Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Back when I worked at the bookstore, I started ready Harry Potter books during my breaks. This was right when "Goblet of Fire" first hit American bookstores, so one of the initial waves of Potter-Mania was, in fact, sweeping the nation. Like avian bird flu. But, you know...in book form...

Anyway, I managed to get through the first four books fairly quickly, and enjoyed them. I haven't gone back to read Books 5 and 6, even though they have since come out. Frankly, because I don't really care. I mean, they were fun books and all...but let's be honest here, people...They're clearly written for children.

I mean, they're good books for children. I'm not some book snot...I say, read whatever you want. I understand not everyone wants to take Proust with them on a transcontinental flight or to the beach...Those are the kind of circumstances that John Grisham's soothingly predictable home spun lawyerly crap was made for.

But I do think that Americans need to stop kidding themselves about Harry Potter books being literature. Reading children's books for pleasure doesn't count as actual reading. I'm not saying that you should never pick up something written at a junior high school level, just for fun or to take a break. But, hey, why not work some Wharton or James or Vonnegut in there...Actually, Vonnegut might be goo,d because although his books are quite funny and incisive and thoughtful, they aren't really difficult per se.

Okay, back to the topic at hand. The new Harry Potter film, coincidentally enough adapting the fourth book, Goblet of Fire, reminds us delicately of this fact over and over again. Like all the best children's films, it's really about the horrors of discovering the adult world. Mike Newell's splendid adaptation shows Harry confronting the bizarre and ghastly mysteries that unfold before your eyes from the ages of, depending on your social and cultural background, and the peculiar quirks of your own personal experiences, from the ages of about 11 to 16.

This isn't to say that grown people won't enjoy the movie. It's an engrosing entertainment, boasting terrific, fanciful special effects and a rather brilliant ensemble cast of British actors. But it's also not a timeless adventure film like its predecessor, Alfonso Cuaron's masterful Prisoner of Azkaban, a movie that transcends the "Potter adaptation" genre altogether and succeeds as a remarkable and independant entity. This is a crucial film for the entire series, shifting the dynamic and upping the stakes considerably, and Newell for the most part does a good job of darkening the atmosphere without killing off all the fun.



That's being a fourth-year at Hogwarts School for Witchcraft and Wizardry for you. Nothing but whippets and make-out parties.

No, seriously, it's not what it looks like. They're just kids, folks...They don't bust out the 8-balls and double-ended dildos until Part 9, Harry Potter and the Steamer of Cleveland.

Let's go to the next still, shall we?



No, no, this isn't from the new Potter movie. That's Daniel Radcliffe's screen test for the role of Palpatine in this falls' hottest new series, "The Young Darth Sidious Chronicles." No wonder he didn't get the role...His light saber's all wobbly and it has got sparks coming off of it. Unprofessional.

I've got a good feeling about this next one...



Well, it KINDA looks like Harry and the gang at Burning Man...but it will have to do.

See, the genius of J.K. Rowling and these stories is that they are incredibly repetitive, but just new enough each time to keep us wanting to see more. Beyond just having the same framework - each film and movie follows one year at Hogwarts School - they basically tell the same story. Harry shows up for another year, amidst concern for his personal welfare. He is mysteriously drawn into a plot that involves strange murders or mayhem around the school. It's revealed that the Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher has a chilling secret. The eventual suspect is the evil Lord Voldemort or one of his close allies, and at least one initial suspect turns out to be a useful ally. All is set right again, but with a foreboding sense of doom, the idea that one day the evil will have to be faced rather than merely avoided.

Like I said, it's reptitive, like most kid's books. Like that dumbass anteater, Arthur. He's always losing his glasses or his homework or falling down and scraping his knee or some crap, and then he talks to one of the other kids in the schoolyard and realizes that, hey, it has happened to them, too, he must not be so different after all.

But, in fact, he's a goddamn talking anteater with glasses, so yeah, he's pretty different after all. A freak, you might even say.

But I got side-tracked again. My point is, even though each new film is a rehash of what has come before, Rowling's story and Potter series screenwriter Steve Kloves always add a little dash of new information and a few new characters to keep the proceedings fresh. Goblet of Fire's most successful addition is the character of Mad Eye Moody (Brendan Gleeson), a former wizard-hunter who serves as the new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher.

Um, not that he has a horrible secret to hide that becomes key in the Third Act!

Gleeson is a pretty terrific actor, and he really has a lot of fun with Moody. He shifts a character who could have been purely expositional into some much-needed comic relief. That's important, because, as I said, Goblet of Fire significantly ups the stakes of the entire Potter enterprise. After the violent mayhem of this entry, the Quidditch matches and point-tallying of the rather uninspired first entry in the series seems quaint.

I guess that's kind of the idea. I realize now that, if Potter was 10 in the first book, he'll be 17 in the final chapter. Old enough to see an R-rated version of his own story. (Perhaps this explains Goblet of Fire's unprecedented and duly earned PG-13 rating for "disturbing imagery.") So, as he ages, obviously the challenges he faces grow more menacing and daunting.

And so Harry faces death repeatedly in this entry. Hogwarts has been chosen to host the Tri-Wizard Tournament, a gathering in which 3 international schools of witchcraft and magic face off. One student from each school is chosen to compete in a series of extremely dangerous trials, and though Harry is supposed to be too young, he is nevertheless chosen by the mysterious Goblet of Fire to compete on behalf of Hogwarts.

The trials themselves - which include battling a dragon and villainous reptilian mer-people, as well as navigating a misty maze - are brutal and uncompromising, and in the end not everyone will survive. (Imagine the permission slip you'd have to send home for such an occasion..."Your child has been invited to slay a dragon on behalf of his school. There is no guarantee he will not be incinerated, crushed, gored or eaten alive. Please sign below to give us your legal consent to dump him off at the dragon's cave, and waive your right to sue us if something goes horribly awry.")

To make things even more daunting, this entry marks the formal introduction of Lord Voldemort as a personified villain (played with venemous relish by a heavily made-up Ralph Fiennes). Surely the next three enrties will be similarly savage with him around.

So consider Harry's dilemma. He's been mysteriosuly entered into a death tournament by an unknown force. His friends all think he has willingly signed on, and so have abandoned and/or ridiculed him for doing so. He realizes, for the first time, that there is no safety net, that his magical friends and faculty won't be able to rescue him should something go wrong. He is, for the first time in these films, completely alone.

And this is really what moves the entire storyline forward for this fourth film. It marks the halfway point of the series, but more importantly, it marks the end of Harry's innocent, naive childhood. When it begins, he's having a sleepover at his friend Ron's house, before embarking on a trip to see the Quiddich World Cup. By the conclusion, the most powerful wizard in the world has sworn to kill him to his face in front of his dead, disembodied parents. His hero, Hogwarts dean Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) comes to him with head hung low, begging forgiveness for failing to protect him. And the women in his life, friend Hermione (Emma Watson) and crush Cho Chang (Katie Leung) have both rejected his and Ron's invitations to attend the dance in favor of hunky jocks.

It's not easy being the boy who lived.

Newell also captures in this entry a sense of adolescent voyeurism. The entire series has relied in part on Harry listening in secretly to conversations among senior wizards, discussing him frankly without hiding the truth to protect him. In this entry, he's forever eavesdropping behind closed doors or communicating with clandestine informants. He even begins to learn about his enemy through his dreams. There's a sense of removal from the adult world, of being threatened and affected by the movements of grown-ups without being privy to their explanations and knowledge, that perfectly sums up life as a teenager.

(I say it's captured by Newell, rather than just included because it's in the Rowling books, because Newell fills the frame constantly with mirrors and reflective surfaces, and even the effects work carry on this visual theme. I believe he's intentionally drawing our attention to Potter's removal from the truth, which is forever obscured even though it's right in front of his face.)

Wow, I am really going on. This is super-nerdy. And after I went on and on about how it's just a kid's book. I feel lame. Anyway, I'm almost done. The only other stuff I wanted to say was that the film's pace is kind of off - the opening is rushed and doesn't make a lot of sense. I realize Newell had a lot to cram in without a lot of time, but still, I thought I'd mention this one point. I'll stop now.