Ron Bancroft ought to be ashamed of his I-haven’t-read-the-book-but-I-saw-the-movie approach to literary analysis.
In his recent column describing his family outing to the movies (“A young wizard and his friends become part of the family” Nov. 30), he informs us that he has not read “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” and then proceeds to draw conclusions about author J.K. Rowling’s characterization, plotting and influences.
While the movie on the main is remarkably faithful to its source, it is still layers removed in its interpretation from Rowling’s book.
Anyone who’s ever read a book and then seen a movie knows that they are two different things.
A film’s creators necessarily make choices in adapting a story told with words to one told with light and sound, and in doing so put their own understanding of a text before their audience.
Mr. Bancroft needs to direct his analysis toward the work at hand, not the one he has no experience with.
At several points in his column he references “The Lord of the Rings.”
One wonders, then, if he is talking about J.R.R. Tolkien’s books or Peter Jackson’s movies?
Send questions/comments to the editors.
Success. Please wait for the page to reload. If the page does not reload within 5 seconds, please refresh the page.
Enter your email and password to access comments.
Hi, to comment on stories you must . This profile is in addition to your subscription and website login.
Already have a commenting profile? .
Invalid username/password.
Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.
Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.
Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.