Feature: Harry Potter Marathon, Part 1

The highest grossing film franchise of all time came to an end in 2011, but it completely passed me by.

It's not strictly accurate that I've never seen a Harry Potter film: I do have vague memories of watching Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire in the cinema sometime around December 2005. I barely remember it though, and it hardly meant anything to me. Other than that one exposure I am completely new to J.K. Rowling's world of wizards and muggles. Back when Philosopher's Stone came out I was in high school, and we adopted a dumb Lord of the Rings versus Harry Potter mindset (they were released a month apart): fans of one could not be fans of the other. I defiantly fell into the Rings camp. In recent years, though, I've started to feel like I've missed out on something a bit special. Now I'm going to rectify that.

YEAR ONE
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001)

So, to the first film. Opening to the unmistakable notes of a John Williams theme, I instantly knew Potter would have at least one thing going for it. I'm less certain about the first few minutes. The scenes with the grotesque Dursleys fail to hit a comfortable tone, though the flurry of owl-delivered letters is amusing. Things pick up when Robbie Coltrane's Hagrid enters, and we get a tour of a side of London not often seen. I really like the idea and design of Diagon Alley, in particular the detailed, textured sets such as Ollivander's (John Hurt) wand shop. Before long, Hagrid leads Harry to King's Cross Station, where he boards the Hogwarts express at Platform 9 and three quarters. And so, our adventure begins.

Except it doesn't. The film has a severe lack of urgency, particularly in its early stages, and plot (rather than setting) seems largely absent. Throughout most of the film there's a feeling of a simple succession of stuff happening: here we introduce Ron and Hermione, here we see Hogwarts, here we play Quidditch, as the script ticks off all the bases that need to be covered. An engaging, developing narrative is nowhere to be found, some semblance of a specific story, other than 'Harry has his first year at Hogwarts', only appearing at least half way through. By then it's too late to develop anything much, so the film comes across as purely a set-up for things to come. That is, admittedly, exactly what it is, but the film is rather clunky in its handling of exposition and setting up of all the elements that will presumably be important in later years.

The acting of the leads is a bit of a stumbling block. None of them are terrible, and you can't ask for much from a bunch of 11-year-olds in their first film, but the line delivery is often stiff, and you can almost hear Chris Columbus directing them from behind the camera ("Look happy! Look scared!" etc). Rupert Grint is probably the most natural of the three at this point, but they are all at least endearing. Thankfully there are no such qualms with the adult cast, who are all great: along with Coltrane, Maggie Smith and Richard Harris hit just the right notes, while Alan Rickman is a hoot as Severus Snape. I can foresee I'll enjoy him in the ensuing films.

One thing that surprises me is how dated the film now looks. The Blu-ray does not sport the greatest transfer, but even ignoring that the film has a fairly drab look with some alarmingly poor CGI effects (blue screen ahoy!) intermingled with some more convincing examples. I can only conclude that the budget for this first film was relatively limited compared to the rest, Warner Bros. being uncertain how big a hit they had on their hands. By the time the credits roll, I was left with a feeling of having been mildly entertained, but not at all gripped. I can't quite see yet why these films have become such a phenomenon, but I still have faith that will come. There's promise.