New director brings new vision to 'Potter'

By Terry Lawson
Knight Ridder News Service

Director Alfonso Cuaron works on set of "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban." Warner Bros. pictures via Associated Press

Filming had barely begun on the second installment of the boy wizard saga/phenomenon, "Chamber of Secrets," when Columbus took himself out of the game, returning his homesick family from England to Los Angeles, and, as a producer of one of the most successful franchises in movie history, getting a vote on his own replacement.

The final choice to helm "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban," which opened Friday, came down to three: Callie Khouri, director of "Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood"; Kenneth Branagh, who had a major role in "Chamber of Secrets" as the foppish Dark Arts instructor Gilderoy Lockhart; and the very dark horse Alfonso Cuaron, who had just made something of a career comeback with the sexually frank teenage drama "Y Tu Mama Tambien."

To everyone's surprise, especially his own, Cuaron was offered the job, despite the fact he had not read a "Potter" book and professed to have little interest. But Columbus and fellow producer David Heyman, as well as Potter author J.K. Rowling, believed Cuaron was the right choice, based on specific criteria: He had previously adapted a beloved and magical young readers' novel for the screen in 1995's "A Little Princess," and he was considered kind, generous and patient, an advantageous attribute when working with young actors.

Perhaps most important, Columbus said, Cuaron possessed the sort of imagination, self-confidence and enthusiasm critical to tackling a project of this scope — especially after he read Rowling's novels and began to consider what he could bring to them.

So after Cuaron, who was deep into pre-production on an original sci-fi fantasy called "The Children of Men," was persuaded to set aside that project for "Prisoner," he joined what is becoming a fairly exclusive club — directors who take over successful movie franchises. Movie series are referred to as "tentpoles" in the industry, due to the fact that a couple of brand-name franchises, like "Star Wars" and "X-Men" at 20th Century Fox, and the Jack Ryan and "Star Trek" films at Paramount, can prop up a studio for years.

Prior to "Star Wars," movie sequels were generally considered a way for the studios to make a quick buck. While ongoing series had been a staple of '30s and '40s Hollywood, with multiple chapters of "Blondie," "Tarzan" "Sherlock Holmes" and "Ma and Pa Kettle," they were usually made on the cheap, and often relegated to the second half of double bills. Only occasionally did sequels compare with the original films in terms of box office, and almost never in quality. Rare exceptions were the sequels to the mystery-comedy "The Thin Man," which attracted audiences equal to those for the original film and won critical acclaim for their wit and style.

"Before 'Star Wars' showed Hollywood that a series could grow an audience, they (sequels) were considered stepchildren," said Jonathan Mostow, who took on the daunting job of continuing the "Terminator" series after James Cameron, who directed the first two chapters, elected not to return. "If a sequel made a third of what the original film made it was considered a success," he said.

In the 21st century, sequels are considered a failure if they don't at least match the gross of the original, and eagerly awaited films like "Shrek 2," in which the first film's success and reputation have grown via video, are expected to outperform their predecessors. "Shrek 2," as an example, earned more than twice as much as the original in its opening week.

For that reason, studios increasingly attempt to lock in not only the stars of films they hope will become franchises, but also the directors and other key personnel, from composers to set designers.

"I think everyone tends to look at 'Batman' as an example of what happens when the original vision of the director gets changed," said producer Richard D. Zanuck, who hired that franchise's original director, Tim Burton, to resurrect "The Planet of the Apes" franchise. Though Michael Keaton, who originally played Batman, was replaced in the third installment by Val Kilmer and in the fourth by George Clooney, the fans tended to blame any slide in the series on Burton's replacement, Joel Schumacher.

Ironically, while Burton's "Planet of the Apes," which had a $100-million budget, made $180 million in the United States, it was generally considered a failure artistically and financially, and Zanuck and 20th Century Fox decided not to continue what had originally been envisioned as a trilogy.

The "Potter" producers also looked for a stylistic change-up when Columbus begged off, and got it: The whimsy of the first two films has been replaced by a more sinister mood, present in the film's dark new visual design and the seriousness of the characters. Columbus was accused of being slavishly faithful to the books; Cuaron has pared down "Prisoner of Azkaban" to its essentials.

No matter how Cuaron's take on Harry Potter is received, he won't be directing the next installment. He committed only to one film, and production has already begun on "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire," with England's Mike Newell ("Four Weddings and a Funeral") taking over the reins.