|
The Lord is No Wizard
There were two film projects in 2001 that moved past the category
of motion picture and into the realm of pop culture event: "Harry
Potter" and "The Lord of the Rings." Screenings
were to be 'round the clock for months, James Cameron was supposed
to be cowering for his box office-record life and we were to pour
out of the theatres, bleating in sheep-like unison, "That
was the epic of my entertainment existence." Of course, neither
film could have possibly lived up to this hype, but one has made
the coveted Best Picture Nominee list. And one was most deserving.
Unfortunately, the Academy picked the wrong one.
When it was announced that New Line Cinema would commit $300,000,000-plus
to cover three "Lord of the Rings" films, one for each
book in J. R. R. Tolkien's celebrated trilogy, Hollywood mouths
dropped and calculators were immediately summoned. Then when it
was learned that Peter Jackson, most famous for directing the
little known Michael J. Fox film "The Frighteners,"
was to helm all three projects, it was seen as faith against reason.
But the box office receipts and the film itself have shown otherwise.
"The Lord of the Rings" is a good movie, which few can
deny, and a profitable one, which no one can deny. But why does
a movie which clearly underdeveloped its characters, which showed
too many fight scenes in lieu of creating better plot twists and
went way over an appropriate running time find itself in the Academy
running—because it chose to run last.
Harry Potter, the eager wizard that he is, couldn't wait until
Oscar-friendly December to weave his magic spell. But weave he
did, in mid-November, bringing children to the theatre as the
J. K. Rowling books had brought them to the library. And they
were not disappointed. Not one bit. Steve Kloves, screenwriter
of critical favorite "Wonder Boys," managed to once
again show his remarkable skills by knowing what not to change
from novel to screenplay. In many ways, it was as if he didn't
change a word, letting Harry start off in his seemingly indentured
servitude before being whisked to wizard school where he could
finally realize his gift. But it's the film's director Christopher
Columbus who has finally realized his.
If we were to only consider Columbus' special-effects-driven
scenes like the secret train station, or one unforgettable game
of chess, "Harry Potter" and "The Lord of the Rings"
would have been a stalemate. But there is one effect that often
gets lost in the high budget shuffle—the human effect. Daniel
Radcliffe does more than play Harry Potter; he is Harry, giving
a performance that few of his age could ever muster. Remember,
for every Haley Joel Osment, there are ten Jake Lloyds. And what
about the majestic Richard Harris as headmaster? Or Maggie Smith
as the enchanting deputy headmistress? Then there's Alan Rickman,
his performance, without question, more frightening than any beast
in "The Lord of the Rings." And Rickman had only to
use his eyes.
And so, too, did Academy Nomination voters. Or even ears would
have sufficed. When "Harry Potter" was over, I heard
every child in the theatre cheer at what they had seen, many of
whom had children of their own. But when "The Lord of the
Rings" concluded, sighs of relief easily outlasted what few
claps were managed.
It was enough that the latter outstayed its welcome by its length,
but now "Rings" continues on until Oscar Night. If only
Harry had known the spell to undo forgetfulness. Or if only Warner
Brothers had Miramax's marketing department.
-Eric Butterman
|
