Various Notes...

A.E.B.Bevan at open.ac.uk A.E.B.Bevan at open.ac.uk
Tue Nov 20 11:25:44 UTC 2001


London Zoo and 'not in London before'.

"Joywitch M. Curmudgeon" wrote:
> >  BTW, did anyone else notice that the zoo in the movie was 
definitely the London Zoo?  
Tracey wrote:
> May be it is said that Harry hasn't gone to London before because 
> London Zoo is not in central London..

First point is that this is a mix of 'continuity' problems between 
the written and filmed versions.. They used London Zoo because, well 
getting a Zoo as a location is cheaper than building a set. Dont know 
of any Zoos in Surrey...   

We can rationalise this perfectly well though with a mixture of 
Harrys POV and psychological factors on one hand and the reality of 
what a visit to London Zoo could be like coming from Surrey. 

The Zoo is in the centre of Greater London (In Regents Park)  but not 
in the Central part of London. In New York terms think of someone 
visiting Brooklyn from eastern Long island. They havent this trip 
been 'Downtown' in Manhatten... Translate 'Being in London before' 
as 'being Downtown' and it may make more sense in US terminology?  To 
get to the zoo from Surrey a quick way is to take the motorways past 
the airport then take the Westway into central London ( multi-lane 
part- elevated highway). This decants you near the south of Regents 
Park. So the visit would have been a blur of highways then a green 
oasis. Harry wouldnt have set foot in the streets of London. Does 
this preserve the sense of Canon?

Edis











More information about the HPFGU-Movie archive