Shari L. Rosenblum

Orphaned and unwanted by the aunt and uncle in whose care he was left, Harry Potter sleeps in the tiny cupboard under the stairs, his birthday a regular non-event, and watches with sardonic resignation as his bratty ill-mannered cousin is spoiled with attention and affection. It is the perfect setup for a childhood fantasy: goodness, fettered by injustice, looking for the last "a-ha."

The traditional salvations of childhood fiction are multiplied in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone with a bold flourish: godfathers magical and mystical, good witches, overseeing angels, and the man behind the curtain - Harry has them all. And more. On his eleventh birthday, in a proliferation of invitation letters sent just to him from Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, and with delivery by an unkempt giant named Rubeus Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) of his very first birthday cake, Harry discovers he has magic all his own.

Too young, too small, too all alone in the world, he finds that in a world just outside the one he knows, at its edges and all around it, he is a famously powerful and beloved little boy - survivor of a dark attempt against his life by the most powerful evil wizard of lo these many years - Voldemort - and his very name inspiring awe in young and old alike. The lightning bolt scar on his forehead, reminder of his losses, is also the mark of his invulnerability. Shazam, indeed.

Much of the magic is squandered, however, in this first film adaptation of the J.K. Rowling series. Bothering in parts, bewildering in others, it is far too little bewitching. The script by Steve Kloves (Wonder Boys) uses a pinch too much of plotting; the direction by Chris Columbus (Home Alone) stirs in too many lumps, and there's far too heavy a hand on the conductor's wand in John Williams' (everything) score.

Perhaps most disturbing is that instead of a world where wit is as important as wizardry, where sly disdain and good humor make short order of would-be oppressors, the film falls into the mismessage of might makes right (despite Richard Harris's presence as a sort of King Arthur turned Merlin in the person of Professor Dumbledore). It misses to a large extent the complexity, the tale's greatest original offering, and replaces it with cheap imitations. Faithful though it is to the book's design, it lazily substitutes force for cunning and the obvious for the clever in magic's victory over muggle (non-magic) parochialism and the dark arts.

Disappointing, too, is the failure in character development, which the film seems to sacrifice in favor of set pieces. The most enduring part of Harry's story should be the friendships he builds, the trusts he learns to share, and the tried and true lessons of a good man's honor. But we get little sense of Harry's two best friends: Ron Weasly (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), either in who they are or in how they come to Harry, and we little understand what it is that makes Harry tick. And though we see we should, we never do get to feel the bond between Hagrid and Harry.

Still, I would not deny anyone the wonder of watching a chess game that is more interactive than even Lewis Carroll would have imagined, or the breathtaking experience of attending one's first Quidditch match (a sport that puts its sources - rugby, soccer and hockey - to shame), and so I recommend the film in spite of my disappointments. There is much good to be seen in Harry Potter's first installment. It just saddens me that with the extraordinary length, for a children's film, of 2 ½ hours, they didn't find time for what mattered most of all.

©2001 Shari L. Rosenblum
CineScene