Pottering

In his maiden speech, apparently, David Hart MP revealed the ending of the forthcoming final Harry Potter film -- to the annoyance of Potter fanatics, according to Quentin Letts, which shows how ill-informed in Potter affairs is the normally clued-up Mr Letts.

Any fule kno that all Potter fanatics will have read The Book -- and know it by heart -- before seeing any Potter film, which is a purely academic exercise concerned with how accurately the film-makers render the Authorised Version.

The informally convened but vast fraternity of Potter readers will discharge its self-imposed, collective obligation to keep the pure flame alive by seeing the film. They will then, in accordance with convention, spend every break-time, not to mention night after night for months on end on Facebook, engaged in well-informed and passionate criticism of the faithfulness or otherwise of the film's dramaturgical and production conceits to the narrative detail and spirit of The Book.

Contra Mr Letts, whodunnit is as irrelevant to a Potter film as to a production of Hamlet. The entire audience knows the story. The only questions are whether the director deals satisfactorily with motive and expression, and whether the CGI portrayals of Magic and Evil are (a) as good as the pictures conjured by The Book in the reader's mind and (b) lamer than in the previous films in the series. The highest standards are expected by a ruthless audience with decided Opinions.

As to dramatic expression, the Pottering millions long ago discounted Daniel Radcliffe's thespian shortcomings. All that matters is that he manages to bear the Potter name with some semblance of dignity. The film-goers' imagination supplies the deficit. Everything will be fine as long as he doesn't swap the glasses for contact lenses. That, of course, would ruin everything.