Harry Potter in Book and Film
A Charming Book for Kids
 One of my favourite modern books is Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s
Stone, the first of a series about Harry Potter by J. K. Rowling. But most of my
friends dislike this book and the whole series. I wondered why? Then I noticed: those, who
read the Russian version of the book, dislike it; those, who read it in English, like it
very much. So, what’s the difference? I read the English version and decided to look
through the Russian one. I discovered in it that there is only a paraphrase of events, the
charm of the original book is missing. So the Russian version is only a ghost of the
original.
J. K. Rowling has written a good book for children. I don’t think she wanted to write a
great or important book. She simply collected together all the attributes of a good book
for kids, all the features which modern children like.
Advanced readers can find in them some allusions to their favourite books, for instance,
J.R.R. Tolkien or C.S. Lewis. The main idea of Harry Potter is the struggle of Good
against Evil. For a the hero, this eternal war consists of a number of missions. He
can’t decide if he wants to perform them; he seeks his goal and finds it. This idea is
like the The Lord of the Rings by Tolkien. The other features of Harry Potter
resemble The Chronicles of Narnia by Lewis. One of them is the way in which
children use to go to the magical school – Hogwarts. They pass through the divide
between the ninth and tenth platforms. A person who is not on the platform “Nine and
Three-Quarters” can’t see it. It is like Lewis’ passages between worlds – such as
through the picture.
There is another big trump in the book for kids: the school. In fact, Harry lives in a
good English boarding school, and we are deep in its atmosphere.
And, of course, I should mention that the book is written with good taste and sense of
humor.
By Agatha, School No. 71 graduate
A Melodrama Instead of Magic
Hollywood tries to get money from anywhere and anything. Fairy-tales,
issued on Christmas, are an important source of its income. This year two important
players of  the movie business, Universal Pictures and Warner Brothers, issued the first
films from their series of tales – respectively The Lord of The Rings: The Fellowship
of the Ring and Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (they were issued on
Christmas in the USA, in Russia they appeared much later). The former exceeded all my
expectations (see English No. 12, 2002); the latter didn’t satisfy any of them.
At first glance, the book by J.K. Rowling is almost ideal for filming. At least it’s
much more suitable than J.R.R. Tolkien’s romance. Chris Columbus, the director of the
first film about Harry Potter, had an intriguing story, an exciting scene, an unusual
hero, and a danger which comes from the unknown (you don’t know where Voldemort, the
Evil, hides, so there’s an element of detective in it). His casting was fine (at least
of the main heroes; I certainly didn’t expect the Quidditch commentator Lee Jordan to be
a black girl). But when he mixed everything, he produced not a magical film, but a common
melodrama.
Just one quotation from the book. It’s the place where Dumbledore explains to Harry why
the enemy died when he touched him. “Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing
Voldemort cannot understand, it is love. He didn’t realize that love as powerful as your
mother’s for you leaves its own mark… Quirrell, full of hatred, greed and ambition,
sharing his soul with Voldemort, could not touch you for this reason. It was agony to
touch a person marked by something so good.” A deep explanation, full of wisdom. But in
the film he starts it with the word ‘Love’, said in very pathetic voice, and the voice
doesn’t change during the whole explanation. And this kills everything. A couple of such
script changes from the book – and the film is hopelessly ruined.
 An
interesting note: the book is full of magic, but those who try to translate or to film it,
lose this magic – which is the important, if not the main, part of the success of the
book. After reading Tolkien’s book, and then watching the film, I understood where this
magic comes from. Its source is in something unsaid, which can be felt, but is not
described. Just one example: in the book J.K. Rawling says that the corridors of Hogwarts
sometimes lead to unexpected places. In the film they are shown as ladders which change
direction. It’s an interesting solution – but as it is shown, we expect nothing from
Hogwarts’ corridors, while after the description in the book we feel that every single
stone of Hogwarts’ walls is full of magic.
And this problem is in everything: the magic of Hogwarts and of its inhabitants is shown.
The film creates an impression that all the abilities of the magicians-teachers of
Hogwarts are shown, that they cannot do more complicated and important things. Certainly,
it can be explained by the fact that the film is created for children. However, J.K.
Rawling’s book wasn’t written for adults, but almost everybody read it and found it
interesting, breath-taking and intriguing. I regret to say that the film doesn’t deserve
all these epithets.
The only thing in the film which is really breath-taking is the Quidditch game. I would,
with great pleasure, watch a Quidditch championship, directed by Chris Columbus. But in
the film only one game is shown, and the destiny of the Quidditch Cup remains unknown. So
even this success is not full. Alas.
And the last detail. To give the Russian translation and dubbing only what they deserve:
they are terrible.
By Yusup, MSU,
5th year student
|