In Philip Nel’s, “Lost in Translation? Harry Potter, From Page to Screen,” Nel delves into the literal translation of the Harry Potter book series into the widely-spread and popular movie series it turns into. In a detailed response, Nel attempts to tackle the question that all the Harry Potter book fandom has questioned from time to time: Are the movies doing the book series justice?

            One particular point that Nel brings up in his article is the contrast that is shaped by each movie due to the different directors throughout the series. While some directors appeal to some (but of course not all) of the characterization that goes on in the books, other directors got more caught up in the whimsical world of Harry Potter, wanting to fascinate the viewers with different tricks and charms.

For example, Nel says, “Instead of using the moment on the Hogwarts Express to focus on the developing friendship between Harry (portrayed by Daniel Radcliffe) and Ron (Rupert Grint), Columbus uses it to display special effects, providing chocolate frogs that actually jump.” This is a very pivotal moment in Harry’s life when he makes his first real friend and while Columbus does show a budding friendship, it focuses more so on the magical quirks of the new world he’s entered, instead of the emotion and feelings going through Harry. While it contrasts from the book a bit, I do find this understandable because in the first book/movie we are introduced to a whole new magical world and it is much easier to capture that on screen than it is to capture Harry’s inner thoughts and emotions.

Something I found lost in translation entirely from book to movie is Dumbledore’s character. Dumbledore does have a dark past, but we don’t know anything about it until later in the series. And even when his dark past is revealed his wise and light-hearted character still shines through. Dumbledore was always seen as whimsical and humorous in the books, a wise soul that enjoyed life to fullest. While they attempt to work the theatrics of Dumbledore into the movie, I think his original characterization is completely lost. Nel says, “In contrast, the Columbus films and Yates’ make Dumbledore a more stern, Gandalf-like figure…” I agree with this point entirely and can’t seem to understand for the life of me why they did this to Dumbledore’s character. Watching the films made me long for the wiser, sweeter, and overall kinder Dumbledore that I’ve grown so accustomed to in the books.

I think Nel best sums up what is lost in translation by saying, “Yates does not always manage to create an emotional bond between viewer and character. His short scenes swiftly advance the plot, but provide little time to get acquainted with the characters.” For anyone that has read the books, the attachment to them is so intense because of the emotional attachment you gain with the characters. To me, this was lost entirely in translation and left the viewer (that had read the book) with a bare visual rendition of all the important scenes of Harry Potter to create the story, but leaving out a huge part of the range of emotions behind each character’s exterior.

In summary, I think there are very important chunks of the Harry Potter book series that are left in translation when it was turned into a movie, but I find most of it understandable. As an avid book reader of books that turn into movies, I never get my hopes too high when watching the film version of a book. It’s impossible to take the true essence of a book and turn it into a film and get everything completely right because a book and a film are, respectfully, two entirely different things. I think Harry Potter book fans are sympathetic towards this and are just happy to see some sort of visual representation of a book they care so much about.