Both as a novel and film, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is a major example of a series that became a worldwide phonemonen in its infancy: J.K Rowling's writing is much simpler here, with a centred focus on the titular wizard that refuses to budge, and that trait carries through to the first time Daniel Radcliffe entered the gates of Hogwarts. But which is better? What is surprising of the written version is that half its pages are spent at the home of the Dursleys, Diagon Alley and Platform 9 and 3/4 before the School of Witchcraft and Wizardry everyone knows and loves even appeared in a chapter, yet this approach is a great way of broadening our knowledge of Harry's troubled Muggle life before almost juxtaposing it with the introduction of the magical world. Less screen time is spent at home in the 2001 film, though, but this is probably for the better as the on-screen Dursleys are portrayed over-dramatically by their respective actors, with an almost pantomime-like OTT sense present throughout each scene starring one or more of Harry's relatives. Other elements such as the Potter parents' legacy at Hogwarts get broadened in different ways in each version (for example, Dumbledore only explains the rivalry between Snape and James in the novel, while Harry only sees the Quidditch trophy with his father's name in the film), but this helps to ensure that the film isn't a clear-cut adaptation, rather a solid adventure in its own right. Having said that, solid is just about the only word to describe a relatively uneventful flick, whereas the novelised Philosopher's Stone showed far more potential for future twists and turns in a magical series, ensuring that it comes out on top!
Winner: Book
No comments:
Post a Comment