Hey folks, Harry here... No usually I wouldn't print an editorial from one of the non-major spies here at AICN, but in this case... Walkabouter is in a unique position. He's the only known (to me) person that has seen this fall's HARRY POTTER movie. Now we've had speculation over the job Chris Columbus did here, but only his review to speak of the final project... how it all came together. So when he tells Spielberg to "f*ck off and leave Harry Potter to Chris" well... It isn't an uninformed decision. He's seen Chris' first crack and did backflips (Click Here To Remember That Review). Now where do I come down on this? I don't know.... I have no idea who is right for Harry Potter, to me... he's just an annoying looking kid with Herbie the Fat Fury glasses and rides a broomstick like a girl. Real Wizards call upon the King of the Eagles to take them into the sky... So much more style. But hey, that's just me talking out my ass cuz I know nothing about Harry Potter till I see the movie! Pleasant dreams....
Dear Harry,
WALKABOUTER here.
DELETED THINGS THAT WOULD SHAKE THE PILLARS OF HEAVEN ITSELF!!!
Now, onto what I want to say to the world....
OK, so about this whole HARRY POTTER situation with Chris Columbus vs. Steven Spielberg... I get fumed just thinking about it.
Hold on for a minute, don't get me wrong. I don't just love Spielberg -- the guy's work changed my life. "Brilliant" is not a strong enough word to describe him. He's the most famous storyteller who ever walked this planet, and for a good reason.
But let me be the first to say it: regarding HARRY POTTER, I think Spielberg is acting like a pompous, two-faced, self-righteous, arrogant little shit.
Early reports of the first HARRY POTTER film state that Spielberg had some rather radical ideas for the project. First, the casting Haley Joel Osment for the title role. Now I think Haley is as fine a child actor as there ever was -- genius, brilliant, I could go on and on. But c'mon -- is he right for Harry? He's not English, and he doesn't look the part in any way. There you have it. It would be like having a younger Larry Olivier or Anthony Hopkins playing Batman -- great actors and great roles do not always mesh.
I think Spielberg was also miffed that Rowling was so closely tied to the creative steering of the project, thus denying him the full creative reign he has known for 25 years. Could he have made a great movie? Sure! But it wouldn't have been the book. It would have been STEVEN SPIELBERG'S FILM OF HARRY POTTER, and not a film of HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCEROR'S STONE.
Spielberg has done an about-face regarding his role within HARRY POTTER over the last two years. First, he said he was frightened and relunctant to film the book, citing the critical attention he received over THE COLOR PURPLE, as the film deviated from several key plot lines within the novel. COLOR PURPLE is a great movie, albeit different from its source. So why should such faithful scrutiny be paid to HARRY POTTER if it deviates from the storyline too? The answer is that the book is popular. Not just popular -- a phenomenon. A wonderful little gem of writing that is magical, even without regards to witchcraft.
I said before that I was originally skeptical of the selection of Chris Columbus as director. But, having seen what I've seen, I thank our cinematic gods that it worked out this way. Columbus' wisest move was to recognize the genius within the book, rather than to favor any genius within himself, and make the best faithful adaptation within the constraints of a feature-length movie. He did everything he could to bring the BOOK to life, to make its characters real. If it ain't broke, don't go fixin' it.
I love Spielberg. But I think, deep, deep down, he would have tried to do a lot of fixin'... he would have tried to make it more a Spielberg vision than Rowling's vision.
And that is why Columbus was the only director for this movie.
If the roughly 2 hour, twenty-minute-plus running time holds, I must also commend Warner Bros. They know they have a huge commodity in their hands. And while they easily could have trimmed it down to make a certain mega-buck for more screenings within the theaters, or cast $20 million A-list superstars for the roles, they instead decided to do something few studios have: the smart thing -- to treat the project with love and care. To respect it's creative integrity. To make the best film possible, even if it meant not doing it the "safest" way possible.
Oh yeah, and casting Daniel Radcliffe instead of Haley Joel Osment.
So we first had Spielberg saying he was "hesitant" about doing another adaptation of a book. Then a few months later, he said that to make the project would have been "a breeze", it would have been too easy, and not creatively challenging enough for him. Now he's taken the worst, high-and-mighty, holier-than-thou attitude -- that the first book "didn't move him", as if he was too good for the material, and would only be interested in the third film because it's darker and more "challenging".
Steven, do us a favor: shut up. You're brilliant and you know it. But you ain't perfect. People look up to you as a sort of cinematic moral conscience. Try to be humble and courteous in return.
Are you jealous that Columbus got the job -- or are you jealous that he got the job AND did a kick-ass job with it?
If Columbus decides NOT to return for the third film, and you wish to succeed him, I'll be delighted. But to openly voice your interest in doing the next movie this early seems like a case of sour grapes -- as if you're trying to sweep Columbus under the carpet. That's just not fair play...
Walkabouter
