Fly from Death? Steal from Death?

I am still brooding over the question of how to pronounce the Dark Lord's chosen name: Voldemort.


I will accept as a basic assumption J.K. Rowling's assertion that the name should be pronounced as a French word with no "t" sound at the end.


That makes sense to me. I can't say I was smart enough to catch it when I first read the books -- I have called him "Vole-de-morte" in my head from the beginning -- but it makes sense to me now.


But, as I asked several posts ago, now that we have the pronunciation of the last syllable of the name correct, how do we pronounce the first syllable?


I pointed out that there seem to be two options for that first syllable (and that each option has been used in the films by different characters): "Vole", with a long "o" sound, and "Vol", with an "a" sound to rhyme with "ball" or "tall" or "call".


I prefer the former, personally, but which is correct?


Jo says it's a French word and should be pronounced as a French person would.


So I spoke to a colleague of mine who is both a native French speaker (born and raised in France) and a big Harry Potter fan.


Interesting conversation.


First, she said that, because she is French, she pronounces the name "Vole-de-more".


Perfect. Question answered. Proper pronunciation established.


Then she said she had never noticed that, in the movies, the name's last syllable was always pronounced "morte" and its first syllable was sometimes pronounced "Vall" and sometimes "Vole". She simply heard it pronounced the way she would say it herself.


Interesting.


We then talked about what the name means in French. If you break it down into its three syllables, you will find that it is made up of three French words:


"vol", which can mean either to "steal" or to "fly";
"de", which means "from" or "of"; and
"mort", which means to "die" or "death".


Wow. My friend had never thought that through. "She's brilliant, isn't she?" she said with a smile, thinking of how carefully J.K. had developed the name.


I would have to agree. The Dark Lord's chosen name means either "fly from death" or "steal from death".


And that's exactly what he has attempted to do throughout his entire life: to escape death, to cheat death, to steal from death.


And that's exactly what the Deathly Hallows are about, aren't they:


The Cloak is meant to allow its bearer to escape Death;
The Stone is meant to allow its bearer to steal from Death (by bringing people back); and
The Wand is meant to allow its bearer to defeat/cheat Death.


Cool cool cool. So cool, it's almost scary.

Thoughts on deleted scenes and Spanish movie trailers

On the day that the last Harry Potter movie has its big premiere showing in London, England, all of the rest of the world must content ourselves knowing that we only have to wait eight more days to see the film.

Meanwhile, I was wandering through Youtube last night and I stumbled across two things that I had never seen before: first, a scene edited out of The Deathly Hallows, Part 1, and, second, the Spanish language trailer for The Deathly Hallows, Part 2.

The out-take scene that I found is likely on my Blu Ray copy of the film as well but, for some reason, my player struggles with the Deleted Scenes feature so I missed this one. It's the scene in the tent, just after the visit to the Ministry, with Ron lying on a cot, recovering from his splinching, and Harry and Hermione discussing the Horcruxes and where they might be.

The scene contains two massively important plot points, so important that I simply cannot believe the film-makers decided to save themselves at most 90 seconds by editing this scene out of the theatrical version. In it, Harry explains to Hermione Dumbledore's theories about the Horcruxes. First, Dumbledore believed that Voldemort chose objects of importance in magical history in which to hide his Horcruxes. Second, Dumbledore told Harry that the Dark Lord had chosen to hide his Horcruxes in locations that were personally important to him. Then Ron tells them that the name "Voldemort" has been tabooed and that the Death Eaters know immediately when someone uses it.

These are hugely important pieces of information. Without them, the film makes no sense to a person who has not read the book. I watched this scene last night in awe. Why did they take it out? It is so key!

As for the Spanish trailer, well, I was surprised to see that it was actually quite different from the English version. There are scenes and images in the Spanish one that you don't see in the English one, including several seconds of Harry and Voldemort, both on their stomachs, struggling to get to the Elder Wand, which is lying on the ground between them. This is a scene that is definitely not in the movie.

And that bothers me. It would seem that J.K.'s simple, almost matter-of-fact final end to their duel wasn't enough for the movie people. They have to turn it into an extended, epic battle.

Too bad. I thought the simple finality of Tom Riddle collapsing to the floor in the book was absolutely perfect.

Sometimes you just have to complain a little

Okay, complaint time. I've just watched Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1, again and, even though I like this movie a lot, there are some things that really bother me about it.

I've mentioned that ridiculous dance scene between Harry and Hermione before so I won't go into that debacle again.

Three things struck me this time, and the first two are related.

First, J.K. was very careful in the novel to explain how Snape finds out that Harry and Hermione are in the Forest of Dean in order to deliver the Sword of Gryffindor to them (remember, Hermione mentions the Forest while holding her bag open, thus allowing the portrait of Phineas Nigellus to hear her and report her whereabouts to Snape in the Headmaster's Office at Hogwarts?). I watched the movie carefully and Hermione is nowhere near her bag when she tells Harry where they are. So how, in the film, does Snape know where to find them?

Second, and on a related note, J.K. makes it clear that Ron, having abandoned his friends sometime earlier, begins to hear Hermione's voice through the Deluminator only after Hermione finally says Ron's name to Harry for the first time. In the movie, from what I could see, Hermione doesn't say Ron's name before he shows up. Yes, Ron says he heard her say his name but we never hear her.

So those two bug me.

An even bigger issue for me, however, is the fact that the screenwriter completely eliminates Harry's internal struggle to decide between pursuing Hallows or Horcruxes. The whole bit at Shell Cottage is intended to show that Harry is able to overcome his own needs and to focus on the needs of the magical world, thus allowing Voldemort to obtain the Elder Wand while he continues to hunt Horcruxes.

This is a huge issue and one that Dumbledore specifically mentions as a sign of Harry's worthiness when they meet in King's Cross Station near the end of the book.

Don't get me wrong. I understand why the movie makers chose to end the seventh film with Voldemort stealing the Elder Wand out of Dumbledore's grave (it's a very dramatic scene and sets the suspense nicely for the final movie).

But it just bothers me that, in order to give us that thrill, they have to sacrifice Harry's key psychological struggle, the pivotal moment where he proves himself worthy, to do so.

Some Thoughts on the Last Movie

I spent some time last night watching the trailer for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 on the internet. I am very excited about the premiere of this last film in the series in mid-July and wanted to get an early idea of what they filmmakers have done with the second half of Rowling's epic seventh novel.

Here's what I liked:
1. It looks like they're actually going to include Harry's trip through Snape's memories after Voldemort kills Severus. I had worried, after their disinclination to show most of the memories about Voldemort in The Half-Blood Prince, that they would cut this important vindication of Harry's longtime nemesis but the trailer clearer shows Lily and Petunia as girls, an important scene from Snape's childhood;
2. The action scenes in Gringott's and later in the Room of Requirement appear to be vividly evoked;
3. They don't seem to have pulled any punches when it comes to the Battle for Hogwarts, which should be spectacular;
4. Molly Weasley's duel with Bellatrix Lestrange seems to be included, one of my favourite developments late in the novel; and
5. Neville still gets to grab some glory for himself by killing Nagini with the Sword of Gryffindor (this information comes from one of the promotional photographs I've seen, not the trailer itself).

Things I wonder about, however, include:
1. The fact that it looks like they've taken the final duel between Harry and Voldemort outside; I liked the fact that Harry's showdown with the Dark Lord takes place, in the book, in the Great Hall in front of a large crowd of people, with Harry and Voldemort circling each other warily;
2. The fact that it looks like the movie makers have surrendered to the temptation to make that final duel spectacular, with lots of fire works, rather than following J.K.'s very satisfying, appropriate approach from the book: now that Harry and friends have eliminated all of the Horcruxes and now that Harry knows he is the true master of the Elder Wand, the final duel is almost an afterthought. It's all over with a single spell and elegant simplicity;
3. The strange scene in the trailer where Harry and Voldemort are arm in arm, standing above a precipice, and Harry says something like, "Let's end it Tom the way it started: the two of us together" and then launches both of them into the abyss. I don't have perfect recall of the final book but I cannot fathom where this goes and what it's meant to represent.

I'm sure there's much more I could say at this point but let's leave it at this: the last movie looks like it's going to be a blast. Not perfect but pretty thrilling nonetheless.