this story originally appeared in the philippine daily inquirer on February 28, 2002.
Whenever I come across film reviews pitting “The Lord of the Rings” against “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” (and there are many), it almost ruins my day. Almost. I take a few deep breaths, unknot my brow and philosophize that comparing the books and films is like comparing apples to oranges.
One day, I read a tad too many vicious reviews (“To those who gave ‘Harry Potter’ five stars, they’ll have to give ‘Lord of the Rings’ 10 to do it justice.” “‘The Lord of the Rings’ cinematography makes ‘Harry Potter’ look like it was shot in a school play for rich kids.” “I always found the ‘Harry Potter’ books sweet if a little thin.”). So I tried to put myself in the critics’ shoes and mentally compare the two.
From what I know, J.R.R. Tolkien created a mythology, an entirely different world. In the far corners of his mind, the craggy terrains of Middle Earth took shape, and it was soon populated by a variety of non-humans like hobbits, elves, dwarves, orcs and so on. Languages like Elvish were spoken, and different number systems were used (eleventy-what?). In this world, human beings are just starting to come into their own.
Harry Potter, on the other hand, belongs to a magical version of the modern world. He goes to a wizarding school (Hogwarts); withdraws galleons, sickles and knuts from a bank run by goblins (Gringotts). His school subjects include Transfiguration, Potions and Herbology; and his favorite sport is Quidditch. Modes of transportation include Floo Powder, Apparating and the Knight Bus. Goblins, hags, werewolves and giants are in the periphery here; we read more about wizards, witches and muggles. Simply put, this is a magical version of the world as we know it.
Obviously, the similarities between “The Lord of the Rings” and “Harry Potter” are superficial. I have seen both films, and I loved both. I didn’t dare blink while watching “The Fellowship of the Ring,” it was clearly a work of art. It was so evident that director Peter Jackson treated the material with love and respect. With the scriptwriting process taking three years, and filming the trilogy in New Zealand for 18 months with a relatively low budget of less than $300 million, the film shows that all efforts paid off.
I remember emerging from “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” deeply impressed, but still nagged by a few misgivings. I would have given it an eight on a scale of one to 10. What got my goat was that the nuances of some characters were sacrificed. Whatever happened to Percy Weasley’s bossiness? Where’s the scene where the normally prankish Weasley twins helped Harry with his school trunk on the Hogwarts Express?
“The Fellowship of the Ring” seemed to benefit more from better treatment. I was hoping that the “Harry Potter” filmmakers would take some pointers from “The Lord of the Rings,” and treat Harry’s world better in the upcoming films.
Oh well, I philosophized once more as I exited the packed Glorietta theaters. But that just shows you can’t transpose certain parts of literature to film. You can’t bring Harry’s witty, self-deprecating thoughts to the big screen. In the end, all the films will simply show that it’s better to burrow at home with the books where Harry, Ron, Hermione and all the rest come to life.
I had learned to live with the fact that every film review in existence would choose “The Lord of the Rings” over “Harry Potter,” when I came across Roger Ebert’s (of Siskel & Ebert fame) online review of “The Lord of the Rings.” He was impressed, but stressed that Jackson’s film is a “Lord of the Rings” tailor-fit for our times. It belongs to the tech-savvy era of “Gladiator” and “The Matrix.” He pointed out that the books are a reassuring journey interspersed with poems and songs in Elvish. One action-packed film sequence goes on and on and on, Ebert noted, but Tolkien sums it up in 500 words.
Ebert gave the film three stars. Good Lord, I thought, what’s he gonna give “Harry Potter” then-two stars?
I was startled that he gave “Harry Potter” four. I read the words “enchanting classic,” “surprisingly faithful to the novel” and “[the set] continues the feeling of an atmospheric book illustration.”
There you go. Not everyone likes ice cream. Not everyone thinks “The Fellowship of the Ring” is a faultless movie.
I’m the kind of “Harry Potter” reader who can ace any online trivia quiz. I can tell which theories for the upcoming book (“Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix”) are plausible or baseless. Perhaps it’s a bonus that J.K. Rowling conjured Harry Potter during my time, but I know that I would still care about Harry, Ron and Hermione (and the Weasley twins, Neville, Professor Lupin and all the rest) even if they came out 50 years ago. Rowling’s deceptively simple and effortless prose would still keep me riveted when the scenes shift from being enchanting and hilarious, to horrifying or painfully sad.
I’m equally thankful to “The Lord of the Rings” and “Harry Potter” for one thing: bringing both children and adults across the world back to reading. In this day and age, literature is fighting for our attention over other more dominant media.
I’m a bit intimidated to read “The Lord of the Rings,” to be honest. I saw one of the secretaries in the office reading a brand-new copy of “The Hobbit,” and I salute her. But I’m aware that the language and writing style make for mentally exhausting work. My brother says Tolkien describes patterns in detail. Dedicated geeks have reportedly dropped the Tolkien tomes in surrender at some point.
I picked up a tattered copy of “The Fellowship of the Ring” at home a while back, and immediately found the author’s foreword a bit arduous. My work will be cut out for me when I pick up the Tolkien books someday, but I trust it will be infinitely satisfying when I reach the end.
