MOVIE: Steven Spielberg and Chris Columbus

[caliburncy at yahoo.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 26068

Thanks for the link, Marcus.  I'd seen some (?alleged?) comments 
before from Spielberg about why he didn't want to do HP and expected 
this to be the same thing, but it wasn't.

Personally--and I know I may be stepping on some toes here--, I never 
really wanted to see Spielburg direct HP.  I would've been highly 
concerned if he was.  He's a good director, but that's not the point. 
 Everything I've seen seems to indicate to me that he is a very 
opinionated director which is why a lot of people would classify him 
as one of the more visionary directors.  But being opinionated can be 
very problematic if you're supposed to be doing a faithful adaptation. 
 There wouldn't be much of a "personal element" for Spielburg to bring 
and if he tried to add one anyway then he would have to sacrifice the 
adaptation to do so.

Chris Columbus, on the other hand, seems to have been a good, though 
unlikely-seeming choice.  At first I had my reservations since he 
didn't really have the typical sort of background (unless you maybe 
count his screenplays) for this kind of film.  After all, there's 
nothing in Home Alone or Mrs. Doubtfire or even Bicentennial Man to 
give any proof that Columbus possessed any sort of strong visual style 
at all.  But then I said, hold it, you're pigeon-holing him and that's 
not fair, Luke.  Wait it out and give him a chance.  And it seems to 
have worked because of this very reason (the pigeon-holing, not my 
giving him a chance, which he could probably care less about).  
Columbus has something to prove, which can be a powerful motivator 
indeed.  He has to prove that he can break out of his mold and do a 
film that isn't largely fluffy comedy and do it well.  He has to prove 
that when the situation requires it, he can display a strong visual 
style too.  Notice that when he tried to get the job, he made sure 
that he mentioned where he would draw his visual inspiration from.  
And yet, unlike Spielburg or some other directors, he doesn't have to 
feel compelled to prove that it's "A Columbus Film".  It doesn't have 
to be instantly recognizable as him.  This and his seemingly 
less-opinionated nature may make him less visionary, but hopefully 
more suited to being true to someone else's vision: in this case, 
JKR's.

I'm not saying he is a good choice because he is a weak director.  Not 
at all.  From the trailers he appears to have some talent in this 
area--just without the more dangerous kind of personal ambition that 
could jeopardize an adaptation.  And he'll get his chance to 
demonstrate some personal vision as well, no doubt.  Especially, I 
imagine, with the Quidditch scenes.  So on the whole, I refrain from 
final judgment until I see the film, but I am hopeful that he will do 
a good job.

Do I still have reservations?  Yes.  For one thing, I have no doubt 
that somewhere in the movie there will be a single pseudo-cutesy-funny 
moment that will make me cringe.  Whether or not that will originally 
have been Columbus' fault is debatable, but ultimately it is his 
responsibility to fix or cut it and he may instead leave it because 
it's a "family film".  He may even seek it out.  But I'll get over it. 
 Slowly.  With time.

Shutting up,
-Luke