Stardate 20030620.1125

(On Screen): I must be the last person in the western hemisphere to have seen the first Harry Potter movie. I bought a copy of it on DVD a couple of months ago, and finally watched it night before last. Since everyone else has already seen it, I'm not going to worry too much about revealing plot elements. (If I'm wrong, and you don't want to read spoilers, skip this log entry.)

I've never read any of the books, so except for my exposure to the trailers I really had no idea what it would be like.

The early Cinderella part was excruciating, and I skipped through most of it, stopping only to watch the snake and the owls and the sequences with the letters arriving. Once Hagrid showed up, it all got a lot better and I stopped skipping.

The film wasn't really what I had expected based on the trailers. I had thought there would be a lot more hazing, for instance. I thought Malfoy would be a bigger part. I'm glad it didn't turn out that way; that would also have been excruciating.

Harry didn't turn out to be what I thought he would be like. In particular, he didn't end up being as much of a nerd as I thought he would be. (I actually didn't have any idea that he would end up "winning the big game"; I knew vaguely that Quidditch was in the story, but I didn't really know much about it.)

I had gotten the impression that Harry fell in with both Ron and Hermione on the train and had already become a trio before even showing up at Hogwarts; I could see two boys becoming friends that way, but it struck me as less plausible that they'd link up with a girl (eeww!). So I was glad to see that their friendship with Hermione developed more slowly, in ways which made sense. The boys met Hermione on the train, but became friend with her later.

I never knew how the name "Hermione" was pronounced. I've always mentally pronounced it HER-me-own; but her-MY-un-ee is a lot nicer. (Hey; how was I supposed to know? No one names their girls "Hermione" in the US.)

The film was awesomely well cast. There wasn't a single bad performance. The three kids, in particular, are superb.

It was a special pleasure to see John Hurt in the film, as the owner of the magic-wand store. He's one of those actors who is like a signal in a film: once he comes on screen, you know the scenes he's in will be superb, just because he's in them. And it was cool that Mr. Ollivander didn't seem to even notice that Harry trashed his shop while trying out various wands.

Hurt's part wasn't a recurring character. Now that Richard Harris has died, why not cast him as Dumbledore? I think he'd be superb. Of course, he's 3" shorter than Harris was, but that can be worked around, especially in a character who wears long robes. According to IMDB, they have actually cast Michael Gambon in the part for Prisoner of Azkaban. I know nothing about him, but given how well they cast the first film I don't think they'd botch something this important, so I assume he'll be excellent, and he's even taller than Harris was. Still, I do wish they had considered Hurt for the part. (Sigh.)

The final heroic sequence, the culmination of the film, was handled well. The kids actually did use some magic. (Well, Hermione did.) I was happy to see that all three kids got a chance to contribute; in particular, it was cool to see Ron play and win the chess game, especially in how he did it. Ron had been comic relief, so it was neat to see him get to be important, and the nobility of sacrificing himself in the game so as to set up Harry to make the checkmate was well done. That damned well was worth 50 points, I must say.

That final sequence was one of those things which works really well when you watch it, and you're experiencing and feeling, but starts to fall apart later when you think about it. If Professor Quirrell was already past that point, then why was the chess board not already littered with rubble? They found Fluffy sleeping and the harp playing, showing that Quirrell had already gone through. The tangle-roots (whatever they were called) wouldn't leave any trace of his passage, and he'd have no more trouble with them than Hermione did. But how did he get past the chessboard? (mumble-chessboard-magically-resets-itself-mumble) (mumble-WRONG-mumble)

And when Harry tells Hermione to get Ron back out again, the script sort of forgets about Fluffy and a 30-foot vertical hole. Hermione could levitate Ron up the hole, but can't fly up it herself. (There's no indication that someone can use the levitate spell on themselves.) And if she did send Ron up, Fluffy would be waiting. How good is Hermione at singing while doing magic or dragging an unconscious kid around? But since there's no way for her to get out herself, it doesn't really matter.

That's OK; it's one of those "off camera" things we just sort of are supposed to ignore. Presumably Hermione and Ron were saved at the same time that Harry himself was. Except that what it really means is that there wasn't any point in Hermione staying with Ron. If he started dying, there wasn't anything she could do, and there was no way for her to get him to safety. So she should actually have accompanied Harry to the last room – except that in plot terms, it had to be Harry alone who confronted Professor Quirrell. He'd been supported by his friends to that point, but as Sarah said in "Labyrinth", I must go on alone. That's how these things are done. So "You stay here and get Ron to safety, I'll go on" was the only real way to make it come out right.

The fake-out switch caught me completely by surprise, and that doesn't usually happen. I don't always exactly guess such switcheroos, but I usually can tell when they'v got one in mind. But I didn't see this one coming at all. I'll give 'em 50 points for totally fooling me.

On the other hand, Harry's victory in the fight was a plain old-fashioned deus-ex-machina of the worst sort; it was gratifying, to say the least, and worthy of a cheer while the movie was running, but it made no sense. They did the best they could to explain it, but still; Harry turned the villain into crumbling stone just by touching him and being scared/angry? Yeah, right. (Even if he is "the boy who lived".)

That was necessary, too. Harry had to win, but without such a deus-ex-machina there was no way he was going to defeat a grown man who was also a fully-trained wizard. So out of the sky comes a magic solution. (Oh, well; I guess it's a story about magic.)

None of which matters; it's all nitpicking. This is a kid's film, and it isn't braindead. It's epic fantasy and it's more about characters and experience than about logic. The characters are drawn broadly, and many of them are stereotypes, and that's what you expect in kid's stories. In many ways it reminded me of the Narnia books, and I mean that as a compliment. (In some ways it also reminds me of "Spy Kids", and that's a compliment too.) The goal of watching a film like this is to feel wonder and fascination and affection for the starring kids; one should be immersed in the experience, transported to another place, and I was. It isn't intended to make you think or to deliver any sort of deep message. It's a fine film, and I'll definitely watch it again. It gave me a lump in the throat and a tear in the eye. I wish I could attend Hogwarts school.

But when the film was over, there was one itch that hadn't been scratched, one thing that left me unsatisfied. I really wanted to see the three kids encounter Professor Snape after they learned who the bad guy actually was, and learned that Professor Snape had actually been trying to save Harry at the Quidditch match rather than kill him. He's the head of a different house at Hogwarts, and he's a black magician and a rather unpleasant man, but it's clear that deep down he wasn't an enemy. When he wished Harry luck before the Quidditch match, I think he actually meant it. And he took a pretty big risk for Harry at the Quidditch match, because he could have faced retaliation from Voldemort later. So I wanted to see what they all said to each other once the kids had learned the truth. (Oh, well. For all I know, it's in the book. Maybe I should read it.)

The DVD I bought was a fancy-set which had a second DVD containing special material. Included on that was the inevitable interview/making-of piece where the producer and director spent a bunch of time talking about how they were happy to be working on a series of films which weren't just films, you know, but something special, something really transcendent. Of course, in this case that rhetoric is justified, but they always say that in these kinds of interview/making-of pieces, even when it's about some total dreck B-movie which is completely forgettable. (They always have, even in interviews. Monty Python skewered that nicely in their "Scott of the Antarctic" sketch.)

Apparently they fully expect to make seven films before they're through, one for each book. That's going to be quite a challenge. And if they're going to pull it off before those kids grow too old, they're going to have to get a move-on. And so is J. K. Rowling; she hasn't actually finished writing the series. She's got the whole thing roughed out; she knows in general terms what stories are coming. And she's got a head start, so maybe it will be OK.

For fans desperate to know what happens next to the teenage wizard, Rowling offered some tantalizing teasers on the eve of "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" being published around the globe.

Rowling, now said to be wealthier than Queen Elizabeth, said in a series of interviews on Friday that she felt guilty about being so rich and finds fame a heavy burden to bear, especially when it intrudes on the privacy of her family.

But she assured her fans she will complete all seven of the planned Potter books -- she has started writing Book Six and the final chapter of Book Seven is already written.

Speaking to the London Times about the adventures of the orphaned wizard, she said that in the latest book "Harry is very angry. Very angry. And he's angry for most of the book."

"This time Harry really for the first time does have a relationship of sorts. The emphasis is very much on the 'of sorts.' That was really fun to write," she said. "He is very confused in a boy way. He doesn't understand how girls' minds work."

Why should he be any different from the rest of us?

In a television interview with BBC Newsnight, Rowling, 37, said of Harry's hair-raising adventures at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry: "Harry goes through hell every time he returns to school. So I think that a bit of snogging (kissing) would alleviate matters."

Eeeww! Kissing?? Eeeww! That's girl-stuff! (or "gull" as Gnat puts it.)

I do hope it isn't Hermione. There's no way that could avoid screwing up the fundamental character dynamics of the series. Ron and Hermione and Harry need to stay close friends, but just friends. However, Rowling has already demonstrated that she's a lot smarter than I am. (Otherwise I'd be writing the books, and I can't write fiction to save my life.) So it's her series to do with as she wishes; they're her characters. (But I really do hope it isn't Hermione...)

If they really do follow through on their plans, and actually make all seven books into films, then they're planning on capturing these kids as they grow up. That's implicit; the books do the same. It's a coming-of-age epic.

But that's a risk. It's one that TV shows have long faced: any show with children in the cast that goes on for a long time will watch those kids grow up. The kids were cast well; they're talented and enthusiastic and beautifully fit the characters. But will they still, in six years? They're changing already. Even by the second film, they're already growing up. Rupert Grint, in particular, looks as if he may end up being really quite tall. When they cast these kids for the first film, I doubt that they took into account the height and build of their parents (as an indication of what the kids might grow into).

Do the books describe the older Ron as a beanpole? Will these kids turn out to fit our mental image of the characters as they grow older?

I think the answer is that they will, because if the later films are done as well as this first one was, then the films will give us all our image of the characters. We will see these kids instead of mentally imagining them our own from Rowlings' descriptions of them. (I assume, since I've never seen the books, that they're not illustrated except for the covers.)

Radcliffe was chosen for Harry in part because he resembled the character as Rowling and her cover artists portrayed him, but from now on, Radcliffe will be Harry, for us and even for Rowling herself, I suspect.

I was surprised to learn from her IMDB entry that Emma Watson is actually a natural blonde, but that's why God gave us wigs. The reason Grint is growing faster is that he's the oldest; he was born 19880824, compared to 19890723 for Radcliffe and 19900415 for Watson. Grint is coming up on his 15th birthday; if his voice hasn't already changed, it's going to really soon.

Watson just celebrated her 13th birthday; Radcliffe is about to turn 14. Girls usually get their growth spurt before boys do, and it will be interesting to see if one of the future films has Harry shorter than both Hermione and Ron.

Most movie series which falter do so because of a failure of material, where the later movies were produced to cash in on the franchise, even though there wasn't actually an adequate story to tell. Though the first Highlander film was no prize – I liked it, but would never claim it was anything really special – it was head-and-shoulders above the sequels. (Gaah. Boy, did those stink. Not even Sean Connery could save the second one.)

Series' where later films are thought to be better than the original are actually quite rare, and indeed are noteworthy for exactly that reason. The Empire Strikes Back is now generally thought to be the best of the Star Wars films (it's certainly my favorite), and Aliens is generally considered by the reviewers to be an even better film than Alien. (I wouldn't know; I can't watch those kinds of flicks.) Godfather II was at least as good as Godfather. In most film series, later films are usually worse and the most common reason why is that they don't really have a story to tell. (I liked Terminator 2, but I fully expect to hear that Terminator 3 is crap.)

There's no danger of that here; the one thing they apparently are not going to be short of is compelling stories to tell. That's the advantage of working from a successful book series. Of course, later movies will be different: the kids will be older, stronger, and much more knowledgeable about magic.

But there are other perils awaiting the series. Emma Watson could end up doing a "Jennifer Connelly" on them, and it seems unlikely that anyone visualized the mature version of Hermione as being top-heavy. (Of course, that can be disguised somewhat, if need be. Costumes don't have to enhance a woman's bustline, especially if everyone's wearing loose robes.)

And any of those kids could end up doing a "Mackenzie Phillips". (Let's really hope that doesn't happen.)

And when you have a series which relies heavily on extremely distinctive older actors, there's also the danger that you may lose irreplaceable cast members over the course of the series. With the death of Harris, that's already happened to this one. However, Dumbledore had a big beard and wore robes, and if Michael Gambon is as competent as his c.v. seems to suggest, I'm sure he'll be fine. (John Hurt would have been better, though!) But I don't know how they could replace Dame Maggie Smith. There simply is no one else like her.

The only answer to any of this is to get it done fast. If they want to make the films in varying stages of maturity for the children they've got to do that anyway. And it looks like they're moving as fast as they can. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is scheduled for 2004 and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire for 2005. It's ambitious, but they've got a good track record (and thus support from the studio), a dedicated crew, superb source material from which to work, and the full attention and support of J.K. Rowling. I expect great things. (I think I'll go buy the DVD of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.)