Cancel ALL year-end exams? Not likely

The Chamber -- film and novel

At the end of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Hogwarts administration announces that "the exams had been cancelled as a school treat" to celebrate the resolution of the Chamber problem and the saving of the school from the Basilisk that lurked within.

It's a nice moment... but, in the context of the entire series of novels, it makes no sense.

As we learn in later novels, Hogwarts puts students through two sets of incredibly important examinations (OWLs and NEWTs) at specific points in their academic journeys (after fifth and seventh years). Each has a distinct impact on the student's academic and professional careers and we see the hero trio agonize over their OWLs in The Order of the Phoenix. In fact, Harry, Hermione and Ron's experience in book five suggests that students begin preparing for their major exams very early in the academic year (and often the year before). The exams are important enough, and tough enough, that students need to work long and hard to prepare for them.

So there is virtually no chance that year-end exams for all students would be cancelled for any reason. Sure, it might be possible for the school to cancel exams for students in their first, second, third, fourth and sixth years but it is inconceivable that OWL and NEWT examinations would be cancelled in any year. From what we learn in later novels, the students would have to sit these exams at some point. So I think it is clear that the students who have been working so hard and so long to prepare for them would revolt against the thought that they would be postponed for any period of time.

I first noticed this issue when I recently re-watched the film version of the story. And I immediately blamed screen writer Stephen Kloves. In having Dumbledore announce the cancellation at the year-end speech, I thought Kloves was, of his own volition, taking things a step too far.

Then I checked Rowling's original novel and found this: "or Professor McGonagall standing up to tell them all that exams had been cancelled as a school treat". 

So I was wrong to blame Kloves (Sorry, Stephen).

But it does raise questions about how detailed J.K. Rowling's planning was when she wrote the second novel around 1998, a subject that, as a wannabe writer who finds Rowling's accomplishment in creating the Wizarding World absolutely amazing, is of significant interest to me.

It seems clear to me that, at the point that she was writing The Chamber of Secrets, Rowling had not yet developed in detail the academic journey students go on when they attend Hogwarts. The inclusion of the cancellation of year-end exams for all students in the second book is evidence that, in 1998, the concept of the OWLs and NEWTs was still to be created.

I am not saying this is a big deal. The seven novels are remarkably consistent and it is clear that, even if Rowling in 1998 had not yet developed details to the level of year-end exams, the author accomplished something remarkable in inventing such an incredibly detailed world as she went through the process of writing the seven novels.

But it is interesting to me and indicative of how difficult it can be to do what Rowling did so well -- plan a complex world and then write it over the course of a decade. I don't think it's possible to get every detail right in the early novels when the process of writing the later novels requires thousands of decisions, thousands of details, thousands of considerations as to what will make each book dramatic and effective.

That being said, I am going to read into ending of The Chamber of Secrets that only some exams were cancelled and that students facing their OWLs and their NEWTs were still required to sit their examinations.

Malfoy's murderous intent

Harry frees Dobby with a dirty sock

Lucius Malfoy attempts to murder Harry Potter at the end of the film version of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

In what could be considered a significant departure from the original novel, script writer Stephen Kloves chose to expose Malfoy's deepest evil much earlier than Rowling did.

The passage from the novel, which follows Harry's clever way of tricking Malfoy into freeing Dobby, reads as follows:

Lucius Malfoy stood frozen, staring at the elf. Then he lunged at Harry.

"You've lost me my servant, boy!"

But Dobby shouted, "You shall not harm Harry Potter!"

There was a loud bang, and Mr Malfoy was thrown backwards.

"Avada" shouts Lucius Malfoy, wand in motion

Malfoy lunges at Harry, perhaps in an attempt to beat him, or even throttle him, but there is no evidence in the book that Malfoy intended to use the Avada Kedavera nor to kill him at all.

In the film, on the other hand, Malfoy draws his wand and very clearly utters the word "Avada" before Dobby intervenes. Malfoy's intention is clear: to kill Harry. In front of a witness.

Why the change?

I think it is important to note that, when Rowling published the second novel in 1998, she had not yet invented (or at least had not yet introduced) the concept of the "Unforgivable Curses" and, if my memory serves, the killing curse (the Avada Kedavra) had not yet been uttered in the books. Rowling does not mention the specific curse in The Philosopher's Stone when the murder of Lily and James and Voldemort's failed attempt to kill Harry are discussed.

Rowling introduced the Unforgivable Curses by name and incantation in the fourth novel (2000), The Goblet of Fire, when Moody/Crouch Jr. showed them to the students.

So it is possible that it was Rowling's intention that we read that scene at the end of The Chamber of Secrets as involving Malfoy attempting to murder Harry before she had invented the killing curse. And, as a result, Kloves isn't really changing anything when he added the Avada Kedavara to the scene when he wrote the script for the second movie around 2007.

But I am not sure that's true. I am not sure Rowling's scene depicted a possible attempted murder -- killing someone with one's bare hands is an incredibly difficult, violent act, not one that belongs in a book written specifically for children and young adults. I think it is much more likely that Rowling either had no clear idea of what Malfoy's intentions were -- she knew she would have Dobby intervene so she didn't have to make that decision -- or she saw him as indulging in a fit of rage, with the intention of hurting Harry but not killing him.

If I am correct in this, we have to wonder why Kloves added the intent to murder into the film. By the time he was working on the script, the fourth book had already been published so that Unforgivable Curses had been introduced into the novels so the Avada Kedvara was available... but it's the intent that is important. In the film, Malfoy is willing to commit murder (or the Wizarding World's favourite son, no less) in front of a witness, within a stone's throw of Dumbledore's office.

And, to be frank, that makes no sense to me.

A film's disdain for subtlety and beauty

Every time I watch the films that were made out of The Deathly Hallows, I feel a little sick.

Sometimes, I want to take a bath, to wash away the gross and icky feeling the movies leave me with.

Other times, I want to sit down and read J.K.'s original novel from cover to cover immediately, just to remind myself of how great her book is, to remove the disgusting taste that horrible film adaptation left in my mouth.

Even as I watch them, feeling more and more sick, disappointed, resentful, I can recognize that there are actually some pretty good scenes in the films. Some brief moments where David Yates and Stephen Kloves actually got it right and did credit to Rowling's original.

For example, I quite like how the Part 1 opens, with brief shots of Harry at Privet Drive watching the Dursley's pack up and go, of Hermione at her home obliviating her parents and their photos to remove any trace of herself, of Ron, standing pensively with the Burrow in the background, looking out over the fields, thinking of what is to come.

I think they do some of the bigger action scenes quite well: the assault on the Ministry, for example, and the escape from Hogwarts.

Emma Watson has some nice moments, as I've written here before, such as her smirk when the freshly returned Ron "votes" to go to see Mr. Lovegood or when she tosses Harry the sword in the Estrange vault.

I quite love the artful way they render the story of the Three Brothers. It's creative and lovely.

But then I am smacked in the face again with the bigger problems of interpretation that plague these movies, with Kloves' and Yates' apparent disdain for the subtlety and beauty of Rowling's deep psychological and emotional tale.

This disdain comes out in many different ways, in numerous decisions they made as to how to present the story, both large and small.

Among the small ones: did you notice that Harry does not liberate Mad-Eye's magical eye from Umbridge's office door at the Ministry? did it bother you that Harry, Hermione and Ron don't spare a moment's feeling for Mr. Lovegood's fate after he summons the Death Eaters? did it phase you that Harry does not mend his own wand before dealing with the Elder Wand nor make the last visit to Dumbledore's portrait in the headmaster's office nor explain why he chooses to dispose of each of the Deathly Hallows in the way he does?

Does it bother you that, in the film version at least, NO ONE except the small group of fighters within Hogwarts joins the battle against Voldemort and the Death Eaters, not the parents of the students, not the people of Hogsmeade, not the Centaurs, the House Elves nor even Grawp?

Does it not drive you absolutely crazy that, while the Hogwart's fighters die simple human deaths, both Bellatrix and Voldemort evaporate into the ether when they die?

That Rowling's single most basic point -- in the end, we are all human and we all are born, live and die just like everyone else, no matter who we are and how powerful we are during our brief stay on earth -- is completely lost in the film?

Respecting the intelligence of young readers

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I have started searching the internet for early interviews with J.K. Rowling as part of my effort to understand her writing process. I am interested in understanding both how she approached planning and writing such a complicated story (broken down, as it was, into seven separate novels) and to what level of detail she had actually planned the seven-book arc in the early years.


It's been an interesting experience, as much because there are really very few interviews available from the early days -- before or as, say, the second book was written -- as because of what I am learning from the interviews themselves.


For example, I confirmed what I had long suspected: the books are published under the name "J.K. Rowling"  because the British publisher worried that young male readers would not pick up a book written by "Joanne Rowling", a clearly female writer


Although it seems clear that she now finds the publisher's request that she use her initials silly and potentially problematic, Rowling has admitted that, at the time, she was so grateful that someone was going to publish The Philosopher's Stone that (as she told the New York Press Club in 2000), "I would have let them call me Enid Snodgrass if they published the book so I really wasn’t that bothered with it".


I love that comment for two reasons: one, it exemplifies what a fun and funny person Jo Rowling is and, two, it gives me a potential approach to understanding other questionable decisions that were made with regard to the Harry Potter books and films. For example, take Scholastic Books' decision to Americanize the books for the US audience and any number of the decisions made by the makers of the films.


Is it possible that J.K. did not feel she was in a powerful enough position to oppose Scholastic when it decided to rename the already successful first book The Sorcerer's Stone out of fear that American youngsters would not understand or be interested in a "philosopher's" stone?


That decision was made very early, apparently in conjunction with the awarding of a significant advance to Rowling for the American rights. It was made, in fact, before Joanne Rowling was JOANNE ROWLING, the international star writer with significant personal wealth. Is it possible she disagreed with the proposed Americanization but didn't feel like she was in a position to resist it?


From what I've seen, Rowling has a great deal of respect for young people and their intelligence. In that NY Press Club appearance, she actually chided the host for making a less than kind comment about the handwriting of one young person who had submitted a question. I cannot imagine that she would have agreed with Scholastic's contention (whether stated openly or not) that American youngsters would be scared off by the word "philosopher" in the title.


And then there is the decision to eliminate Snape's "test" from the film of that first book. I found it bad enough that screen-writer Stephen Kloves was permitted to make what I consider to be inexplicable decisions to change the Devil's Snare test and the winged key test (I don't think the film versions were any more vivid or visual than Rowling's originals); why eliminate entirely the logic test that Hermione solves?


Was it again because film viewers weren't considered smart enough to follow the test? Was it because they didn't think the riddle with the bottles could be translated onto film in an interesting way?


To me, Snape's logic puzzle was a key moment in the book, both in terms of the excitement of the moment (Hermione is able to keep a cool head under intense pressure) and in terms of promoting the characters and themes of the book.


We learn from it to respect the different abilities that Hermione and Harry bring to the table: moments earlier, Hermione had dismissed her own "cleverness" in deference to Harry's qualities of "friendship" and "bravery"; Snape's test serves to show how important Hermione's intelligence, her cleverness, her level-headed rationality truly is in pressure situations.


Sorry, I digress. I just wonder if, in those early days, Joanne Rowling felt she could challenge some of these decisions with which she must have, in some way, disagreed.

Hubris and the act of filmmaking

A colleague of mine here at work has told me that his 14-year-old daughter is becoming a huge Harry Potter fan. After getting over the fact that she is just now becoming a fan, I asked him if she read the books first, saw the movies first, or kind of combined them.

He laughed and told me that, although she received the complete eight DVD set of the movies for Christmas this year, she has refused to watch any of them until she's finished reading the seven novels.

Great call, I told him. And then I warned him that, while she might really enjoy the first three or four films once she finally watches them, I expect her to be increasingly disappointed in the movies as she gets into the fifth, six and so on. He asked me why.

I was a bit caught off guard. It's not an easy question to answer, especially for someone who doesn't know Harry Potter at all and isn't a student of book-to-film transformations as I believe myself to be. I copped out and chose the easy route, telling him that the later films are merely "highlight reels" of the best action sequences from the books and that they didn't really tell the story at all.

He seemed satisfied with my answer but, the more I think about it, the less I'm happy with what I said.

Why do I so strongly prefer the books to the films? Why do I see the first three, perhaps four films to be much better adaptations of their corresponding novels than the last four movies?

Some of it has to do with length, no doubt. The shorter the book, the easier it is to adapt it faithfully into the film form. I have often said that feature films are really short stories, not novels, so it is a much simpler task to take a 200-page children's novel and bring it to the screen than it is to do the same for a 600-page book.

But I think there are other significant problems as well. To be honest, I think most of those problems stem from the possibility that the movie makers (especially the screenwriter and the director) started to get too comfortable with material in the later films, saw the successs of the flm franchise and started to lose track of the fact that it was J.K. Rowling's story telling, her creativity, her fantastic plots and intersting characters that were responsible for the success of the books and films and thought, instead, that they, themselves, deserved that credit.

As a result, they felt entitled to change Rowling's original works beyond what was necessary to change them from literature into film: they felt they could create new scenes of their own, change characters and their motivations, rewrite the plots completely. This hubris comes to full bloom in the eighth and final book where the filmmakers rewrote the last half of The Deathly Hallows almost completely, in ways that undermined everything that Rowling was tryng to do.

I've written extensively on this blog about how unhappy I am with that eighth film so I won't go into the details but I think it's important to recognise how big a factor the egos of some of the filmmakers could have been in the disappointment of that last film.

Part 2 still makes me angry, even after the fifth viewing

I can't watch The Deathly Hallows, Part 2, without getting angry. The filmmakers did such a good job with Part 1, I can't figure out how they could make such a mess of J.K.'s spectacular, dramatic, yet subtle ending.

I know I've complained about it before but I simply cannot believe that Steven Kloves et al would turn the final battle into such a farce, such a mano-a-mano battle between Harry and Voldemort, such an over-long, over-blown, comic-strip encounter. All subtlety is lost. All poetry. All class. All gone.

I'm finding myself getting wound up again. I have to stop writing.

For now...

The film's Voldemort becomes a sad and silly caricature

What did they do to Voldemort?

I mean, honestly, what were Stephen Kloves and David Yates thinking when they decided to rewrite Voldemort for the final film (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2, in case you forgot)?

First, they decide that the destruction of each Horcrux must affect him, either physically or psychologically. Not only is this contrary to J.K. Rowling's original novels, it's also contrary to their own earlier movies.

When Dumbledore destroyed the ring between films five and six, we see no evidence it had any impact on the Dark Lord. When Ron smashes the locket in Part 1, Voldemort doesn't howl in pain (either physical or psychic).

So it's not even internally consistent in the films that the destruction of Hufflepuff's Cup and Ravenclaw's Diadem would somehow damage Voldemort. And yet, there he is, damaged. Weakened, enraged.

This leads to the second, and even more significant, problem I have with the rewriting of Voldemort in Part 2. Instead of being a controlled, imposing, absolutely and resolutely sane villain as he is in the novels, Voldemort of the films degenerates into a giggling psycho.

Remember Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs? We feared him because he appeared so sane, so in control, so intelligent and charming and well-spoken, and yet he was capable of such monstrous evil.

That's the Voldemort J.K. created in her novels.

In Part 2, however, he loses that mystique. In the scene where he leads his army to the front doors of Hogwarts to show the school's defenders the apparently dead Harry, Voldemort prances and giggles like the worst version of Batman's enemy, the Joker. He's no longer scary but silly.

Worse, Voldemort's silliness fundamentally changes his encounter with Neville Longbottom. When Neville steps forward in the novel, Voldemort recognises in him all the characterstics he, the Dark Lord, admires: courage, loyalty, purity of blood. Voldemort speaks to Neville with a tone of respect and says he will make a fine Death Eater.

This makes Neville's continued resistance, his resolute commitment to Harry and the cause, even more significant. Neville has spent his life trying to prove himself, to himself, to his grandmother, to the wizarding world. Harry Potter's cause seems to be lost and here is the apparent new ruler of the magical world, extending an invitation to him to join the new regime, to take a respected place in that world. And Neville refuses. His loyalty, his commitment to all things good, make him reject the very acceptance and recognition that he has long hoped for, even if that rejection will likely cost him his life.

In the film version, Voldemort sneers at Neville, treats him with disdain, makes fun of him. This new silly, giggling villain is so lost he can no longer even recognise in others the qualities he has long claimed to admire and respect.

The film's depiction of this scene is, unfortunately, an insult not just to Neville but to Voldemort himself. It's too bad. Kloves and Yates don't seem to have the artistic sensitivity to recognise the elegant subtlety and depth of J.K. Rowling's original novels and the final film in this epic series suffers greatly as a result.

The film sacrifices depth of meaning for cheap thrills

My first major issue with Part 2 is this: whereas J.K. was very careful to make sure that it was absolutely clear that most of the wizarding community was against Voldemort and his Death Eaters, the filmmakers took great pains to make us believe that it was only Harry, Hermione and Ron plus a small group of others who opposed the Dark Lord in the end.

In fact, in the novel, Harry's final duel with Voldemort occurs only after the Centaurs, House Elves and hundreds of witches and wizards from outside Hogwarts had arrived to turn the tide of the battle decisively against Voldemort's followers. The Death Eaters were losing badly when Molly Weasley killed Bellatrix Lestrange and Harry finally revealed that he was alive and ready to take on Voldemort personally.

And I think that this was a central theme throughout the novels and especially in the final two books: this was not just Harry's fight. The majority of witches and wizards opposed the Death Eaters but were forced by fear and intimidation to keep quiet. Once open warfare was declared, they came forward to join the fight.

It was important that Harry duel Voldemort on his own, true. That was his fight. But the rest of the magical world was right there with him and, in fact, had already won the battle before Voldemort finally died.

Filmmakers Stephen Kloves and David Yates clearly made a decision that the ending would be much more dramatic if the odds were stacked heavily against our heroes, right to the very end. So the film has no assault by the Centaurs, no rampage by hundreds of wand-carriers from Hogsmeade and beyond, no joyous entrance of House Elves, led by Kreacher, joining the fray.

It was just Harry, Hermione and Ron, plus a small group of students and staff from the school and an even smaller group of members of the Order of the Phoenix, taking on the massive army Voldemort had at his command.

Dramatic, sure. And the filmmakers did gesture toward a weakening of Voldemort's support by having a number of Death Eaters disapparate when Harry re-appeared, alive and well, outside the school.

But, in my opinion, the movie undermined one of the main and most important themes J.K. incorporated so carefully into her novels: that in the battle against evil, we are never alone.

They sacrificed a deep and meaningful message for cheap thrills. Not worth it, I say. Not worth it at all.

Rewriting Remus really works, and other positives from Part 2

Before I move on to more criticisms of the new movie, I want to talk about some of the things I really liked about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2.

Because, overall, I really liked this film. Almost as much as I liked Part 1.

For example, I was really happy when the filmmakers included the scene where Harry, Hermione and Ron emerge into the Room of Requirement to be greeted with cheers from the students gathered there. I love that moment in the book and I think they did a nice job of presenting it in the film.

I liked the fact that they rewrote Remus Lupin's answer to Harry when the young wizard tells the returned-from-the-dead Lupin how sorry he is that Lupin has died so soon after the birth of his son. In the book, Lupin speaks only of himself. In the movie, he says something about how both he and "Dora" (Tonks) were sorry they won't be able to see Teddy grow up but trust he will know the important reason for which they died. I like the fact that Lupin, in the film, recognizes his wife's sacrifice as well, something he doesn't do in the book.

In fact, I think that whole scene with the resurrection stone is beautifully done. Well acted, well filmed, very touching and heart warming.

I was surprised and pleased that screenwriter Stephen Kloves added the scene where Hermione and Ron go down to the Chamber of Secrets to fetch the Basilisk fangs and destroy the Cup Horcrux. In the novel, H&R only tell Harry later what they've done: it was nice to see them get a chance for some screen time. The kiss... well, I'm trying to be positive here.

I thought Snape's death and the montage of his memories were really quite wonderful. It was an edited version of the chapter in the book but I thought it captured all the really necessary points. Again, the acting is great and the scene heart-wrenching.

I was also pleased and impressed with the scene between Harry and the Grey Lady. The editing was particularly good there and the scene comes off well.

As I said at the start, overall I was really happy with this film. I think it is a strong addition to the series and a particularly good way to end. The acting is improved over earlier films, especially that of Daniel Radcliffe, and I think the technical aspects of the film are great.

Remember that as you read later posts because, to be honest, I have always found it easier and more interesting to talk about the negatives than to glorify the positives. I don't want you to think I hated the movie as you read your way forward in this blog.

Harry Potter and the Duel that Never Ends

Well, that worked out well.

I waited 36 hours and 20 minutes and managed to see Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2, in 3D, in a half empty-theatre. No talkers, no people leaving all the time to get snacks, and only one guy who, once during the movie, rattled his plastic bag too much.

I know, I know. What about the movie? 90% great. The ending, well... not so happy.

Why or why do the filmmakers have to make everything so big, so splashy, so long?

Compared to the long, drawn-out duel between Harry and Voldemort in this film, J.K.'s novel version is a tightly-written, brief and satisfying encounter.

And the 3D version gave me a headache after about an hour.

More later. Gotta run.

Harry's confrontation with Snape has mixed results

I keep going back to Rotten Tomatoes to watch those excerpts from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2, in preparation for the big premiere in two days' time. One scene, in particular, has caught my attention and I can't say I'm entirely happy with it.

In the scene, which is entitled "You seem to have a bit of a security problem" on the website, Snape has gathered the students of Hogwarts together to interrogate them about Harry's presence in the school. Harry appears out of nowhere (I suspect from under his Cloak) and defies Snape to his face. As the excerpt ends, we see the doors behind Harry opening up to reveal a cadre of teachers and members of the Order of the Phoenix, coming forward to protect Harry from the new Headmaster.

(Note, I suspect that, directly following this little snippet, Professor McGonagall engages in a brief duel with Snape before the former Potions Master flees. I've seen that scene elsewhere.)

The film excerpt on Rotten Tomatoes is an entirely new scene, not presented in Rowling's book. In the novel, Harry never faces Snape directly until Snape is lying, almost dead, in the Shrieking Shack. In fact, when McGonagall forces Snape to flee, Harry and Luna are nearby but under the Cloak, trying to keep out of harm's way.

It would appear that screenwriter Kloves and director Yates felt it would be better for Harry to have a chance, even a brief one, to face down his long-time tormentor in this way, while Snape is still powerful and his true allegiances are still unknown.

I agree it's a dramatic scene. And I think it has something of a narrative logic behind it: as viewers, we want Harry to get a chance to challenge Snape directly and Harry's courage here foreshadows his courage later in the Forbidden Forest.

Now, you can call me a Rowling-ite, but I still prefer the original. It's more subtle and more graceful. You don't always get the chance to face down your harasser. You can't always tie your emotional issues up in a neat bow and set them aside.

In the novel's version, Harry wants nothing more than to take a shot at Snape; he's filled with fury and anger and all that. But it's a sign of his maturity that he realises he has a greater duty: to his friend Luna, who is vulnerable in that moment. He sacrifices his need for revenge to protect her.

The film scene might be emotionally satisfying for both protagonist and viewer but the book's approach confirms much more important qualities of Harry's, qualities like loyalty, self-control and the willingness to put the needs of others ahead of his own. I wish the film-makers had seen the wisdom of sticking the original. It works much better.

By the way, it's nice to see Cho Chang and several other recognisable faces among the students in that scene: even if they don't get much more screen time, at least they're allowed to be there at the end.

Draco's redemption and the Room of Requirement

Three days to go and I'm starting to crack -- I am now thinking of going to the very first showing here in my hometown, which starts at just past midnight on Friday morning. I've just read too much good stuff about this movie to wait.

Meanwhile, I've gone back to www.rottentomatoes.com to watch some of the excerpts from the movie again and one of them keeps jumping out at me. It's the scene in the Room of Requirement when Harry has just found the lost diadem of Ravenclaw. Unfortunately, the excerpt does not allow us to see how Harry manages to find the diadem in the first place (remember, in the film adaptation of The Half-Blood Prince, Harry never saw the diadem when he hid his potions text from Snape).

Harry stands, examining the diadem, when Draco Malfoy appears with two cronies, just as he does in the book, wands drawn on Harry, who is temporarily separated from Hermione and Ron.

At first, the dialogue between them is fairly close to the original novel (Draco demands his wand back from Harry; Harry asked whose wand Draco is using now; Draco says it's his mother's wand), but then it changes. In the book, Draco's cronies brag about cornering Harry and getting rewarded by the Dark Lord for doing so; in the film, well, Stephen Kloves uses this opportunity to explore at least a tiny bit of the wandlore that plays such a major role in the book.

When Draco demands his own wand back, Harry asks, "What's wrong with the one you have?" and Draco says, "It's powerful but it's not the same. It doesn't understand me. Know what I mean?"

I know that it is one drawback of films that they cannot explore the same depths that novels can. Kloves has been forced to cut out literally dozens of subplots and scenes from the movie script in the interest of time. But I like what he does here. In just a few seconds, he at least gestures towards the complexities of wandlore that Rowling so lovingly develops in the book.

I might not like most of the changes Kloves makes but I think this is a really good one.

And I like the direction he takes the next part of the confrontation between Harry and Draco. Immediately following Draco's admission that his mother's wand doesn't understand him, Harry changes the subject: "Why didn't you tell her?" he asks. "Bellatrix. You knew it was me. You didn't say anything."

Harry is, of course, referring to the scene in Part 1 where Draco refuses to identify Harry to Bellatrix Lestrange after Harry, Hermione and Ron have been captured by the Snatchers. Although Rowling never says it, I think a reader of the book is led to believe that Draco recognized Harry in that scene but isn't willing to admit it, knowing that Harry will be murdered if he does so. In the film version, the scene is less clear.

The excerpt from the film on Rotten Tomatoes ends before Draco is able to respond but I have to admit it: I'm glad that Kloves has Harry ask the question. I've often wondered it myself. Why doesn't Draco give him away? I think it's part of Draco's redemption, a redemption Dumbledore recognised was possible when he told Draco that Draco is not a killer at the end of The Half-Blood Prince.

All of that said, I like the fact that Kloves addresses the issue here. I will have to wait to see the movie itself to find out if Draco actually answers Harry's question but, by raising it, Kloves has highlighted the fact that Draco is no killer. It's an interesting addition to the scene and, once again, one I can't help but appreciate.

13 days and counting

We're now deeply into the final two weeks. I'm looking forward to getting the answers to so many questions. I have a mixed feeling of anticipation and fear: anticipation, because I expect it to be a great movie; fear, because I'm afraid that the movie makers have once again made the wrong calls and failed to have faith in J.K.'s story rather than inventing new scenes of their own.

I expect it to be such an intense, action-packed film that I'll have to see it four or five times before I can start to feel I've taken it all in.

Weird as it may sound, I can't wait until it comes out on Blu Ray!

Making sure Neville appears in the seventh movie

I talked a bit about Neville Longbottom in yesterday's blog. He's an interesting character and I like the way J.K. has handled the growth in his confidence and abilities throughout the seven novels.

That's why I think it's too bad that Neville has such a small role in the first half of The Deathly Hallows. I understand why it was necessary to do this (with the focus on Harry, Hermione and Ron on the run, very few other characters had prominent roles) but that doesn't mean I don't miss Neville.

The decision to split the book into two parts for the purpose of the movies (which I think was a good one, by the way) serves to emphasize his absence. The scene on the Hogwarts Express is the only one in which Neville (played so well by Matthew Lewis) appears and it was an add-in by the film-makers, just to get Neville and several others a little screen time in that seventh movie.

I'm usually pretty critical of the scenes Stephen Kloves et al chose to invent in the films but I don't mind that one. I'd hate to see such an important character shut out of the movie altogether.