July is the month when one of the most popular heroes of fantasy literature was born – Harry Potter. On this occasion, The Last Tavern celebrates Harry Potter Week, in which our four editors – Mateusz, Krzysztof, Eliza and Michał – decided to recall the JK Rowling series and its adaptation and discuss what in books and movies have succeeded and what has failed expectations fans.
At the beginning, they dealt with the issue of the content and values presented in “Harry Potter” and assessed whether it is possible to find such in this series …
Michał: Each of us here has read “Harry Potter” and is able to say a lot about it. So I think we should start our discussion with the most basic point – what do you think was successful with the JK Rowling series and what not? Because I personally think the series is excellent. It contains everything that a good fantasy book should contain – a rich, deep world with a complex, interesting plot and unconventional and incredibly realistic characters. I will not hide that to this day all her volumes are one of my favorite items and I consider them a flagship example of how to create an intriguing and consistently developed story. Not to mention the fact that it’s been from reading Harry Potter my adventure with fantasy literature began and it was thanks to him that it became my passion …
Eliza: This is a theme-river. I, too, think the series is brilliant because of its complexity. I love all the surprising twists, especially the Prisoner of Azkaban , but each part has a lot of them. Each of the characters is very broadly developed in terms of psychology, which allows us to identify with some of them, or to find in them features of people from our surroundings. We become emotionally attached to them. But probably what I loved Harry Potter for the most, there is consistency with which the plot, and with it the characters, developed. Since almost all the action is shown from Harry’s perspective, we also follow his development with each subsequent part. We observe an increasingly complex world, there are problems that have never existed before and thoughts appropriate to an increasingly mature person. Events become more and more dramatic, life becomes more difficult, and the characters have to learn to cope with it.
Wszystko to jest dla mnie o tyle ważne, że dorastałam z tymi książkami. Pierwszą część przeczytałam zanim skończyłam 11 lat, więc – rzecz jasna – oczekiwałam listu z Hogwartu. Na wydanie Czary Ognia już czekałam, a każda kolejna premiera była dla mnie ogromnym świętem. Tak, jak zmieniało się podejście Harry’ego do świata, tak moje – paralelnie – się rozbudowywało. Jak on, byłam coraz starsza i doświadczałam nowych rzeczy. I to jest dla mnie największa wartość tej serii.
Mateusz: Harry Potter to dla mnie przede wszystkim zjawisko popkulturowe, które na nowo otworzyło miliony dzieciaków na fantastykę, rozbudzając ich wyobraźnię i miłość do czytania, ale przede wszystkim stworzyło podwaliny dla podobnych książek. Warto zauważyć, jak wiele osób z pierwszego pokolenia czytelników książek Rowling do dziś zakochanych jest w fantastyce, a przy tym stale poszerza swoje horyzonty gatunkowe.
Podobnie jak Eliza, dorastałem z książką, kończąc swoją przygodę w okolicach liceum. Pamiętam każdą chwilę wyczekiwania na kolejną część, gdy przychodziła pocztą, jęk zawodu przy braku przesyłki. Wówczas wydawało mi się, że dzieło Rowling jest bez skazy, jednak przy okazji kolejnych seansów filmów i dorastania, zaczęła uderzać mnie pewna nieporadność w prowadzeniu bohaterów, szczególnie w okolicach Zakonu Feniksa. Protagoniści zaczęli, niczym bohaterowie horrorów, podejmować głupie i często pozbawione logiki decyzje, decydowali się na nikomu niepotrzebne heroiczne czyny, a wątku Snape’a w stylu ewangelii Judasza już całkiem nie kupuję, bo jest zbyt grubymi nićmi szyty. Z kolei po poznaniu Grindewalda doznałem szoku, że jednak Rowling potrafi pisać czarne charaktery. Voldemort jest dla mnie jednak zbyt płytki i jednowymiarowy. Jest po prostu zły. Zabieg ten co prawda świetnie sprawdzał się w pierwszych częściach (dla młodszego czytelnika), jednak po Czarze Ognia warto było rozbudować postać.
Krzysztof: Hmm, I would rather not call this series “perfect”, despite all my sympathy for her and the fact that as a kid I read these books many times and I knew them almost by heart. Speaking of the beginnings, I started with the Prisoner of Azkaban , whom I had just received as a gift, and then I made up for the first and second volumes to get context. I read the Goblet of Fire shortly after its premiere, and then I went one after the other, waiting with longing for the next installments.
However, putting aside my teenage “psychophanism” aside, I admit that novels have their drawbacks and in many areas they give way to other series from the fantastic plot – regardless of whether we are looking for a complex universe, deep psychological portraits of heroes or captivating, unpredictable action. Except… Potterhowever, it has “that something”. It is indeed a phenomenon that has to some extent breathed new life into the fantasy genre and “raised” a new generation of its current readers. Personally, I think that it is about ideas that are perfect in their simplicity, as well as a kind of joy to write and the enthusiasm with which the author created this story. Rowling is certainly not a grandmaster of the pen, but I always had the feeling that she put a lot of heart into this story – not only did she enjoy it herself, but also enjoyed the fact that she engages many of the young people who get it. And that’s what the market lacked at that time – a colorful, complex, well-written series for young people, which neither smacks of infantilism nor forced moralizing.
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.
Michał: Speaking of universality, it is impossible not to mention the deeper motives and content that appear somewhere between the lines. Do you think the author placed them there on purpose and the plot is only an excuse to share them, or are they just an addition, enriching only the whole? Or is it just an over-interpretation of the fans? In Harry Potter , in my opiniondeeper content actually occurs and has been included in books on purpose, in order to evoke in every recipient, regardless of age, some reflections on life and man. We are talking about such motives as death, love, friendship, sacrifice or facing fears – phenomena that are not alien to any of us and which each of us has to deal with at some stage in our lives. By the way, I refer here to my Harry Motif series in which I analyze each of these themes in detail. Overall, Harry Potter changed my thinking on most of these issues, and I consider that to be another of his strengths.
Eliza: This is what I wrote about in the context of our first topic: the events in the book make such a strong impression on the reader that the emotions of the characters become his emotions and – especially with certain psychological similarities – it is easy to identify with them. I think then we are talking about this deep content. I am convinced that it was a deliberate, indeed sensational, procedure by Rowling. I believe that she invented a different world in which she could present her own.
I also consider it innovative to show races among the magical community and their hierarchy. Growing up in a very socially homogeneous country, I had little to do with being different. We meet this one in Harry at every step: there are wizards (for many, “the race of masters”), goblins, elves, tritons, etc. It was for me “as a kid” the first picture of the importance of coexistence and respect for people who are different from us beings and what the discrimination entails.
Mateusz: I cannot understand the controversy towards Harry Potter . The book, as Michał and Eliza mentioned, is loaded with positive models and deep content. Critics of Rowling accuse her of the lack of LGBT characters in books, references to black magic, etc., but they forget that the author tried to teach children to be tolerant, stigmatized discrimination against others on the basis of origin, and above all drew attention to the enormous power of friendship and love.
Krzysztof: As I mentioned during the conversation about the timelessness of Potter, I clearly see the deliberate promotion of certain attitudes and values and the condemnation of others. This is probably partly due to the youthful nature of the books, and partly to the fairy-tale roots of fantasy. And rather, I have nothing to complain about these presented values - I am also of the opinion that it was primarily about tolerance and understanding towards others, as well as faithfulness and loyalty, both towards people close to us, as well as ourselves and our beliefs. Consequently, like Mateusz, I do not understand the accusations that are being raised here and there against the series – in my opinion, it has no obligation to focus on absolutely every social problem. It is enough if the general message points us in the right direction.
So I think the series has a positive impact on the worldview of young people. For example, the topic of houses and the Allocation Tiara is great for kids on the verge of more serious life choices – on the one hand, we get information that it is worth paying attention to your strengths and predispositions and guided by them (Tiara’s verdicts), on the other hand, we can, yes like Harry, choose their own way in spite of these expectations and ultimately be fine.
Michał: While we’re at it – the so-called Hogwarts Houses where future students go to the school after the Assignment Ceremony. Each of them – Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw and Slytherin favor certain traits and values. Which of them appeal to you and why?
Eliza: I probably won’t be original, but I would feel best in Gryffindor. I have always identified one hundred percent with their values, and true friendship has been worth every effort for me as far as I can remember. By the way, I’ve always wanted to live in the tower.
Mateusz: I have always dreamed of Slytherin, which – as Tiara mentioned – gives me greater opportunities for development (although Malfoy’s colleagues somewhat contradict it). Rowling idealizes Gryffindor a bit too much, putting only positive characters there. I get the impression that she has become a slave to the first books in this, more one-dimensional because of the kids. I missed interesting, positive and important characters from other homes. In addition, even if you try all year round and score the most points, Dumbledore awards the Gryffindors victory in the end.
Krzysztof: When I started my adventure with Potter , my closest thing was Gryffindor – after all, it’s the home of our brave, heroic protagonists! However, in the vicinity of the fifth volume, when I had already grown a bit, and the other houses also received a little more attention from the author and a handful of supporting characters representing them, the scales of my sympathy tipped in favor of Ravenclaw. There, moreover, he finally assigned me the “only true and official” Tiara test from Pottermore.com . And I’m fine with it – praise for intelligence, individualism and creativity is something that appeals to me! After all, I think I am something between a bookworm and Pomyluną Lovegood …
Michał: I will tell you honestly that when I collect all the attributes that individual houses prefer, I have the impression that I would find myself in everyone, because everyone requires at least one quality that I have myself – Gryffindor values courage and nobility, Hufflepuff honesty and determination, Ravenclaw intelligence and wisdom (yes, I know, my modesty beats the eyes), and Slytherin ambition. It seems to me, however, that I would actually like Gryffindor best, not only because of the fact that the main characters belonged to him and the general sentiment, but because of the fact that I identify with him the most as a whole, especially because of the glorification of loyalty and readiness. to sacrifice – qualities that I value in people above all else and that each of us should follow.
Eliza: I have to deny Matthew’s statement that Gryffindor has only positive characters, and there aren’t any other people. For example: Cormac McLaggen, the self-righteous Gryffindor that nobody likes. Maybe it is a drop in the ocean and most Gryffindors are the epitome of good, but nevertheless it destroys the image of the always noble members of this house. Moving on: Luna Lovegood, mentioned earlier by Krzysiek (a very interesting, complex and positive character), Cho Chang, Cedric Diggory, Hanna Abbott, Ernie Macmillan. And these are just a few examples … But the fact that Rowling closed the field a bit to show off the first volumes, where the differences were clearly outlined.
Krzysztof: As I have already mentioned, somewhere in the middle of the series, Rowling found out that at first she had a poor portrayal of houses, at least in terms of their representatives, and began to fix mistakes. In the first three parts, the Gryffindors are the good ones, the Slytherins are the bad ones, and Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff are just an irrelevant background. Only volumes four and five introduce more characters from these neglected houses, and in volume six there are attempts to humanize Slytherin students and to show that Gryffindor also has a few sluts. Hence the McLaggen and a scene from the Pensieve showing the Marauders in a bad light.
As for the values close to individual houses – I think you hit the nail on the head, Michał! Rowling thought about them so that none of them would be clearly worse and no one could feel disadvantaged by being placed in it. It works great both inside the story and from the fans’ point of view – no matter what’s most important to us, we’ll find a place in one of them.
More discussion to come soon!