Please don't feed the cash cow

Rating: 2/10 (3 February 2002)

There is a classic early 90's Far Side cartoon that shows 3 people standing in an otherwise empty room with a banner hanging overhead painted with the letters, 'DLDWWS.' The acronym means "Didn't Like Dances With Wolves Society." Gary Larson really captured a phenomenon I'd call the 'societal embrace.' Enough people give a product their stamp of approval that it nearly becomes propaganda. No person can escape at least making a decision about that product. This cultural phenomenon has happened many times, including this year, most notably with feature films. In late 2001 and early 2002, there was no escape from Harry Potter.
With that, I hereby begin DLHPSSS (Didn't Like Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone Society). The first half hour or so I found interesting. Then I noticed that the film continued to roll, but there was still no sign of an actual story. Poor Harry had no objective. There was no jeopardy. Two hours in, finally, something. There's this magic stone created by the world's most powerful wizard (probably all that's protecting him from mass ridicule over being named Dumbledore). By that time I had ceased to care. I can't remember ever caring less how a film was going to end (or wishing more that one simply would). The ending that did eventually come, frankly, stunk. Not only did it keep going, but they add to the agony by reminding the audience of the useless points contest between the houses. I was actually happy when the Slitherin house won. They even ruined that moment for me.

On the way out, my brother, who I saw this with, made a good analogy. He said the film was like "Pirates of the Caribbean" or some other Disneyland ride where you just travel through and watch various animatronic things jump out at you. There's no real story, it's just a bunch of neat things to look at. "Harry Potter" isn't far off from this. The plot is missing for so long that it ends up being a whole lot of nothing.
It's been a long time since "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" was released, so long that I'd forgotten why I avoided seeing it in the first place. I sensed that director Chris Columbus, fearing rejection from the book's untold numbers of adorers, had stayed extraordinarily faithful to its content, making "Harry" a cash cow just waiting to be fed. There was no risk involved for the film's creators, who knew its audience came built in. None of this is any fault of Rowling's. I'm sure she's written a fine book (yes, I'm the one who hasn't read it yet.) There's a big difference between cinematic storytelling and the dramatic arc of a novel. A novel can survive on details and character alone for a long time. "Harry Potter" tries to survive for too much of its ungodly 2.5-hour length on just following Harry around before finally doing something with him. It's a shame because the character is actually intriguing.
I never bought into the "Harry Potter" propaganda, but there I was, buying a ticket anyway. I sensed a hesitation from the ticket seller, actually, when I heard 'Harry Potter' come out of my mouth, like he was giving me one last chance to change my mind ("Dude, are you sure you want to see THAT movie?") Curiosity got the best of me. I find solace in that there are still a couple of people out there who haven't seen it who can still be saved. Maybe I should have seen it sooner.
Grade: D+