It’s been eight years since the first "Harry Potter" film hit the big screen, and in that time the franchise has gone through half as many directors. With Chris Columbus, Alfonso Cuarón, Mike Newell and now David Yates putting their skills to work on bringing J.K. Rowling's works to life, the various novels have been interpreted in a variety of ways.
“Sorcerer’s Stone” and “Chamber of Secrets” director Chris Columbus had the tough job of being the first to adapt the biggest children’s novel series of all time. He was further challenged with having to commit those books to film before Harry Potter’s story had even been finished; only the first four novels had been released when “Sorcerer’s Stone” and “Chamber of Secrets” hit theaters.
Columbus has often been criticized as creating too-literal adaptations of the novels, thus sucking all the magic out of the stories. However, one has to account for the uncertainty of adapting an unfinished series, not to mention dealing with young and unpolished actors. Too-literal or not, Columbus' took the smart approach in leaving as little out as possible.
With “Prisoner of Azkaban,” Alfonso Cuarón created a world full of the magic that Columbus had only flirted with. For the first time, the film stood alone from its literary counterpart. “Prisoner of Azkaban” continues to be heralded by many fans as the best “Harry Potter” film released so far. No small feat considering that many call "Azkaban" the best novel in the series. The director also scores big-time bonus points for casting Gary Oldman as Sirius Black.
Unfortunately, Cuarón only stayed on for one film. "Goblet of Fire" director Mike Newell drifted away from the enchanting “Prisoner of Azkaban,” delivering an experience more rooted in action and slapstick comedy instead. "Goblet" nonetheless remains one of the fan-favorites in the film series, but Newell sacrificed many of the novel's best subplots to focus on an elongated fight with a dragon and Madame Maxime picking food out of Hagrid’s beard. Still, the director's take on the resurrection of Voldemort -- the first taste of true evil in “Harry Potter” -- is one of the more simultaneously beautiful and horrifying moments in the entire film series.
For his first attempt at adapting a “Harry Potter” novel, David Yates tried to take a different approach. While staying true to the tone of "Order of the Phoenix," he put less emphasis on sticking close to the book's plot. Credit the man for taking an almost 900 page book and cutting it down to an hour and a half long film. Fans may take issue with his removal of “fluff” scenes, like the beloved wizarding sport Quidditch, but "Phoenix" is a concise and fast-moving action film as a result.
Yates, who is signed on to adapt the rest of the series, learned from the fan backlash and low critics’ ratings when he put together “Half-Blood Prince.” Keeping the beautiful stylistic decisions he made in “Phoenix,” “Half-Blood Prince” spends as much time on the characters’ interactions at Hogwarts as it does on the action. All while keeping fairly close to the original story. He also, for the first time in a “Harry Potter” adaptation, has the benefit of knowing how Harry’s story ends.
With “Half-Blood Prince,” Yates has maintained the best balance of tone, plot and action exhibited in a “Harry Potter” film yet, which bodes well for “Deathly Hallows" parts I and II.
What was your favorite “Harry Potter” film? Which director do you think did the best job adapting the novels?
If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.
