Less than a month after the June 1997 British publication of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone by Bloomsbury, Warner Brothers Studio purchased the rights to create a film adaptation of the novel ("Harry"; "Text" 244). As expected, diehard Harry Potter fans expressed mixed reactions to the movie version, which was released in American theaters as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in November 2001. In general, as Philip Nel reports in "Bewitched, Bothered, and Bored: Harry Potter, The Movie," most movie goers "felt that the movie was not as good as the book even if...they 'did enjoy the money that was spent on making Hogwarts castle look real.'" (172) In an attempt to explain the reactions of the novel's fans to the movie, Nel states, "The movie was not enough like the book and, at the same time, very much like the book." ("Bewitched" 172) Some film viewers felt the movie distorted the story too much from the original book while others ardently disagree ("Bewitched" 172). I agree with Doug Thomas in his editorial review of the Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone DVD for Amazon: "The greatest strength of the film comes from its faithfulness to the novel..."

When creating a movie from a novel, both the screenwriter and the filmmaker must condense the story to fit in the allotted running time, usually somewhere between an hour and a half and two and a half hours. In adapting the book, however, the story is more often that not simplified ("Bewitched" 172). Therefore, the challenge for Steve Kloves and Chris Columbus in filming Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is to "condense the source [text] in a way that retains the central experience or [meaning] of the original." (DVD; "Bewitched" 172) Even when special attention is given to creating the same story in the film as in the book, moviemakers often overlook the most important element of any piece of literature: the characters. However, I feel that the film adaptation of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone transcends the problems associated with creating a movie from a book, especially the concern of maintaining the original characters of the novel.

The loss of carefully and fully and developed characters due to the dazzle of special effects and elaborate scenery is one major problem with adapting a novel into a film (Winerip; "Bewitched" 172). As Nel writes in "Bewitched" about dialogue, "It is what the characters say, not how they look, that enables us to make an emotional connection with them." (172) Many of the character's defining traits that Rowling narrates are lost when the characters are transferred from book to screen. Most notably, Dumbledore's sense of humor is largely missing from the film. From the beginning of the book, page ten of chapter one to be exact, Dumbledore is shown as a wizard with an interesting sense of humor ("Text" 253). When McGonagall asks if Voldemort is really gone, Dumbledore replies, "It certainly seems so...We have much to be thankful for. Would you care for a lemon drop?" (Stone 10) McGonagall seems appalled, "as though she didn't think this was the moment for lemon drops." (Stone 11) Consistent with Nel's statement in "Bewitched," readers learn about Dumbledore's personality through his dialogue (172). He is a wizard with a sense of humor.

As shown with the lemon drop, Dumbledore frequently uses his quirky humor to alleviate serious or stressful situations, including when the end of Voldemort's reign of terror is questioned. Another striking example is when Dumbledore, McGonagall, and Hagrid discuss baby Harry's scar from the Avada Kedavra curse. McGonagall asks, "Couldn't you do something about [the scar], Dumbledore?" Dumbledore replies, "Even if I could, I wouldn't. Scars can come in handy. I have one myself above my left knee that is a perfect map of the London Underground." (Stone 15) A third Dumbledore absurdity appears during Harry's first banquet at Hogwarts. Dumbledore says, "Welcome to a new year at Hogwarts! Before we begin our banquet, I would like to say a few words. And here they are: Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!" Confused, Harry turns to Percy and asks, "Is he — a bit mad?" Percy replies, "Mad?...He's a genius! Best wizard in the world! But he is a bit mad, yes." (Stone 123) Although Percy explains Dumbledore to Harry, his explanation is unnecessary for readers because Dumbledore shows himself as both brilliant and insane through his dialogue.

The conversation between Harry and Dumbledore during the Mirror of Erised episode is a fourth and final example of Dumbledore revealing his quirky personality through his actions. Harry says, "Sir — Professor Dumbledore? Can I ask you something?" Dumbledore smiles and replies in his Dumbledore way, "Obviously, you've just done so...You may ask me one more thing, however." Only Dumbledore can sound clever when repeating that clichι! Harry then asks, "What do you see when you look in the mirror?" Dumbledore answers, "I? I see myself holding a pair of think, woollen socks." When Harry gives him a bewildered look, Dumbledore continues, "One can never have enough socks...Another Christmas has come and gone and I didn't get a single pair. People will insist on giving me books." (Stone 214) Although this reply bewilders both Harry and Harry Potter readers alike, it also reveals another aspect of Dumbledore's sense of humor and personality. Socks are apparently important to this unusual wizard!

But Dumbledore does not offer McGonagall a lemon drop, point out the practicality of scars, make strange proclamations, or voice his opinion on socks in the movie. The film Dumbledore is portrayed as predominantly serious until the last twenty minutes when he visits Harry in the hospital wing ("Bewitched" 172). Dumbledore's sense of humor makes appearances three times during this one scene. First, Dumbledore wittily points out that gossip, especially Voldemort-possessed-teacher-attempting-to-steal-Sorcerer's-Stone gossip, travels quickly: "What happened down in the dungeons between you and Professor Quirrell is a complete secret. So naturally, the whole school knows." (DVD) Then, when Harry asks how he got the Stone from the Mirror, Dumbledore makes fun of himself by revealing that his ideas are not always perfect: "You see, only a person who wanted to find the Stone, find it, but not use it, would be able to get it. That is one of my more brilliant ideas. And between you and me, that is saying something." (DVD) Dumbledore's subtle wit, which is prominent throughout the book and lacking in the movie, is apparent in these examples.

Ultimately, Dumbledore's lemon-drop-scar-map sense of humor, which is completely nonexistent during the first seven-eighths of the screen adaptation, finally bursts out in the hospital wing. After an intense discussion about the fate of the Sorcerer's Stone, Dumbledore explains why Quirrell disintegrated at Harry's touch:

                    Harry, do you know why Professor Quirrell couldn't bear
                    to have you touch him? It was because of your mother. She
                    sacrificed herself for you. And that kind of act leaves a
                    mark. No, no this kind of mark cannot be seen. It lives in
                    your very skin. (DVD)

Harry asks, "What is it?" (DVD) Dumbledore smiles and replies, "Love, Harry. Love." (DVD) He then lightens the intense moment in his quirky Dumbledore fashion. He picks up a box of Bertie Bott's Every Flavor Beans and says, "I was most unfortunate in my youth to come across a vomit flavor one. Since then I'm afraid I've lost my liking for them. But I think I could be safe with a nice toffee." (DVD) He chooses a "golden-brown bean into his mouth," pops the piece in his mouth, pauses, and then declares, "Alas! Ear wax!" (Stone 301; DVD) Once again, what Dumbledore says reveals who Dumbledore is ("Bewitched" 172).

I do not believe that the changes made to Dumbledore in the film significantly alter the character. Dumbledore's actual appearances are shortened due to time considerations in creating a two and a half hour film out of a three hundred-page book. Even though Dumbledore's sense of humor appears to be largely missing from the movie adaptation, so too is much of his more serious dialogue. Dumbledore in the novel is not missing from the film, but rather, he is condensed for the allotted time period. The movie includes less of both Dumbledore's humor and seriousness. But, in proportion to the book, the film accurately portrays Dumbledore as mostly serious with a dash of absurd wit. His series of jokes with Harry in the hospital wing are enough to counterbalance the lack of Dumbledore humor in the first part of the film. Second, the omission of some of Dumbledore's scenes and discourse is only a disappointment to hardcore Harry Potter fans who know exactly what Dumbledore says and when he says it or for fans who enjoy Dumbledore as an odd, humorous character. Although some devoted fans criticize the absence of minute details present in the book ("Bewitched" 172), the changes made to Dumbledore's dialogue do not change Dumbledore's personality.

Hermione, like Dumbledore, is another key character who transforms from the book to the film. As Michael Winerip states in his February 1999 book review of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone for The New York Times, "J.K. Rowling has a gift for keeping the emotions, fears and triumphs of her characters on a human scale, even while the supernatural is popping out all over." As opposed to the film adaptation of the character, Hermione at first glance seems more real and believable in the book as an eleven-year-old girl. In the movie, she only gives help and never needs help. For example, when Harry and Ron rescue her from the mountain troll on Halloween in the movie, Hermione is frightened but still ends up instructing Ron to "swish and flick" his wand to perform the spell correctly (DVD). In the book, however, Hermione is so paralyzed with fear that Harry cannot even pull her out of the bathroom:

                    Harry yelled at Hermione trying to pull her toward the
                    door, but she couldn't move, she was still flat against the
                    wall, her mouth open with terror...Hermione had sunk to
                    the floor with fright. (Stone 175-176)

As Winerip points out, Hermione reacts like a normal eleven-year-old girl in the book when threatened by an enormous troll. She freaks out and needs help from her two friends. In the film, however, she crouches next to a broken sink and gives instructions to Ron. Unlike the panicky book Hermione, who is much more believable as a person, she plays a huge part in saving herself from the mountain troll.

Super-woman film Hermione appears again during the Devil's Snare incident after the trio drops through the trapdoor to rescue the Sorcerer's Stone. In the book, like with the troll, Hermione panics when she realizes she needs warmth and light to save Harry and Ron from the deadly plant:

                         "So light a fire!" Harry choked.
                         "Yes — of course — but there's no wood!"
                    Hermione cried,
                    wringing her hands.
                          "HAVE YOU GONE MAD?" Ron bellowed. "ARE YOU A
                    WITCH OR NOT?"
                         "Oh, right!" said Hermione... (Stone 278)

She is too busy worrying and panicking to calmly remember that she is a witch who can conjure a jet of bright blue flames with her wand (Stone 191, 278). Once Ron reminds her, she pulls out her wand and saves her friends. In the film, though, Hermione does not go to pieces during the Devil's Snare scene. While Ron is fumbling with the plant's tendrils, Hermione shouts to Harry, "We've got to do something!" (DVD) She then recalls her Herbology reading ("Devil's Snare. Devil's Snare. It's deadly fun but will sulk in the sun."), whips out her wand, shouts "Lumos Solem," and saves Ron (DVD). She does not need any help from her friends but only helps them. Once again, the book Hermione is much more believable as an eleven-year-old witch than the film Hermione because no preadolescent never needs help.

However, once again due to time constrictions, two important scenes in the book involving Hermione were cut from the film. Because the midnight wizard's duel was not included in the movie, Hermione does not have a chance to warn Harry and Ron not to sneak out of Gryffindor tower at night ("Text" 260). She also does not get to rightly say, "Malfoy tricked you...You realize that, don't you? He was never going to meet you — Filch knew someone was going to be in that trophy room, Malfoy must have tipped him off." (Stone 159) Basically, she is not given this opportunity to be a bossy know-it-all. The second important Hermione scene not included in the film is when she solves Snape's logic puzzle ("Text" 260). After the purple and black flames trap her and Harry in the chamber, she reads a "roll of paper" lying next to seven bottles and exclaims, "This isn't magic — it's logic — a puzzle." (Stone 285)

Like Dumbledore, Hermione is more condensed in the film than in the book. Instead of panicking with the troll and then proving herself right about Malfoy, both traits are combined in the troll scene. Hermione fearfully hides behind a broken sink but also tells Ron how to correctly perform the spell. Likewise, both Hermione's cunning and fear are combined during the Devil's Snare incident. She shouts at Harry that they need to do something to help Ron, but then remembers her knowledge of the plant and rescues her friend. Four of Hermione's important scenes are combined into two in order to keep the movie version at a reasonable length. Like with Dumbledore, I do not think that her personality is different in the movie than the book, just more condensed. Hermione is still an intelligent, yet sometimes bossy young witch who helps her friends from danger.

But, even though her personality remains the same during the transition from book to movie, Hermione does suffer from the visual focus of Hollywood film ("Bewitched" 172). As first described in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, Hermione has "a bossy sort of voice, lots of bushy brown hair, and rather large front teeth." (105) Hermione is quite bossy throughout both the book and movie. Even when she is threatened by a "fully grown mountain troll," she still manages to tell Ron how to correctly perform the spell ("swish and flick") (DVD). But the film Hermione is a lot cuter than the book Hermione. Emma Watson, the young actress who portrays the character, is definitely prettier than the somewhat homely Hermione of the novel. Emma's front teeth are not "rather large," and her hair is not quite as bushy or unmanageable as the book implies (Stone 105). However, because her personality is much more important to the story, the minor alterations in Hermione's appearance do not change the character but only annoy devoted Harry Potter fans.

Although the film versions of Dumbledore and Hermione in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone vary from the book, the changes are not significant enough to affect the characters' personalities or the story as a whole. All of the important details about the characters are present in the film, just in a more condensed manner because of time limits ("Bewitched" 172). Dumbledore is still the brilliant wizard with a witty sense of humor just as Hermione reacts to danger like any eleven-year-old, but then pulls herself together to help her friends. And even though some ardent Harry Potter fans criticize the minor alternations ("Bewitched" 172), I thoroughly believe that the screen adaptation of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone successfully solves the problems associated with creating a film based on a popular book and faithfully portrays the original Dumbledore and Hermione from the novel.

"Harry Potter at Bloomsbury." Bloomsbury. 2005. Bloomsbury. 10 Nov. 2005. <http://www.bloomsbury.com/harrypotter/content.asp?sec=2&sec2=4>

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Dir. Chris Columbus. Perf. Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson. 2001. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2002.

Nel, Philip. "Bewitched, Bothered, and Bored: Harry Potter, The Movie." Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy. 46.2 (Oct 2002): 172.

"Is There a Text in This Advertising Campaign?: Literature, Marketing, and Harry Potter." The Lion and the Unicorn. 29.2 (2005): 236-267.

Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. New York: Scholastic, 1997.

Thomas, Doug. "Editorial Reviews." Amazon. Amazon. 12 Nov. 2005. <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/B00003CXI1/ref=dp_proddesc_0/103-3737868-2407049?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=130>

Winerip, Michael. "Children's Books." The New York Times. 14 Feb. 1999. NYTimes.com. 8 Nov. 2005. <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9406E4D61F38F937A25751C0A96F958260>