Questions about the Harry Potter Movies

[LoonyMagic]

Originally Posted by BurrowGhoul

I can't imagine them toning it down for the children. If it is toned down at all, it will be so they can use more time for something else.

I agree, I don't think it will be toned down that much. It wasn't too bad when I imagined that scene in my head, and I think we'll have it translated fairly and correctly on screen. I think the only thing they may tone down would be the Inferi, because I think they could be potentially too scary.

[Cazwolf]

I was watching the GoF film the other day and noticed that Voldamort was holding his wand in his left hand.
Left handedness was often considered a sign of the devil in years gone by. Is there any mention of the dark lord being left handed? Or is it just that Ralph Fiennes is left handed?

[PureBloodGirl]

Well if Harry was using his right hand like it said that he is in SS then I'm sure they might have wanted it oposite. IMO though.

[demonthes]

That's a very interesting point to make. Although I can't proclaim myself a scholar of Harry Potter, I've never heard that point been made. That certainly could have been a very powerful piece of symbolism.

[yoshi2542]

Did anyone else notice that he used his right hand in OOTP during the duel? Bad continuity, or is Voldemort ambidextrous?

[cardinalguy]

Originally Posted by yoshi2542

Did anyone else notice that he used his right hand in OOTP during the duel? Bad continuity, or is Voldemort ambidextrous?

Would it surprise you if he was?

[Voldemorts8thHorcrux]

this is a pretty interesting point to make, but I personally think that Voldy wanted to be talented and strong and great in every form, including dueling with both hands I guess.

[DeathlyH]

I don't think it was meant to be anything prophetic. I don't know whether or not Fiennes is a left-handed person, but I'm sure they didn't have him hold it in his left hand as a sign of the devil, even if he is portrayed as one.

[gipro2003]

Although this is an interesting point to bring up, I'm sure that it doesnt have any meaning behind it. And if he does use his right hand in OotP, then I guess the filmakers really didnt think anything of it and Fiennes is possibly ambidextrous

[TheLastHorcrux]

I doubt there is any symbolic reasoning behind it. I don't know if Ralph Fiennes is left handed or ambidextrous. No mention of it on iMDB and most left handed actors have that fact in their "trivia" section of their profile. Its also possible that they tried filming it with the wand in his right hand and it just looked better in his left hand. Interesting catch, but I think you may be reading a little too much into it.

[Marina]

I don't think it really matters which hand Fiennes holds the wand in-the actor could be ambidextrous for all we know-and not necessarily trying to portray Voldemort as such.
What really matters is Radcliffe's eternally moving/disappearing scar.

[VoldyKitten]

Originally Posted by Marina

I don't think it really matters which hand Fiennes holds the wand in-the actor could be ambidextrous for all we know-and not necessarily trying to portray Voldemort as such.
What really matters is Radcliffe's eternally moving/disappearing scar.

haha- I've noticed the scar too. It looks different in every scene!


As for the wand hand- often in theatre an actor is told to use a certain hand because it looks better- like extending the arm farthest from the audience to avoid closing yourself off- so it could be a similar reason in the films. It doesn't really matter that much.

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by TheLastHorcrux

I doubt there is any symbolic reasoning behind it. I don't know if Ralph Fiennes is left handed or ambidextrous. No mention of it on iMDB and most left handed actors have that fact in their "trivia" section of their profile. Its also possible that they tried filming it with the wand in his right hand and it just looked better in his left hand. Interesting catch, but I think you may be reading a little too much into it.

I think that it's just a matter of what looks better on film. On the special features for GoF, where Voldy rushes at Harry and touches the scar, there's discussion about the position of Fiennes' arm, how much he can angle it for the shot, etc. So I agree, it's all about the visual look, providing it doesn't mess with the plot.

[deansboy]

Originally Posted by Marina

I don't think it really matters which hand Fiennes holds the wand in-the actor could be ambidextrous for all we know-and not necessarily trying to portray Voldemort as such.
What really matters is Radcliffe's eternally moving/disappearing scar.

Oh THAT! The thing was gone for stretches of OoTP. I'm mean he has this short hair cut with some hair coming over his forehead but it's clearly noticeable that the scar is not there.

[Lillbet]

Originally Posted by deansboy

Oh THAT! The thing was gone for stretches of OoTP. I'm mean he has this short hair cut with some hair coming over his forehead but it's clearly noticeable that the scar is not there.

Good point. In SS/PS the scar is really brought to the fore- it's Harry's identifying mark, after all. It's the thing that Ron asks to see to verify Harry is, well, Harry. As the books progress, the throbbing pain of the scar is the indicator of Harry's ties to Voldemort, and Harry brushing off that pain (not telling his friends when he feels it, etc.) seems like his way of denying its presence. Despite the fact that there seems to be a lack of continuity with the scar, the audience doesn't identify Harry by it- it becomes a secondary or even tertiary aspect of Harry's character rather than an identifying mark.

I'm sure this is a gaffe and completely unintentional, but at the same time it sort of marks the progression of the character as slowly coming into his own.

Or the makeup folks are just lazy

[BenGerman]

I hadn't even thought about this, I think it is just either he's left handed, or they thought it looked better that way...

[deansboy]

Originally Posted by Lillbet

Good point. In SS/PS the scar is really brought to the fore- it's Harry's identifying mark, after all. It's the thing that Ron asks to see to verify Harry is, well, Harry. As the books progress, the throbbing pain of the scar is the indicator of Harry's ties to Voldemort, and Harry brushing off that pain (not telling his friends when he feels it, etc.) seems like his way of denying its presence. Despite the fact that there seems to be a lack of continuity with the scar, the audience doesn't identify Harry by it- it becomes a secondary or even tertiary aspect of Harry's character rather than an identifying mark.

I'm sure this is a gaffe and completely unintentional, but at the same time it sort of marks the progression of the character as slowly coming into his own.

Or the makeup folks are just lazy

I think it was just that they weren't going to show him reacting to the scar so they decided not to bother with it. It mean really is it that big a deal to put the thing on him?

[GodricHollow]

Five, ten minutes more in the make-up truck at the most. Not that hard really.

[PureBloodGirl]

I have a question about the scene in OotP where Fred and George come into Umbridge's classroom and start setting off the fireworks. I have read the books, but I just can't figure out why they did this? What part of the book was it?

[GodricHollow]

In the books it was their swansong before leaving Hogwarts. As it is in the movie, it appears that they did it as revenge for what Umbridge was doing to the kids in the DA (though I haven't seen the movie since I watched it about five times in a week so I could review it for a college assignment, so I could be wrong).