Harry Potter Books vs Movies: Which Version is The True Classic?

Now that the last Harry Potter movie has been released, the saga is finished - both in theaters and in print. Therefore this is surely the perfect time to determine whether or not JK Rowling's extraordinary world was more magically realised on the screen or the page.

Any book is goes to resist simple adaptation to the movie screen. Film and literature are 2 totally different mediums, and while many elements can be transferred to movie screen versions, a ton of the subtext and nuance can often be lost in translation. Probably no adaptation has sparked anywhere near as much discussion about the Book Vs Film dichotomy as the Harry Potter series. For everybody that has devoured the Harry Potter books there's continuously some detail modified, some character forgotten about, some scene omitted in the movie that keeps the film from being the right adaptation.

The unhappy irony is that the 1st two films were the most faithful adaptations, yet are also the two least attention-grabbing films. The Philosopher's Stone and The Chamber of Secrets seemed to be stifled by the legacy of the books, as if the screenwriter and director felt obligated to hit all the same beats as the books and in the process forgot to let the movie stand on its own. Chris Columbus is a journeymen director, thus it had been maybe unsurprising that his variations were quite safe. It took Alfonso Cuarón to dare to change from the source material with a more stylistic Potter that while short-shifting many of the plot details really created a more cinematic experience. It certainly allowed Mike Newell and David Yates, the successful later directors, to be more inventive with their movies.

Still though, the films have a hard time reaching the plateau of the books for those of us that have read (and adore) them. What's been problematic is foreshadowing, which is understandable after you're working within the dark without all the facts. In the Order of the Phoenix film, the script was originally supposed to leave out the bitter old house elf Kreacher until author J.K. Rowling said, "Sorry, but he's crucial in the last book... you'd better put him back in." However another detail was also missed: Snape's memory as seen within the Pensive by Harry involves the key detail that there was something going on between the Potions Professor and Harry's mother, regardless of how delicate it's reasonably highlighted. This is one thing that ends up as an important detail in Deathly Hallows.

Additionally, and this is odd, however it generally feels as if Harry isn't the hero he ought to be in the movies that he is within the books. It's most noticeable in the Order of the Phoenix, a movie that's paradoxically the shortest of the series adapted from the longest book. The truncation appears to chop short Harry's development as a Marshall of his fellow wizards in coaching, in addition to his realization that maybe his is a broader destiny than simply being the boy that keeps surviving. Harry's training of his fellow classmates, like abundant of Order, feels quite rushed. If there's a part that I wish they'd kept, it's a proactive Harry that desires to thwart Voldemort's plans in any small manner he can, while developing an innate distrust of the Ministry of Magic.

For me, these things are important. Such complicated characterizations matter in terms of understanding and appreciating the motivations of the stories' 3 dimensional characters. It's understood that in any adaptation there's going to be certain elements missing, and when seen in the round, the Potter movies are excellent at capturing the essence and spirit of the books - but they do make errors along the way.

One thing is clear, however: for most Harry Potter fans it's the books that emerge as the the real classics, and the versions of Harry Potter that will prove timeless.Harry Potter Novels vs Films: Which is The True Classic?