| Wild About Harry |
December 2002
|
The Return of Harry Potter
The long-awaited second installment of the Harry Potter saga hit cinemas last month, and the millions rolled in. The success of Harry Potter is gratifying to those who read for amusement and amuses those who prefer their imagination in large doses.
There have been enemies of Harry and his pals at Hogwarts, the Christian version of the Taliban mostly, and one French philosopher who, using Critical Theory rather than critical faculties, decried it as an apologia for the bourgeoisie. And some film critics felt the first movie followed the book too closely. The latter are morons even by Jean Chretien's rather loose standards. It is film's duty to follow what the novelist wrote. Otherwise, film people should come up with their own damned ideas.
Author J.K. Rowling has provided us with a very detailed and fun world in which to indulge in daydreaming, but it is no sanitized, Disney-fied place. Death happens, the protagonist is an abused orphan, and evil is not only real, it is personal. She has created her own works from two very distinct threads of literature, fantasy and public school stories. In its own right, each genre has its bright stars (Tolkien, obviously, in the fantasy realm and Kipling's Stalkey and Co. for school tales -- or perhaps Tom Brown's School Days). In either, she could flourish; by combining them, she provides a 21st Century classic.
We shall, of course, miss Sir Richard Harris (R.I.P.) as Headmaster Albus Dumbledore in future films, but the participation of Dame Maggie Smith, John Hurt, Kenneth Branagh, and Robbie Coltrane guaranteed the artistic integrity of the current episode. One wonders, though, they finish with Hogwarts, will Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), and Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley) be able to break the curse of the ex-child actor and find other roles?