Something remarkable happened a couple of weeks ago, because I got a friendly e-mail. It's often the case that people only bother to write in if they disagree with me about a film, so this was a bit of a rarity. It was also properly written - complete with actual grammar and spelling - two things the angry e-mails generally don't have. Among some other things, the e-mail drew attention to something I had written in my review of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix; the fact that I haven't read any of the books in the series. I was asked why I bothered seeing the film when I apparently had no interest in the books, and secondly, whether I felt it was really appropriate for me to comment on the films when I had no prior knowledge of the source material.

With regard to the first point, I saw the film because I run this site. A Harry Potter film is always going to be one of the biggest of its respective year, so it would make no sense for someone who runs a site like this not to see it as soon as possible. However, I'm pretty sure I would have seen Order of the Phoenix even if I were not running FilmJudge. I saw the first, second and third Harry Potter films before I even started the site, and I saw Goblet of Fire at a time when I was writing a few reviews in preparation for its launch. I believe that Chamber of Secrets was the only one I didn't see in the cinema. Harry Potter films are event films as well - ones that everyone sees and that everyone talks about, regardless of whether they have read the books or not. After all, more people see comic book films than actually read comic books, so why should Harry Potter be any different? Then there's also the fact that just as films, I quite like the series. The first one was the only offering I've actually given a negative review to.

The second point is more complicated however, as it really requires two answers. First of all, I think anyone has the right to comment on a film they have seen, irrespective of how well they know the original material. It would be more than a little unreasonable to expect every critic or reviewer to be familiar with every film that was based on a book, play, comic book, short story of whatever. It would certainly be unreasonable to expect the general public to have that knowledge as well. Films based on other sources are generally designed and marketed for everyone too, and not just those who know plenty about it beforehand. After all, most book-to-film adaptations need to attract more than just the number of people who read the book if they are going to make a profit.

But I think my second line of thought here is more important, and that is simply that films based on other sources must be able to exist outside of the original material. Sometimes books are radically altered to make them into films, whereas other adaptations might be more faithful; this varies from film to film. However, the crucial factor is that such films mustn't require their audiences to know anything about them before they settle down to watch. The Harry Potter films are actually quite good at explaining themselves as they go along. I can't say how faithful the films are to the books, but even as an outsider I never feel lost when watching them; the magical terminology and exposition is generally well utilised.

So this is why I fell it is appropriate for me to comment on the Harry Potter films, because films have to exist on their own terms - as alien entities. I'm sure it would make screenwriters jobs a lot easier if they could just assume the audience has read the book, but that's not what films are supposed to be about. If a film doesn't make sense solely on in information you gather while watching it, then it has ultimately failed in its task to tell its story satisfactorily.

© David Mercier
Discuss films and features on the FilmJudge Blog