I saw the new Harry Potter movie today. Liked it. It may be the best of the series.
I have to say, this may be the best series of movies -- ever! I mean this: think of movies with sequels/prequels; they tend to be uneven. Think of the Star Wars series, or Indiana Jones, or the Godfather. The Lord of the Rings trilogy would win "best series," except it was three movies; this is four and counting. All goes to show the fluidity of a word like "best."
I won't be spoiling it for anyone to note the quasi-religious qualities of the movie. The gothic architecture, the graveyard sans crosses or angels or Madonnas, the non-chapel chapel, the candlelight, the ritual, and so forth. It's very striking to note a world in which Christianity is but a faint shadow. It certainly fits the England in which it is set, from what we hear. It reminds me of the term Flannery O'Connor used to use, of her beloved Southland: "Christ-haunted."
I don't say this to attack J.K. Rowling; as I haven't read any of her books, for all I know, the books reflect more explicit Christianity, which the moviemakers edit out. For that matter, she writes her novels as she wishes, not as I might wish.
As it is, she always gives a strong endorsement for character and virtue. She usually puts some striking wisdom on the lips of Dumbledore, and this one was no exception: "Dark days lie ahead, Harry -- and we will soon find ourselves forced to choose between what is easy, and what is right."
I seem to recall some criticism of her works, along the lines of claiming that her heroes and heroines did things the villains did -- as if to say, one couldn't tell them apart. Again--I haven't read the books, but, from the movies, I find that odd.
11 comments:
I seem to recall some criticism of her works, along the lines of claiming that her heroes and heroines did things the villains did -- as if to say, one couldn't tell them apart. Again--I haven't read the books, but, from the movies, I find that odd.
The usual criticism I hear is that the magic wielded by Harry and his friends is done here in our world, where it is done in another world in Lewis' Chronicles. The argument is that this defect either confuses the message we can take from Rowling's books or that she doesn't really have a message at all.
In any event, my two oldest children (9 and 8) have read many of the books, which seem harmless enough. Though the bit about crossless graveyards and chapel-less chapels does give me pause.
And England is Christ-haunted. You can find traces of Him everywhere, from language ("Bloody" is a truncation of "by Our Lady") to placenames (Blackfriars, Charing Cross) to train stations (St. Pancras Station, bombed by Moslems on 7/7, is named for the a third century Roman martyr in whose name St. Augustine of Canterbury consecrated England's first church).
The chief virtue of the series seems to be in one of its motifs, the role that the sacrificial love of Harry's parents had in protecting him from Voldemort's efforts to kill him.
The chief flaws seem to be other of its motifs, the progressive delegitimizing of civil authority, the progressive resort to magical expertise as the solution to problems, and the progressive resort to acts of subterfuge and vengeance by the hero.
In book 5, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, one of the principal characters is a teacher forced upon the wizardry school by the wizard government, a Dolores Umbridge, who takes "umbrage" at Harry's successes and seeks to break his will with a detention pennance that ammounts to barbaric physical cruelty. Dolores is later seen to be an unwitting accomplice of Voldemort. In the series, virtually every significant intervention by the civil authority in the life of the school has been a negative one. That's the wizard government. The "muggle" government is simply seen as utterly clueless throughout.
Much of Harry's growing reputation among his peers derives from his mastery of defense against the "dark arts." In that growing mastery, he has learned the application of some of that dark art.
As to subterfuge and vengeance, there is a magic map Harry uses, after uttering the incantation, "I solemnly swear that I am up to no good." In combination with his invisibility cloak, he can see where everyone is but no one can see where he is. He generally uses these powers for good, but occasionally he uses them to seek vengeance. He has backed up these powers by a resort to falsehood when confronted by teachers at the school.
These things are not as deeply troubling as the use of torture by a hero of one of Tom Clancy's novels, but they should be of concern to parents, educators and priests.
I have concerns about these books and from them the movies. I see anything that leads children toward sorcery of concern. However, it also offers parents the opportunity to point this out to the children. Unfortunately, most parents today see TV and movies as baby sitters and most are not even aware of what their kids are watching or the content. I do think this is a prime opportunity for the Church to step forward with guidance in a much stronger fashion.
(With regards to the church stepping forward with guidance) It would only draw more attention to the books/movies. I think sometimes less said the better
I find the books sad and empty after reading Tolkien, Lewis, etc. They seemed boring and flat, without depth, and certainly without spiritual depth. I was one of those children who devoured books, and I know that as a child I wouldn't have liked these at all - I would have sensed right away that there was "something missing." There is simply no comparison - in fact, I think there is infinite distance - between the Silmarillion and Lord of the Rings, and the Harry Potter franchise. But I do think the movies are visually stunning.
The HP books may indeed cover all the ground Mark Anthony claims, but they just don't cut the mustard as great literature. Alas, important themes do not necessarily translate into transcendent writing.There is a wonderful piece by A.S. Byatt on the books at http://www.countercurrents.org/arts-byatt110703.htm
Michea O'Brien has written about this topic, and I find his arguments against the Harry Potter series to be very compelling. Fr. Fox, please check that out and tell us if you agree.
O'Brien has also written a book about children's literature called "A Landscape Filled with Dragons". It predates Harry Potter, but covers some of the other popular fantasy works out there, and gives great help for discerning "appropriate", rightly ordered fantasy from "poor" fantasy. At first, I thought he was being a little overly critical, but in the end I agree.
When it comes down to it, pray a lot, and trust your gut. If in doubt, err on the side of caution and choose something that you know to be better.
That's Micheal O'Brien, with an L, of course.
www.studiobrien.com
So those of us who choose not to read certain books based on advice from a trusted source are not thinking for ourselves... I get really irked when people imply that I have no right to criticize something or withold it from my children when "I haven't even read it."
I happen to agree with O'Brien's philosophy and trust his judgment. There are several other sources that I consulted as well, I just cited O'Brien as one of the best.
When it gets down to it, I simnply don't have the desire or time to proof read every peice of junk that is published.
Also, I feel that the holy spirit has steered me away from this type of subject matter. Maybe I am gullible, or maybe my children are. Whatever the case, I have the authority over my home.
If you choose differently, than congratulations on being so intellectually superior to us sheep.
BAAAAHHHH BAAAHHHH!
Isolation is dangerous? What about cloistered convents, walled monasteries, hermits? I tend to think of my home as a sanctuary, and I think it's okay to outright avoid certain forms of entertainment. I guess it's a fine line between puritanism and prudence. At a certain age, the kids will be introduced to the pop culture, and I want to be the one to guide them through that, so that they develop a healthy discernment. In the world, but not of the world. I get it.
But I think on the opposite end of the scale, it is very dangerous for people to feel that they are too smart to be affected by things that are just harmless entertainment. Nobody is impervious to this, and the consequences may not even be noticeable. But you are affected by what you consume. Don't overestimate yourself or your children. I believe that is called pride.
I like what you and Tolkien say about being sub-creators. Music, literature, etc, can glorify God, even if the subject matter is not overtly religious. I thoroughly enjoyed Lord of the Rings. I think it would be great for my kids. The symbolism was so clear, the difference between good and evil unmistakable. I understand that Harry Potter is about "mostly virtuous" children, and when they indulge a little revenge on the bad guys, the ends justify the means. And the books try to take the teeth out of certain black magic rituals and make them appear to be safe.
I think the catechsim is pretty clear on this subject. CCC 2117:
"Magic and sorcery, the attempts to tame the occult to gain supernatural powers, are against the virtue of religion, even when used for good purposes. ..."
I do respect your opinion, clearly you are an intellegent and faithful person, and you're not going to start stealing hosts and performing black masses because of Harry Potter.
I think it is interesting to explore the Churches reasoning for doing what they do. In every case, I tend to find amazing insight into the human condition when properly explained.
CCC 2117:
"Magic and sorcery, the attempts to tame the occult to gain supernatural powers, are against the virtue of religion, even when used for good purposes. ..."
Could the reason for this be warn man against getting to close to the flame and trying to dance with the devil?
Post a Comment