Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

November, 2001
By Toni Jupe

The Classification Board got it right when it gave the movie Harry Potter a PG classification. There are several scenes which clearly are very scary and, in some instances, unnecessarily violent.

My nearly-8-year-old son was particularly upset by a scene in which a roaring head looms out of the pages of a book at Harry, and from then on he peeked out at the rest of the movie through his fingers, anticipating further scary bits. Having read a review by a child development expert about later scenes which caused consternation to younger children, I was able to warn him about some darker bits, but that one took me by surprise.

My son's is discomfort was echoed by several children in the cinema who were about his age, and slightly younger, lending weight to the classifiers' opinion that the movie is not suitable for under-7-year-olds.

Having read all four Harry Potter books myself, and thoroughly enjoyed them, I was greatly looking forward to seeing the movie.

So were my twos sons, who are nearly 11 and 8 respectively. The older one has also read all four books, and the first one three times altogether. The younger son has read the first book and has nearly finished the second.

I am firmly of the opinion that my sons 'handled' some of the darker scenes far better, having read the books and knowing what was coming, than a child under seven would have. There is greater potential for harm to a young child because it's unlikely they would have read the book, and therefore be able to put some of the more disconcerting aspects into context.

For example, because the Harry Potter books are all about magic and people and creatures with fantastical powers, children who have read the book will already understand how unrealistic are many of the situations in the movie, including the over-the-top depiction of the non-magical Dursley family.

However, a young child who has not read the book - and I suspect a few older ones - would have difficulty telling the difference between fantasy and reality in some instances.

Children who still believe in Father Christmas and the Easter Bunny could think it was quite possible that some broomsticks fly. They may even be tempted to emulate their grandparents, who 50 years ago jumped off backyard sheds thinking they were Superman.

My older son made a couple of telling comments. He felt that the reasons why some things occurred were not well-explained, and that perhaps some of the 'bang, crash action stuff" could have made way for a little bit more footage spent on the three children discussing their theories on why certain things were happening, as occurs throughout the book.

His other insightful observation was about the portrayals of harm to children and animals, which research has shown are at the top of small children's lists of things that upset them.

"You know Mum, when they showed kids getting badly hurt, like falling off broomsticks from really high up, they didn't show what happened to them afterwards. In real life they probably would have died, but they didn't explain why that didn't happen. And what's more, the teachers didn't seem to care when they got hurt or they were in danger, they even looked amused sometimes!"

Later, discussing the movie with a friend, who loved the books and loved the movie, but felt overall it didn't live up to the hype, we agreed to disagree on whether the movie should, or could, have portrayed the consequences of children being hurt or scared out of their wits.

She felt it went without saying, particularly if children had read the book beforehand, that the whole world of Harry Potter was a fantasy, and moviegoers would naturally suspend belief as soon as they entered the cinema.

I think it would have been possible, in a couple of instances, to have shown that the children did not suffer any real harm because, as the book explains, they are either protected or made well again by magic. It also would have been possible to have fleshed out the teachers' attitudes to hurt children, without detracting from the entertainment value of the movie.

If, in these instances, the moviemakers choose not to build into their movies these ways of reducing the potential harm to young children, they should expect a higher classification and should not market the movie to young children.

As with the Jurassic Park movies, the first Harry Potter movie - and, I'm sure, those to come - has been marketed to young children in a variety of ways and that's likely to give some parents the mistaken impression that it's okay for young children.

The other marketing ploy that has taken off in the past couple of years that really annoys me is the 'celebrities take their tiny tots to the latest blockbuster' magazine photo spreads.

This not only signals to parents that they're not cool if they don't take their babies to the flicks, like some sort of fashion accessory, but also that it's okay to drag a small child into a huge, dark, noisy room and bombard them with fast, loud and scary images.

This is one of those times when it may be best to say to young children, "You can see the Harry Potter movie after you've read the book."