Wednesday, July 13, 2011

USA Today: How 'Harry Potter' magically changed films

How 'Harry Potter' magically changed films
By Claudia Puig, USA TODAY

Who would have guessed a bespectacled boy wizard from the 'burbs of Britain could cast a spell powerful enough to radically change the way movies are made?

The magical box-office reign of Harry Potter is likely to reach a thunderous climax when the final installment —Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 — opens Friday. The previous seven movies based on J.K. Rowling's phenomenally successful books have grossed $6.4 billion, making Potter the most successful movie franchise in history. The stories have been ingrained in global popular culture, and the movies, which are almost as beloved as Rowling's best sellers — a rare phenomenon itself — will leave an indelible mark on cinema history.

"If you had mentioned the name Harry Potter 13 years ago, people would have thought it was someone's accountant," says Potter screenwriter Steve Kloves. "Now you can go to Zimbabwe and everyone knows who that is."

Of course, the success of the movies derives from the incomparable popularity of Rowling's books.

"It's almost like Jo Rowling invented a color," Kloves says.

The filmmakers had the challenging task of creating movies faithful to the beloved novels, yet distinctive.

Chris Columbus directed the first two films, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002). He had a definite idea in mind when laying the groundwork for the series, which has gone on to be helmed by three other directors, most recently by David Yates, who directed the last four films.

"We aspired to be a sort of Godfather for kids," Columbus says. "That was part of our mantra in the beginning. Our goal was to make something that feels as rich and complex, but for kids."

Led initially perhaps by their children, but then entranced by Rowling's witty language and multi-layered characters, adults also embraced Potter books and attended the movies in droves.

"There was a sea change with Harry Potter," says Erik Feig, president of worldwide production at Summit Entertainment, which has made the Twilight movies. "The story has a younger protagonist, but the book series and the movies are greatly enjoyed by older people, too. I devoured the first book and gave it to every grown-up I knew. We saw the same thing with Twilight. We did not ghetto-ize it as a young-adult movie. Nor did they with Harry Potter. They drew all audiences. It was an inspiration to us."

A wave of copycats

Potter has inspired every major studio to try to capture the alchemic formula, spawning a range of copycats and wannabes.

"With a lot of these movies made over the last 10 years since Potter, people are overcompensating for the fact that the books aren't as good," Columbus says. "Studios are going to continue to search for the next Harry Potter for the next 40 or 50 years."

In the hunt for a similar blend of familiarity and excitement that Potter provides fans, classic children's fantasy books have been dusted off and adapted to film with newfound enthusiasm. New novels aimed at children and young adults have been repurposed for the screen, as well. But none has come close to the almost supernatural box-office success of the tales of the boy with the lightning scar.

From moderately successful franchises such as The Chronicles of Narnia to disappointments such as The Golden Compass to movies that barely registered such as Eragon, all are based on popular books with fantasy elements.

Potter producer David Heyman bought the film rights to the series in early 1997, after reading the first book, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (the British title), before its publication. (The seven-book series has sold about 450 million copies worldwide and has been translated into 67 languages, and the last four books have set records as the fastest-selling books in history.)

"The impact of the Potter series has been tremendous in that it has essentially become the idea of a modern franchise," says director Chris Weitz (Twilight: New Moon; The Golden Compass). "They latched onto something that has its own sequels built in. Now everyone is looking for a literary property that extends enough for them to keep on building.

"It's led to this speculative bubble in mystical young-adult fiction. Twilight found its own way to hit upon the hunger for the supernatural and a particular time of life. But if you look at the bookshelves now, half of what is coming out in (young-adult) fiction is about a werewolf or a vampire or angels or demons. The other half is about magic and wizardry."

The notion of the multi-movie franchise with the same cast took off with Potter. The closest literary predecessor was the James Bond series, but many years went by between movies, and casts changed over the decades. (The six-part Star Wars saga, from George Lucas' imagination, took years to make it to the screen, in uneven order.)

But for Potter, there probably would have been no Twilight blockbuster movies, and Pirates of the Caribbean might have been a one-time film.

"Some of the effects of Potter are incredibly positive, and some are less so," says Daniel Radcliffe, 21, who plays Harry Potter. "The great thing is that it has proved that a big studio movie franchise can also have a huge amount of integrity. There are many examples of franchises that are just people cashing in, regardless of what the source material is.

"The first Matrix was one of the best films of its decade. It was never designed to be a trilogy, but people saw dollar signs," Radcliffe says. "Personally, I think people get slightly irritated when a new Pirates of the Caribbean comes out. What about quitting when you're ahead? We have a huge amount of respect for our audience, and we have wonderful source material. It was never a sense of, 'Let's pad out this series to make money.'"

Other film series have taken a page from the final Harry Potter volume and made two movies out of one dense book.

The movie adaptation of the 759-page Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was divided into Part 1, which opened in November, and Part 2, opening Friday. The Hobbit, now being filmed by Peter Jackson, will follow suit, as will the fourth Twilight installment, Breaking Dawn.

"Harry Potter sort of invented the notion of breaking longer books into bits, which everyone is now copying," Weitz says. "It extends the earning power of the franchise. It's essentially a license to print money. I suspect if they were making Lord of the Rings today, they would have divided the last film of the trilogy into two. "

The Potter movies also have shown Hollywood how to make a glossy blockbuster with an eye toward keeping costs down.

Leavesden Studios, once an airplane hangar in Hertfordshire, England, became Hogwarts and other wizardly enclaves. By using the same location, the production kept standing sets for each movie.

"Leavesden used to make Rolls-Royces and helicopter engines, and in World War II was an airfield," says Potter production designer Stuart Craig, who worked on all eight movies. "It was a terrific space. It enabled us to own everything and, most importantly, to leave sets standing for 10 years."

Adds Columbus: "We set up a sort of moviemaking factory that really is devoted entirely to making Harry Potter, maintaining a level of consistency with people behind the camera, as well. Subconsciously the audience really responds to that: knowing they're going back to a place they feel very comfortable in and want to be a part of."

Thanks to Potter, voracious young readers of popular books may hold more sway in Hollywood than A-list actors.

"I think people were hesitant to put a lot of faith in an audience of kids," Radcliffe says. "The tendency is to think kids have a very short attention span. But if you find something that can engage them, they are the most ferocious followers. Without the example of Potter, I don't think people would have believed they would have been able to maintain and sustain the interest of a young audience."

The next big thing

Now the focus is on Potter devotees.

"We want to do right by all of the loyal and passionate fans," says Alli Shearmur, president of production at Lionsgate, which is adapting Suzanne Collins' The Hunger Games, scheduled for release in March. "We want to connect with fans directly and create opportunities for them to be part of the process."

That was a lesson learned from Potter.

"It was important with Potter to reach out to the fans and let them know that the books had been safely translated," Feig says. "We tried to do the same thing with Twilight. One thing Harry Potter got really right was being true to the book — if not to the letter, to the spirit of the books."

The screenwriter making the adaptation is crucial.

"The Harry Potter filmmakers and screenwriter Steve Kloves really respected the fans," says Melissa Rosenberg, who has written the screenplay for each Twilight movie. "When you're adapting a book series and you have that kind of fan base, you really have to deliver. You can't just use the books as a jumping-off basis for another story. When I see a Harry Potter movie, I forget what is missing. Because Kloves is taking me and those kids on the same emotional journey as the book does."

Those adapting beloved novels use Potter and Rowling as a template.

"The audience looks to see if the author is happy with the adaptation," says Rosenberg. "If the author is, then the audience has permission to be happy, as well."

Kloves and Rowling have a close working relationship, and Kloves used the books as his sacred text.

"I don't think in the 13 years I've worked on Potter, 72 hours would pass that I didn't read something by J.K. Rowling," Kloves says.

No other film series seems to be approaching the breadth of the Potter phenomenon.

"People would ask, 'Is this the next Harry Potter?'" Feig says of Twilight. "I would say, 'No, it's not Harry Potter. It shouldn't be compared to Harry Potter.'"

Given Twilight's success, Feig has modified his response. "It's not Harry Potter, but it's pretty amazing. … Everyone is looking for the next success. But the things that succeed are those that are different and unique."

Contributing: Bryan Alexander

No comments:

Post a Comment