such interest now? Is it because this whole Pop Rocky affair sprang from the mind of one of their age-specific female peers? I'm totally lost on the appeal aspects of Harry Potter and the mind-paralyzing shackles it has on women well into their motherhood. I recruited self-stated Harry Potter fan Esther D. into going to the screening with me, so that she might help explain the hype…
O: How old are you?
E: I'm a grandmother.
O: It's safe to say you're in the 25-45 year age range, then?
E: I'm older than I look.
O: What do you find so appealing about the Harry Potter series, being in that specific demographic?
E: To me, it's very original. It's something no one has come up with until now. J.K. Rowling knows how to write really good character development. You can't really tell that from the movie as much as you can from the books. There's more to the books, of course.
O: Do you think any of the appeal comes from the author being a woman in your peer group?
E: Not for me. I didn't know it was a woman who wrote them until after I had read them. I don't pick literature based on whether it's a man or a woman who writes it. I pick it according to whether I like it or not. I like fantasy-fiction. Make believe. Larger than life.
O: Are you a fan of Romance Novels?
E: Sure. Mm-hmm.
O: Does this kind of fall into that same category?
E: No. It's very different. This has a much broader appeal. Like, universal appeal.
O: Yeah, ‘cause little kids aren't going to go off reading Romance novels. So, let me hear your review. You haven't told me if you like it yet or not.
E: I did like it. I think it was as well done a movie from a book as any I've ever seen. Of course, it leaves a lot out. It does the high points and leaves a lot of the character development out. Because so many people are fans of the book, they're not going to notice that because they already know the characters. They're not missing anything if they've read the books. If they haven't read the books, they're not missing anything because they don't know what they're missing.
O: What did they leave out?
E: Subtle stuff. Nothing important.
O: Did they add anything that wasn't in the book?
E: There were a few things…I didn't remember the fight he had with Quirrell being like it turned out to be. (Realizing my blank stare) At the end, you know?
O: Okay. I don't know who the characters are, even after watching it. I can't remember.
E: The professor of the Dark Arts. Plus the other thing; in the book it took a lot longer to develop the relationships between the professors and the students. There were several times where there could have been scenes in "this" class or "that" class. There was a lot more emphasis [in the book] on what they were learning in school. They only put a scene here or there [in the film] to kind of give you an idea what those classes were like and what those professors were like.
O: Which aspect of the book do you think they did the best in bringing to the screen?
E: For the most part, it was exactly as I would have imagined it in my mind. I didn't see the contemporary houses like they had in the beginning. That wasn't as I had imagined.
O: That surprised me just because I thought this whole thing was taking place in the olden days.
E: I probably would have cast Hermione a little differently, based on my ideas from the book.
O: Who?
E: The little girl.
O: I liked her. She's one of the only things that made the movie worthwhile for me.
E: That's the point. It's about them and she did a good job, but looks-wise…I had her pictured much differently than the way they cast her. I would have had her just a little bit…In my mind, she was a little bit bigger than [Harry & Ron] were, and a little bit more mature. She was very much like this little girl, but I saw her being more mature. It goes so fast, because the book has so much in it.
O: What do you think of the running time being over two and a half hours? Too long for a kid's movie?
E: No. It's not long for Harry Potter fans. They won't know how long they're sitting there unless their bladders are getting full.
O: Yeah, unless they're like me and have to go to the bathroom every fifteen minutes.
E: Unless they're like you and they have TB, and they have to keep getting up every hour.
O: Do you have any kids?
E: I have two kids and three grandchildren.
O: Who is and who isn't into the series?
E: Well, my daughter is. Her husband is. And her son is. The two little girls are too young to know.
O: What about your son?
E: You know about my son, the maniac.
O: He didn't want to come out tonight and see this, huh? No interest whatsoever.
E: No. He, like yourself, won't even read the book. Did you like the movie?
O: Who me? You know, I did and I didn't. It was long. It was well made, but I kind of lost interest just because I didn't know about some of the stuff that was going on.
E: Maybe you did miss something because you didn't read the books.
O: I did. I was spacing out in parts of it. I was like, "What's going on here? Oh, I don't care. I'll just space out until something comes up that I feel like watching."
E: See, for the millions and millions of Harry Potter fans, they already understand the character. They understand things about Harry they don't even realize they know.
O: Your son-in-law, he's about the same age as me and your son.
E: That's correct.
O: He's the same age as us, and he likes the books?
E: He likes Harry Potter. Yes. When he and my daughter first started reading them to their son, who's ten, my son-in-law was in the military. When he'd have to go into the field for a week, or two weeks, or a month at a time, he'd beg them not to read Harry Potter while he was gone. He wanted to be with the family when they found out what happened to Harry next.
O: Do you think he was faking that just to seem interested in the children's lives? Or do you actually think this was something he couldn't wait to hear about?
E: No…I think he was involved [in the books] just like the kids. Part of it might be because he's a dad and he loves his kids, and he likes what makes them happy, so he wants to be there when they're happy. Part of it might be that.
O: So, you don't think me being childless at the moment has anything to do with me not wanting to read the books?
E: It might.
O: I have a fear that if I start reading the books, I might like them just like everyone else.
E: Why you'd be afraid of that, I have no idea.
O: I don't want to devote the time to four huge books.
E: There's no time. You cannot put them down.
O: I know. That's what everyone says.
E: The fourth one's about three inches thick. I was afraid to start it, because the other two I had read throughout the night. I could not put them down. I finished them in a day and a half. Seriously. My daughter was anxious to read all four books, and they were kind of sad when the fourth one ended, because the fifth one is not published yet.
O: Who was that blond kid in the movie?
E: Draco Malfoy?
O: Do you think that kid was based on Iceman from Top Gun?
E: Only if J.K. Rowling thought he was. I wouldn't have picked him out of a line-up as that.
O: He's the exact same character, though. Have you even seen Top Gun?
E: Yeah.
O: He's not really the bad guy, but he's not really a good guy either.
E: Oh, he is the bad guy.
O: He was like Val Kilmer as a little kid.
E: No!
O: What? He turns into a bad guy later on? Don't ruin it for me.
E: I'm not ruining it for you, I'm just telling you.
O: You never know, in Top Gun 2, Iceman might have turned out to be the "real" bad guy, too. Since this is a family movie, and you're really into this…Back in the 80s, when you were taking your son to the movies, were you as into those films? Like Goonies and the Explorers?
E: Yes.
O: You never once went gritting your teeth, saying to yourself, "I don't want to take these kids?"
E: No. In fact, I still haven't seen Monsters, Inc. yet. I still want to see that.
O: One of the traps I've fallen into going to an advanced screening like this is that my friends have bought tickets for me not knowing I'm already going to see it. Then I have to go see it again. You're faced with a similar problem. Any regrets about having to see Harry Potter twice?
E: No, I'm looking forward to it. I may even read the book before I go back on Sunday. I would have loaned it to you.
O: I know. I don't want to read it.
E: I have no patience for people who just don't want to like something.
O: It doesn't appeal to me. I don't know why.
E: I can't make you like it.
O: This movie reminds me of Young Sherlock Holmes mashed together with Home Alone. Did Chris Columbus direct Young Sherlock Holmes? I don't remember. What other movies have you seen recently that you also liked?
E: Here?
O: No, not here. You've never been to this theater before. I mean, in general.
E: I liked From Hell.
O: So, you liked Harry Potter and From Hell. After watching this nice family film, I know you watched Ed Gein the other night.
E: Yeah. I did.
O: Can you give me your opinion on that movie?
E: Given the subject matter, it was as good as it could be. It's not subject matter that's going to appeal to everybody.
O: But it appealed to you?
E: I'm afraid so.
O: So you like Ed Gein and Harry Potter.
E: Not in the same movie, I think. I have some diverse interests. What can I say? Ed Gein, there's no romance there.
O: When we get the second sequel to Harry Potter, would Ed Gein be your perfect date?
E: No, I'm glad Ed's old and dead.
O: That's not nice. Parting thoughts?
E: [Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone] was great. It was great. I don't know how it could be any better.
So, there you have it: One woman's opinion on this season's most anticipated film. Overhearing the many obnoxious 30 to 40 something year old ladies who rudely shoved their way to the front of the line, I'd say Esther's views mirror a general consensus amongst that particular age group. Those crazy women created a mob scene, trampling kiddies underfoot. It's all about superior escapism and keen familiarity. Harry Potter delivers like no other movie this year, Hannibal included. Wouldn't it be nice to have an old-time Marvel Comics crossover that saw Dr. Lecter venturing into Hogswarts Academy? That might hold my attention.
As for my jaded, heartless opinion: I did enjoy most of The Sorcerer's Stone. A great deal of involvement in the lives of those on screen has been lost due to my reprehensible attitude towards reading the book. Shame on me, I guess. I've missed out on one of the most rewarding theater-going experiences of my short life. It does feel a little lonely to be on the opposing end of such a huge trend. I think I'll live through it.
NOTE: My overall enjoyment of the climatic ending would have been increased ten fold had I known the specifics of Chess. Sadly, I've forgotten how to play checkers.
|
Top Stories
151 Comments
