News » Exclusive: Helena Bonham-Carter Spills Potter: Deathly Hallows Secrets

Exclusive: Helena Bonham-Carter Spills Potter: Deathly Hallows Secrets

Bellatrix Lestrange on the 7th and 8th films.

by Joe Utichi | Thursday, Feb. 25 2010
39 comments

RT sat down with Helena Bonham-Carter in London earlier today to talk about her take on the Red Queen in husband Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland - released next week. While there, of course, we couldn't resist mining the Terminator: Salvation star for news on her third and fourth appearances in the Harry Potter films, with the upcoming Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows 2-parter.

Bonham Carter has played dark witch Bellatrix Lestrange since Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. In that film, she's responsible for the death of Potter's godfather, Sirius Black. This time she'll be back behind the wand, notably appearing in the Potter series' climactic battle at Hogwarts castle.

WARNING: Big story spoilers follow.

"I'm mostly in [Deathly Hallows: Part 2]," she told RT. "But it was fun. I died on my last day, which was really weird -- to actually be [killed] on my last day. Molly Weasley - Julie Walters - kills me."

And it'll be quite the moment, she explained. "I do get a good death scene," she told us. "It was really exhausting. As usual! [I'm] duelling, with a wand, on a table. I fell right off. I was clever enough to say, 'If you're going to ask me to duel, backwards, can we put a stuntman at the end?' They said, 'Ah, you won't need one.' And what did I do? Walked straight off.

"You'd think with 70 people looking at you, one of them would go, 'Er, could you stop?!' No! They loved it. I nearly killed myself -- on the day that I died."

For Bonham-Carter, bringing Bellatrix to an end was an emotional experience given her investment in the creation of the character as she appears in the films. "Bellatrix wasn't on the page," she explained. "I did think, What can I do to make this interesting? She was just written as tall and gaunt, but I knew there was something I got attracted to -- playing arrested development. You know, children. Bellatrix is another child -- stuck and totally anarchic."

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 hits cinemas later this year. There'll be more from our time with Bonham-Carter on the site next week.

Comments

August M.

August M. on 02-25-2010 09:10 AM

Not really much of a spoiler if you read the book.

Brad H.

Brad H. on 02-25-2010 09:24 AM

Yeah I was gonna say what could possibly have been spoiled if you read the book.

27raulillo

27raulillo on 08-17-2010 10:18 AM

A spoiler if you haven't :-)

Joe Utichi

Joe Utichi on 02-25-2010 09:47 AM

Last time we ran a Potter story we were told off for not warning! I think a few people have chosen to wait and watch the films first.

celia h.

celia h. on 02-25-2010 03:53 PM

Those people will be really confused when they watch Deathly Hallows.

Taylor Betz

Taylor Betz on 02-25-2010 09:53 AM

Bonham-Carter is so lovely, (SPOILER ALERT) I have a crush on her. She was the only amusing part of T4 and I can't wait to see her in Wonderland. Not a huge Harry Potter fan, haven't read the books but have seen all the flicks and enjoy them quite a bit. Look forward to the last two films.

August M.

August M. on 02-25-2010 10:10 AM

same here, although I'm getting tired of both her and Johnny Depp appearing in every Tim Burton movie lately.

Michael D.

Michael D. on 03-1-2010 08:31 AM

I love how you think it's a spoiler that you have a crush on Helena.

Alexson Philip

Alexson Philip on 02-25-2010 12:18 PM

im pretty confident that harry potter 7 will be EPIC. especially the final battle at hogwarts. i hope its as epic as the final battle in lord of the rings 3, which was quite fukin epic.

Dave J.

Dave J. on 02-25-2010 12:53 PM

I think the difference is that although Helena Bonahm Carter reveals what she defines as SPOLERS may not be same as the director or the producer of this film since they have the opportunty to change or bend the story a little. A better word is liberty or alter any so- called SPOILER ALERT that was leaked!! This kind of news is still speculation until the final result had actually been seen!!!

inactive user

inactive user on 02-25-2010 02:44 PM

Anyone else mad that "Deathly Hallows" is in two parts? I mean, why is it in two parts? Wasn't the fifth book the longest? And it was made into one movie? Warner Bros. is just splitting it up because instead of making one billion dollars with one movie, they can make two billion.

Bigbrother

Bigbrother on 02-25-2010 03:02 PM

I'm holding off judgement on that to see how they do with the two films, I've often wished they didn't cut so much out of earlier HP movies and while you're correct the 5th book is the longest it's also the most literary i.e. it has a ton of sequences that were easily left out without harming the narrative of a film where Deathly Hallows has a lot more going on and a number of key events which lend themselves well to filming which along with the financial reason might have been a reason to go with the two movie idea.

August M, well she is his wife, so I'm sure he'd much rather suffer your displeasure at casting her than suffer her displeasure at not being cast. Not sure about Johnny Depp though...Man-crush? Menage a trois, Bromance...your guess, as good as mine.

Defmonkey

Defmonkey on 02-25-2010 04:13 PM

I've been rewatching the Potter films and I as well wished the films were a bit longer. Its been years since I've read the books, might re-read them to remember all the story and not just what's in the movies. Really excited for this two part film. I have a feeling the Weasley twins fallout is going to be huge.

jamie j.

jamie j. on 02-25-2010 03:07 PM

Deathly hollows is in two parts because its much more intense through out than order of the phoenix, more imporant crucial events are in it and its the final chapter of the harry potter films. It makes much more sence to make two films.

Jason C Wilkerson

Jason C Wilkerson on 02-25-2010 03:46 PM

ledawg: OOTP had a lot of filler in the book though, they all did except DH. Everything that happens in DH is important to the story. I don't really see anything you can take out of that movie without losing something that relates to the end of the movie.

celia h.

celia h. on 02-25-2010 03:48 PM

@ledawg1138: If you had read the book, then you would know that there's no possible way for them to be remotely faithful to Deathly Hallows unless they make it into two films or one 6 hour long film. The plot is so intricate and every little thing is important. They could've made DH into 3 films if they wanted to. I'm sure money was also factor, but I'm really happy they split it into two because that means the adaptation will be really close to the source material. Plus, they've been talking about splitting the HP films since GOF came out because the books are very detailed.

inactive user

inactive user on 02-25-2010 09:42 PM

celiah@: Hey, hey, I have read the book. And still, two parts seems like a pretty bad idea. They can cram it all in. They did with the rest.

BLaCKWoLF2010@: Snape is the best part.

dj Mark

dj Mark on 02-26-2010 10:09 AM

Now hold on...

When I became a fan of the Harry Potter movies - right around the third one - I always conceded to fans of the books when they complained that the movie left out too much or didn't feature this or that.

After Order of the Phoenix I decided to pick up the final two books and read them before the films came out.

Having done that, I can now say with an informed opinion that I think Deathly Hallows MOST CERTAINLY could be one film. There are extended scenes of the characters hiding and camping in the woods that really didn't add much to the narrative.

The later parts of the book that contain the climactic events are definitely important, so DH should have been the longest Potter film, but TWO films? No.

celia h.

celia h. on 03-2-2010 10:25 PM

The camping scene is not that long when you re-read the book. It's only one chapter. I thought that scene was brilliant, because it really gave you a sense of the paranoia the trio was feeling. They had no idea what they were suppose to be doing and I think having them camp out in a tent and constantly getting mad at each other was brilliant writing on JKR's part. It's taken them 6 years to get to this point. They're not going to all of a sudden know how to destroy the horcruxes. It was very realistic and added a lot to the storyline. But aside from that, every single scene in Deathly Hallows from the opening chapter to the epilogue is extremely important to the storyline. I just love how she added such minute details and they became a huge part of the story near the end of the book. Like when Harry pulls the wands out of Draco's hand. At that point, Harry becomes the Master of the Elder Wand and we all know that's how he successfully defeated Voldemort. That moment was so huge, but you never would've guessed it.

Florian B.

Florian B. on 03-2-2010 11:02 PM

I totally agree with you i mean No.5 could almost be in three movies.

Aaron M.

Aaron M. on 03-5-2010 07:32 AM

ledawg1138, the movie is in two parts because of the depth of the book. With the main characters in search of the horocuxes AND the deathly hallows AND the storyline for the rest for the rest of the cast it makes sense to split what would be an incredibly long movie. I'm not saying I'm happy about it, but be happy that they are including so much of the book that it takes two movies. At least they aren't watered down or ridiculously changed like Percy Jackson or the Golden Compass.

celia h.

celia h. on 02-25-2010 03:44 PM

Wow! SPOILER ALERT! I can't believe they've filmed that part already!! AWESOME!! Bellatrix goes down fighting, which is appropriate. I have never been more happy to see a character die. She killed and tortured way too many characters in Deathly Hallows. She deserved EXACTLY what she got. I can't wait to see Helena in Alice in Wonderland! She's a fabulous actress!

Christa A.

Christa A. on 02-25-2010 03:46 PM

I really don't see how that's much of a spoiler. I mean, I could understand if they had given away a hero dying, but she's a villain. In a story like this, it's obvious that her character is going to die.

Mr. Dufresne

Mr. Dufresne on 02-25-2010 04:21 PM

I think it's the right decision for this to be in two parts, because the book has so many details in it that would damage the narrative if left out. I used to be a HUGE Harry Potter fan, starting with I was 9 up until about 14 when Deathly Hallows came out. It seems longer, though. I used to eagerly await every movie and book. I'm not half as big of a fan now, though. I still casually like the series, but I've become a bigger fan of stories like The Hobbit and LOTR. I'll still probably see both parts in theaters (I didn't see HBP in theaters at all).

Mr. Dufresne

Mr. Dufresne on 02-25-2010 04:27 PM

I'd just like to add that even though it has it's flaws, I think that Prisoner of Azkaban is far and away the best Harry Potter movie. It's the one Potter movie that really feels like a real...well...movie. I mean, the other ones are pretty good, but Prisoner of Azkaban holds my interest the most nowadays. I think the book might be the best one, too. The movie just has many great scenes, such as the opening scenes with Aunt Marge, the Dementor train scene, the Hippogriff flying scene, the Quidditch scene (probably my favorite part of the movie, and the whole climax). I def. think Prisoner of Azkaban is the best one.

BLaCKWoLF

BLaCKWoLF on 02-25-2010 05:06 PM

All I have to say is that I cannot wait to see Alan Rickman's performance in DH, I had almost begun to lose hope in the HP franchise and then Rowling completely redeemed herself with Snape's character arc.

I really hope these two films turn out to be great, it would be a great shame to not do the book any justice.

Andrew C.

Andrew C. on 02-25-2010 07:07 PM

Spoiler alert - I believe that the movie may, in some small part at least, be based upon a book.

Biscuit23

Biscuit23 on 02-26-2010 06:54 AM

ledawg- Of course they can cram it all in, but it will be 3 to 3 and a half hours of a rushed movie. This would cause many of the same complaints the other films have had, which is being rushed, feeling like a bunch of scenes randomly put together, and cut scenes. Can you imagine the Battle of Hogwarts starting around the 2 hr 30 min mark, which is about as long as all the other movies and as another example the Dark Knight (which is long). 2 parts will be much better but my only complaint is the first part, which may be pretty slow, setting up an epic second part. Besides maybe they will make an edited version and condense the two films into one when it comes on DVD.

AniMill

AniMill on 02-26-2010 08:41 AM

The question is: where will the split be? I"m kind'a hoping in the Malfoy Manor dungeon - perfect place for a cliff-hanger!

I (and a bunch of my friends) am thrilled that it's going to be a 2-parter. This had to be the single best decisions of the franchise. So far the only movie I have not really cared for was Order of the Phoenix due to the teen angst issues and the horrid music (and I mean, really really bad). But generally, each movie had built upon the previous very successfully - whereas the first movies were soft and cute, great for the young kids they were, from #3 on they got progressively darker and grimmer. Exactly as the books did.

I am sad, though. What will replace our franchise world when Potter is gone? Hobbit? Perhaps, but I don't see anything on the horizon beyond that...

scabo33

scabo33 on 02-26-2010 11:04 AM

SPOILER........Part one ends when the 3 of them get kidnapped....and whoever said they hope the battle of hogwarts is better than The baattle of pelanor fields in return of the king needs a punch! That was the best battle of all time! :)

scabo33

scabo33 on 02-26-2010 11:08 AM

SPOILER........Part one ends when the 3 of them get kidnapped....and whoever said they hope the battle of hogwarts is better than The baattle of pelanor fields in return of the king needs a punch! That was the best battle of all time! :)

Dylan S.

Dylan S. on 02-27-2010 07:32 AM

Just like everyone else said. What spoiler? Stoked as hell though to see the final Potter installments.

Timotei

Timotei on 02-27-2010 09:01 AM

Man that book was a disappointment, I hope they do something good with it

John S.

John S. on 03-2-2010 01:15 AM

Are most of you people brain dead? or just plain stupid? Deathly Hallows requires two parts? In no way shape or form does Deathly Hallows require two parts, and there are so many reasons. One thing that comes to mind... A tedious, inane and convoluted camping trip that riddles the book with its mediocrity and high school level drama. Oh no I'm sorry, as one of you stated, the WHOLE book is so intricate, and special, so heaven forbid they make one good movie but make two more terrible movies. I am a Harry Potter fan, but these movies are painstaking to watch, with the switch of Dumbledore from Richard Harris (who performed the role more than well, RIP) to Michael Gambon...right down to the sleep inducing pacing of the movies. I don't normally fall asleep at the movies, but for the latter half of the series, Goblet of Fire and beyond, I was sleeping like a baby. For the record, haven't seen Half-blooded Prince, and don't plan to watch these next two.

TombstoneLawDog

TombstoneLawDog on 03-2-2010 08:48 AM

"Are most of you people brain dead? or just plain stupid?"


..I'm quite certain we're just plain stupid. How ELSE could you describe a reasonable difference of opinion about how short or long to make a movie based upon a fantasy series? There are so many hard and fast rules to this, it's only an abject *MORON* who would debate whether it should be one movie or two--especially considering the producers of the movie were debating the same thing. Luckily, we have you.

..also, as long as we're all 'stupid,' here, we probably won't notice that you don't know what 'painstaking' means ('Fastidious' or 'Careful' not 'painful' or 'boring'). Enjoy nap time. I'll be at the theaters enjoying Potter.

'Half-blooded Prince' --what is that, the Kmart rip-off version?

celia h.

celia h. on 03-2-2010 10:27 PM

I hate to break it to you, but you my friend are NOT a Potter fan.

Boarder X.

Boarder X. on 03-3-2010 09:31 AM

Spoiler Alert! The final "Climactic" battle wasn't that at all, atleast not in the book. Hogwarts falling apart Harry and He Who will probably never be named stading in circle remminiscent of a middleschool fight...and then voldemort is gone. Hopefully they will follow the tone set in Half Blood Prince where they decided to all but completely ignore the description of WHO the half blood prince is and why Snape called himself that and make it something more akin to the Battle of Helm's Deep.

TombstoneLawDog

TombstoneLawDog on 03-3-2010 01:00 PM

...guess it depends on your definition of 'climactic.' I thought the last battle was pretty decent. I'll admit I thought the plot gymnastics required for the resolution involving the wand were a little byzantine; "you had the wand then he had the wand and then he died while I had the wand so the wand won't work against cattle on Thursdays.." but when I thought it through I appreciated it.

I personally think a 'Helms Deep' treatment would be completely out of place. You don't go to 'Potter' for brute force battles, you go to Potter for more disciplined, stylized fighting --which is what we got in DH.

LOTR = rugby game
HP = fencing

Related Links

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1

Movie News

View All

Featured on RT

Comments

Top Headlines

Related Articles

Latest Features

What's Hot On RT

RT on DVD & Blu-Ray
RT on DVD & Blu-Ray

Red Tails, This Means War

24 Frames
24 Frames

Pictures: Wes Anderson films

Amazing Spider-Man
Amazing Spider-Man

Video: Your friendly four minute preview

Anchorman 2
Anchorman 2

Trailer: The legend continues!

Help | About | Jobs | Newsletter | Critics Submission | API | Licensing | Mobile
Copyright © Flixster, Inc. All rights reserved. Copyright, Privacy Policy, Terms of Service | Ad Choices
In partnership with TMZ.com