Magic Only Goes So Far at Box Office

Perhaps to compensate for a sudden shortage of “Harry Potter” stories, the media are now engaged in a nonstop “Potter” box-office watch, speculating as to whether it will overtake “Titanic” as the largest-grossing movie of all time. There has been much hand-wringing and fretting that the young wizard will not be able to measure up to the romantic epic drama, as if his real nemesis were not the nefarious Voldemort but Oscar-winning director James Cameron.

The “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” box-office stories miss the point. Every so often, Hollywood turns out a phenomenally successful motion picture based on a highly marketable premise, “Jurassic Park” and “Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace” being two recent examples. But rarely more than once in a generation does it produce a genuine cultural phenomenon such as “Titanic” and, before that, “E.T.,” “The Godfather” and the original “Star Wars”--films that broke existing box-office records and inspired almost fanatical devotion.

Tell a die-hard fan of any of the above that you didn’t much care for it, and you’ll be met with the same exclamation of horror as if you’d just announced that you were a practicing cannibal.

Interestingly, all those legendary films have one thing in common: None was expected to be a major hit. Advance word on “Titanic” and “The Godfather” couldn’t have been worse. Both films had complicated, troubled productions.

“E.T.” was famous for being dismissed as a children’s film with limited appeal, and passed on by almost every studio in town. Similarly, “Star Wars” arrived without much ballyhoo in the late ‘70s, at a time when outer-space sagas were out of fashion. But all were discovered and embraced by audiences, building steadily through word of mouth into blockbusters.

Not to take anything away from “Harry” and his fans, but audiences hardly got to discover the film. It was a must-see from the get-go, assured of smash opening-week attendance based on its high name recognition from J.K. Rowling’s bestsellers, and a relentless, no-holds-barred marketing effort from the AOL Time-Warner synergistic family. That made it easy to launch the movie into orbit.

But reaching the stratosphere is something else again. The best that can be said for the “Harry Potter” movie is that it successfully mimics a true cultural phenomenon: the “Harry Potter” novel on which it is based.

That is no mean feat. Still, feelings of indifference toward the movie are not likely to provoke much rancor at the next family gathering. Even the movie’s loyalists--mostly kids--would not argue that it was better than the book. Other than among hard-core Potterites, the movie doesn’t seem to be eliciting slavish devotion. Adults are seeing the movie and enjoying it, but unless they’re dragged back by their kids, few are compelled to return again and again, as teenage girls did with “Titanic,” bawling their eyes out as their dear Leonardo DiCaprio became a human ice pop for the love of Kate Winslet.

And it’s difficult to imagine that, 30 years from now, “Harry Potter” (the movie, not the book) will be quoted and referenced in the way that “Star Wars” and “The Godfather” are.

Make no mistake, “Harry Potter” is a global hit of massive proportions and the first of several sequels, some of which may be better or worse, more or less popular. But at the box office, even the first “Harry” movie is playing like a sequel. Starting out extremely strong, with a record-breaking $90-million opening weekend because its legion of fans had to see it immediately, it has declined to a level of popularity similar to other blockbusters based on best-selling books or successful follow-ups to hit movies.

“Harry” got to $200 million in 15 days, two days behind “Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace,” which surpassed $400 million before it was through, making it the third-highest-grossing movie of all time. “Harry” should place in the top 10, if not the top five.

The film’s attendance pattern so far suggests a major hit but not a true phenomenon--a film that transcends itself and is inimitable--which is not to say that Hollywood doesn’t try to clone such films. Recently, “Pearl Harbor” tried to integrate history and romance into the kind of epic format that worked so well for “Titanic.” But as legendary producer David O. Selznick learned when he tried to replicate the popularity of “Gone With the Wind,” it’s impossible to preconceive a movie that will emotionally resonate with a mass audience rather than just entertain.

The box-office record of $1.8 billion worldwide set by “Titanic” will someday be superseded. But like other true phenomena, the film that does it will be a fluke that arrives unexpectedly and is enthusiastically received, not only by the generation that sees it during its initial release, but also by succeeding generations.