| |
 We
all know that it’s a phenomenon, and it’s easy to discount such
things as the fad of the moment. But J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter
books have struck a chord not just with children, but with adults
around the globe (why else would the venerable best seller lists
of papers such as the New York Times have decided that they must
exile children’s books to another category, as if embarrassed
by the appeal of the young wizard?). And, of course, everyone
was just dying to see the films. Relief that Spielberg’s purported
plan to shift the whole thing to the US and “Hogwarts High” (shudder)
was soon followed by suspicion when renowned Hollywood hack, Chris
Columbus, was put at the helm. Happily, Columbus’ efforts were
not too shabby, if a little inconsequential and squeaky-clean.
But we had to wait until The Prisoner of Azkaban (arguably
one of the best of the books – so far) for Harry to be given his
true druthers.
Alfonso Cuarón
has not only brought the magic of the Harry Potter tales to the
screen, but also the darkness. The darkness, as anyone who has
read the books can tell you, has always been there, but Columbus’
vision was always complicated by the burden of the stories’ popularity
and his lack of genuine familiarity with the milieu of English
schools and “houses” and…well, behavior. Cuarón has no
such problems; the veteran of both A Little Princess
and Y tu mamá también has brought a whole
new feel to the saga, and the result is a film which, while certainly
not suitable for the under-10s, nevertheless succeeds in hitting
this particular nail on the head.
The first
thing that you’ll notice is that, although the Dursley’s are still
treating Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) like some maid-of-all-work,
the boy is now striking back. (And kicking furniture in that particularly
endearing teenage manner.) His anger informs his character, and
even though it may at times be misdirected, it brings a truth
to the tale. Equally, Ron and Hermione have grown and become more
than merely the sidekicks of Harry. For the first time you have
a sense that they are individuals with lives beyond their association
with Potter.
The story
(for the six of you who haven’t read the book) is about the escape
of Sirius Black from the dreaded prison of Azkaban, which is guarded
by the Dementors, wraith-like creatures (think Ghost of Christmas
Future) who maintain control by sucking hope from the souls of
those in their care. Black was accused of betraying Harry’s father,
his best friend, resulting in the elder Potter’s death at the
hands of the evil Voldemort. Harry hates the man, of course, but
his challenges at his third year at Hogwarts are not limited to
the possible depredations of He Who Must Not Be Named. This time
there’s the new Divination class, under the tutelage of Professor
Trelawney (Emma Thompson), yet another Mastering the Dark Arts
teacher, Prof. Lupin (David Thewlis) and the fact that the Dementors
are circling the skies above the school and are none too particular
about whose souls they suck.
The Prisoner
of Azkaban is the first of the Harry Potter books in which
the world of the adult wizards intrudes. In the wizarding world,
as in ours, the older you get the more complex things become.
The world is less clearly divided into good and evil; and personal
ambition and politics begin to play a part. This expansion of
Harry’s moral landscape is illustrated in the expansion of his
literal universe. In the book the visits to the nearby village
of Hogsmeade suffice, but Cuarón expands Hogwarts itself
– we see the grounds, quadrangles, lakes, and a really spectacular
bridge. The place itself seems to be flourishing along with Harry.
On the darker
side, this time the threat seems more real. Where before his challenges
were associated with school legends (in the vein of the great
tradition of English boarding school tales) this time the school
itself is invaded. The danger is tangible, and something that
even the adults can’t control, and we begin to see why Harry is
special and not just a kid with a lightning scar.
As for the
performances, Radcliffe is growing up with Harry at exactly the
right rate and his wizard is spot-on, but the real surprises are
from Emma Watson (Hermione) and Rupert Grint (Ron). Watson was
rather appalling in the first film, but has matured (I can’t believe
I’m saying this about someone who’s just 13!) into the role. The
Hermione of the books is equal parts frightening intelligence
and shrinking insecurity, and this time around it’s in her eyes
and her bearing: the confidence mixed with the desperate need
for approval. (God, who would be that age again?) As for Grint,
his mugging in Harry Potter
and the Chamber of Secrets was truly appalling, but that
seems to have been a phase and this time around he’s note-perfect.
Which is saying a lot – the role of best friend to the hero is
one of the most difficult in drama and has brought many a more
seasoned thesp to his spiritual knees.
Supporting
roles are, as usual, superlative. Michael Gambon is a fitting
replacement for the late Richard Harris (though I did miss that
husky Irish lilt). Maggie Smith is…well, perfect; as are Robbie
Coltrane, Emma Thompson and Gary Oldman. Special effects are superlative
– fitting the story without drawing attention to themselves –
and this film has possibly the best quidditch match of the series
so far (played in blistering rain, like all real British sports!).
We all dream
of being there at the birth of a classic; to be in the pub when
Tolkien read the opening chapters of The Hobbit, or C.S.
Lewis the first lines of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe
(same pub and probably same evening), or at the riverside when
Rev. Dodgson imagined Alice for young Alice Liddell. Few people
at the time recognized those tales for the classics they were,
and the same is true today. But it’s important to realize that
you are here, and these stories are good; and that, with luck,
you’ll be reading them to your great-grandchildren…and watching
them, too.
For once,
Hollywood really does deliver.
|
|
