Amy and our son went on a dedicated outing this past Wednesday. The third Harry Potter movie had just been released on DVD this week. It speaks volumes about our domestic confinement that she and I never went to see it in the theatres when it was first released. (I should have gone with her to buy it; she bought the full screen version. Aaarrrggghhhh!! It's wide screen or nothin', baby...)
The Prisoner of Azkaban was a most excellent movie, and more closely mirrors JK Rowling's book than did the first two. (I love Gary Oldman in anything he's done.) I might actually write a more comprehensive review on it some time later when I get a chance to see it again. We had ordered pizza in, Granny came over to visit with the baby and it took us over three hours to watch the two hour and twenty minute movie.
One of the subtleties that I was able to pick up on, while in conversation with my mother and listening to our baby breath through his head cold, was the identity of one of the paintings. For anyone who's read the books or seen any of the movies, you'll be well aware that all of the paintings in the wizarding world are sentient. They can converse and the residents of the canvas even have the ability to move between frames amongst a collection of paintings.
In one particular scene of the movie, a painting's figure turns to Harry Potter and chastises him for bringing his brightly glowing wand into the hallway and disturbing his sleep. That figure was quite evidently one of Rembrandt's self portraits. I admire the fact that the movie-makers have gone to the effort of including such features for some of the more discerning viewers. It's the sort of detail that makes me want to see a film several times to pick up on certain trivialities that I may have missed.
It makes me wonder why the decision was made to change the title of the first movie from Harry Potter and Philosopher's Stone to Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone solely for the American viewership. At least in Canada and in the UK it retained its philosophical moniker. Do the Very Important People who make these sorts of decisions really think that the general American movie-going public is so ignorant as to not know what a philosopher is? 'Cause if they don't, I'd wager they're no better at demystifying the term 'sorceror'.
Is there some sort of conspiracy in the US by the Smart People to keep the Dumb People dumb?
The title of the book was different in the US as well. The marketing geniuses felt that the word 'philosopher' would confuse the American audiences. They even think poorly of themselves.
Posted by: Paul | Friday, 26 November 2004 at 09:44 AM