THE HARRY POTTER MOVIE: "Harry Potter and The Order of The Phoenix"
By Marcia Montenegro
[Note: This is an evaluation, not a review, and is done for the purpose of pointing out anything in the movie that could be problematic from a moral and/ or biblical viewpoint, and it is written primarily to inform parents. Please do not email me and tell me that I think fantasy is bad, or that because children know the difference between reality and fiction, this movie is okay. I don't think fantasy is bad at all, and I realize most children know the difference between reality and fiction, but that is not the issue here. Please read this first, and my articles on the Harry Potter books as well, before emailing me if you have objections. Thank you.]
Evaluation
The information here, with a few exceptions, is given chronologically
according to the events in the film, rather than by topic. Only the most
salient features are being conveyed as far as objectionable material
goes.
There are several scenes that are rather frightening in this movie,
including the beginning when Dementors attack Harry and his cousin
Dudley. Dementors are ghostly looking figures with trailing black cloaks
and skeletal features who suck out people's joy, but the physical
portrayal of this looks like they are sucking out someone's breath.
Another scary scene is when Harry remembers Cedric being killed, an
action that took place in the previous book and movie. Harry also keeps
having visions of the villain, Lord Voldemort, from time to time, and
these visions worsen.
In one scene, a student named Luna tells Harry and his friends that her
necklace is a charm to protect her against certain creatures. Charms
have been mentioned in previous Harry Potter books. Charms are actually
used in the occult and in folk magick as protective items. The usual
belief is that the object has been imbued with some kind of spell or
energy that gives protection to the wearer (this is also true for
amulets). This is the idea behind our popular good-luck charms such as
horseshoes, a rabbit's foot, four-leaf clovers, and others.
This movie, like the book it's based on, contains a lot of references to
death. Luna tells Harry that a certain horse-like creature that only she
and Harry see can only be seen by "those who have seen death." Luna goes
on to say that she witnessed her mother's death due to a spell "going
wrong" that her mother was casting.
Since the students are being prevented from actually practicing spells
to counter dark magic in their Defense Against the Dark Arts class,
Harry contrives to secretly teach several students certain spells to use
against those who would attack them. Harry knows Lord Voldemort is back
and on the move, and is trying to prepare the students to fight back.
In one scene, they learn to conjure up their Patronus, a
quasi-independent entity, usually appearing as an animal, that acts to
protect them. The Patronus first appears in Harry Potter and the
Prisoner of Azkaban. The description of this in the book is reminiscent
of what is called in the occult a "thought-form," sometimes considered a
familiar spirit, especially if it takes the form of an animal. I learned
about this in psychic classes I took in the 80's. A thought-form is a
"quasi-independent constellation of psychic elements," conjured up to
"act in accordance" with the will of one who conjures it, and which is
"reabsorbed" into the person's consciousness when it has done its job
(Janet and Stewart Farrar, A Witches' Bible [Custer, WA: Phoenix
Publishing, 1996], 93, 240-41, 320-21). The thought-form is considered
to be an astral entity, a spirit conjured on the astral plane by someone
on the earth plane (Gonzalez-Wippler, The Complete Book of Spells,
Ceremonies & Magic. 2d ed. [St. Paul: Llewellyn, 1996],105). The astral
plane, according to some occult and New Age teachings, is a dimension
beyond the material plane which can be contacted in dreams, through
rituals, or visited by the astral self. The astral plane is also
considered to be "the working ground of the magician," (Gonzalez-Wippler,
98).
When Harry is teaching these spells, he tells the students, "Control
your emotions and discipline your mind." Control and a disciplined mind
are very high on the agenda of doing occult magick and are reiterated in
books on practicing magick.
Using spells and magick to fight "dark magick" is called "white magick."
This shows that the books are not really about good vs. evil, but more
about good magick against dark magick. However, there is no such
delineation between white and dark magick in God's view, according to
his word. God forbids all spellcasting and magick, and shows that his
power is greater (the Bible may use varied terms such as "sorcery,"
"soothsaying," "enchantment," "witchcraft," "divination," and
"incantations"). See
Ex. 7:11, 22, 8.7, 18-19;
Lev. 19:26;
Deut. 18:10;
2 Kings 17:17, 21:6;
Is. 47:9, 12;
Jer. 27:9,
Acts 8:9-11, 18-21, 13:6-12, 19:19;
Rev. 9:20, 21, 18:23, 21:8, 22:15.
Harry continues to have vivid dreams and visions of Lord Voldemort,
finally learning that he has what can only be called a psychic
connection to Lord Voldemort. He is told that Lord Voldemort can invade
minds and control them, and will try to invade Harry's mind. So Harry
takes occlumency lessons from Snape, learning to shield his mind.
However, the lessons stop when Harry invades Snape's mind.
At one point, Sirius, Harry's godfather who was a good friend of Harry's
father, tells Harry that we all have good and bad in us, and it depends
on what part we choose to act on. This sounds good from a humanistic
viewpoint, but is it really true? Can we become good on our own, without
redemption and regeneration through faith in Christ? Is it just a matter
of choosing to be good? And what is the good based on in this movie?
There is no standard or model for good that is given; good is defined
simply as that which opposes Lord Voldemort. Is it just that good is
less bad than an extreme evil, like Voldemort or Dolores Umbridge?
Almost anyone would look good next to them. This is goodness born of
relativism.
Dumbledore, the headmaster of Hogwarts, lies to Dolores Umbridge to
protect Harry. He says that he told Harry to form the secret group,
although he didn't. Of course, many will say this is good as he is
protecting Harry, but that begs the question. In what instances can we
lie? To protect someone from punishment? To protect someone from feeling
hurt? It's very elastic. I get tons of emails from young people
defending Harry's and others' lies in the books because Harry and others
are doing good. It is almost as though children and teens are thinking
that in order to be good, one must lie. For them, lying is totally
relativistic, and I think the concept of honesty is not admired or even
desired anymore.
In another death scene, Harry sees Sirius die, and he chases Bellatrix,
the woman who killed Sirius. This is a very dark and intense scene, and
leads to about 20 minutes of the darkest part of the movie and to the
climax when Lord Voldemort appears and duels with Dumbledore, using
magick.
Harry realizes that Lord Voldemort cannot love, and that he, Harry, does
love and is loved. This is the power he has and Lord Voldemort doesn't.
Much is made of this by some Christians who defend the books, but it is
overshadowed by the promotion of casting spells and other occult
practices, and by the dark and amoral atmosphere of the books (and by
extension, the movies, although the movies leave out a lot of material).
In the book this movie is based on, Dumbledore explains that when
Harry's mother died for him, her death acted as a protective charm that
saved him. By placing Harry in his mother's sister's home, Harry was
protected further by his mother's blood (flowing in the veins of her
sister, Harry's aunt) and thus his safety was ensured. Doing this
"sealed the charm" (page 835). Far from being a picture of how Christ
saves us through his sacrifice on the cross, as some have claimed (once
again, reaching for Christian symbolism), this presents an occult view
of what Harry's mother did. Her death was, or became, a charm, an act of
magic. If all it takes is love to defeat Voldemort, why do the students
need to learn spells? Why does Dumbledore resort to spells to fight the
villain? This love theme should not be carried too far.
Conclusion
I am using some of the same statements I made for the conclusion of
the article on the last movie,
"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire," as there is really nothing
new to say.
The movie is very dark, and offers little that is compatible with God's
word or with a Christian worldview. In fact, the movie flouts concepts
opposed to God's teachings. The few places where morality is given a pat
on the head ultimately drown in a sea of paranormal magic and deception.
But due to the gross desensitization in our culture to violence, to
darkness, and to the occult, it is more likely that what is shown in
this movie will be accepted as "normal." Very young children were at
this movie, including some that looked as young as 3. This allows
further desensitization, so that the envelope will continue to be pushed
just a little more each time, and our children will be exposed to even
darker stories and movies until there will be no lines to cross anymore.
SupportThis Ministry
