Deathly, Hallowed Questions About Harry Potter

This weekend I saw Harry Potter 7a, the penultimate film in the Harry Potter movie franchise. It’s fair to characterize it as “Harry, Ron and Hermione carry the One Ring to the Cracks of Doom”. That is, there’s a great deal of walking, camping and soul-searching in the movie. I didn’t mind, as the three leading actors have matured into decent performers, and the movie’s quiet second act is kind of a pleasure. Plus, the fewer of those idiotic wand battles, the better.

I’ve read the books, and seen all the previous movies, but I had a couple of questions that arose out of watching this film:

  • Are there no defensive spells? Every magical battle is choreographed as if the wizards are wielding Uzis. Surely somebody would’ve some kind of mystic riot shield or Kevlar.
  • Besides flaying Harry, what is Valdemort’s end game? What does a world ruled by Voldemort look like?
  • Why isn’t Harry more powerful? At one point in this movie, he’s confronted by some low-level ‘snatchers’, and flees like the French army. Doesn’t he have enough Jedi powers to take on some wand-wielding riffraff

Any thoughts?

5 comments

  1. I think there are defensive spells ( in some of the movies, the characters seem to flail about causing the incoming spell to veer off ) but most of it seems to be luck and choreography. I think the reason that there’s no magical equivilent of Kevlar is that there are simply so many different spells you’d have to guard against. Just like Kevlar ( can stop smaller caliber rounds, but up against a .50 cal rifle you’re outta luck ) it’d be useless if someone had something your armour wasn’t “rated” for.

    I think the bit with the snatchers was because Harry wasn’t using his own wand. That was causing him problems ( ie, the tiny flame suddenly becoming a magical flamethrower ) so he might not have felt confident enough to use the wand properly.

    Or it could have just been a convenient moment of plot amnesia.

  2. I haven’t seen the movie yet but, based on the books, I second the wand theory. Wands are very specifically matched to a particular wizard. It is difficult to get a wand to “obey” you if it is not your own – unless you win it in a duel.

Comments are closed.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: