Michał: Accurate summary, Krzysiek! But while we are talking about the pros and cons, there is another fundamental point that should be raised. Namely, in your opinion, have the books, and the movies, have grown old, or are they universal and still have something that makes you want to keep coming back to them?
Eliza: I recently went back to the series and I remembered all the parts – I don’t think anything gets old in them. I have read each part several times in my life and although nothing surprises me anymore, it is still a great read. They are so universal that everyone can find a part of their own, real world in them. Although in this case the films are controversial to me. Even though I like them for sentimental reasons, I was incredibly irritated by any discrepancy between the book’s plot and the plot of the film. And, as you know, there were a lot of them! Sometimes they made sense to me, so today I can’t relate to them at all. After all, technically and in terms of acting, everything is correct …
Mateusz: Some time ago I saw all the films with their additions again, so I would like to refer to Harry’s film adaptation in this case . First of all, it is a very uneven series, because all the films for The Goblet of Fire were distinguished by the artistic concept of the director, of which the Philosopher’s Stone (Chris Columbus’s family style of paintings) and The Prisoner of Azkaban (the atmosphere of horror, characteristic of Alfonso Cuarón’s production) are notable examples . The next screen adaptations are the work of an efficient craftsman who made quite solid films, but lacked an element of vision. Nevertheless, it’s a pretty decent cinema that we return to with my wife at least twice a year.
I do not agree with Eliza that everything is correct in terms of acting. We see fantastic creations of great and recognized British actors, but the youth look too dim compared to them. In fact, it is no coincidence that none of the young actors made a dizzying career after the film (single outbursts of Radcliffe or Watson are a consequence of their popularity rather than talent). Harry’s impersonator at the moment he lost his childhood charm is as wooden as his wand. Grint is rather a comedy element, and there is still a lot of workshop work ahead of Watson.
Krzysztof: As for the books, I agree that not much has grown old in them. After all, not so many years have passed since their release – what has come to us since then? Social media? Drones? Fortunately, all of this doesn’t work at Hogwarts anyway, so the setting itself remains immune to these forms of obsolescence.
On the other hand, the essence of the story itself is a fairly classic fight between good and evil, adorned with the praise of friendship, love, trust and altruism as well as condemnation of greed, cruelty and megalomania … It was all already, but it remains relevant, because humanity is constantly trying to understand and organize it all, and probably never will not stop.
And the movies… well. Mateusz is certainly right to point out shortcomings to the young actors, but I am able to forgive them. I am rather a supporter of using actors in such universes who are not very famous and do not associate us with anything else, which would make it difficult to accept them in this role. Anyway, like Eliza, I have a bit of a purist in me, so I was more pleased with the first adaptations that stuck to both the original plot and characterization of the characters (yes, so far I feel sorry for Harry, who did not have green eyes after his mother) .
Mateusz: Krzysiek, I suggest watching additional materials from the set, where we can see a visually more faithful version of Harry and Hermione. In them, the creators explained that in the case of Daniel and Emma, the green eyes or Hermione’s characteristic teeth (I don’t remember exactly) had to be dispensed with, because they did not suit these actors in the end. Interestingly, some of these scenes were even recorded, but during the editing work, it was decided to change the appearance of the main characters.
Michał: You say interesting things, Mateusz (I was especially intrigued by this mention of Emma)… Nevertheless, my opinion is probably the most similar to that of Eliza. When it comes to books, I really think that they are timeless, because they contain a lot of universal content (which we will get to in a moment), which still remain relevant, not to mention the most ordinary values in the world that they promote.
On the other hand, you have to look at the movies from a distance – I personally think that while they are not super faithful adaptations, they are, objectively speaking, solid movies in themselves. Their greatest advantage is undoubtedly the atmosphere – you can feel the atmosphere of the wizarding world in every part, and with time also the darkness that thickens around the entire story in later paintings. In addition, they perfectly reflect the general concept of the presented world, thanks to which the viewer who is just getting to know the world of Harry Potter will have no problem understanding its rules, and the reader who already knows him from books can confidently say that what he sees on the screen is the same as the descriptions in the prototype. Another advantage of the movies is the general representation of the characters, especially the three most important ones, i.e. Harry, Ron and Hermione, because their character, mode of action and motivations are very similar to those of the novels. This impression is enhanced by the selection of actors mentioned by Krzysiek, who are so characteristic that they are already associated by crowds of viewers only with the heroes they play, and this applies to the entire cast. This also works the other way around – characters fromHarry Potter films are associated with actors from the movies, which proves that they help to fully imagine the world created by JK Rowling. As if that were not enough, everything is embellished with the cult, even the main musical motif by John Williams, inseparably reminiscent of everything related to Harry – let those who, in their childhood, not hum them at least a few times, throw a stone first!
As film adaptations, however, the films leave much to be desired. The biggest drawback is the significant deviations from the plot of the original. In particular, it pains me to cut films from many side plots – in this field the most outstanding feature is the Goblet of Fire , where apart from the main plot, virtually all the flavors have been cut, including the wider background of the Crouch family history and a kind of Dobby’s cameo . While I am still able to get over it, I cannot stand any major changes in the plot itself and for this reason, he is the Half-Blood Prince, in which the most such changes were made, is in my opinion the worst screen adaptation. Of the many interesting memories related to Voldemort, which greatly deepened his character, there were left two that were necessary for the plot to move forward … To this day, I cannot forgive the creators. Just as I cannot forgive the distortion of several characters, with Dumbledore at the helm – Harry’s mentor throughout the series seems quite inconsistent, and his personality is very different from his book counterpart. Finally, due to the change of directors with each subsequent sequel, individual installments have a slightly different tone and character from the other films, which makes the series appear artistically heterogeneous.
To sum up, you always want to come back to books, and to movies – not necessarily, although they have their advantages.
Eliza: It’s true that the atmosphere in the movies is unique. And, as Michał wrote, music is of great importance here. I remember that although I could not forgive the creators for skipping the great story with Błyskawica, after the premiere of The Prisoner of Azkaban , I asked for a CD with music from this film for Christmas. This excellent music, together with the familiar theme that connects them, contributes to their timelessness.
And I agree with Krzysztof that the shortcomings of young actors are forgivable: their naive acting somehow fits the characters we know from the novel. In my opinion, they matched the image of the heroes from the books that I had in my head. And that cannot be said about all actors, even the experienced ones. For example, although Alan Rickman’s creation is absolutely masterful, Snape from the books is more “alive”, torn by emotions (mainly the bad ones), he becomes furious, while the cinematic Snape is completely impenetrable and cold.
