Muggles versus Potteromaniacs – Episode Three
I confess: I'm a convert. One of those who have resisted Harry Potter’s charms for a long time, but were captivated in the end. This process was not painless; perhaps the Muggle factor embedded deeply in my nature told me to avoid the books of J.K. Rowling. Maybe I distrusted these books because of the underlying jealousy towards their author, an object of everyone’s envy due to turning from an unemployed teacher and single mother into a millionaire whose fortune is compared to that of the Queen.
My reserved approach towards Potteromania was linked to the forms in which the craze manifested itself, such as the nightly queing for the latest volume of the wizard’s adventures. I was, however, equally irritated by the Polish Muggleland, represented by various groups often calling themselves “Polish” or “Catholic”, who accused Rowling’s book of propagating black magic, occultism etc., and would probably be happy to see all its copies burned. Such voices were heard especially in winter 2002 after the first adaptation – Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone – hit the bookstores. Harry's adventures inspired many protests; parents forbade their kids to see the movie; several theatres experienced serious financial difficulties after the scheduled screenings had to be called off. I may have had a lot in common with those who protested at the time, as both I and they did not read a single volume of the wizard’s adventures. To criticize books or films without knowing them is probably the Polish talent, as has been already proven in the controversy over The Priest or Dogma; not surprisingly, the protests have merely generated publicity for these pictures.
I did not particularly enjoy the first Potter adaptation, even though, unlike most Poteromaniacs, I didn’t know the plot, so there was some kind of surprise for me in the end. The film, directed by Chris Columbus, seemed to me a perfect example of a family movie; I therefore decided not to watch the next episodes. I behaved accordingly for a long time, resisting even Kenneth Branagh, who in the second episode – Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets – portrayed the narcissistic Gilderoy Lockhart. But finally the four volumes with the amiable bespectacled teenager on the covers have landed on my desk and it happened: Harry’s story captivated me for good. As a result I looked at the night queue for the fifth volume – Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix – from quite a different perspective, understanding the teenage crowd in glasses and pointy hats. What is more, as was fitting for a fresh convert, I have begun to explain the phenomenon of Rowling’s books to those, who – as I did earlier – observed the next wave of Potteromania with a great deal of disdain. The final absolution came when I heard that Czesław Miłosz was a fan of the cycle; well, if a Nobel Prize laureate...
I enjoy Harry Potter’s adventures because of the narration, the riddles and the pleasure of tracing intertextual tropes. The latest part of the series is generally considered the best and proves wrong the opinion that the Potter series is a diversion for children. Similarly, the third film adaptation – Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, which has just entered the cinemas brings a new quality. The June Film magazine considers it the 'premiere of the month' and consequently contains related material.
As I have already mentioned, two previous adaptations were directed by Chris Columbus, who – bearing in mind the age of his audience – eliminated darker accents from the story. The third episode, however, includes dementors sucking positive emotions out of people (which is, simply, driving them into depression) and is directed by the Mexican Alfonso Cuarón, who has earlier directed adaptations of children’s classics (The Little Princess), but is better known for the much-publicized, full of eroticism Y tu mamá también. In the Film interview the director talks about the making of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, the cooperation with Rowling and the omissions he had to make. Cuarón describes the work with teenage actors, who grow up with their characters (and along with them grows up a generation of viewers) and enter the painful age of adolescence.
Apart from Daniel Radcliffe (Harry), Emma Watson (Hermione) and Rupert Grint (Ron) the film features Maggie Smith (Prof. MacGonagall), Julie Walters (Mrs. Weasley) or John Cleese (Nearly Headless Nick). Michael Gambon plays prof. Dumbledore in place of the late Richard Harris, while Alan Rickman appears once again as the demonic professor Snape. In Alan Rickman Speaking, Elżbieta Ciapara points out that the actor has built the Snape character as a pastiche of all his previous villain roles. A few other famous actors have entered the “Potter family”, among them Gary Oldman (Sirius Black), David Thewlis (Prof. Lupin), Emma Thompson (Prof. Trelawney) and Julie Christie (Madame Rosmerta). This is impressive enough and will perhaps encourage those who haven’t read the Potter saga. The Potter-savvy crowd will go to the cinema anyway, especially that people who have already seen it confirm that the new movie is the best of all and enjoyable both for teenagers and their parents.
So let’s go to the cinema without fear that eggs will be thrown at us. Somehow, the premiere of Harry Potter and the prisoner of Azkaban isn’t accompanied by slogans remindful of the Spanish Inquisition. Have Muggles finally read Rowling’s books, learned that these do not propagate black magic and become Potteromaniacs? Or maybe, perhaps, they have at least seen them and come to the conclusion that if a teenager, who usually avoids contact with the written word, reaches for a several-hundred-page book willingly, one should not discourage the reading – or watching? Anyway, the struggle between Muggles and Potteromaniacs witnesses the advantage of the latter.
Katarzyna Wajda
Translated by Marta Malina Moraczewska
Discussed journals: Film