There has never been anything quite like J. K Rowling’s Harry Potter, the hero of a hugely popular series of seven books followed by a successful set of eight movies. The decision to split the last book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, into two films turns out to have been a wise one. While part one, which ended abruptly after covering two-thirds of the material from the book, was somewhat anticlimactic, part two is a lean and dramatically satisfying finale. Director David Yates, who has been at the helm for the last three books in the series, and screenwriter Steve Kloves, who has penned all but one of the film scripts, move effortlessly between the large and the small, between grand battle scenes and moments of intimate, human interaction. The special effects are dazzling and the human drama gripping. The film also strikes a nice balance between the serious and the humorous, between tragedy and comedy.
Advertisement
In an age of increasingly decentralized media, in which sub-cultures of interest in TV shows, films, and music abound, Harry Potter is the common, unifying cultural marker for individuals between the ages of ten and 30, and perhaps well beyond that age. If the fictional characters and story-lines are woven into popular culture, the actors are equally well known, particularly those who play the three main characters: Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), and Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint). All three give fine performances in the last film, as do Ralph Fiennes as Lord Voldemort, Gary Oldman as Sirius Black, and Matthew Lewis as Neville Longbottom. The battle for, and at, Hogwarts, whose culmination is the ultimate faceoff between Harry and his nemesis, Voldemort, allows for the return of a host of well-known characters, all of whom are aware of what is at stake.
Given the malevolence of Voldemort, the books become darker as the story progresses. Particularly in Deathly Hallows and its immediate predecessor, Half-Blood Prince, deaths of major characters occur. Beyond her creation of memorable characters and plots, Rowling has crafted a mythical universe where remembering and preparing for death are central virtues. She revives the medieval theme of memento mori, the virtuous cultivation of the memory of death, as a counter to modernity’s vacillation between unhealthy obsession with and tragic forgetfulness of death.
This theme is powerfully coupled with repeated illustrations of (a) the unnaturalness of the project of overcoming death and (b) the way the practice of evil, murderous arts destroys the practitioner. In Half-Blood Prince, Dumbledore informs Harry that Voldemort’s pursuit of immortality has “mutilated” his “soul beyond the realm of what we might call usual evil.”
The contrast between Harry and Voldemort’s approach to death is palpable. The opening of Yates’s Deathly Hallows Part Two finds Harry and Voldemort occupied in two quite different activities. Harry, refusing to use magic, is physically digging the grave of his friend Dobby, the loyal house-elf who gave his life defending Harry. Meanwhile, in an act of desecration of the dead, Voldemort is stealing the Elder Wand from the grave of Albus Dumbledore. At various points in the story, the Elder Wand is cited as one of three components (along with the Cloak of Invisibility and the Resurrection Stone) of the Deathly Hallows, the possession of which is believed to make one a “master of death” — the object of Voldemort’s quest.
At the center of Voldemort’s search is his performance of the darkest of dark arts: the creation of horcruxes, which preserve splintered pieces of his immortal soul, and which can only be created by committing murder. As Harry and his pals seek to discover and destroy the horcruxes, the only way that Voldemort himself will die, Voldemort pursues invulnerability and permanent rule over the world of wizards. The scenes featuring the destruction of horcruxes are among the most spectacular in the entire series of films, even as they heighten the dramatic tension and the sense of inevitable, final confrontation.
With threats imminent, there is no longer room for self-pity or teen angst — elements that were tiresomely common in the middle, overly long books in the series. Friendships deepen and in some cases blossom into love; the film contains two brief (and very nicely scripted) moments of passion, one between Ron and Hermione and another between Harry and Ginny. But this film is about what the books and previous films have always been essentially about: the practice of the virtues of friendship, loyalty, courage, and leadership.
“The fundamental lesson concerns the true way to conquer death: Do not cling to life but be willing to offer one’s life for the sake of others.”
A nice sentiment, but completely futile in the face of death, because we’re only human, only mortal, finite. However, if say, the infinite, all powerful Creator and sustainer of the universe were to offer His life for the sake of others, and then rise again, and not in a movie but for real, in history, then death would be conquered. I don’t think Harry Potter or any other popular movie these days will tell us this.
I haven't seen the movie yet, of course, but this review gives me pause. Have they really changed the story that much?
In the print version, Voldemort isn't concerned with the hallows, only with the wand. This review implies, although it doesn't state, that the hallows in combination are his goal.
Further, it (again, by implication) sounds as if V is creating more horcruxes. He certainly does no such thing in the book.
@Philip Spomer: Given that Rowling is certainly not a deep thinker, and is living in a post-Christian culture, it's not surprizing at all that her books show a post-Christian sensibility.
However, the argument that the "nice sentiment" is "completely futile" seems wrong here. It is, after all, fiction. Are we to dismiss pre-Christian literature so? Does the death of Socrates leave us unmoved, because we are Christians? I would argue that, insofar as it does, it indicates that the post-Christian influence has sunk into others than just Rowling.
George,
You are right, of course. I wasn’t critiquing on it literary or cinema graphic merits. I was thinking about real life. If we bring our sensitivities to the work, we may find that they are bolstered. Many of us have been doing this all our lives in, as you say, a post Christian culture.
While the stories can be formulaic and are littered with usual standard liberal themes, they are wonderfully infused with conservative principles.
I find it most ironic that the movies/books have made their way into school curriculums...appears the liberal education elite cannot see past the superficial liberalism (racial purity themes) without realizing deeper conservative principles being presented. Such as:
1) Individualism
2) Expositions on the weakness and danger inherent overly powerful centralized government bureaucracies
3) Danger inherent in a conformist media
4) Folly of a state run education system
5) Appeasement doesn’t work
Also the liberal themes easily tolerated as they represent the moderate liberal themes of 100 years ago vs. the unthinking recalcitrant left wing ideology being foisted upon us by modern liberals.
Overall the series is quite refreshing with a solid balance of political correctness and political incorrectness, which may engender conservative principles among our youth.
Must admit that I've only read the first three books of the series, and lost interest in the movies after the first two. While this may be a post-Christian popular culture, Christianity seems to be doing just fine without it.
CS Lewis wrote of how the pre-Christian mythologies dimly reflected the themes of dying gods and resurrection brought to reality in Christ. Perhaps many post-Christian devotees of Harry Potter will look past the magical ringamarole to seek the Real Thing.
Don't know if Rowling's universe equals Tolkien's, but I suspect it points in the same direction.
@stergeye –
Tolkien’s LOTR also has profoundly conservative themes. My favorite is when Gandalf tells Frodo something along the lines of ‘...DO NOT OFFER ME THIS RING...I would take it from a desire to do great good but from it I would do great evil’.
One of the best, terse rebukes of liberal ideology I’ve ever read (performed brilliantly be Sir Ian McKellen in the movie too).
Liberals desire to improve humanity’s lot (in theory I agree, this is noble). Human nature being what it is...there will always be individuals who refuse what is ‘best’ (sometimes rightly and sometimes foolishly and stubbornly). Thus the practically of improving the human condition for everyone equally is more challenging. Conservatives accept the individualism of human nature, liberals do not, they seek the ‘good’ at the expense of the individual. Thus liberals find that to help others, occasionally coercion is necessary (yes coercion sounds ugly but it is for the overall good...). Coercion requires strength and strength comes from absolute control. Thus liberal (socialist) states have propensity to snowball into authoritarian states which invariably devolve into states capable and willing to enact the most odious and inhuman of practices.
I am a former learning disabilities teacher, and I love the Harry Potter books. They have done more to get kids reading than any other book or series of books in recent times. The books are profoundly conservative. They promote above all the virtues of courage and friendship. I can't wait to see the last film. Kudos to this wonderful series.
Oh do pray tell the great life experience that allows either Rowling or any of the other "artists" of this business educate us poor souls on facing death.
Well, if I remember correctly, J.K. Rowling's mother passed away at a young age and you can certainly see in these books how she used them as a way to work through her own feelings about death and loss.
"You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape" (Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra Prologue 3 1883-1892).
Nietzsche thought more of Christ than todays "enlightened" moral humanity.
Harry Potter??? Good Grief...
The movies are great fun but the assertion that "Harry" can teach us about facing death is proof that Nietzsche's quote is right on the mark!!!
Blah! Harry Potter is formulaic popular entertainment, nothing more. The movies seems to have a way of mesmerizing certain people with its graphic fantasy world, but will be largely forgotten in 100 years. If you need a break from deep thinking, fine, go ahead and see Harry Potter. But don't pretend watching this fluff constitutes deep thinking. Harry Potter fans remind me of people who get sucked into the Star Wars universe and it becomes their religion. If they looked more into real religion or real science, they would find it more satisfying.
Have you read the books? They're really quite good, with intricate plots considering they were written for children.
Also, do you not believe in reading any fiction or is just fantasy that you object to? Cannot literature help us to connect to truths? Not in as profound a way as an scripture, of course, but it still can and does. Reading truths in other forms reaffirms my understanding of truth as taught in the gospel of Jesus Christ -- these truths are so pervasive that even those who are not Christian grab hold to them. That is powerful and should cause us to have hope.
