Harry Potter 6 or The Lord of the Rings 1

by Theo Dentchev

Which movie is better?

Some might say that the answer is entirely subjective, and so you cannot conclusively say one is better or worse. That’s true enough, but I’m not asking, “which one do you like more.” Rather which one is objectively better? I suppose to make that kind of judgment we will need to define a set of criteria for determining which is indeed “better.” I propose we look at and compare the following four characteristics commonly used when evaluating film: coherence, intensity of effect, complexity, and originality.

Let us omit discussing complexity and simply assume that both films are sufficiently complex. That is, they both engage us on several different levels and have relatively intricate systems of relationships. Let us also omit intensity of effect, as that covers a range of subjects which are more subjective than I would like, such as how vivid or emotionally powerful the film is.

Then let us begin with coherence, or unity, which refers to how well or clearly everything is presented in a film, and if all the loose elements are tied up by the end. Now, being installations in a series, both of our films don’t conclude their stories and naturally leave certain things unaddressed (left, we assume, for the sequel to pick up on). Though we have to keep that in mind, we can still compare the way the rest of both films are structured. In The Fellowship of the Ring all of the characters and events clearly and logically relate to each other and serve a purpose. Those that don’t are either being left for the next film, or are negligible and require careful viewing to catch. In Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince it is more fragmented, as though not fully completed, and in a way unrelated to the fact that it is to have a sequel. There are scenes and places which, in the context of the movie, make little sense and are unclear. A striking example can be found at the end of the film, when Dumbledore is confronted by Draco Malfoy atop the astronomy tower and eventually killed by Snape. Harry is hiding in the vicinity the entire time yet does nothing until after Dumbledore is already dead. His inaction does not make any sense and is completely dissonant with his character as well as with the nature of his relationship with Dumbledore. In the book his action is explained by Dumbledore immobilizing with a spell which does not wear off until either he dies, but in the movie it is simply illogical.

That last example is a good place to bring originality into the discussion. Yes, both films are adaptations of books and as such one might be inclined to say that the films cannot be original, but even in films which have a frequently used subject, originality can be found in the way that subject is presented. Likewise both these films display originality in the way they relate the story which they are adapting. Both do depart from the text, sometimes changing minor details, sometimes going so far as to omit entire portions of the book. However, the changes and omissions that are made in The Fellowship of the Ring are done so that the viewer is able to more easily and quickly understand the plot, as superfluous characters and events which serve to unnecessarily complicate the plots are shorn off (such as Tom Bombadil, who never appears in the movie, and the corresponding scene in Rivendell where it is suggested that the ring be given to him). The end result is a more streamlined work that, while differing in some places from it’s source, still tells a complete story and gives the viewer all the information they need to understand and appreciate it within the length limitations of the film meidum. In contrast, Harry Potter omits vital scenes (such as several memories of a young Tom Riddle which offer insight into his character’s motivations and also give more information about the horcruxes), while adding completely irrelevant scenes which do do nothing for the story other than complicate it (such as the burning of the Burrow, which never happens in the book and which goes on to appear again in the seventh book). The end result is that those who are not familiar with the source text will find it difficult to understand everything. While undoubtedly both have elements of originality, just being original without a purpose has no worth. The Lord of the Rings is original in a way which has a clear purpose and achieves the desired effect, while the originality of Harry Potter is haphazard and only undermines the film.

From those two respects The Fellowship of the Ring emerges as the “better” of the two films. Having not covered half of the criteria I suggested in the first paragraph, I could certainly see someone making an argument that Harry Potter is more complex or has greater intensity of effect to the extent that it makes up for its deficiencies in the other areas. Such an argument would have to be very convincing, and I myself am rather skeptical as to the possibility of such an argument existing. But maybe that is just my personal bias, and regardless of what objective judgments we might render, in the end they likely won’t be the determining factor in which film you enjoy more.


The Adaptation of My Childhood

Growing up my parents constantly encouraged me to read.  They saw it as a positive alternative to the rather addictive gameboy that seemingly never left my hands.  I read a diverse array of works, spanning many genres, but my true love was always fantasy.  I dedicated countless hours to the works of Tolkein, Rowling, Tad Williams, and many others.  I would lose myself in these alternate universes, letting my imagination run wild.  As I grew older my passion for these works never died, I was constantly rereading them just experience that feeling of excitement once again.

As you might expect I was elated when I discovered that many of my childhood favorites would be made into movies.  I would be able to experience these foreign worlds in a completely new way.  I counted down the days until the release of Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, barely able to contain myself.  In the back of my mind I was somehow worried that Jackson would fail to do justice to the book that I loved, would he depict middle earth the way I had always imagined it?  I knew ten minutes into the premier that Jackson had pulled it off.  The second and third film’s in the series were equally as impressive, each one a masterpiece in its own right.  The success of LOTR trilogy only made me more excited for the future release of other film adaptations of fantasy novels.  I nearly went through the roof when I heard that there was going to be a film based on Christopher Paolini’s Eragon.  Again I awaited the release of this film with baited breath, would it live up to the standard that the LOTR trilogy had set?  Sadly not.  Eragon fell flat, it was a complete disaster.

I spent a great deal of time thinking about why Eragon had failed where LOTR hadn’t and I finally came to the conclusion that the success of a fantasy adaption is entirely based on the directors vision.  Peter Jackson respected the LOTR trilogy,  recognizing that the books are something more than a simple fairy tale.  The films were intense and thoughtful, Jackson diligently portrayed middle earth in a mature way.  Jackson’s middle earth was highly realistic, favoring natural settings over special effects backdrops. Stefen Fangmeier, the director of Eragon, decided to go in the opposite direction of Jackson.  Eragon had an extremely childish visual style, relying heavily on cheesy special effects.  The plot was completely butchered down to appeal to a younger audience, a 544 page book was made into a 1:39 movie.  The characters I had come to love just looked goofy on the silver screen, the dragons looked like giant chickens rather than fearsome beasts.  Fangmeier made a movie for children far to young to have read and appreciated the book.  All of the truly dedicated fans were completely snubbed, and not surprisingly the film was a failure.  It is a tragedy when a filmmaker fails to appreciate the roots of their project.