When I was an adolescent, I avidly read Nobel Prize-winning author Sigrid Undset’s trilogy of novels about a character named Kristin Lavransdatter. Set in Norway during the Middle Ages, the books chronicle their eponymous heroine’s life from birth to death.
I remember thinking at the time, wouldn’t it be amazing if they could make movies based on the series with the same actress starring all the way through, following her over the years as she aged.
Never happened.
It has now, in its own way, with the Harry Potter series. We’ve seen Harry, Ron and Hermione grow up before our eyes.
They’ve gone from tweeners to adolescents to nearly young adults in the nine years between 2001’s “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” and seventh and latest film in the series, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1.” (There’s still one final film to come next summer.)
Sure, we’ve watched other actors mature over the years on screen, but rarely in the same role. The closest we’ve come would be watching Johnny Weismuller age as Tarzan as he swung on vines from 1932 to 1948, or Mickey Rooney gain in years (though not in height) as Andy Hardy in the wholesome family series, which ran from 1937 to 1946.
It has been far more common to see an actor age and, one hopes, mature while portraying the same character on TV. In the six decades that TV sets have resided in living rooms, viewers have seen James Arness and Amanda Blake grow arthritic on “Gunsmoke” (1955-75); the passel of small fry who played Walton kids sprout up on “The Waltons” (1972-81); and Sam Waterson go from the courtroom to the back executive room on “Law & Order” (1990-2010), to name but a few.
The exception: Homer Simpson. He’s been skateboarding on Fox for 21 seasons now and hasn’t aged a hair.
When glimpsed on the big or small screens, these examples only serve to remind us that the years are passing fleetly for all of us. If time has taken such an obvious toll on big star, who presumably has the benefit of superior make-up and lighting, well than it’s doubtful the years have been any kinder to the rest of us.
Not so with the Harry Potter kids. They’ve just reached their majority, or are about to. And to borrow from the Who, the kids are all right.
All of life (and one final movie in the series) is still ahead for them. If Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint never play another role again, their growth spurts have achieved screen immortality. That they’ve evolved into talented actors — capable of nuance and subtlety — along the way is a bonus.
On screen, this trio of junior wizards has survived the challenges of the six previous films, remaining and loyal, supportive and resourceful friends. And they need every bit of wit, cunning and magic they can draw on in “Deathly Hallows: Part 1,” which lays the foundation for the climactic battle still to come between Harry and evil Lord Valdemort (Ralph Fiennes).”
But it’s their tentative forays into adult life — where they encounter both the good (romance) and the bad (battling the forces of evil) and minus the comforting environment of Hogwart’s to cushion them — that make this film so rewarding.
As we’ve come to expect with “Potter” films, the mix of drama, humor and superior special effects is nicely balanced. Add to that — as Harry and crew hide out from their enemies for long weeks in various sylvan settings and lake shores — an appreciation for the natural world for the first time in the series.
Even Dobby, the digital elf so annoying in past episodes, proves heroic here and has a — spoiler alert — moving death scene that reduced the teenage girl sitting next to me to racking sobs.
Now, if Harry could just wave his magic wand and make the next eight months — “Deathly Hallows: Part 2” isn’t due until July 15, 2011 — fly by.
