essay about film harry potter

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone review – 20 years on, it’s a nostalgic spectacular

The first film in the franchise is re-released into a very different world – but it’s as entertaining and exhilarating as ever

T he very first Harry Potter film, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone (or “Sorcerer’s Stone” for its release in the United States, where audiences were assumed to be unfamiliar with this alchemical term) is now re-released after 20 years, into a rather different world. Sadly, the actors who played the original Dumbledore, Snape, Uncle Vernon and Mr Ollivander – Richard Harris, Alan Rickman , Richard Griffiths and John Hurt – are no longer with us. The Harry Potter franchise itself is still a colossal commercial entity, an IP Shangri La, although its creator JK Rowling is now at the centre of an acrimonious gender politics debate – undreamed of in 2001 – and the world of children’s and YA fiction, which she almost singlehandedly revived all over the world, is strongly policed on just these issues.

It’s amazing and poignant to remember the sheer excitement of that HPATPS premiere in November 2001: I myself called it an “old-fashioned pre-September 11 news event”. Harry Potter emerged into cinemas as we were still all stunned by 9/11, but yet to see the retaliatory “war on terror”. This film, emerging four years after the original novel, marked the birth of a new consolatory pop culture myth, to rival Sherlock Holmes and James Bond, and the circumstances of its own arrival became mythic, from Rowling’s own early poverty to the snapping up of film rights.

Warner Bros had gambled on three cherubically young actors to carry the series through their own adolescence to its finale: Daniel Radcliffe as Harry, Emma Watson as Hermione and Rupert Grint as Ron. Opinions on the acting may divide here, and it was admittedly Robert Pattinson (playing Cedric Diggory in Goblet of Fire), who had the real career staying power. But I can’t think of these characters played by any other actors: the thought of the stories being remade or re-adapted with a different cast is heresy. I even grew to like Grint’s very broad, goofy acting, in which he was encouraged by director Chris Columbus at the outset. Radcliffe’s bespectacled moon face looks heartbreakingly unformed.

In the film we see Harry Potter coming to terms with his messianic purpose: he is released from his Dickensian incarceration in the Dursley household and sent for his first term at Hogwarts with its public-school/Oxbridge traditions. Harry learns how to play quidditch (like Tom Brown learning rugby) and he and his three pals are sorted into their various houses; they encounter the formidable teaching staff, including Professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith), Professor Quirrell (Ian Hart) and Professor Snape (Alan Rickman) and then meet the challenge of a deadly assault on Harry.

And it’s still a very entertaining and spectacular movie, with a rush of nostalgia to go alongside the exhilaration of fun, even though some of the “flying” effects during the big quidditch match aren’t quite what we’re used to in 2021. “Wingardium Leviosa,” says the earnest, wide-eyed Hermione … and the story is airborne again.

• Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
• Harry Potter (Books)
• Harry Potter (Film)
• Daniel Radcliffe
• Emma Watson
• Rupert Grint

Comments (…)

Most viewed.

• Read and write
• Reading practice
• Level 3 reading

Harry Potter film review

Have you seen any of the Harry Potter films? Practise your reading in English with this film review.

Do the preparation exercise first. Then read the text and do the other exercises.

Preparation

Film review: the harry potter film series.

The Harry Potter film series is famous all over the world and is loved by children, teenagers and adults. It's based on the books by JK Rowling. The first film, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone , was released in 2001. The whole series consists of eight fantasy films. In each film the main character, Harry, is played by Daniel Radcliffe.

The story begins when 11-year-old orphan Harry discovers that his parents were wizards and he starts his education in magic at Hogwart's School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. There he makes two close friends, Ron and Hermione, who share his adventures.

Each film ends dramatically, often with a battle between Harry and his worst enemy, the evil wizard Lord Voldemort.

The characters

As well as Harry, Ron and Hermione, there's a huge variety of characters, including students, professors, dark wizards, ghosts and fantasy creatures. Non-magic people are called Muggles. The cast is excellent. The acting's outstanding, and even the strangest of characters are totally believable.

The setting

The films are mainly set in Hogwart's School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, which is in an ancient castle. There are moving staircases, portraits which can talk and move, and a dark forest where strange and dangerous creatures live.

The special effects

The special effects are amazing and make magic seem completely possible! The wizards' favourite sport, Quidditch, is played on broomsticks. Different techniques were used to create the effects that make the actors look as if they're flying.

Critic's opinion

The films are imaginative, funny, frightening and, of course, magical! What makes them so successful is that they combine action, fantasy and friendship.

If you like adventure and magic, you'll love the Harry Potter films!

Do you like the Harry Potter films? What other films do you like? Tell us about them!

I am a fan of Harry Potter. My favorite part is 6.

• Log in or register to post comments

Harry Potter is a great movie

English courses for children aged 6-17

Sign up to our newsletter for free learning tips and resources

We will process your data to send you our newsletter and updates based on your consent. You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the "unsubscribe" link at the bottom of every email. Read our privacy policy for more information.

• Owl Post / The Quibbler

Harry Potter: A Film Analysis

by MuggleNet · Published March 6, 2012 · Updated March 9, 2023

by Jeffery Tucker

Abstract: I wrote an essay on the “Harry Potter” film series after seeing “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1.”

The Harry Potter film series will soon come to an end and what better way to acknowledge that than by analyzing the series? What are the positive and negative attributes? What are the best and worst aspects? How well do the creators perform their task of keeping the audience engaged and intrigued? Read on to find out how I, a fan of no importance, answer these inquiries.

As a fan of the novels (the last five, anyway), I no longer compare the films to what author J.K. Rowling wrote because that tends to bog down legitimate criticism. This type of criticism does not consist of nitpicks and complaints on what aspects of the books should not have been excluded. It’s preferable that a critic of the films, who also happens to be a fan of their book counterparts, only discuss what’s present on the screen to prevent the discussion from becoming off-topic with irrelevancies and disappointments of inaccurate, minute details. Therefore, no comparisons to the novels will be made on my part. I also will not go into detail on the plot and story of each film as this analysis assumes that you have seen them and know the information.

HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER’S STONE AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS

The only logical way to begin such an analysis is to start with the films that established the series, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone and the Chamber of Secrets , both directed by Christopher Columbus. I will preface the discussion of these films by stating that I loved Stone when I first saw it, but over the years began to develop a love-hate relationship. The same can be said for Chamber , but I eventually came to dislike it.

What the first entry into the film series does well is setting up and establishing the wizarding universe. The film shows us the difference between the Muggle world and the world occupied by magical beings. Harry enters the unknown and is marveled at what he is seeing and has been missing all of his life. The problem here is that that wonder, for the audience, disappears quite quickly.

The main issues with Stone (this is true for Chamber as well) are the boring visuals and the eventuality of the film losing the audience’s interest. The performances by the adult actors and the younger cast members cannot be thoroughly enjoyed when their presence is heavily accentuated and marred by a bland-looking castle with very little pop, and some of the worst visual effects from that year. As John William’s sweeping score permeates the boat ride up to Hogwarts, one cannot feel what the filmmakers intend because the experience is ruined by looking at the castle. The same feeling is replicated with each exterior shot and is experienced again, but to a lesser degree, when we view the interior. Director Christopher Columbus didn’t direct a single visually exciting shot in the film, and it’s a testament to his skills when put into the context of later directors who came to helm the series.

As for the visual effects, it’s difficult to be immersed in the world when they look quite terrible. If you compare the budget of Stone with Fellowship of the Ring (released in the same year), it’s inexcusable that the former has inferior visual effects, particularly the fight with the troll and Harry being jerked around by his seemingly possessed broom. The trend continues with the centaur Firenze, and Harry chasing flying keys to progress further into the plot with the Sorcerer’s Stone.

Stone seems to slog along after the quite-eventful Quidditch match. We see the trio struggle to put the pieces together but it just isn’t entertaining enough and it feels like your standard detective fare. There are of course some interesting moments interspersed between those scenes, like Snape’s altercation with Filch, but that doesn’t fill the void of something left to be desired: an immensely entertaining experience. Steve Kloves’ script needed to be cut down and reworked to make things more interesting.

There are of course positives, most notably everything up until where the film begins to drag, excluding the visual problems noted above. Seeing Harry learn about being a wizard and coming to the realization that he isn’t a freak is wonderful. The score is excellent and really complements the source material. Williams continues to do this with the second and third entry into the series.

For Chamber , I’m not going to delve into the visuals, as they mirror the first with the exception of superior visual effects. I will instead focus on its longevity and immensely boring nature. The film clocks in at nearly two hours and forty minutes (with credits) and you can feel every minute of it. It’s sad that everything preceding Harry’s return to Hogwarts is superior to everything taking place within it. The humor present when Harry first visits the Burrow will elicit laughs from time to time, even upon repeat viewings. The same can be said for the moments at the bookstore in Diagon Alley when the audience is treated to the first appearance of Gilderoy Lockhart.

Just like Chamber ‘s older brother, there are moments sprinkled throughout its runtime that are entertaining but do not make up for even more standard detective fare, which this time seems to go on and on. Kenneth Branagh’s portrayal of Lockhart is the highlight in these moments, along with Rickman as Snape. Kloves’ script here too needed to be cut and reworked.

Overall, the first two films range from “wholly mediocre” to “an overlong chore.” Stone creates the world for the audience, and even though it has problems, you won’t be wishing for it to end. Chamber , however, makes you wonder what happened during the creating process to disengage the audience so much throughout.

HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN

The series starts to become interesting with Prisoner of Azkaban , directed by Alfonso Cuaron. The opening scene, even with the problem of inconsistency – the “no magic outside of school” rule established in Chamber – shows that the audience is in for something different. Everything about Prisoner differs from Stone and Chamber : the direction, the cinematography, the acting, the tone, the usage of themes, the music, and even the humor.

What Prisoner excels at most is its look and Cuaron’s direction. When both are coupled, it makes for a pleasant visual experience and puts the first two films to shame. Hogwarts is no longer bland; it’s rich with shadows and actually looks like a castle. Hogwarts’ grounds have been completely redesigned and that’s for the better. Yes, it’s an inconsistency, but not a bothersome one as it improves upon Columbus’ lackluster vision. Cuaron’s stylistic choices are a welcome relief. The camera actually moves in interesting ways as opposed to the cliche movements employed in Prisoner’s predecessors. The decision to show the passing of time through seasons and how they affect the Whomping Willow, while frowned upon by many, is simply marvelous and is further evidence that there’s a lack of creative imagination in Stone and Chamber .

In regards to the acting, and this is an unpopular opinion, Michael Gambon’s portrayal as Dumbledore in Prisoner is superior to Richard Harris’. He plays calm, collective, and cool all wrapped into one, and you don’t have to listen to a grasping voice hoping to be able to discern what’s being spoken. Gary Oldman’s performance as Sirius Black never fails to disappoint.

Unfortunately, all of this glowing praise for Prisoner must come to a halt as there are problems with the film. The humor is unfunny and the slapstick portions are quite grating. The repetitious nature of the humor during the Knight Bus scene is just as annoying as it is ridiculous. Another problem presents itself with the Time Turner sequences. Time travel by definition is ridiculous in every sense of the word and it’s rarely well done on screen, but the scenes in Prisoner are great upon first viewing. Sadly, they seem to drag with each subsequent viewing because you are going through scenes that have already taken place earlier in the film, although from a different point of view. Another fault lies in the visual effects and how Buckbeak simply looks unreal. The entire rendering looks soft and the lighting is completely off, giving the feathers on the hippogriff an unnatural, and wholly unrealistic look.

The final complaint I have saved for last and it’s a fault against Daniel Radcliffe and the director. It’s simply unbearable when Harry, crying, screams that Sirius Black “was [his parent’s] friend!” The lack of emoting properly on Radcliffe’s part and Cuaron’s choice to accept the performance is unacceptable. That line takes you out of the aftermath of a great expository scene because it’s so terribly delivered.

Overall, Prisoner of Azkaban is a worthy and excellent sequel. It quashes the main faults of the first two films in the series and fixes them, while leaving the audience wondering what else is in store for the boy wizard and his companions.

HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE

Hot on the heels of the splendid Prisoner of Azkaban , director Mike Newell’s Goblet of Fire seems like a lovely film at first, but after paying close attention, it’s nothing more than mediocrity. It’s far better than Stone and Chamber , however. The opening is a great one and it, like Prisoner , promises the audience a treat in the visual department. Nothing seems visually unnatural or bland in Goblet and the only problems are the ones involving the pacing, creative decisions, and lack of exposition to inform the audience who haven’t read the novel.

One of Goblet ‘s biggest problems involves unintentional humor, which is first seen after the Quidditch World Cup when the Death Eaters arrive in outfits that border on parody. Are they supposed to look like remnants of the Ku Klux Klan? Death Eaters are apparently a ruthless bunch but their entrance suggests otherwise. More of this type of humor is present when select students from Beauxbatons and Durmstrang are introduced. The way the Beauxbatons enter the Great Hall and perform whatever those vocalizations are is ridiculous and completely laughable. It’s made even worse when magical objects flutter about near the end of the presentation. The Durmstrang entrance is doubly so as you listen to the terrible music accompanying a useless display of unimpressive acrobatics. These are some examples of terrible creative decisions by the filmmakers.

As for pacing, the film begins to suffer after the Triwizard champions are chosen; everything before it flows perfectly. We have to sit through Harry and Ron acting like stupid children when they aren’t on speaking terms, and even witness Hermione acting as an intermediary. More problems occur during the first task of the Triwizard tournament where Harry has an overlong altercation with a dragon. The entire chase is ridiculous, exaggerated, and difficult to sit through upon further viewings. How Harry manages what he did at his age, without the aid of magic (excluding his broom), is beyond me.

The best moment in the entire film happens after the third task when Lord Voldemort returns. Ralph Fiennes’ excellent acting makes sitting through what came before it completely worth it. He manages to act menacingly without being overdramatic, which can’t be said for David Tennant’s performance as Barty Crouch Jr. The duel between Harry and Voldemort is a visual feat but what happens confuses the audience who haven’t read the novel. This is where an expository scene would have been nice instead of Dumbledore simply naming the effect. The wands connected yes, but why did apparitions appear? Why did Harry’s parents appear? It’s possible that these viewers can put two and two together, but Dumbledore needed to tell Harry because he is completely confused by the phenomenon when he makes an inquiry.

Goblet of Fire is another worthy sequel in the series, even with its mediocrity. The series takes a slightly darker turn with this entry and that trend continues with the next sequel.

HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX, THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE, AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART I

David Yates worked almost exclusively in the television medium until he helmed Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix . He did such a wonderful job, at least enough to satisfy Warner Bros., that he was asked to come back for Half-Blood Prince and eventually the rest of the series. Thank God for that.

If there’s one complaint thrown at Phoenix the most it’s that it has the shortest run time at 2 hours and 18 minutes. It works and was clearly for the best because that extra twelve minutes to make it two and a half hours could have been filled with boring, tedious moments and would have mirrored every film that came before it. The pacing in Phoenix is impeccable. There isn’t a moment where I’m checking to see how much time remains. This is because Yates’ creative decisions and the series’ new screenwriter keep your eyes glued to the screen and wanting more.

Yates employs montages during the film utilizing the unique properties of newspapers in the wizarding world: pictures on the page move. Instead of short, repeated movements, the camera moves into the images and we see full-length video. This is such an improvement over the students sitting down in the Great Hall and reading the Daily Prophet (Prisoner). Another excellent decision was the changing of the look of Prisoner’s dementors; they actually look threatening and don’t resemble the Nazgul from Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy. Sure it’s an inconsistency, but the change didn’t break a rule within the universe established in an earlier chapter.

More common complaints levied against the film include Nicholas Hooper’s score and the look of the Ministry of Magic. I couldn’t disagree more – when Hooper’s score is played over the film’s opening, we know that we won’t be hearing too many bombastic notes that the previous films have included. Instead, there are instances of subtle musical nuances that, when the time is right, erupt to complement the scene. Hooper’s cheery music is also excellent, especially Umbridge’s theme as it represents how she’s feeling after her successful attempts to take over Hogwarts. As for the Ministry of Magic, it looks stellar and makes sense when put into the context of how the new Minister of Magic operates. His ego is on display when we see the gigantic photo of him hanging in the atrium and fits with his desire for power.

The acting has also improved in Phoenix , especially Radcliffe’s. He convincingly acts like an angry teenager who feels abandoned by friends and prominent figures in his life. His performance after Sirius dies is such an improvement over that lone performance in Prisoner that I mentioned. Helena Bonham Carter’s introduction is menacingly great and her acting abilities are on display in the Ministry of Magic. She also has one of the best lines in the film, “Neville Longbottom, is it? How’s mum and dad” To say that to the child whose parents you tortured is darkly humorous.

One of the few complaints I have is that the visual effects are not always consistent. For instance, Grawp is simply not well-rendered and doesn’t fit in the scenes well with the cast. Another example of mediocre visual effects includes the centaurs taking Umbridge away after she insults and attacks them. The best effects sequence in the entire film takes place when Voldemort and Dumbledore finally duel. Seeing all of the glass in the atrium shatter after Voldemort deflects the two’s connecting spells is marvelous, and even more so when Dumbledore turns the shards into the sand as they race toward him.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is the superior sequel up to this point in the series and the high quality therein continues with its successor.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is the second-best film in the series to date. After taking a break and not scribing the screenplay for Order of the Phoenix , Steve Kloves returns and steps up his game. None of the problems that plague the first four movies are present here and it seems that the time he took off shaped his writing. The film is expertly paced and the dialogue is mostly sharp.

While Prince appears to be a tale of sexual politics, it is balanced quite well with the darker material, namely Draco Malfoy’s subplot and the plot of unraveling the Dark Lord’s past. The former is done very, very well and manages to keep you interested even during repeat viewings. Hooper’s score is perfect during those scenes, just like the rest of the film. The memory sequences are well crafted and show that Voldemort was devious as a child and a teenager like he is now, and wants to know all he can to become all-powerful.

Prince’s cinematography surpasses every film before it thanks to Bruno Delbonnel, known for his work on Amelie. He creates a dark, moody, and murky feel to the Potter universe that we haven’t seen since Prisoner . This feeling fits the film’s material perfectly, even during cheery and romantic scenes.

The acting is mostly top-notch. Actress Jesse Cave disgusts the audience with her ability to portray Ron’s creepy and obsessed love interest, Lavender Brown. Kloves and Yates respectively wrote and directed her performance to be over the top. Veteran actor Jim Broadbent makes his first appearance as the new potions professor, Horace Slughorn. Broadbent can play goofy and tragic at the drop of the hat. He has one of the most sentimental scenes in the entire movie: the recitation of a gift Lily Potter gave him before, as Aunt Petunia says in Stone , she “got herself blown up.” Tom Felton’s performance is superior to the acting of the trio. He gives off an heir of frightfulness as he scrambles to complete his assigned mission in time. Radcliffe, Watson, and Grint didn’t step up at all in their performance which is completely unfortunate. Alan Rickman leaves a sense of ambiguity to his performance throughout, which is nearly flawless. For Dumbledore, Michael Gambon continues to prove that he is better than Richard Harris.

The outstanding Half-Blood Prince paves the way for the first part in the final chapter of the series. It all comes down to these final two to determine whether or not we have spent the last decade wasting our time with the film series. Will David Yates complete his vision and leave us satisfied? For Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part I , he most certainly has.

Part one of the final chapter is indeed the best film in the entire series up to this point, in every respect. Even with its faults, it manages to engage and impress the audience. There is very little to consider negative here. Kloves and Yates have outdone themselves with this installment. They both have created the darkest movie yet and it’s a great sigh of relief.

Hallows, Part 1 finally brings an immensely dark tone to the series that has been needed since Chamber ended. The sense of the trio’s isolation is felt throughout and emphasized by the prolonged period of them camping alone in the wilderness. The altercations and interactions they have with one another exemplify that even further. Consider the verbal and slightly physical fight Harry and Ron have. While Ron’s feelings are mostly brought on by the Horcrux, remnants of those feelings are there for it to feed on. He ends up leaving, abandoning Harry and Hermione. Harry tries to cheer her up but it doesn’t work well at all.

This uneasy, gloomy feeling about the world is given more prominence when you hear the names of the numerous dead on the radio Ron has in his possession. Their world is now erupting in war and no enemy is spared. The parallels to Nazi Germany, while unfortunately not subtle, show what the wizarding world is becoming with ruthless individuals in power.

After seeing Prince , I thought that the cinematography would never be surpassed but it has. The camera work in Hallows, Part 1 is quite shaky but that effect is used artistically to show the frantic nature of the trio’s journey. A perfect example would entail the scene where the actor playing the disguised Harry enters Umbridge’s room to look for the locket. As he’s scrambling through desk drawers looking for the locket, the camera begins to sway back and forth, up and down, showing that he’s anxious to find it. The camera then becomes mostly steady as he stares at photos of enemy combatants, including the now-deceased Dumbledore. More excellent camerawork is on display when the trio is trying to escape the Snatchers on foot. Things are chaotic for the trio and the shaky camerawork is used to note this.

Yates has managed to bring out the best performances in the trio. Watson has never been better and the opening scene with Hermione wiping her parents’ memories shows that she has it in her to do more. The breaking of the trio resulting from Harry and Ron fighting is expertly performed by Radcliffe and Grint. The latter convincingly acts like the Horcrux is feeding on his negative emotions. Helena Bonham Carter increases her sadistic Bellatrix performance as she tortures Hermione.

The visual effects and the score are top-of-the-line. The best effects sequence involves Harry and Hermione in a sexually-charged embrace. While a combination of live-action and computer graphics, it’s impressive and erotic enough to enable Ron to destroy the Horcrux housing the faux couple. As for the score, it is superior to every score in the series, including Williams’, which was already beaten by Hooper’s work. The music used for the Death Eaters is simply fantastic and when Voldemort gets his hands on the Elder Wand, his score erupts to let the audience know that the trio is in danger.

The only faults against the film involve Dobby and the humor associated with him. The Malfoy Manor scene, while outstanding, is jarring when he comes into the mix with stupid humor. The inclusion of Dobby is only there for fan service because, logically, it makes no sense for him to make an appearance after being absent for four films. I personally think Dobby should have been scrapped and replaced with Kreacher.

Yates is the best director in the series. He has an eye for visuals that surpasses every other director and he managed to direct the best performances the series has seen. With the work he has done on Phoenix, Prince, and Hallows, Part 1 , I know that the final chapter in the saga will satisfy me.

Read “A Film Analysis (continued): Deathly Hallows Part Two”

• Next story  Harry Potter and the Boy Nobody Liked
• Previous story  The Final Word

MuggleNet Archive

Important dates, thu, apr 11.

• ☰ Harry Potter News | Essays | Crafts | and more!
• Potter News
• Potter Crafts
• Potter Essays
• Image Gallery
• Potter Parks
• About Leaky

Harry Potter and the Adaptation from Novel to Film

Submitted by: Robyn Joffe

Harry Potter and the Adaptation from Novel to Film  

By Robyn Joffe

For as long as people have been making movies, people have been making movies based on books. Films have also been adapted from several other forms such as television shows, theatrical plays and even other movies. More recently, entire book series have been adapted, such as the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the still in progress Harry Potter series . With six of the seven books written, and five films finished (four of them released), the Harry Potter franchise has a lot to offer scholars interested in the how-to's and the results of adapting books to film.

The Harry Potter films, which started with the release of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone in the year 2001, depict the events covered in the books in a more filmic fashion. The films bring Rowling's words to life; however, as is nearly always the case in adapting work of one form to another, the transitions can be less than smooth. As Deborah Cartmell, senior lecturer in English writes, "An adaptation is undeniably an appropriation of the text, and although the plot remains the same, the telling ’ or the interpreting of it ’ radically changes from one generation to the next." 1

From time constraints to a director's need for artistic expression to casting choices to how a film is promoted, the process of transforming a book to a film can be fraught with peril. Other such issues surrounding direction, characterization, pacing and chosen content (among others) can also contribute to a film's eventual success or failure. Though the resulting movie may in fact be a good film, the question that must be asked is whether it is a good film version of the book . Though most published academic works covering the adaptation of a book to a film focus on classic novels, such as those by Shakespeare or Jane Austen, adaptations are not made merely from acclaimed literary masterpieces. What the Harry Potter series lacks in academic acknowledgment, it more than makes up for in mass popular appeal.

For this reason, this essay will dissect the Harry Potter books and their resulting films, paying particular attention to what issues in the process of adaptation were most relevant to each, and see what, if any, perils were encountered in the making of them. In doing so, this essay will make use of both scholarly and amateur sources, because while authoritative texts are more often relied upon (and with good reason) in essays such as this, the opinions fueled by the unquestionable knowledge of the Harry Potter fan base (in regards to the content of both the books and films), are not necessarily any less valid than their more academically informed counterparts.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001)

Graham Greene, one of the first major literary talents to show an interest in writing for films (and one who often adapted his own short stories) once described the screenwriter as "a ˜forgotten man' once the film went into production, since after that point other hands might make alterations to the screenplay." 2 In a much more recent book, the same sentiment was expressed: "Despite the excellent compensation, a Hollywood scriptwriter is a low man on the totem pole, and much of his work ’ sometimes all of his work ’ is not used." 3 However, for Harry Potter screenwriter Steve Kloves, working with director Christopher Columbus was an experience in the opposite. In fact, Columbus described their collaboration ’ which went from script development through production ’ as "something of a dream situation' 4 and Kloves further explained that "Chris has been willing to listen to any idea, and he doesn't think it's right until we both agree it's right, which is great." 5

Columbus also went a step further in welcoming the continued involvement of not just the screenwriter ’ but the original novelist as well; "My desire was to remain faithful to the story, the characters and the integrity of those characters ... I realized that I had found a solid collaborator [in Rowling]. And it was important because she knows this world better than anyone else." 6

Producer David Heyman also noted that Rowling "has been given the freedom to exert perhaps more influence on the Potter films than is usual when a book is adapted for the screen." 7 This is no doubt due to the fact that the book series is not yet completed, or as Kloves himself put it; "It's the only time I've ever been involved in a story without an ending ... And you would think [Rowling] would tell me something [about it], since I am writing it. But she won't." 8 Along with script approval, author J.K. Rowling had one other demand: that the actors playing the British characters actually be British. Thus, casting began.

Casting a film that is being adapted from a book can often become very controversial, especially if fans get wind of which actors are being considered beforehand. Because many novels that are made into films are not illustrated, the reader has created a picture of each character in their mind, according to any descriptions from the book, and accepting an actor who may not entirely fit that description or picture is something that many fans find hard to do. On the other hand, it is not always only a matter of a fan being unable to let go of his/her own interpretation of a character. At times, the decision to cast a certain actor in a certain role can be questionable no matter how good they might be.

An example of this would be the casting of Alan Rickman in the role of Professor Severus Snape. Though Rickman is a very talented actor, he was also fifty-five years old when the first movie was released, whereas at the start of the series Snape is supposedly only thirty-two years old. 9 While one might think that the age difference does not matter so long as the appearance is appropriate, the difference ’ particularly as it's more than twenty years ’ has an effect on that as well. In the book, part of Harry's perception of Snape is that "his eyes were black like Hagrid's, but they had none of Hagrid's warmth. They were cold and empty and made you think of dark tunnels." 10 Snape's youth, coupled with his demeanor, present a more tragic juxtaposition in the book than they do in the film because in the film that juxtaposition does not even exist. How can it when the embittered contempt that emanates from the character is easily understandable, rather than jarring, in the lined face of an older actor?

The choice to cast Rickman has also lead to another unforeseen side effect among Harry Potter fans: Lust.

The newfound Snapemania was sparked in part by the casting of actor Alan Rickman ’ well-established as "the thinking woman's sex symbol" ’ in the role. Rickman's feline movements and mellifluous voice give the Potions Master a sensuality absent from the page. And beyond the shoulder-length black wig and black contact lenses Rickman wears, no attempt is made to ugly him up. 11

This has even led to Rowling herself questioning whether those who profess their love of the character are talking about Snape, or Alan Rickman, and (as the same thing has occurred in the case of Harry's nemesis, Draco Malfoy) lamenting the humanizing effect that an attractive actor tends to have on the villainous characters he portrays; "Isn't this life, though? I make this hero ’ Harry, obviously ’ and there he is on screen ... but who does every girl under the age of fifteen fall in love with? Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy." 12

Aside from these and other slight deviations, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (known as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the United States 13 ), is remarkably faithful to its source text. In fact, BBC film reviewer Adrian Hennigan wrote that Columbus treated "J.K. Rowling's debut novel with a reverence that wasn't even accorded to the Bible." 14

However, not all deemed such devotion praise-worthy, and the film "was criticized by many as being too faithful to the book." 15 One summed the film up as "an adaptation which paradoxically undermines itself by aiming at a faithful replication of the source text' 16 while others merely declared that "a commitment to fidelity (in response to the perceived demands of readers/viewers) compromises the processes of adaptation." 17 However, on the other side of the spectrum, respected critic Roger Ebert wrote that the film had succeeded in doing "full justice to a story that was a daunting challenge ... During [the film] I was pretty sure I was watching a classic." 18

There are a couple of issues that help explain this broad range of reactions ’ aside from the obvious reality of people having different opinions. One of these issues is that this book and film are the first of a series, and so while the actual plot is one of mystery, it doesn't appear until rather late in the actual story ’ the time up to that point being taken up by Harry's introduction to (and the setting up of) the wizarding world. In fact, in the shooting script for the film, the titular Stone is only very obliquely referred to for the first time on the twenty-second page; "Hogwarts business. Very secret' 19 and once more on the forty-third; "the third floor corridor ... is out of bounds to everyone who does not wish to die a most painful death' 20 before the characters are confronted with the actual mystery on page fifty-five:

HERMIONE Didn't you see what it was standing on? [...] It was standing on a trapdoor, which means it's not there by accident. It's-

HARRY Guarding something. 21

This means that the actual plot of the first film doesn't start until fifty-five pages into the script, completely ignoring a rule that is not just for "adaptation, it's a rule of screenwriting in general. You've only got about thirty pages to set everything up. Establish your main characters ... ground the audience in the world where your story takes place, introduce the dramatic problem, and move into the second act." 22 Lagging with the opening could add to any pacing problems that might develop, as well as become the source of accusations of too much fidelity by critics. And yet, because this introduction is not just for this film but for the entire series, it's (arguably) necessary, because the plotline revolving around the Philosopher's Stone might be the focus of the first film, but Harry's place in the wizarding world remains a focus of each of the films that follow. To breeze through it would be inexcusable, making the resulting ambling movement towards the main plot of the film all but unavoidable. However, it is worth it to remember that that introduction is part of what the audience is there to see.

The other issue that must be highlighted when discussing the expectations of both fans and critics is the overwhelming, ever-growing Harry Potter phenomenon that accompanies the release of every single bit of news even remotely relating to the series. As Suman Gupta wrote in a chapter of his book entitled Movie Magic : "Very seldom have films been so preordained to be blockbusters, received so much media attention before they appeared ... been anticipated with so much informed readiness." 23

Perhaps Professor Philip Nel put it best when he wrote that "the film does no violence to readers' imagined versions of characters and events, but it does not offer its own creative vision." 24

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)

This film, like the first, was directed by Christopher Columbus and written for the screen by Steve Kloves. Because most of the creative team was the same, most of the commentary towards the process of creating this film is similar as well. However, there are some significant differences and additional issues unexplored in the topic for the previous film that warrant its own ’ albeit shorter ’ discussion.

Structurally, the second film is quite different from the first, as the introduction to the entire Harry Potter universe isn't necessary this time around. As Rowling put it; "The first one is episodic ... And Chamber is a more linear structure so it was easier to translate to screen." 25 However, it is also the longest Harry Potter film (though, to be fair, it only beats Goblet of Fire by four minutes), and the pacing suffers for it. As one critic wrote, "You get the sense that its makers have tried to film a novel instead of make a movie' 26 while another pointed out that "watching the film, I mostly felt sensory overload as one special effect was piled atop another. In fact director Chris Columbus has scrupulously avoided anything like genuine emotion." 27

To be fair, he was worrying about other things - namely, his young stars.

Casting these kids at the beginning of Sorcerer's Stone was, in a way, horrifying. I spent the first two weeks on that film trying to get them to look away from the camera, stop smiling and be able to utter one line so I could cut around it. 28

The experience (or lack of same) of his actors contributed in a large way to how Columbus was able to shoot both of the Harry Potter movies he filmed. As none of the child actors had ever done anything professional before ’ aside from Daniel Radcliffe, who had only had a few small roles ’ the movie had to be shot and edited around them. The first two Harry Potter films owe their less-than-sophisticated look to the fact that prolonged camera shots and wide angles were simply not possible in most cases involving the young stars ’ and neither was the endless repetition that can otherwise be associated with film-making. In fact, Columbus "rehearsed very little with the children since ... he didn't want to lose their spontaneity." 29

In Columbus' words; "When we wrapped on Chamber of Secrets , their performances had improved immensely, and they had become seasoned professionals. I felt my job was complete' 30 and with his job complete, so was the second film.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

It is in the discussion of the third film in the Harry Potter series that a more intricate and varied discussion on the pros and cons of the adaptation process can truly commence. This is not to say that discussing the first two films is without merit, but that as the books get longer (indeed, the third one is the first of the series to break 300 pages), and the plots grow more complex, the resulting portrayals on film offer more topics to debate.

Another reason that this progression reflected so obviously on the film series was that Christopher Columbus, director of the first two films, stepped back into the role of co-producer (with David Heyman and others) on this film, leading to Mexican filmmaker Alfonso Cuarón being hired to direct. Having previously brought his unique visual style to films like A Little Princess (and consequently proving he could work with children), Cuarón was drafted to lead the Harry Potter series in a new direction: "My approach was that I wanted to do a character driven piece, with cool visual effects, rather than a visual effects movie with some characters running around." 31

At the same time, Cuarón was conscious of the fact that he was stepping into an already-established universe, admitting that "it was one of [his] hesitations" before accepting the position. 32 He solved that dilemma by resolving to serve the material: "and the material meant before anything else the book, and then secondly the position of this film in the franchise of Harry Potter." 33

His overall success may be debatable, but what cannot be questioned is the dramatic change made in the look of this third film. As Columbus remembers: "Most of our sets were already built, but Alfonso had a desire ’ as did our production designer Stuart Craig ’ to open up the picture." 34 Using more wide-angle and tracking shots to heighten the sense of drama, 35 Cuarón was intent on facilitating the overall flow of the film, as well as creating lasting visual connections throughout. 36 Particular focus was paid to images relating to time (Harry spends several scenes in and around a large clock tower at Hogwarts), and identity (there are numerous scenes that start or end on a close up of a character's eye), in keeping with the themes Cuarón had chosen to highlight. The use of darker colours, more haunting music and dramatic lighting ("high contrast, more shadows") also contributed to the "very different look and feel from the previous films." 37

Perhaps the most important decision made to create this result, however, was one that was more philosophical than technical: "One of the things we decided was that in order for the magic to spring forward more naturally, it had to come from a real and honest place ... What we sought to create was a sense of reality in which the characters interact with each other." 38

Cuarón felt that choosing Michael Seresin for the film's cinematography would help to achieve that goal:

One thing that I felt was perfect for Michael was that we have this magical universe that he could really ground. Because he has got that grittiness, and that grittiness comes from the fact that he is a single-source light cinematographer. He's very naturalistic in that sense. I felt it would be a good marriage with the material. 39

And he seems to have succeeded. As Sloan de Forest, editor and contributor to Scribbulus , writes: "[In] the third film, I saw an immense, imposing Hogwarts drained of its warmth but injected with a unique style and grainy realism not present in the first two films." 40 The film was lauded by both critics and fans as being "the closest any of the films has gotten to capturing the enormously pleasing essence of the Potter books' 41 and there seemed to be a tentative collective agreement that Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban was a truly great movie. But that does not mean it was a great movie of the book , and as this is the difference that this essay seeks to highlight, more in depth examination is necessary.

The unique thing about the book, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban , is that it is arguably not a story in and of itself ’ but the story of a story, which gradually unfolds throughout the book, finally leading to its climactic reveal and the ensuing repercussions. The book covering Harry Potter's third year at Hogwarts is not about Harry Potter's third year at all, but about the events leading up to his parents' deaths twelve years before.

It is fitting, then, that with this book comes the introduction of several new characters, including two of particular importance: Defense Against the Dark Arts Professor Remus Lupin, and the escaped titular Prisoner of Azkaban, Sirius Black. One interviewer notes that their "connection with ... Harry's parents is a major factor in Azkaban's back-story' 42 but though most of that quotation is true, it is the use of the word "back-story" that is the problem.

As Amy Z wrote in her essay An Elegantly Woven Tapestry: Plotlines in Prisoner of Azkaban , "it's true that there is no single central plot in [the story], because one candidate (Quidditch) lacks gravitas, and another (Sirius [versus] Harry) proves to be an illusion." 43 Instead, in the absence of an obvious main storyline, it is the so-called "back-story" that takes centre stage; "while Harry is going about his life ... there is another drama mostly invisible to him (and to us, until the second reading): that of Lupin, Black, Snape, and, if you think about it, Pettigrew." 44 In Prisoner of Azkaban the back-story becomes the main plot, as even though the events transpired twelve years previous, they are unfolding to Harry in the present and the story's climax happens when the truth is finally revealed to all. In that way, there was no conclusion to the events in the past, instead, it was as if those involved were put on hold, held in stasis until Harry's third year at Hogwarts when they were at last able to play it out:

"Everyone thought Sirius killed Peter' said Lupin, nodding. "I believed it myself ” until I saw the map tonight. Because the Marauder's Map never lies... Peter's alive. Ron's holding him, Harry."

"If you're going to tell them the story, get a move on, Remus' said Black, who was still watching Scabbers's every desperate move. "I've waited twelve years, I'm not going to wait much longer."

"Harry' said Lupin hurriedly, "don't you see? All this time we've thought Sirius betrayed your parents, and Peter tracked him down ” but it was the other way around, don't you see? Peter betrayed your mother and father ” Sirius tracked Peter down ”" 45

As Amy Z writes: "We think the story is about Black trying to kill Harry, so the plot seems focused on that; but that's not what the story is about. It's about Sirius in a whole different way, and it's as much about Pettigrew." 46 With the misunderstandings cleared up and the truth of the events of twelve years before revealed, the climax of their story becomes the climax of the book itself ’ one which ultimately ends in near disaster, allowing the fallout to finally occur.

In discussing how she has conceptualized the third book, Harry Potter fan Kelly Parker writes:

I think the third book is more about setting up the series for later on and dealing more with the past and how it is affecting Harry and the entire wizarding world now. It's not so much about his schooling ... his schooling takes a back seat to finding out about his godfather and dealing with all of that. I personally think this is one of the most pivotal books in the series. 47

Unfortunately, Alfonso Cuarón apparently did not see it in exactly the same way: "This film is concerned with confronting [the characters'] innermost fears ... It's [also] a journey of a character's seeking his identity and accepting who he is. To step out of the shadow of his father, for instance, is one of the themes." 48 Putting aside the question of whether or not this is true, the difference of opinion as to the main focus of the story obviously resulted in the exclusion of certain things.

One of the most often cited examples of such an exclusion is the actual back-story of Harry's parents and their friends. Included in this example are several key pieces of information that are either missing from the film entirely, or mentioned in vague generalities that are easily glossed over. The most important piece of information that is introduced in this story is the betrayal of Harry's parents that led to their deaths. It is in this book that we learn that Voldemort could not just go and attack the Potters, and that they would have been safe had they not trusted the wrong person, because of the preparations they had taken before going into hiding:

"Dumbledore told them that their best chance was the Fidelius Charm."

"How does that work?" said Madam Rosmerta, breathless with interest. Professor Flitwick cleared his throat.

"An immensely complex spell' he said squeakily, "involving the magical concealment of a secret inside a single, living soul. The information is hidden inside the chosen person, or Secret-Keeper, and is henceforth impossible to find ” unless, of course, the Secret-Keeper chooses to divulge it. As long as the Secret-Keeper refused to speak, You-Know-Who could search the village where Lily and James were staying for years and never find them, not even if he had his nose pressed against their sitting room window!" 49

The fact that Sirius Black was thought to be the Potters' Secret-Keeper, and therefore the only person capable of betraying them, is rather central to how he became the titular Prisoner , having been sent to Azkaban without a trial. The fact that Peter Pettigrew was the actual Secret-Keeper, and therefore the only possible betrayer of the Potters: " ˜ Lily and James only made you Secret-Keeper because I suggested it,' Black hissed ... ˜I thought it was the perfect plan... a bluff... Voldemort would be sure to come after me ... It must have been the finest moment of your miserable life, telling Voldemort you could hand him the Potters,' " 50 is also central to understanding the story. However, interestingly enough, the word "Secret-Keeper" is never spoken even once during the entire film, and the importance of the role is instead glossed over, when it is referred to at all: "Well, now, years ago, when Harry Potter's parents realized that they were marked for death ’ do you remember? ’ they went into hiding. Few knew where they were. One who did, was Sirius Black ’ and he told You-Know-Who!" 51

Aside from being factually wrong, as it was Harry and not his parents who was marked for death, the use of the word "few" and the phrase "one who did" instead of " the one who did" would imply that more than one person knew where the Potters were hiding. This would, in turn, mean that more than one person would have been able to betray them, rendering Sirius Black's immediate condemnation inexplicable ’ and potentially Peter Pettigrew's later one as well.

Although it minimizes the betrayal of the Potters, the vagueness that resulted from the absence of the word "Secret-Keeper" could still have been explained had another piece of information been included:

Sirius here played a trick on [Snape] which nearly killed him ... [he] thought it would be ’ er ’ amusing, to tell Snape all he had to do was prod the knot on the tree-trunk with a long stick, and he'd be able to get in after me ... if he'd got as far as this house, he'd have met a fully grown werewolf. 52

The knowledge that Sirius Black, at sixteen, sent a fellow classmate to his death without remorse (later saying it was just a prank), would have gone a long way to explaining why of the "few" who "knew where [the Potters] were", he was the most likely suspect: " ˜ Sirius Black showed he was capable of murder at the age of sixteen,' [Snape] breathed. ˜You haven't forgotten that, Headmaster? You haven't forgotten that he once tried to kill me ?' " 53 And although this might be considered a deviation from the central plot, or potentially slow exposition in a genre where showing is prized above telling , film as a visual medium allows for both to happen at once. This enlightening bit of back-story could easily have been accompanied by either a flashback or a montage of images, illustrating what was being said. However, this did not happen, and unfortunately, it is not the most important piece of information left out of the final film, by far.

The fact that Remus Lupin, Peter Pettigrew, Sirius Black, and James Potter are the same Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs who created the map Harry is coincidentally given by his friends is never mentioned, even when ample opportunity arises ’ as seen in the following comparative examples:

Prisoner of Azkaban (the book):

"I happen to know that this map was confiscated by Mr. Filch many years ago. Yes, I know it's a map' [Lupin] said, as Harry and Ron looked amazed. 54

Prisoner of Azkaban (the film):

PROFESSOR LUPIN I don't know how this map came to be in your possession, Harry, but I'm astounded that you didn't turn it in....

Harry walks silently. 55

While this might seem a small, relatively unimportant piece of information, it would only be considered so in isolation. However, this is not so. The connection of each man to his nickname not only solidifies the reality of their once close friendship, but it also connects each to his animal form and the fact that three became Animagi for the fourth: "My three friends could hardly fail to notice that I disappeared once a month ... I was terrified they would desert me ... [but] they didn't desert me at all. ... They became Animagi ... They couldn't keep me company as humans, so they kept me company as animals. A werewolf is only a danger to people." 56

The connection to Animagi is important because of the role that each man's form plays in the overall story. Peter Pettigrew is able to fake his own death and hide for twelve years as Ron's pet rat; Sirius Black is able to both keep his sanity while in and finally escape from Azkaban as a large dog; and Harry is able to discover and reclaim a part of his father, which he finds within himself, when his Patronus takes on the form of his father's stag. And while the first two are obvious in the film without the nickname connection, the fact that James Potter was an Animagus is not, and therefore the significance of Harry's Patronus is lost. This is particularly ironic considering that it is James Potter as Prongs who is arguably the link between the opinions of the fans already stated as to the main storyline of the book, and director Alfonso Cuarón's interpretation: "It has to do with Harry coming to terms with his male energy, his father and what his father is." 57

The absence of this information is notable not only because it details exactly "what his father is", but also because the information was there in the shooting script, but still didn't make it to the final cut:

PROFESSOR LUPIN Before I go, tell me about your Patronus.

HARRY Well. At first I thought it was a horse, or perhaps a unicorn, but I think it was ’

PROFESSOR LUPIN A stag.

PROFESSOR LUPIN Your father used to transform into one. That's how he was able to keep me company when I became... sick. ... There are stories about him and your mother, you know. Some are even true. But I think it's safe to say, in the end you'll know them best by getting to know yourself. 58

As the final cut of the film is decided on by the director (and the editor, at his direction), it is particularly peculiar that none of the dialogue in this excerpt ’ all of which would go towards emphasizing Cuarón's apparent vision ’ appears in the finished version. This would not be a problem were it not for the fact that in losing these aspects of the story, the viewer is treated to a film that is incomplete ’ not only in and of itself, but also as a part of the ongoing series.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

As with the third film, the fourth in the Harry Potter series invites a more detailed discussion on the difficulties and competing interests involved in adapting a book to a film. Fortunately for this essay, most of the issues raised in this discussion differ significantly from those presented in each previous film. One reason for this difference was the inclusion of a new director, filmmaker Mike Newell of Four Weddings and a Funeral fame, who, in his own words, had "never made a film like this before and [had] never made a film even a quarter as big as this before." 59 Unlike the other films in the series thus far, this film presented a directorial challenge even before shooting began. At 636 pages, Goblet of Fire is more than double the size of Prisoner of Azkaban (the longest of the previous three), and Warner Bros. Studio originally intended to split the story in half, shooting the two films back to back, and releasing them close together ’ similar to what had been done for the second and third films of the Matrix trilogy. 60 Mike Newell, however, thought this unnecessary: "As far as I'm concerned it's absolutely possible to do it in one. I think it would be slightly embarrassing to do it in two." 61

Aiming to avoid this, Newell pitched his conception of the story to the producers; "I said to them, I said, I can only make this if you will agree that what we're making is a thriller and we will ruthlessly take out stuff that doesn't go to that' 62 later adding that the whole point of the story was that the villain "needs one tiny, tiny little thing from the boy: three drops of blood." 63 As the first British director in the series, Mike Newell felt that he had the insider expertise necessary to bring an authenticity to the films that they were previously lacking ’ particularly in regards to the British school system: "It wasn't possible for them to get that right. They'd never been to such a school' 64 Newell said, further explaining:

I went through this sort of education. ... I wasn't at a boarding school ... but there's an enormous body of literature books ... and I had read all of those, and I'd been to a school just like it where you were beaten with a cane. I remember some of the teachers being really quite violent ... and it had a headmaster of whom one was likely terrified and then a descending order of authority figures, and then there was... and then there was us. ... I don't see how anybody who hadn't gone through that, who wasn't English, could possibly have suspected that. 65

There are two facets of this quote that require further examination, the first being Newell's view of Hogwarts as being just like all of the typical British boarding schools he never attended. Shaun Hately, author of the essay Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry in the Context of the British Public Schools , writes that "Hogwarts is not a perfect exemplar of the Public School tradition ’ while there is a substantial influence, it cannot be assumed that Hogwarts always follows Public School traditions." 66 Further on in the paper, in discussing corporal punishment, Hately demonstrates that "At Hogwarts, such methods seem to have fallen into disuse' 67 citing a quotation from the first book in the Harry Potter series; "Oh yes... Hard work and pain are the best teachers if you ask me... It's just a pity they let the old punishments die out." 68

Additional evidence presents itself in the book from which Newell made his own adaptation, when Professor Moody transfigures a student into a ferret and proceeds to bounce him up and down, catching the attention of Professor McGonagall:

"Moody, we never use Transfiguration as a punishment!" said Professor McGonagall weakly. "Surely Professor Dumbledore told you that?"

"He might've mentioned it, yeah' said Moody, scratching his chin unconcernedly, "but I thought a good sharp shock ”"

"We give detentions, Moody! Or speak to the offender's Head of House!" 69

To J.K. Rowling, the "worst, shabbiest thing you can do" as a teacher "[is] bully children' 70 and corporal punishment has no place in Harry's world. And yet Newell, who admits that even real English schools have changed now, still felt the need to "[rewrite] a scene to add a glint of schoolboy mischievousness and the corporal punishment it provokes, in which dour Professor Snape ... bonks Harry and Ron in the head with a book for goofing off during a study period." 71 Snape does not appear at all in the scene in the shooting script for the film, 72 so it is obvious that this was a directorial decision. His selection is also unfortunate for the fact that his character is not one to be considered slapstick, nor is his hatred of Harry something in which to find comic relief. However, this twisted characterization appears to be a sort of specialty of Newell's, which is the second facet of the previous long quotation in need of examination.

As with the school he runs, Newell has also assigned headmaster Albus Dumbledore to a role in the film that is not in keeping with any other information readily available about him. His idea of Dumbledore as "a headmaster of whom one [is] likely terrified' 73 is directly at odds with J.K. Rowling's assertion that Dumbledore is instead "the epitome of goodness." 74 Indeed, Hately's essay specifies how the character "as presented in the Harry Potter books seems to fit neatly into the mould of the great benevolent public school Headmaster' 75 and as James A. Morone wrote in his article Cultural Phenomena: Dumbledore's Message , "[he] practically awards bonus points for breaking the rules' 76 citing this quotation from Chamber of Secrets as proof: "I seem to remember telling you both that I would have to expel you if you broke any more school rules ... Which goes to show that the best of us must sometimes eat our words." 77

The issue of the character and characterization of Dumbledore is a difficult one for numerous reasons. The choice of actor to play the role is very much tied up in that ’ especially because it was made twice. Richard Harris, a veteran of over seventy films, was initially cast in the role, which he played for the first two films. Critics wrote that his selection "was perfection; he had that twinkle in his eye and he conveyed that Dumbledore was as solid as a rock and as wise as readers of J.K. Rowling knew him to be. There was a certainty about him." 78

However, when Richard Harris passed away shortly before principal photography was to begin on the third film, a new Dumbledore had to be found. Michael Gambon made his Dumbledore debut in Prisoner of Azkaban , and his performance in both it and Goblet of Fire has garnered several comments ’ though, unfortunately, few have been complimentary: "I have to say that I thought Gambon's performance lacked some of the warmth and humour that Harris provided." 79 Newell, on the other hand, thought he was perfect:

I think that he had not wanted to be the same figure that Richard Harris had been, a figure of enormous Olympian authority who's never caught on the hop. He wanted something to do, simply because he isn't Richard Harris, and what he found in this one is that Dumbledore is fallible, not omnipotent, and indeed is behind the game. A great deal of what he does is about being inadequate rather than super-adequate, which is obviously much more interesting to play. 80

More interesting to play, perhaps, but woefully inaccurate. Even leaving aside the fact that if Gambon did not want to be the same figure Richard Harris had been, his decision to take over the role seems suspect; Dumbledore has been known throughout the series for being the only one Voldemort has ever feared. However, as de Forest points out:

for this fear to be plausible, Dumbledore needs to appear sharp-witted and not cross the line from affable eccentric to preposterous crackpot. ... How can [Newell] expect us to believe that anyone in the wizarding world reveres a panicky, absentminded grump who ... impulsively attacks his favourite student, throttling little Harry about the shoulders and neck? 81

And to Newell's argument that a fallible, inadequate, and behind-the-game Dumbledore creates a more interesting and more humanized mentor for Harry, M.Y. Simms asks in her essay Action! Harry Potter from the Page to the Screen :

Why would the greatest wizard in the world suddenly appear to suffer from chronic anxiety? I understand that things got serious in Goblet of Fire, but consider this: would Yoda, Merlin, Gandalf or Obi-Wan have freaked out when things got serious and danger loomed? ... I think not. ... Where did the ˜magic' of Dumbledore go? 82

In fact, far from being behind-the-game, J.K. Rowling's Dumbledore continues to run steadily ahead, even at the end of Goblet of Fire , after Harry's confrontation with Voldemort has already taken place:

"He said that my blood would make him stronger than if he'd used someone else's' Harry told Dumbledore. "... And he was right ” he could touch me without hurting himself, he touched my face."

For a fleeting instant, Harry thought he saw a gleam of something like triumph in Dumbledore's eyes. 83

Unfortunately, one repercussion from Newell's decision to have Gambon portray Dumbledore in this mistaken manner ’ a decision that is proved to be directorial rather than scriptural, due to the calmer version of the character evidenced in the shooting script 84 ’ is more detrimental than having raised the ire of fans; that being the effect it will have on the next installment of the franchise.

One of the main issues that Harry must deal with in the fifth book is his relationship with Dumbledore and how it has, inexplicably (to him), become estranged. This separation, or distance, that Harry feels causes him great distress as he wonders why the headmaster doesn't seem to care about him anymore. This leads to continued misunderstandings which result in the death of a main character and the discovery of a prophecy. Unfortunately, due to the portrayal of these relationships in the fourth movie, Harry would be unlikely to wonder if the headmaster cared about him in the first place, nor would it really matter to him either way. And the revelation given to Harry at the end, that Dumbledore "cared about [him] too much" and did all he had done because he "acted exactly as Voldemort expects [the] fools who love to act' 85 would scarce be believable from Gambon's discredited caricature. Of course, as Newell has not even read the fifth book, his failure to set it up properly is unfortunately explained.

What's not as easily explained is his failure in setting up even his own film, as he did read the fourth book in preparation. 86 As one critic wrote:

If the film version of [Prisoner of Azkaban] was missing some major plot points, and therefore felt like it was missing a vital organ or two, this one was like finding a skeleton that had been stripped of every conceivable scrap of flesh, leaving only the bare bones behind. Many character motivations were fuzzy at best; my mother, who hadn't read the book, had a million questions for me after we left the theatre. 87

But perhaps this weakness can be understood in reading Newell's approach to creating the film, in his own words: "What you do is you pack it with references and suggestions and so forth which, of course, you have taken from the book. So that a reader coming to the film goes, "Oh, I see. I get it. They did it that way." 88 The idea that fans would be appeased by a few references to aspects of the book, no matter what the quality of storytelling, is problematic at best, insulting at worst, and condescending either way. "The movie ticks through critical plot points like it's checking them off a list' 89 writes Anita Burkam in the article From Page to Screen: Mike Newell's Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire ; "All that's missing is reasonably paced and plotted moviemaking." 90 That, and the so-called "human truth" that Newell apparently prized above all else: "You become more interested in [Harry's] interior processes, his emotions, than just what goes on' Newell asserts, 91 though it is difficult to understand why he is convinced of this when he, as director, seems more interested in what he can do with Harry's external world than in how to express the character's internal one. "It's one of the most powerful and dramatic scenes' 92 producer David Heyman says, in praise of Newell's work. And which scene is he talking about? The maze in the third task, which, as Dumbledore mysteriously informs each champion, changes people? The graveyard where Harry watches Voldemort's rebirth, duels with him, and comes face to face with the ghost-like shades of his long-dead parents?

No, of course not, that would make sense . Instead, as Heyman clarifies, "We departed from the book a little bit in the sense that the dragon breaks free of the chain that ties him and it leads to a dramatic chase through Hogwarts. Let's just say it doesn't necessarily meet the happiest of ends." 93 Never mind the fact that, as no one dies and Harry completes the task successfully, it does actually meet the happiest of ends, Heyman is talking about a scene in which Harry faces off with the dragon during the first task of the Triwizard Tournament. This is a scene which takes exactly two pages in the book (which includes the detailed description necessary of the medium), but in the film, it clocks in at nearly three minutes ’ a ridiculously long length of time on screen, particularly for Newell, who has said that "all of [these effects] would count for nothing if [audiences] simply didn't feel it." 94

Yet, as de Forest notes, "when a film jumps wildly from scene to scene, frantically flinging in new characters and situations willy-nilly, the seeds of authentic emotional reaction don't have time to be sown and flourish naturally ... the natural rhythm of reaction is massacred." 95 All of this leads to an ending of equal ruination, in what de Forest terms "a thrown-together mess of a conclusion. It seems unsure whether to end on a hopeful note, a tragic note, a portentous note, a humorous note or a poignant note, so it compromises by fizzling out with a flat uncertainty. ˜Everything's going to change now, isn't it?' asks Hermione. Yup. Sure is. Well. Will you sign my yearbook?" 96

While several critics enjoyed the film ’ and several film audiences, too ’ the question of whether or not Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was a good film is not the one that is asked in this essay. Instead, the question of whether or not it was a good film of the book must be considered, and while Mike Newell's Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire might be considered a fun, and even wild ride of a film, it remains on the surface, granting only a superficial and distorted glimpse into the story of Harry's fourth year. J.K. Rowling's Dumbledore warned; "You have to make a choice between what is right, and what is easy." 97 It is unfortunate that Mike Newell did not heed this advice.

Harry Potter and the End of This Essay (2007)

"Books have one of the highest ratios of conversion from development to film of any source, including original screenplays' 98 and yet the process of adapting the Harry Potter book series into films is unique in many ways. Perhaps the most important cause of its uniqueness is the fact that the seven book series is being adapted one novel after the other, and yet the seven book series is not yet complete. With the intense secrecy surrounding the story and revelations still to come from the original author, filmmakers must attempt to adapt each of these films from an incomplete overall source text. This only heightens the difficulty and the scrutiny that are already present in the adaptation process. That is why the question of fidelity, though it "cannot be considered a valid yardstick with which to judge any adaptation' 99 must figure in more heavily than it might otherwise. John Tibbetts and James Welsh wrote that "movies do not ˜ruin' books, but merely misrepresent them' 100 as "the accumulation of minor details can create a markedly different experience between a book and a film' 101 and while usually that may not create any problems, Mike Newell's Dumbledore aptly demonstrates that in an ongoing ’ and unfinished ’ series, certain changes have far-reaching effects.

Still, while fidelity holds more importance in this case than in others, "changes made by the screenwriter and director might not necessarily destroy the original. In the best adaptations, narratives are translated and effectively transformed into the medium of film." 102 With the seventh, and last, Harry Potter novel being released this summer, perhaps the remaining films will have a better chance of achieving this transformation.

Mireia Aragay writes in Reflection to Refraction: Adaptation Studies Then and Now , that the real aim of adaptation is

to trade upon the memory of the novel, a memory that can derive from actual reading, or, as is more likely with a classic of literature, a generally circulated cultural memory. The adaptation consumes this memory, aiming to efface it with the presence of its own images. The successful adaptation is the one that is able to replace the memory of the novel. 103

Although Harry Potter is not widely considered a classic of literature, the same philosophy can apply. An adaptation must be more than a filmed novel, without compromising the text it is meant to represent. A good film does not make a good adaptation, and though the Harry Potter film series had a promising start, future directors would do well to keep those words in mind. Notes 1. Cartmell, "Shakespeare on Screen' 33.

2. Tibbetts and Welsh, Novels Into Film , 279.

3. Havens, Genius Behind Buffy , 24.

4. Elrick, "Chris Columbus talks¦."

5. McNamara, "When Steve Met Harry."

6. Elrick, "Chris Columbus talks¦."

7. Hopkins, "Behind the Scenes¦."

8. McNamara, "When Steve Met Harry."

9. Vander Ark, "The Ages of Snape and the Marauders."

10. Rowling, Philosopher's Stone , 102.

11. Millman, "To Sir, With Love' 43.

12. Rowling, "Edinburgh Book Festival."

13. Scholastic editor Arthur Levine, suggested that Rowling change the title of the book for its American release as he felt it was "too esoteric' and the change would convey "more immediately the sense of magic that's in the book" (Heiberger). This, despite the fact that the Philosopher's Stone is an object of legend, often found in myth and folklore (Anderson), and referred to in many areas of study, including religion, alchemy, the occult ¦ while the Sorcerer's Stone means nothing.

14. Hennigan, "Films ¦ Philosopher's Stone ."

15. Krevolin, How to Adapt¦ , 52.

16. Aragay, "Reflection to Refraction' 20.

17. Cartmell and Whelehan, "Fidelity Debate' 37.

18. Ebert, "Sorcerer's Stone."

19. Kloves, Sorcerer's Stone, 22.

20. Ibid., 43.

21. Ibid., 55-56.

22. Krevolin, How to Adapt¦ , 54.

23. Gupta, Re-Reading Harry Potter , 143.

24. Nel, "Bewitched, Bothered, and Bored."

25. Mzimba, "Conversation with¦."

26. Nel, "Bewitched, Bothered, and Bored."

27. Butler, " Potter has the stuff¦."

28. Spelling, "Leaving School' 44.

29. Elrick, "Chris Columbus talks¦."

30. Spelling, "Leaving School' 44.

31. "Y tu Harry¦' 22.

32. Ibid, 19.

34. Spelling, "Leaving School' 44.

35. Puig, "Harry hits his teens."

36. Nazarro, "The New Magician' 39.

37. Puig, "Harry hits his teens."

38. Nazarro, "The New Magician' 38.

39. Trout, "Alfonso Cuarón Interview."

40. de Forest, "Fractured Fairy Tale."

41. Turan, "Prisoner of Azkaban."

42. Nazarro, "Alfonso Cuarón Interview."

43. Z, "Elegantly Woven Tapestry."

45. Rowling, Prisoner of Azkaban , 257-68.

46. Z, "Elegantly Woven Tapestry."

47. Kelly Parker, e-mail message to author, 12 April 2007.

48. Puig, "Harry hits his teens."

49. Rowling, Prisoner of Azkaban , 152.

50. Ibid., 271.

51. Kloves, Prisoner of Azkaban .

52. Rowling, Prisoner of Azkaban , 261.

53. Ibid., 286.

54. Ibid., 213.

55. Kloves, Prisoner of Azkaban , 80.

56. Rowling, Prisoner of Azkaban , 259-60.

57. Nazarro, "The New Magician' 38.

58. Kloves, Prisoner of Azkaban , 125.

59. Fischer, "Exclusive Interview."

61. Geri, "News: Mike Newell¦."

62. Fischer, "Exclusive Interview."

63. Ibid., "Interview: Mike Newell."

64. Associated Press, "Newell puts the Brit¦."

65. Fischer, "Exclusive Interview."

66. Hately, "Hogwarts School of¦."

68. Rowling, Philosopher's Stone , 181.

69. Ibid., Goblet of Fire , 182.

70. Fraser, Conversations with J.K. Rowling , 21.

71. Associated Press, "Newell puts the Brit¦."

72. Kloves, Goblet of Fire , 66-67.

73. Fischer, "Exclusive Interview."

74. Solomon, "J.K. Rowling Interview."

75. Hately, "Hogwarts School of¦."

76. Morone, "Cultural Phenomena."

77. Rowling, Chamber of Secrets , 243.

78. Simms, "Action! Harry Potter¦."

79. Aloi, "Grown Up Magic."

80. Whitehead, "Interview: Mike Newell¦."

81. Witherwings, "Fractured Fairy Tale."

82. Simms, "Action! Harry Potter¦."

83. Rowling, Goblet of Fire , 604.

84. Kloves, Goblet of Fire , 32.

85. Rowling, Order of the Phoenix , 739.

86. Fischer, "Exclusive Interview."

87. Moondaughter, "Under the Microscope."

88. Geri, "Newell discusses¦."

89. Burkam, "From Page to Screen."

92. Geri, "Update: Heyman talks¦."

94. Nathan, "This boy¦' 90.

95. Witherwings, "Fractured Fairy Tale."

97. Rowling, Goblet of Fire , 628.

98. Hopkins, "Behind the Scenes¦."

99. Aragay, "Reflection to Refraction' 20.

100. Tibbetts and Welsh, Novels Into Film , xvii.

101. Nel, "Bewitched, Bothered, and Bored."

102. Tibbetts and Welsh, Novels Into Film , xx.

103. Aragay, "Reflection to Refraction' 20.

Bibliography

Aloi, Peg. "Grown Up Magic." Witch Cinema 19, 5 June 2004. http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_article.html?a=usma&id=8491 .

Anderson, Hans Christian. "The Philosopher's Stone (1859)." Hans Christian Anderson: Fairy Tales and Stories . 25 September 2006: http://hca.gilead.org.il/p_stone.html .

Aragay, Mireia. "Reflection to Refraction: Adaptation Studies Then and Now." Books in Motion: Adaptation, Intertextuality, Authorship . Ed. Mireia Aragay. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2005. 11-34.

Associated Press. "Newell puts the Brit back in Harry Potter ." MSNBC , 21 November 2005. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10054009 .

Burkam, Anita L. "From Page to Screen: Mike Newell's Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire." The Horn Book, Inc . http://www.hbook.com/resources/films/harrypotter4.asp .

Butler, Robert W. " Potter has the stuff but not the spirit." The Kansas City Star . 23 November 2001.

Cartmell, Deborah. "The Shakespeare On Screen Industry." Adaptations: From Text to Screen, Screen to Text . Eds. Deborah Cartmell and Imelda Whelehan. London: Routledge, 1999. 29-37.

Cartmell, Deborah and Whelehan, Imelda. "Harry Potter and the Fidelity Debate." Books in Motion: Adaptation, Intertextuality, Authorship . Ed. Mireia Aragay. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2005. 37-49.

Ebert, Roger. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." RogerEbert.com: Movie Reviews , 16 November 2001. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20011116/REVIEWS/111160301/1023 .

Elrick, Ted. "Chris Columbus talks about directing Harry Potter ." DGA Magazine: Directors Guild of America 27:5, January 2003. http://www.dga.org/news/v27_5/feat_columbus.php3 .

Fischer, Paul. "Exclusive Interview: Mike Newell for Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire ." Dark Horizons 24, October 2005). http://www.darkhorizons.com/news05/goblet1.php .

”””. "Interview: Mike Newell for Mona Lisa Smile and Harry Potter 4 ." Dark Horizons 9, December 2003. http://www.darkhorizons.com/news03/mona2.php .

Fraser, Lindsey. Conversations with J.K. Rowling . New York: Scholastic Press, 2001.

Geri. "Newell discusses the challenges of ˜ Harry Potter '." HPANA , 30 November 2004. http://www.hpana.com/news.18430.html .

”””. "News: Mike Newell won't split ˜ Goblet of Fire '." HPANA , 30 January 2004. http://www.hpana.com/news.17863.26.html .

”””. "Update: Heyman talks about first task and Fiennes." HPANA , 11 Oct. 2005. http://www.hpana.com/news.18913.html .

Gupta, Suman. Re-Reading Harry Potter . New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2003.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets . Directed by Christopher Columbus. Burbank: Warner Bros. Pictures, 2002.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire . Directed by Mike Newell. Burbank: Warner Bros. Pictures, 2005.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone . Directed by Chris Columbus. Burbank: Warner Bros. Pictures, 2001.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban . Directed by Alfonso Cuarón. Burbank: Warner Bros. Pictures, 2004.

Hately, Shaun. "Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry in the Context of the British Public Schools." HP InkPot , 13 December 2005. http://www.fictionalley.org/authors/shaun_hately/HSOWAWATBPS01.html .

Havens, Candace. Joss Whedon: The Genius Behind Buffy . Dallas: BenBella Books, 2003.

Heiberger, Sara. "Harry Potter and the Editor's Pen." Brown Alumni Magazine Online , November/December 2001. http://www.brownalumnimagazine.com/storydetail.cfm?ID=421 .

Harry Potter Archive

Harry Potter Essays

Home — Essay Samples — Literature — Books — Harry Potter

Essays on Harry Potter

Writing an essay about Harry Potter can be a fun and engaging way to explore the themes, characters, and impact of this beloved series. Whether you're a student or just a fan looking to dive deeper into the magical world of Hogwarts, writing an essay about Harry Potter can help you sharpen your critical thinking skills and express your love for the series.

When choosing a topic for your Harry Potter essay, consider what aspect of the series you are most passionate about. Whether it's the themes of friendship and bravery, the complex characters, or the world-building, there are plenty of topics to explore. For an argumentative essay, you could analyze the ethical dilemmas faced by the characters or debate the impact of the series on popular culture. For a cause and effect essay, you could explore how the events in the series lead to certain outcomes or how the series has influenced readers. For an opinion essay, you could share your thoughts on the controversial aspects of the series or discuss your favorite characters and why they resonate with you. For an informative essay, you could delve into the history of the series, its impact on literature, or the cultural significance of the wizarding world.

• The theme of love and sacrifice in Harry Potter demonstrates the power of compassion and selflessness.
• The character development of Hermione Granger in Harry Potter challenges traditional gender roles and empowers young readers.
• The magical world of Harry Potter serves as an allegory for the struggles and triumphs of adolescence.
• The Harry Potter series, written by J.K. Rowling, has captured the hearts of readers around the world with its enchanting blend of magic, friendship, and adventure.
• As a symbol of resilience and hope, Harry Potter has become a cultural phenomenon that continues to inspire and captivate audiences of all ages.
• From the moment Harry discovers he is a wizard, the world of Hogwarts opens up to readers, inviting them to explore the complexities of good versus evil and the power of love.
• The Harry Potter series has left an indelible mark on popular culture, reminding readers of the enduring power of love, friendship, and bravery.
• As we bid farewell to the wizarding world of Harry Potter, we are left with a sense of wonder and appreciation for the timeless themes and characters that have touched our hearts.
• The magic of Harry Potter lives on in the hearts and minds of fans, reminding us that the power of imagination and storytelling can transcend time and space.

How is Harry Potter a Hero

Success of the harry potter series, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Hero's Journey in Harry Potter

J.k. rowling's spiritual themes in harry potter, identity formed by choices in harry potter and the sorcerer's stone, plot summary of 'harry potter and the sorcerer's stone', let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Summary of Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone

Harry potter and the chamber of secrets: book review, harry potter and the goblet of fire vs. arthurian literature, harry potter: biblical allusions in the third book of the series, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The Problem of Evil in The Harry Potter Series

The huge franchise of harry potter, the similarities between j. k. rowling's harry potter and the sorcerer's stone and the deathly hallows, the deconstruction of concepts of life and death in harry potter series, the questionable nature of the monsters in harry potter universe, j.k. rowling’s depiction of the personality of severus snape as illustrated in harry potter, j. k. rowling's harry potter and the sorcerer's stone: book review, the relationship between harry potter and the sorcerer's stone and economics, the last book about harry potter, and logistics, destiny and choice in never let me go and harry potter and the half-blood prince, harry potter and the sorcerer's stone: plot summary, the lord of the rings vs. "harry potter and the sorcerer's stone", grandfather paradox in j.k. rowling's "harry potter", analysis of j. k. rowling’s book, harry potter and the goblet of fire, from jane eyre to hermione granger: progression of female characters, philosopher's stone and graveyard book: the representation of magical and supernatural, gabriel and young's study about reading a piece of narrative, harry as the sacrificial lamb in harry potter, a reaction to the kairos moment in the goblet of fire as highlighted in the j.k. rowling's novel series, the role of magical animals in harry potter and the sorcerer's stone.

• Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (1997)
• Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (1998)
• Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (1999)
• Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2000)
• Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2003)
• Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2005)
• Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (2007)

J.K. Rowling

Fantasy Novels

Fantasy Fiction, Drama, Young Adult Fiction, Mystery, Thriller, Bildungsroman

Hermione Granger, Harry Potter, Draco Malfoy, Ron Weasley, Lord Voldemort, Professor Albus Dumbledore, Professor Severus Snape, Luna Lovegood, Rubeus Hagrid, Dobby, Bellatrix Lestrange, Neville Longbottom, Professor Minerva McGonagall, Sirius Black, Pansy Parkinson, Newt Scamander, Remus Lupin, Ginny Weasley Gellert Grindelwald, Sorting Hat, Cho Chang, Dolores Umbridge, Peter Pettigrew, Fred Weasley, Dudley Dursley, Lucius Malfoy, Nymphadora Tonks, Hedwig, Lily Evans Potter, Albus Severus Potter, Nagini, Oliver Wood, Narcissa Malfoy, James Potter, Moaning Myrtle, Fleur Delacour, Alastor Moody, George Weasley, Dean Thomas, Argus Filch, James Sirius Potter, Lily Luna Potter, Molly Weasley, Vernon Dursley, Seamus Finnigan, Regulus Black, Winky, Sybill Trelawney, Peeves, Lavender Brown, Astoria Greengrass

Even though there is no actual Harry Potter in real life, J. K. Rowling drew her book inspiration based on a boy who lived just four doors down when she was a child. The boy's name was Ian Potter.

The most important symbol is the scar on Harry's forehead, which stands for the past, present, and the future. The scar is also a representative of Harry Potter's link to Lord Voldemort. The eternal fight between the good and evil.

Love is the main theme throughout the books because if you truly love someone, it cannot be taken away. The true love lasts forever as Harry Potter finds his identity and learns to fight against the tyrannical rule by Voldemort. It is an educational book where there is much more to that than it actually seems. Another great lesson is that true friendship can get you through anything. It is not the magic or being a wizard, but being a true friend and staying there for the ones you love.

It all starts when Harry Potter, an eleven year old English orphaned boy, learns that he is the son of two powerful wizards and has certain magical powers of his own. Joining Hogwarts, an English boarding school for wizards, he embarks on a magical journey, which helps him to find true friends and discover the truth about his parents.

• J.K. Rowling and Harry Potter share the same birthday date
• The author already had the sketch of the final chapter of the final book when she only had the first book written down.
• Struggling with depression after her mother's death, Rowling came up with the concept of the dementors.
• The Quidditch has been created after a fight with her boyfriend.
• The Philosopher's Stone has nearly become "Harry Potter and the School of Magic" in the United States.
• Haley Joel Osment of "The Sixth Sense" fame could have played Harry Potter.
• J.K. Rowling has acknowledged it herself that Harry and Hermione pairing could have worked.
• "To the well-organized mind, death is but the next great adventure." ― Albus Dumbledore
• "It does not do well to dwell on dreams and forget to live." ― Albus Dumbledore
• "Fawkes is a phoenix, Harry. Phoenixes burst into flame when it is time for them to die and are reborn from the ashes." — Albus Dumbledore
• "It matters not what someone is born, but what they grow to be." ― Albus Dumbledore
• "We are only as strong as we are united, as weak as we are divided." — Albus Dumbledore

The main message of the book is defeating evil with the power of love, sincerity, and friendship. The love grants protection, the logic and being smart helps to find the way and open the locked doors. It is more than just an entertaining story that reminds us once again that true friendship will stand through everything and that as long as you have your friend's back, you will challenge even the worst evil there is.

It is one of the most essential books for children and adults today, which makes it a great essay topic when we want to talk about friendship, care for each other, reaching for your dreams, and staying true to who you are. It is also the battle between good and evil and using magic just simply by staying kind and helping your friends.

Relevant topics

• A Modest Proposal
• Catcher in The Rye
• Bartleby The Scrivener
• Into The Wild
• A Farewell to Arms
• All Summer in a Day
• A Very Old Man With Enormous Wings
• A Cup of Tea
• A Jury of Her Peers

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Short Essay And Paragraph On Harry Potter For Students

Here you can read a five-paragraph essay about the Harry Potter books in serious terms. The following selected paragraphs are valuable for learning purposes, especially for young students.

Table of Contents

A Paragraph About Harry Potter

1. Harry Potter is a series of seven fantasy novels by J.K. Rowling. The series tells the adventures of the young wizard Harry Potter and his friends Ron Wesley and Hermione Granger, who are all students of the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry and want to conquer the world.

3. They have also been criticized for their negative portrayal of certain groups, such as the Slithery, and for promoting witchcraft and wizardry. Even so, the series has become one of the most popular in history, and its influence on popular culture is undeniable.

4. So here’s a quick rundown of the Harry Potter franchise: Whether you’re a fan or not, there is no denying that these books have had a huge impact on the world. Did you know? The final book in the Harry Potter franchise, Deathly Hallows, was published in 2007 and became the fastest-selling book in history. In the first 24 hours of its publication, 11 million copies were sold.

5. The Harry Potter series has been translated into over 60 languages and made into eight blockbuster films. Rowling said she got the idea for the series while on a train ride from Manchester to London. Soon after, she began writing the first book. Harry Potter is often credited with reviving the children’s book genre , which made reading popular among young people again. Research has shown that it encourages children to buy books by other British authors, such as Roald Dahl and Diana Wynne Jones.

500 Words Essay On Harry Potter

Harry Potter is a series of fantasy novels written by British author J.K. Rowling. The series chronicles the life of a young orphan boy named Harry Potter, who discovers on his eleventh birthday that he is a wizard. He is taken to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, a magical boarding school in Scotland, where he makes friends and enemies, and learns about magic and the magical world.

The series is made up of seven books, with the first book, “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone,” being published in 1997 and the final book, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” being published in 2007. The books were later adapted into eight successful films, with the final film being released in 2011.

The Harry Potter series has become one of the most popular and successful book and movie franchises of all time. It has been translated into over 80 languages and has sold over 500 million copies worldwide. The series has also been credited with revitalizing interest in reading among young people and has been used as a tool for teaching reading and critical thinking skills in schools.

One of the reasons for the series’ success is its relatable and well-developed characters. Harry Potter, the protagonist of the series, is an orphan who is forced to grow up too quickly, and the series follows his journey from a neglected and mistreated child to a brave and confident young man. His friends Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley are also well-developed characters, each with their own unique strengths and weaknesses. The series also features a wide variety of memorable and dynamic villains, such as Lord Voldemort, the main antagonist of the series, and his followers, the Death Eaters.

Another aspect of the series that has contributed to its success is its rich and detailed magical world. Rowling’s imagination and creativity are on full display in the series, as she creates a world filled with a wide variety of magical creatures, spells, and magical objects. The series also features a complex and intricate plot, with many subplots and twists that keep readers engaged and guessing until the end.

In conclusion, the Harry Potter series is a masterpiece of modern literature that has captured the hearts and minds of millions of readers and viewers around the world. It has become one of the most popular and successful book and movie franchises of all time, and its relatable characters, rich magical world, and complex plot are just a few of the reasons why it has stood the test of time. It is a story of friendship, love, and the power of good to triumph over evil that will continue to be enjoyed by people of all ages for years to come.

Hello! Welcome to my Blog StudyParagraphs.co. My name is Angelina. I am a college professor. I love reading writing for kids students. This blog is full with valuable knowledge for all class students. Thank you for reading my articles.

Related Posts:

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Art
• History of Art
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Environmental History
• History by Period
• History of Agriculture
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Regional and National History
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Browse content in Literature
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Browse content in Religion
• History of Religion
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• Political Sociology
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Native American Studies
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Gender and Sexuality
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Sociology of Religion
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Reviews and Awards
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

• < Previous

Introduction

• Published: May 2022
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This book took shape as readers in the United States marked twenty years since J. K. Rowling published her first Harry Potter novel here. In those twenty years, a generation of readers came of age with Harry, Ron, and Hermione as they tracked the publication of the series across their teenage years. Midnight book release parties, all day reading binges, cosplay with robes and wands, and long hours of constructing fan theories and fictional fill-ins are among the memories that Millennials take with them into adulthood. And it’s not just Millennials who are having a nostalgic Harry Potter moment. There has never been a more successful book series (500 million copies sold and counting), nor a more culturally prominent literary phenomenon, with three expanding theme parks, ten movies and more in production, multiple followup e-books and short stories, new editions of the original novels (illustrated, translated, available in your House colors), a variety of podcasts, an Internet home in Pottermore , several Hogwarts-themed charitable organizations, and Rowling’s joint envisioning of a grown-up Harry in The Cursed Child , a successful play on the London stage that opened on Broadway and claimed five Tony awards. Still today the series holds a venerable place on the New York Times Bestseller List—for more than 625 weeks as of this writing—and “Muggle” is officially in the Oxford dictionary. 1 All of this represents an expansive world of Potter-philia.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• Google Scholar Indexing
• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code

Institutional access

• Sign in with a library card Sign in with username/password Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Sign in with a library card

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• lol Badge Feed
• win Badge Feed
• trending Badge Feed

Browse links

• © 2024 BuzzFeed, Inc
• Consent Preferences
• Accessibility Statement
• Trending badge Trending

32 Untold "Harry Potter" Behind-The-Scenes Secrets I Never Knew About The Movies

I got to tour the Harry Potter sets in England, so here are some of the wildest, coolest things I learned about the making of the movies.

BuzzFeed Staff

Hey! I'm Spencer , and I recently visited Warner Bros. Studios in England where they filmed the Harry Potter movies. I got to tour the lot and learned soooo many wild behind-the-scenes facts and secrets from the films – most of which you've probably never heard before – so I wanted to share some of the coolest ones with you here.

For context, my relationship with Harry Potter has changed over the years, especially as a queer person. I'm a fan of the series but have struggled with the notion of separating art from the artist, due to J.K. Rowling's constant anti-trans beliefs and statements. Because of this, I noticed that I've distanced myself more and more from the franchise, which is unfortunate because so many people have found a home in it.

However, I do believe the world of Harry Potter is so much bigger than Rowling herself, and I will always appreciate its stars for speaking out against her and for advocating for trans rights (which are human rights!). If you, like me, feel impassioned about trans rights then you can learn more or donate here .

1. First of all, in order to film the exterior shots of Hogwarts in the first film, the Art Department built a massive (and super detailed!) 1:24 scale model of the school, and they filmed it in front of a green screen. The model is over 50 feet in diameter and took 40 different artists to build. An additional 50 artists were then responsible for maintaining it throughout the production of the film.

FYI: Here's what the model looked like in Sorcerer's Stone , using digital effects, compared to what it looked like in real life.

2. More than 8,000 visual effects shots were used throughout the movies, but instead of using CGI on Hogwarts, artists painstakingly installed hundreds of individual lights onto the model. This helped to give the illusion of students walking through the school, lanterns illuminating the campus, and rooms being occupied. Real gravel and plants and trees were also used to make the landscaping look as lifelike as possible.

3. Hagrid is about 12 feet tall in the books, but for logistical reasons they made him 7.5 feet in the movies. A massive animatronic head was even molded from actor Robbie Coltrane's (6'1") body, and his body double (6'10") wore it to perform all the scenes when they needed to emphasize the character's size. The animatronic head got more advanced as the films progressed, and its eyes and lips could be controlled and moved. In other instances, Robbie would film scenes in front of a green screen and then be digitally added in post-production.

Martin Bayfield, his stunt double, wore an enormous body suit that had cold water pumping through it at all times so he wouldn't get overheated. They also built large chairs for him to sit on between takes because the suit was so heavy and he was wearing stilts.

4. In order to make Harry Potter's Patronus glow, the Visual Effects team developed an LED vest that was placed on a Scottish Deerhound. Here, the dog could move freely, and the Visual Effects team could see how Harry's Patronus (a stag) would naturally move while glowing. They then combined visual and digital effects to create the right – and believable – lighting effect for the movie.

5. It's kind of ridiculous to believe, but only 20 makeup artists and hairdressers were responsible for handling over 800 cast members on set each day. Also, only about 50 "costumers" (i.e. those in the costume department) worked on each movie, and they were responsible for designing and making everything from the Hogwarts robes, to each character's glasses or jewelry, to picking out Professor Umbridge's tiny brooches.

6. And speaking of Professor Umbridge, her outfits would get more pink as her character would acquire more power. Basically, the more evil and stronger she got, the darker those pink accents on her and her workers' costumes became.

7. Similarly, at the height of Voldemort's power, his robe was made of rich green silks. These tones would get darker, and new layers of silk would be added to his costume as his character grew stronger. However, as each Horcrux was defeated, a layer of silk would be removed, and the outfit would become more faded.

8. Nearly 350 portraits hung throughout Hogwarts, and all of them were painted on blank canvases by only a couple different artists. In fact, many of the portraits are of random crew members who worked behind the scenes. Prisoner of Azkaban director Alfonso Cuarón even had his then-wife and child incorporated into one of them as a tribute.

9. Over the course of the eight films, over 250 different animals (most of them rescue) were trained to appear on screen. Ravens were apparently the easiest animals to work with because they could be taught in a single day, but owls were the most difficult to train.

Julie Tottman, who worked as Head Animal Trainer on the movies, said her favorite animal to work with was Fang, Hagrid's oversized dog.

10. While shooting the first movie, all of the "floating candles" in the Great Hall were originally hung from the ceiling by wires. However, the flames started burning through the wires, and they came crashing to the ground. For safety reasons, most of the candles were ultimately replaced with digital effects instead.

The original floating candles obviously weren't real – they were just made to look like candles. Instead, they were tubes that were full of oil and topped with a wick. Each one was attached to a wire on a rig, and the wires were meant to be CGI'd out of the final shots.

11. Several invisibility cloaks were made for the movies, and each one was crafted from a special velvet fabric that had Celtic symbols printed on it. In order to make Harry turn invisible, one of the cloaks had a green fabric lining that allowed the Visual Effects team to make it disappear via CGI.

12. Exactly 538 individual sets were created throughout the filming of all eight movies. The Gryffindor Common Room, for example, took about three months to build (nearly the same amount of time it took to build the Great Hall) because of how detailed it is. It's one of the longest-standing sets from the entire series.

13. The Griffin Stairwell (aka the magical spiral staircase that leads to Dumbledore's office) was one of the most challenging props for the Special Effects Department to build. They actually built two versions: one static model in my pic below, and a second that actually moved in real life. To make it a functional, moving staircase, they built it in a 12-foot hole in the ground and used mechanics so it would spiral upwards.

14. One of the Prop Manufacturing Department's favorite pieces to craft was the Triwizard Cup. Their goal was to make it look like an "ever-evolving, organic crystal, as though it magically had a life of its own." On the trophy are three dragons, which represent the three different schools that compete in the tournament: Hogwarts, Durmstrang, and Beauxbatons.

15. The Special Effects Department consulted an actual magician to help figure out creative and "invisible" ways to open and close Marauder's Map. For example, it was the magician's idea to use a hidden thread to sneakily unfold the map. That, coupled with some visual effects in post-production, resulted in the final product that we see in the films.

16. Harry's first broomstick was obviously the Nimbus 2000, but it almost looked completely different. The Props Department went through 25 different iterations before settling on the final version.

17. The Gringotts vault cart took three months to build, and by the time they started filming, it was able to move up to 15 mph on a specialty track. However, they used both special ~and~ visual effects for the final product. Each actor had a stunt double, and everything was filmed in front of a green screen so the background could be fitted with the computer-generated set.

18. In the beginning of Chamber of Secrets , the "cake" that fell on Mrs. Mason's head wasn't actually real. It was made of a lightweight fiberglass and was suspended in the air via a mechanical rig, to look like it was floating. Then, when it came time for Dobby to do the deed, a trap door was released and dropped the actual cake onto her.

19. The Weasley's home (aka "The Burrow") was the largest set that was built throughout the entire series, coming in at just over 44 feet. A second model of the house was also built a few years later, this time so they could set it on fire while filming Half-Blood Prince .

According to the Art Department, the Weasley's house was designed to look like Mr. Weasley had built it himself, so they "pushed and pulled support beams and wall units out of place with chains after the set was constructed" to give it that awry look.

20. Seventeen giant fireplaces were built to help create the set for the Ministry of Magic, and each one was just over 30 feet tall. Visual effects were then used to make the space feel even larger.

In Order of the Phoenix , when Harry first traveled to the Ministry of Magic with Mr. Weasley, a bunch of those extras walking around were actually random crewmembers from the set. They all went through hair, makeup, and costuming to become witches and wizards for a day. 

21. Hundreds of different plates were used for Professor Umbridge's decorative kitten plate collection. They were all hand-painted green so the Visual Effects team could CGI cat footage onto them (and, yes, it was actually someone's job to film all of those cats so they had enough footage in the first place).

22. The Forbidden Forest was shot on location at a park in the first movie, but for all the other films they actually built a new set on the backlot and soundstages. Here, they hand-painted the backdrops (some as long as 600 feet) instead of just digitally creating them, and they also used real tree trunks to help carve out the forest.

23. In terms of the makeup effects, there was a whole category of workers in the "Creature Shop" who were responsible for turning the cast into werewolves, trolls, and everything in between. Basically, each character's look would be sketched out, and then a team of artists would create molds for prosthetics, which could then be applied to each actor.

24. The Creature Shop would also work on developing non-actor creatures. Sculptors and engineers built animatronics and models, and the Visual Effects team would turn them into computer-generated models that could be animated. For example, this is how they were able to create the Basilisk. A giant snake head with moving eyes, nostrils, and mouth was crafted for close-up shots, but the rest of the Basilisk's body was created with CGI.

25. A full-body werewolf suit – including stilts and an animatronic head – was actually created for actor David Thewlis during Professor Lupin's transformation scene, but it proved too difficult to operate. After months of rehearsals, they ultimately had to scrap the idea and resort mostly to visual effects.

The makeup department also created several stages of prosthetics to capture each moment of Lupin's transformation into a werewolf. Each look took four hours to apply to the actor.

26. Sixty different actors played goblins during the Gringotts scenes in Deathly Hallows – Part 2 , and many of them were portrayed by female actors. However, female goblins didn't exist in the Harry Potter books, so all of them played male goblins in the movie.

Only one female goblin has ever been mentioned in the Wizarding World. Though she wasn't given a name, she was a jazz singer at The Bling Pig speakeasy in  Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them .

27. Several steps were taken in order to turn every actor into a different-looking goblin, first starting with a cast of each person's face. Makeup artists would then sculpt goblin features on top of the silicone molds, body parts would be painted, wigs would be made and applied one hair at a time, and then all of the body parts – teeth, ears, etc. – would be applied and touched up with makeup to blend seamlessly together.

28. The Props Department created over 38,000 pieces of treasure to fill Bellatrix Lastrange's bank vault for the replication scene in the final movie. Each piece was made of rubber because having real brass, copper, and gold goblets and chalices would have been too dangerous (and costly). The cups were then scanned and digitized to look like they were duplicating in the actual scene. In fact, out of the 7,010 Hufflepuff cups in the vault, only four were gold-plated and made of copper – these were used specifically for close-up shots.

29. They also created over 210,000 detailed coins to represent the Wizarding currency. In the first movie, all of the coins – bronze Knuts, silver Sickles, and gold Galleons – were real and made of metal. However, in the final film, the coins were made of plastic and glued together in giant stacks.

30. The Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes joke shop was only featured on screen for 90 seconds in Half-Blood Prince , but 40,000 props were created to fill the store with everything from Nosebleed Nougats, to Puking Pastilles, to love potions. Over 140 different kinds of products were created and sold in their store.

31. The actual layout of Hogwarts changes in every movie, simply because each of the film's directors needed things in different places. Not worried about continuity errors, they figured that "if the staircases could move in the movies then so could everything else." As a result, all of the rooms and grounds consistently change locations. For example, Hagrid's hut doesn't appear in some models of the castle, the Weeping Willow randomly shows up in the second film, and the Great Hall is in a completely different place in the final movie.

Several other changes occurred throughout the series as well, like random courtyards appearing and disappearing, a clocktower being added in Prisoner of Azkaban , and four extra greenhouses popping up in the final movie.

32. And finally, over 4,000 people worked on all eight Harry Potter movies, from the stunt performers, to the animal trainers, to the makeup artists, and so on. The Wizarding World tour ends in Ollivanders' shop, which is stuffed to the brim with wands and boxes, each one inscribed with the name of every individual actor and crewmember who worked on the series.

If you want more information about the Warner Bros. Studio Tour then definitely check out their site here . They change the theme every few months (the theme when I went was "Magical Mischief"), so everything always feels super fresh and new. For reference, I spent several hours there, and I even visited with people who had never seen the movies or read the books, but we all genuinely had a great time. Enjoy!

Share This Article

It Took 95 Takes To Nail This Harry Potter Scene

95 takes and 30 cameras later, this scene was truly magical.

The Big Picture

• "The Seven Harrys" scene in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 took 95 takes to complete due to the complex transformations of multiple cast members.
• Daniel Radcliffe studied his co-stars' movements to accurately portray their personalities in the scene.
• 30 cameras were used to capture precise facial expressions of characters transforming into Harry Potter for the Deathly Hallows Part 1 scene.

The Wizarding World of Harry Potter is enveloped with countless spells , whimsical creatures, and the magnificent Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. It's no easy task to bring to life such a massively popular book series , but the brilliant cast and crew of the successful franchise were able to gift fans with a magical cinematic experience that many still rewatch every year. The 8-film series continuously proved its dedication to the craft throughout each installment, creating some of the most iconic fantasy scenes in showbiz.

Seeing Diagon Alley for the first time or even the Flying Ford Anglia soaring through England are just some of the many unforgettable moments within the Harry Potter collection. These classic scenes required an immense amount of technical practice, patience, and attention to detail to be able to pull them off. In fact, there is one particular scene the cast and crew of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 found to be just as difficult as performing a real magic trick: “The Seven Harrys” scene, which took 95 takes to complete!

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1

As Harry, Ron and Hermione race against time and evil to destroy the Horcruxes, they uncover the existence of the three most powerful objects in the wizarding world: the Deathly Hallows.

How Was "The Seven Harrys" Scene in 'Deathly Hallows Part 1' Filmed?

The Deathly Hallows: Part 1 is when the darkest turns come into play for Harry Potter ( Daniel Radcliffe ) and his friends. After Professor Snape ( Alan Rickman ) murders Albus Dumbledore ( Michael Gambon ) and Death Eaters are on the rampage, a shadow of unrest and gloom hangs over the future of magic. Harry is left with very few clues to the locations of the remaining horcruxes and finds himself in hiding amongst the chaos. Muggles are being killed and wizards are losing hope, but the Order of the Phoenix has other plans.

"The Seven Harrys" scene takes place right at the beginning of Deathly Hallows Part 1 . When Harry, his friends, and the members of the Order of the Phoenix gather at Privet Drive, an air of danger fills the air. With Harry's magical protection spell now broken, he must be taken to a safe place — the Weasley family 's Burrow . The mission is to transport Harry safely through the air, requiring everyone to transform their physical appearances to mirror Harry's by drinking Polyjuice potion.

Tom Felton's Advice to the Cast of the New 'Harry Potter' Adaptation? Do Crimes

Ron ( Rupert Grint ) , Hermione ( Emma Watson ), Fred ( James Phelps ), George ( Oliver Phelps ), Fleur Delacour ( Clémence Poésy ), and Mundungus Fletcher ( Andy Linden ) all magically become Harry look-alikes, just before the Battle of the Seven Potters. The scene is a marvel to watch unfold in The Deathly Hallows: Part 1 . Not surprisingly, "The Seven Harrys" scene was incredibly difficult to film, requiring an estimated 95 takes to accomplish . In order to shoot each character reshaping into Harry's form, the crew utilized a motion control camera. According to Radcliffe himself, the process was a painstaking one, as it required that the actors barely move an inch:

"Basically you have a motion control camera and it’s programmed by computer so that it does exactly the same moves each time. We’d shoot one version with me as one of the characters and we shoot another version with me as another character. And it was very specific stuff so like if you’ve moved too far an inch to your left, it was unusable because then you would, in theory, be standing on a version of me."

At the time of the production in 2010, this kind of technology was fairly new to the film industry, but the cast and crew's excitement to take on the creative process resulted in the magic we see in "The Seven Harrys" scene.

Daniel Radcliffe Was Challenged To Thoroughly Study His Co-Stars

Not only was "The Seven Harrys" scene technically challenging to shoot for the crew, but Daniel Radcliffe had a particularly challenging task. Director David Yates , who directed the last three installments of the Harry Potter film series, urged Radcliffe to intensely study his co-stars so each version of the Harry look-alikes would embody their true personalities. The actors performed their characters in front of Radcliffe, allowing him to analyze their smallest body movements and mannerisms . By doing so, the scene feels more believable and fans are able to spot the differences in each Harry.

Radcliffe confesses it was a great learning experience to study his peers in the film's behind-the-scenes footage : “You start to look at people in a very analytical way when you’re kind of studying them. Like Rupert [Grint] walks with a real wiggle in his hips. You know it’s actually quite a sexy walk if, you know, if that’s appropriate to say." Since Radcliffe and his co-stars had to be filmed transforming into Harry Potter, all of their intricate facial expressions needed to be captured precisely. Therefore, not just one camera was used — the scene required 30 backup cameras. To achieve the highest level of effects, the crew paired the newly enhanced technology with ultraviolet make-up techniques to bring about the detailed expressions for the seven Harrys. The 30 cameras shot the characters at every angle possible to ensure the effects of the Polyjuice potion were believable.

"The Seven Harrys" scene is beautifully executed and eye-striking. It's no wonder David Yates felt the scene was "the film equivalent of actually doing a magic trick," as the production is even more magical than the outcome. Ultimately, the hard work and dedication of the cast and crew paid off tremendously, as "The Seven Harrys" is not only one of the most memorable moments in The Deathly Hallows: Part 1 , but in the entire series as a whole.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 is available to stream on Max and Peacock in the U.S.

Watch on Max

• Younger Readers

I finished writing the final Harry Potter book in 2007, which seems a very long time ago now. And before that, I had been immersed in Harry’s world for nearly 20 years – since 1990, in fact, when the idea of a boy who doesn’t yet know that he is a great wizard first bubbled up in my brain. But what makes me happiest is that new readers, all over the world, are still discovering Harry Potter for the first time, today.

The short introductions here to each of the seven Harry Potter stories will give you a flavour of the adventures ahead of you. I’ve also tried to answer some of the questions I’m most often asked in the numerous letters and emails that I continue to receive from fans.

I could not have imagined in my wildest dreams just how popular my Harry Potter books would become and at times it was truly overwhelming. Below is a snapshot of what happened when the books were first published.

If you would like to find out more, why not visit Wizarding World.com , the official hub for fans of Harry Potter and the Fantastic Beasts film series.

Enjoy your reading!

The Harry Potter Stories

From Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone , where the story begins, through to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows , here’s a brief introduction to the seven books that have made Harry the world’s most renowned wizard.

9 and 3/4 Questions

J. K. Rowling answers some of the questions she’s most often asked by fans about Harry Potter and the wizarding world she created.

The Magical Journey…

Since the first book appeared in 1997, Harry Potter has not just enchanted readers worldwide, but become a true publishing phenomenon. Find out more here.

Explore More About The Wizarding World

Whether you love Harry Potter and have read every book twice, or you are just starting out on your journey, a visit to Wizarding World.com will answer all your questions, fire your imagination, and draw you deeper into the magic!

Which Hogwarts house would you be in?

Gryffindor, I hope. I value courage beyond almost anything. But I’d be quite a good fit in Ravenclaw, too.

What’s your Patronus?

I used to think it would be an otter, which I gave to Hermione in the books, because I love otters so much, but I’ve got a feeling that if I ever managed to produce one, it would be some kind of large bird. Possibly an owl.

Where do the names of the spells and potions come from or are they made up?

They’re mostly made up, though some derive from old charms people thought genuinely worked, such as Avada Kedavra, from which came ‘abracadabra’. I used a good bit of pig Latin and took liberties with archaic words, too.

Where do wizards go to school before going to Hogwarts?

If they’re Muggle-born, they’ll go to regular schools. Wizarding families tend to home school their children until they’re ready for Hogwarts.

Which Harry Potter character would you most like to meet and why?

I think it would have to be Dumbledore. We’d have a lot to discuss and I would love his advice; I think that everyone would like a Dumbledore in their lives.

Does Harry Potter still have his owl (Hedwig) and does Hermione still have her cat (Crookshanks)?

Poor Hedwig died in book seven, but I like to think Harry would always have a snowy owl in her honour. Crookshanks lived to a ripe old age, but I’m afraid he’s no longer with us.

Will Harry Potter and the Cursed Child ever be made into a movie?

Harry Potter and the Cursed Child was conceived and written as a stage play. It was always intended to be a stage play and nothing else, and I’m afraid there are absolutely no plans for it to become a movie, a novel, a puppet show, a cartoon, a comic book series or Cursed Child on Ice!

Will there be another Harry Potter book – about the Marauders or the Founders of Hogwarts, for instance?

I have always refused to say ‘never’ to this question, because I think it would be foolish to rule out something I might want to do in the future. The play Harry Potter and the Cursed Child is a prime example. I was intrigued to do something new. Working with Jack Thorne (the playwright) and John Tiffany (the director) was one of the most satisfyingly creative experiences of my working life. We developed the story together and I couldn’t be more thrilled with the result.

What happened to some of the other characters like Dudley Dursley, Neville Longbottom and Luna Lovegood?

I think Dudley’s out there living a happier and better life for having known Harry. He wouldn’t be nearly as hidebound and fiercely conventional as his parents. Neville became a Herbology teacher at Hogwarts, where I think he’d be hugely popular.

Luna married a descendant of Newt Scamander and became a magizoologist.

Harry Potter Books and Movies Compare & Contrast Essay

One of things that make life fascinating is the diversity and variance that different people and things exhibit. These differences may be obvious or deeply disguised requiring one to take a critical look at the item in order to notice them.

In this paper, I shall set out to compare two items; J. K. Rowling’s “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” the Book and its movie adaptation. By so doing, I shall demonstrate that there do exist significant differences as well as similarities between the two items despite them appearing to be wholly similar.

A Comparative Analysis

Both the book and its film adaptation share the character set. The lead character is the hero Harry Potter, a famous wizard whose adventures are the central focus of the book and the movie. In the wizard world, Harry Potter is engaged in a prolonged fight to defeat the immensely powerful and evil wizard Lord Voldemort. Harry potter is assisted in his noble quest by his two best friends Ron and Hermione. These two characters play significant roles in the plot development of both the movie and the book.

The magical school that Harry and his friends attend so as to learn about wizardry is represented in an identical manner in both the book and the movie. The school building is a gigantic and daunting castle which is inaccessible to non-magical people. According to the book, the castle has a lake, extensive grounds and a forest.

The Movie properly depicts this as a lake can be seen as the students arrive at the school by use of a train. The imposing nature of the castle is evident and in many scenes from the movie, Harry Potter and his friends venture out into the fields and forests that are part of the school grounds.

However, the representation of one of the lead characters Hermione in the movie is not a true depiction of what she is in the book. In the book, Hermione is described as a brightest girl in the school. Her know-it-all attitude alienates her from the rest of the students.

Nothing to the book indicates that Hermione is an attractive girl and she is in fact describe as having large protruding teach and bushy brown hair. However, the movie presents Hermione as a physically attractive and likable character. This is inconsistent with the image that one builds form reading the novel.

In the book, the prisoner of Azkaban, the character Sirius Black who is Harry’s godfather, plays a minor role despite him being central to the plot of the book. His appearances in the book are relatively few considering that he is the focal point of the book.

The book instead focuses on developing the story around Sirius and therefore, despite his not being mentioned every now and then, one can sense his involvement throughout the book. In the movie, Sirius plays a more predominant role and he is afforded relatively more screen time than one would expect from the book.

The movie adaptation contains numerous omissions of events that are recorded in the book. This is to be expected considering the relatively small length of the movie compared to the size of the book. Harry Potter’s exchanges with his uncle’s family are left out and one can therefore not correctly gauge the nature of the relationship from watching the film. From the book, it is clear that Harry Potter hates staying with his relatives who despise him.

In this paper, I set out to compare two items so as to highlight their similarities and differences. From my comparison of the book “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” and its movie adaptation, it is clear that there are a lot of similarities and differences between the two. Nevertheless, both the movie and the book prove to be equally entertaining despite their differences.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, October 31). Harry Potter Books and Movies. https://ivypanda.com/essays/a-comparison-of-j-k-rowlings-book-harry-potter-and-the-prisoner-of-azkaban-and-its-movie-adaptation/

"Harry Potter Books and Movies." IvyPanda , 31 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/a-comparison-of-j-k-rowlings-book-harry-potter-and-the-prisoner-of-azkaban-and-its-movie-adaptation/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Harry Potter Books and Movies'. 31 October.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Harry Potter Books and Movies." October 31, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/a-comparison-of-j-k-rowlings-book-harry-potter-and-the-prisoner-of-azkaban-and-its-movie-adaptation/.

1. IvyPanda . "Harry Potter Books and Movies." October 31, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/a-comparison-of-j-k-rowlings-book-harry-potter-and-the-prisoner-of-azkaban-and-its-movie-adaptation/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Harry Potter Books and Movies." October 31, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/a-comparison-of-j-k-rowlings-book-harry-potter-and-the-prisoner-of-azkaban-and-its-movie-adaptation/.

• Adaptation of Prisoner of Azkaban From Book to Film
• "Harry Potter" Movie and Novel: Plot Changes
• Sirius XM Radio
• Enslavement in “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” by J. K. Rowling
• Media Interpretation of Harry Potter and Sexuality
• Sirius XM Holdings' Product vs. Terrestrial Radio
• Literary Values of Harry Potter Novels by Rowling
• "The Winter`s Tale" by William Shakespeare
• Investing in Amazon, Sirius XM, FedEx, Sprint and USAA
• Gender Role in Harry Potter Books and Movies
• "Genghis Khan" by Richard P. Lister
• Alice in Wonderland: Theory and Post-Structuralism Examples
• Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare
• Innocence of Frankenstein's Monster
• The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time

• How to watch in the US
• How to watch in the UK
• How to watch from anywhere
• How to watch with a VPN

Where to watch Harry Potter for free from anywhere: All eight movies covered

When you buy through our links, Business Insider may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more

It's hard to believe that the last Harry Potter movie hit theaters over a decade ago. Fortunately, the beloved wizarding series is available to stream for free from home with the proper setup. If you want to relive the magic, we'll show you all of your streaming options for the franchise, including where to watch Harry Potter from anywhere.

Based on the books by J.K. Rowling, the Harry Potter film franchise follows Harry, Ron, and Hermione as they attend the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry and attempt to evade the ever-growing evil of Voldemort. Although there are seven books, the series is broken up into eight films. Each film has a hefty runtime (every movie is at least two-and-a-half hours long), so it will take you almost 20 hours to watch everything. 

There's a pretty good chance you've already seen the Harry Potter movies, but it's never a bad time for a rewatch. We'll show you how to get a jumpstart on your Harry Potter marathon below, including how to access a free stream of them via VPN . 

• See also: Where to watch Oppenheimer | Where to watch The Zone of Interest | Where to watch Anatomy of a Fall

How to watch Harry Potter in the US

All eight Harry Potter movies are available to stream on Peacock . Peacock subscriptions start at $5.99 per month for the ad-supported plan. For $11.99 per month, you can upgrade to an ad-free subscription tier. In addition to Harry Potter, Peacock has a vast collection of on-demand movies, including Oppenheimer, The Holdovers, and Kung Fu Panda.

Peacock is a streaming service featuring NBCUniversal TV shows, movies, original series, live sports, and news programs. Prices start at just $5.99 a month on one-month deals, with further discounts available on annual plans.

How to watch Harry Potter in the UK

In the UK, all Harry Potter movies are available to stream for free on ITVX , ITV's ad-supported free streaming counterpart. ITVX is free to use and only requires signing up for an account. The selection of available Harry Potter films occasionally shifts, but they're all there at the time of writing.

You can also find them on the UK version of Netflix , which you can access from outside the UK via a VPN (see below) if you already have a Netflix account in another country. This is the best option for most users, as you can ditch the ads if you're already on an ad-free tier of the streaming service.

How to watch Harry Potter from anywhere

If you're currently outside the UK and want to watch Harry Potter for free, you might want to try a VPN (virtual private network). VPNs change your electronic device's location so you can access websites that might not otherwise be accessible in your region. They're also excellent ways to boost your online privacy.

We recommend ExpressVPN , a tried-and-true option that comes with a convenient 30-day money-back guarantee. Check out our ExpressVPN review for more information, and keep reading to learn how to use it for the Netflix or ITV options.

With its consistent performance, reliable security, and expansive global streaming features, ExpressVPN is the best VPN out there, excelling in every spec and offering many advanced features that makes it exceptional. Better yet, you can save up to 49% and get an extra three months for free today.

How to watch Harry Potter with a VPN

• Sign up for a VPN if you don't already have one.
• Install it on the device you're planning to watch on.
• Turn it on and set it to a UK location.
• Sign up for an ITVX account. Or sign into a Netflix account.
• Enjoy Harry Potter 1-8.

Note: The use of VPNs is illegal in certain countries, and using VPNs to access region-locked streaming content might constitute a breach of the terms of use for certain services. Insider does not endorse or condone the illegal use of VPNs.

You can purchase logo and accolade licensing to this story here . Disclosure: Written and researched by the Insider Reviews team. We highlight products and services you might find interesting. If you buy them, we may get a small share of the revenue from the sale from our partners. We may receive products free of charge from manufacturers to test. This does not drive our decision as to whether or not a product is featured or recommended. We operate independently from our advertising team. We welcome your feedback. Email us at [email protected] .

• Main content

Harry Potter Fans Noticed A Key Dumbledore Detail 15 Years After The Half-Blood Prince

One enterprising Redditor thinks they might have figured out where Hogwarts headmaster and beloved "Harry Potter" character Albus Dumbledore got this key item — but are they right?

Reddit user u/FawkesNK — who likely took their username from Dumbledore's pet phoenix Fawkes — posted two photos from the film "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" with the caption, "Just realised something watching HBP, I think I found out where Dumbledore got his memory bottles!" The first photo is a close-up of the tiny bottles that Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) frequently uses for his Pensieve, a glimmering magical cauldron of sorts that holds important memories from throughout the wizard's long life. The cauldron doesn't simply contain the memories but is more like a projector for Dumbledore's thoughts, so all of the older wizard's memories are stored in the small bottles. The second photo is of Dumbledore and Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) in the London Underground looking at a perfume ad, and the bottles in that print ad happen to look suspiciously like the vials from the first photo.

So does this theory hold any water — or memories, like the Pensieve's vials? Or is it simply an Easter egg placed there by a clever graphic designer working on the "Harry Potter" films?

Is this really where Dumbledore got his Pensieve bottles?

Other Redditors on the thread didn't necessarily seem convinced, but at least a few thanked the original poster for pointing out a cool small detail, like u/TheRealTomSnow : "Thats a great detail, saw the film a dozen times and never noticed. Thanks OP!" Others were frustrated that the post reminded them of "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince,"  which happens to be the least favorite "Harry Potter" film for some fans . "That second picture makes me angry because it reminds me of what a travesty the 6th movie was!" u/nursewithnolife wrote.

Others pointed out, that, while the theory is cool, it doesn't really make much sense. As u/VflShagrath succinctly wrote, "Close but not the same." Meanwhile,  u/scienceteacher91 agreed, responding, "Right? They're definitely not the same bottle." Another Redditor, u/superjames_16 , chimed in: "Maybe he noted a similarity? But yeah he's been collecting those memories for years."

All in all, the fans voicing dissent are probably right; while the Pensieve vial detail is definitely a nice visual callback to the ad in the London Underground, Albus Dumbledore is not stealing (or buying) and subsequently emptying perfume vials in order to store his precious memories. Not only is it much more likely that the vials are made from a magical substance, but there's one major factor at play here that makes it impossible for this theory to be true.

The perfume bottles one Harry Potter fan clocked aren't in the source material — just the movie

There are many differences between the "Harry Potter" books and their film adaptations , and this vial issue is just one of them — because that London Underground ad isn't present in the books. In fact, at no point do Harry and Dumbledore even visit the Underground together; in the books, the former takes it once with Hagrid in the first installment, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." The film version of "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" sees Harry and Dumbledore meeting up during their summer break from Hogwarts to track down an old professor, Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent), and convince him to return to the school as its Potions master that fall ... but the movie shows them meeting up in the Underground, for some reason. That's not how it happens in the book.

In the novel, Dumbledore informs Harry that he'll come and fetch him from the home of Harry's Muggle relatives, the Dursleys — at which point Dumbledore invites himself into the Dursley home, severely chastises them for their cruelty towards Harry, and tells Harry that he's inherited a house-elf from his late godfather Sirius Black (Gary Oldman in the films). From there, the two set off to find Slughorn, and they Apparate instead of bothering with the train. That's why this whole vial thing can't be true — they don't exist in the books in the same way.

To read more about everyone's favorite wizarding headmaster, check out Dumbledore's best moments from the "Harry Potter" movies .