Everyone talked about how they cried at the end of the last installment of the Harry Potter movie series. But I shed no tears at the end. I said “Good riddance.”
Okay, I know what you’re thinking. How dare she! How dare she slander the amazing, unforgettable cinematic experience that is (was?) Harry Potter! And I do apologize. But not for my opinion. I apologize that you feel that way.
True, the movies are full of beautiful imagery. The acting is impeccable. And the story ain't half bad. But more than half of its missing and I believe that is a true injustice to such an amazing work of literature.
How many of us have read the books? Cover to cover, again and again? How many of us grew up with the series, learned about unconditional love and its triumphs over evil? How many of us dreamed that we’d wake up one morning to a snowy white owl perched outside our window, scroll in hand, our ticket to Hogwarts? I don’t have to tell you I am a total Potterhead.
But I am not a fan of the movies. I loved the world that I built in my head. J.K. Rowling’s amazing way of describing a world I had never imagined, her imagery, had formed this concrete picture in my mind’s eye. I believed Hogwarts, the wizarding world and all within it existed as they did in my head, and that was enough for me.
And then the first movie was released. I remember going to see it for my 11th or 12th birthday.
Worst. Present. Ever.
It was ruined. Harry Potter was ruined for me. The somewhat frumpy, not in the slightest bit attractive vision of Hermione Granger I had in my mind, was replaced by the quite classically beautiful movie substitute. Draco Malfoy’s appalling white hair was burned into my imagination. My psyche was wrought by the image of a Severus Snape who looked more like my mom than the sinister, looming figure of my past mental images. All of what I had imagined, what I had perceived through hearing the stories and reading them on my own was gone.
I believe that one of the BEST parts of reading are the images reading invokes. The imagination it stirs and the stories that readers themselves can create when expanding upon a work.
So, no, I don’t like the movies. And as I think about the other movies based on books, I do not really understand why, except for monetary gains, books are constantly being made into movies.
What do you all think? What about those of you who have only seen the movies? What about other literature that you have read that has been made into movies?
I see what you mean--I think a lot of people who really loved the books had a similar reaction to the Harry Potter films. It's hard when what you pictured in your head doesn't match what you see on the screen. But I think it's important to remember that the HP films are fundamentally different from the books--yes, they're adaptations, but they're a completely different literary form and should be respected as such. It's like what we learned about good picture books in class: the pictures add to the text and neither would be the same without the other. Well, the films in a way do that to the books. If the film was a straight acting-out of the books, it wouldn't add anything meaningful to the story. (Not to mention it would be an impossibly long film). By adapting them to film, some things are lost but others are gained--they become a series that stands all on its own.
ReplyDeleteSo, I don't think books and movies are incompatible. They're separate art/literary forms that can work together or separately. If they're well done, I don't think it's about monetary gains at all; it's just a different form of expression that can affect people in different ways.
But, if you like the books and not the movies, more power to you :)