Skip to main content

harry potter - Why would the basilisk gaze melt the film in Colin's camera?


As far as we know the gaze of the basilisk will instantly kill someone or eventually petrify him/her in case the gaze is somehow softened or reflected.


But why would it melt the film in Colin's camera? The film is just plastics with some specific chemicals.


A bit broader question would be - is the some information that the basilisk's gaze is somehow destructive to non-alive objects too and under what circumstances could it happen?



Answer



Camera film is puny compared to the basilisk stare.


There is some precedent for lethal spells doing damage to physical objects. For example, when Dumbledore and Voldemort do battle in the Ministry, Avada Kedavra his several inanimate objects:




[Voldemort] sent another Killing Curse at Dumbledore but missed, instead hitting the security guards desk, which burst into flame. […]


Another jet of green light flew from behind the silver shield. This time it was the one-armed centaur, galloping in front of Dumbledore, that took the blast and shattered into a hundred pieces.


Order of the Phoenix, chapter 36 (The Only One He Ever Feared)



The Basilisk’s stare is a destructive and lethal piece of magic, but it’s slightly different to Avada Kedavra. As far as we can tell, it’s only lethal when the Basilisk makes eye contact with something; merely looking at something isn’t enough (or Harry would have been dead despite closing his eyes).


In some ways, a camera is a crude version of the human eye. There are a series of lenses that focus the light before it lands on a viewing surface (the back of the eye, or a film). Although they aren’t exactly the same – cameras usually contain mirrors, which is why Colin didn’t die.


So when the basilisk makes “eye contact” with the camera, all that lethal power gets focused at the back of the camera – the film. All that power and magic concentrated on a thin piece of plastic; frankly, the film didn’t stand a chance.




It’s also worth noting that there’s some historical precedent for the basilisk being able to damage objects that can’t technically make eye contact. Quoting from the Wikipedia entry:




Leonardo da Vinci included a basilisk in his Bestiary, saying it is so utterly cruel that when it cannot kill animals by its baleful gaze, it turns upon herbs and plants, and fixing its gaze on them withers them up.



Obviously plants and camera film are a bit different, but it shows that it’s not unheard of for the basilisk stare to be damaging even without eye contact.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

harry potter - Did Dolores Umbridge Have Any Association with Voldemort (or Death Eaters) before His Return?

I noticed that Dolores Umbridge was born during the first Wizarding War, so it's very likely she wasn't a Death Eater then (but she is pretty evil -- who knows?). After that Voldemort was not around in a way that could affect many people, and most wouldn't know he was planning to rise again. During that time, and up through Voldemort's return (in Goblet of Fire ), did Umbridge have any connection with the Death Eaters or with Voldemort? Was she doing what she did on her own, or was it because of an association with Voldemort or his allies? Answer Dolores Umbridge was definitely not a good person. However, as Sirius points out, "the world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters". Remember that he also says that he doesn't believe Umbridge to be a Death Eater, but that she's evil enough (or something like that). I think there are two strong reasons to believe that: Umbridge was proud to do everything according to the law, except when she trie...

What is the etymology of Doctor Who?

I recently decided to watch Doctor Who, and started viewing the 2005 version. I have the first two episodes from the first season, and I can't help but wonder what is the etymology of the name "Doctor Who"? And why does the protagonist call himself "the Doctor" (or is it "the doctor")? Answer In the very first episode of Doctor Who (way back in 1963), the Doctor has a granddaughter going by the name "Susan Foreman", and the junkyard where the TARDIS is has the sign "I.M. Foreman". Barbara, who becomes one of the Doctor's companions, calls him "Doctor Foreman" (probably assuming that is his name given his relationship to Susan), and Ian (another early companion) does the same in the second episode, to which the Doctor says: Eh? Doctor who? What's he talking about? "Foreman" is most likely selected as a convenient surname for Susan to use because it happened to be on display near where the TARDIS landed....

story identification - Animation: floating island, flying pests

At least 20 years ago I watched a short animated film which stuck in my mind. The whole thing was wordless, possibly European, and I'm pretty sure I didn't imagine it... It featured a flying island which was inhabited by some creatures who (in my memory) reminded me of the Moomins. The island was frequently bothered by large winged animals who swooped around, although I don't think they did any actual damage. At the end one of the moomin creatures suddenly gets a weird feeling, feels forced to climb to the top of the island and then plunges down a shaft right through the centre - only to emerge at the bottom as one of the flyers. Answer Skywhales from 1983. The story begins with a man warning the tribe of approaching skywhales. The drummers then warn everybody of the hunt as everyone get prepared to set "sail". Except one man is found in his home sleeping as the noise wake him up. He then gets ready and is about to take his weapon as he hesitates then decides ...