Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (That's "Sorcerer's Stone" for you Americans) screened on TV this week. It's been a while so I decided to watch it, especially since it would be the first time watching episode one since having watched the final episode in the saga.
My love affair with the series had not always been smooth sailing. Originally I was non-plussed over The Philosopher's Stone. An attitude that only worsened with Chamber of Secret's - a movie that seemed to go nowhere quite slowly. For a while then, I struggled to keep up with the series, sometimes falling an episode or two behind. But finally I started to warm to it. You might say: started to understand it, and eventually fell in love. Repeated viewings only then improving it. In the end I did still wait over two and a half years (after it's release) before finally watching part two of the Deathly Hallows. I suppose by then I just couldn't bare to part with Harry and his crew.
So you could say I was pretty much a fanboy as I sat down to watch the movie again.
The Skeptic has awakened!
In more recent times, and without conscience volition, I have found myself decreasingly tolerant of films where events seem to happen for the convenience of the plot. Personally, I consider it a fair method of judging a film to ask whether a given event or situation was merited, and the plot reasonably plausible and to mark a film down if not. In other words, I ask myself: is it reasonable that such an event or sequence might occur, with some leeway given for the fact that we are talking about Hollywood here. But I give highest marks to a film where I consider that everything that happened in that film followed reasonably and logically from the precipitating events preceding it. That nothing seemed to occur just because it suited the plot/author/director.
Enter Harry Potter and The Philosopher's Stone. This is not the second or even third time I have seen this film, so I was a little surprised to find myself - this time around - quite annoyed by much of the film.
Some of the questions that began occurring to me:
- Why was the punishment for being caught "outside late at night", to serve detention outside late at night and in - of all places - the dark forest!?
- Why did the punishment for visiting Hagrid, include visiting Hagrid, rather than some real detention, with presumably Hagrid himself also chastised or punished?
- When Harry and his crew fought through the challenges protecting the philosopher's stone, how had they reset, since presumably Professor Quirrell had also fought through them recently? [edit: magically? :) ]
- For that matter, how did it reasonably come to be that having had all year to commit the crime - and Harry having had all year to figure it out - that Quirrell tries to steal the stone on the same night that Harry tries to stop him?
- Why *did* the magic harp stop playing when it did? Based on the events that followed, one would have surely have to assume they weren't exactly hot on Quirrell's heels, so why would the harp still have been playing, and given that it was still playing, it became awfully convenient (to the plot) for it to then stop when it did.
- Why didn't Professor McGonagall take Harry's warnings about someone stealing the Philosopher's stone seriously? Why didn't she ask for any evidence of their claim, rather than just dismissing them out-of-hand? Seems like a gross act of negligence that she sought niether to check their claims nor to even ensure that they did nothing silly.
- Why was no-one angry at Harry for risking the lives of himself and his friends to protect the stone, when the stone was always perfectly safe given Dumbledore's ingenious solution and so Harry actions only served to conveniently offer Quirrell the one thing he needed to recover the stone.
- How fair is it that Dumbledore allowed house Slytherin think they'd won the house cup, then conveniently gave house Gryffindor exactly the right number of points to leap them from last to first? Sure, it made for a timely drama-laden "win" for our heroes, but preyed on having the audience allow house Slytherin to be mistreated in being robbed of their victory in such a fashion. This time around I actually found myself feeling sorry for Malfoy and his house. It was an injustice convenient to the plot and on the premise that no-one minded kicking the bad guys down - as long as we conveniently assumed that all of house Slytherin was bad and that having the head Professor show obvious bias towards a particular house was ok.
Prologue
What's my point?
Whilst I'd still agree it's a great film, it does have it's weaknesses, especially when it comes to plot conveniences. In retrospect, I was especially disappointed with Dumbledore's treatment of House Slytherin in the final scenes. I suppose we were supposed to feel schadenfraude, however I felt myself instead cringing at what I perceived to be an injustice. At the same time Harry's actions seemed unashamedly dangerous - surviving only on the dumb luck that his mother's love was somehow more special than any who had come before - and yet he faced zero consequences or criticisms.
Oh well. It was just a film.
