I first read Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone when I was eight years old. It immediately became one of my favorite books. Over the next several years, I read the rest of the series many times, and I watched the entire series of movies almost as many times. However, I’ve never grown tired of re-reading and re-watching the first book and movie. The book, titled Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone upon initial release in 1997, was re-titled later that same year as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone for its US release. J. K. Rowling’s 310 page masterpiece was published by Arthur A. Levine Books, a branch of Scholastic Inc.
The movie, also titled Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, was released in 2001 by Warner Bros. Pictures. The 152 minute film was directed by Chris Columbus. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone tells the story of an eleven year old orphan boy, living with an abusive aunt and uncle, who is whisked away to attend a wizarding school in an entirely new world, one in which he not only belongs, but is famous. As he learns more about this new world, and the role he has already played in it, he makes new friends (and enemies) and has many adventures, capping off his year by facing the greatest evil in his new world.
The movie version of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone skips the initial introduction to the Dursleys in which we learn to hate them. However, the scene that it does depict, the delivery of Harry to the Dursleys’ doorstep, remains very accurate to the book, introducing us to three adult wizards who will play very big roles in the coming story, as well as informing us of the tragic circumstances that our protagonist, Harry, has already faced. While the harshness of leaving Harry with his aunt and uncle is less pronounced when there is no introduction to them, we still get the general idea in the next scenes.
Comparison of Book and Movie Characters and Actors/Acting While few people who have both read the book and watched the movie would argue with the casting decisions of the main three roles (Harry, Ron, and Hermione), there are some minor differences between the description of these characters in the book and their appearance in the movie. In the book, a point is made to describe Hermione’s front teeth as ‘rather large,’ but in the movie, this feature is down-played, if shown at all. In the movie, Rupert Grint lacks Ron Weasley’s trademark freckles as described in the book.
In addition, Harry Potter lacks his mother’s eye color. Harry is described as having ‘bright green eyes’ (Rowling 20) in the book, yet in the movie that Daniel Radcliffe’s bright blue eyes can clearly be seen. However, these are all fairly minor discrepancies, given that the characters are otherwise portrayed very accurately. In fact, the entire cast, from Robbie Coltrane as Rubeus Hagrid to Alan Rickman as Severus Snape did an excellent job of portraying their characters true to the descriptions in the book.
Another fan of the book shares this view when she says “The casting for the movie almost couldn’t have been better. ” (Bergeron) Visual Elements Concerning the visual elements of the film, most were fairly accurate to the book as well. Costume Designer Judianna Makovsky did an excellent job with the robes that the characters wear throughout the book, as well as accurately portraying the robes of the teachers, in particular the trademark purple of Albus Dumbledore and the trademark emerald green of Minerva McGonagall.
Another fan also shares this view, as she says “They [The costumes] pretty much stayed true to the book. The only difference that stood out to me was the lack of pointy black hats that they were supposed to wear all of the time. ” Hair and Makeup, to the extent that it can be compared to the book, was well done, and was kept accurate to the book, with only two exceptions. In the book, Harry’s hair is described as growing ‘all over the place’ (Rowling 21), yet Daniel Radcliffe’s hair, while somewhat messy, is by no means all over the place.
In addition, Hermione Granger is described as having copious amounts of ‘bushy brown hair’ (Rowling 105), and even though Emma Watson’s hair could be described as full and thick, it did not fully meet the description in the book. The sets themselves, decorated by set decorator Stephenie McMillan, were superbly done, making Hogwarts castle and the other movie locales come alive just as they had in the book. In fact, when Harry first enters and passes through the Leaky Cauldron, the movie viewer can almost feel themselves step into Diagon Alley when the wall opens and Harry steps through.
While the characters themselves were portrayed very accurately in movie, there were many differences between the storylines of the book and the movie. For example, many elements, such as Peeves the Poltergeist, were removed entirely from the movie, whereas the book featured Peeves as a foil for the plans of the characters on a number of occasions. Another element that was removed, and perhaps the change most annoying to me, was the logic puzzle set forth by Snape in order to reach the Sorcerer’s Stone. What previously was Hermione’s greatest contribution to overcoming those obstacles was dropped entirely from the movie.
Another fan shares this view, as he says, “I think the most jarring difference from the first book was the exclusion of Snape’s potion test. ” (Angers) Some elements were altered, changing the context or meaning of them. One example of this we can see is in Nicholas Flamel. In the book, he was mentioned in passing early on, and Harry was the one to first remember something about him. In the movie, however, it is not Harry who first remembers Flamel, but Hermione. Of course, some scenes were faithfully re-created in the movie, almost identical to the same scene from the book.
One of my favorite examples of this is the Flying Lesson, in which Harry first finds his natural talent for flying, and has it recognized by a respected adult. In the scene, Harry and the rest of the first years are having their first flying lesson. When the teacher has to take Neville to the Hospital Wing, Malfoy takes an item that he finds, a Remembrall, knowing that it belongs to Neville. Malfoy flies up into the air with it, taunting Harry when he tries to retrieve it. The moment that Harry gets on his broom, he knows that he has finally found something at which he is naturally good.
Harry’s miraculous catch of the Remembrall, witnessed by McGonagall, earns him a place on the Gryffindor Quidditch Team. The movie very accurately reflects what happens in the book, from Neville’s incident with the broom to Harry’s remarkable catch of the thrown Remembrall. Conclusion Both the book and the movie were critically acclaimed. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone the book earned a number of awards, including a Booklist Editor’s Choice award, Publisher’s Weekly Best Book of 1998, and earning a op spot as both a New York Times and USA Today Bestseller.
The movie itself earned many rewards, such as a Critics Choice Award for Best Live Action Family Film, and individual people on the cast and crew were also recognized, such as costume designer Judianna Makovsky, who won a Saturn Award for Best Costumes; Rupert Grint, who won a Satellite Special Achievement Award for Outstanding New Talent; and Emma Watson, who tied with Scarlett Johansson for a Young Artist Award for Best Performance in a Feature Film (Leading Young Actress).
While the original audience for both the book and the film Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone may have been children, there is no denying that it has transcended that audience, and appeals to almost every audience. On a scale of one to five, with five meaning completely representative of the book and one meaning not representative at all, I would give this movie a rating of four. Having read the book first, the movie-watching experience was very enhanced.
The book provides a more complete telling than the movie, and you are better able to understand what is going on in the characters’ heads. That is also why I prefer the book to the movie. Since they are not confined within the few hours of a movie, the author is better able to develop to develop the characters more fully, and consequently the characters are more dynamic and more real.
