The other night, Margaret and I went to see Azkaban; tonight, we’re accompanying Nate (for his birthday present) to Ravinia to see Ben Folds and Rufus Wainwright. It’s an active week, far outshining our usual “watch a DVD” or “walk the dog” evenings.
We thought Azkaban was outstanding, noticeably better wrought than the first two Potters. As so many others have observed, Chris Columbus directed the first two films as though they were children’s movies; Alfonso Cuarón, however, directs this as a suspense movie with children in the lead roles. That captures Rowling’s tone much better — Cuarón’s treatment doesn’t cloy. Everything else responds to that change in approach; even John Williams’s score sounded fresher and more adventursome, and I’m no fan of Williams. The young actors have grown into their roles, and were here given the occasional opportunity to act (whereas before, Rupert Grint was only given occasion to grimace and mug, Cuarón treats the role of Ron Weasley more respectfully — though I look forward to a Potter movie in which Ron doesn’t screw his face up in horror or terror, once). Nate and Si particularly notice that Emma Watson is no longer the little girl she once was. Emma Thompson was a treat, and the new Dumbledore took up leadership of Hogwarts with gravitas and abstraction.
I felt quite moved by the character of Lupin, and thought David Thewlis did a splendid job with the role, taking it in a direction that I hadn’t anticipated from the book. Margaret didn’t see things the way I did, so I’ll broach the possibility here as a question: did anyone else read Lupin’s role as translucent to the situation of a gay teacher forced to resign by intolerant parents? I, at least, read Cuarón and Thewlis as signaling that possibility, and I found the oblique presentation all the more affecting.
As for Folds and Wainwright, Nate has been the household advocate for Ben Folds for a couple of years now, and has won him a loyal following here. Wainwright hasn’t caught my ear yet, but we’ll pay attention and see what he comes up with.
Posted by AKMA at June 18, 2004 03:35 PM | TrackBackI saw Lupin as a werewolf and not much else. I can see the parallel, but I think Lupin was just supposed to be a werewolf and not a critique of much else.
Then again, I have been wrong before.
Posted by: AngloBaptist at June 18, 2004 03:54 PMThe film certainly pictured it in such a way as you describe, AKMA. I had that reaction on seeing that scene between Harry and Lupin.
In the books, I think Rawling's treatment of Lupin is similar to her examination of attitudes concerning distinctions between muggles, pure bloods, and house elves.
She writes from the country that gave the world a system where even dogs are segmented by bloodlines -- so she is probably sensitive to typing character by categories of status or birth (In the words of Elaine Mays many years ago poking fun at the British, "There are good lepers and bad lepers and we shouldn't lump them together").
Posted by: Don at June 18, 2004 05:01 PMNeither did I take the character of Lupin, in the book or the movie, to be representative of anything besides that which he was - a lycanthrope. I'm open to the possibility that perhaps Rowling is flagging how we treat those who are different from us in the workplace and/or academia, but I don't think I would get more specific than that, given the text and the performance.
-R
Posted by: Ryan Whitley at June 19, 2004 10:39 AMI haven't read the books (PUT DOWN THE STONES, PLEASE! *) but in the movie version I absolutely thought that it was a reference to a situation where a teacher was forced out for being gay.
Perhaps my sensibilities are heightened to that possibility given the situation our denomination (or, "just about all the mainline Protestant denominations") are in.
Of course the metaphor, like any, will break down if pushed too far. I don't think Rowling or Cuarón would want to push the comparison of gay/lesbian folks with "people who seem 'normal' but turn into monsters at night" (werewolves). EEK. Yeah, no, I don't think anyone was saying that, but it might be why they didn't want to push the comparison too far.
(*) my excuse for not having read the books is that there are far too many books on my 'to read' list that will never be made into movies, so I try avoid reading those that *will* be made into movies. Yeah, it's lame, but aren't all excuses? Although this one really loses all credibility when you learn that my last two books read were Dan Brown (Angels & Demons and that other one), but even those were church-related, as folks in the congregation wanted to know my opinions of them, and I try to resist giving opinions of books I haven't read, which is why I don't say much about that series about the end of the world.
Wainwright. I love him. I love his music and I am in love with him.
Rufus W. has a gift for crafting really innovative sings, both in terms of lyrics and music. I think the music is fascinating, as it's generally that singer-songwriter stuff, but there's bits of opera and cabaret/lounge mixed into the rock/folk thing. And he's not afraid to do something different with all of it, like mix some electronic effects, or make tight a capella harmonies.
I've given him to a wide variety of friends with pretty different musical tastes, and they have all enjoyed him, at the very least. I've been to his concerts twice, and I'd go back in a heartbeat.
I'll be really interested to hear what you thought.
Posted by: Nate at June 19, 2004 01:17 PMMy first official outing (no, not that sense) with my daughter was to Azkaban, which we'd spent much of last summer reading together. After Potted #2, I wasn't expecting much, and was entirely and delightedly amazed by Cuaron's adaption. It was brilliant, seamless, leaving out chunks of bloat, much more attuned to the characters than to the institutional gallimaufry prevalent in 1 & 2. We both noted that Draco was less imposing - a measure of Harry's growth - and that both book and film are concerned with larger, darker antagonists. Seemed a touch of the Ring in there was well - in the dementors, no?
did anyone else read Lupin’s role as translucent to the situation of a gay teacher forced to resign by intolerant parents?
Oh yes...
I'm involved in the Harry Potter fanfic community, and have read numerous rumors. *Many* people (in and out of fandom) saw Lupin's statement about why he was leaving the school as very thin coding for homosexuality.
Another reaction I'm curious about. Many people in fandom took the Remus/Sirius hug (and Snape's comment that they were acting "like an old married couple") as indicative of a past relationship between the two men. Just curious whether you picked any of that up, or if that's something the slashers are reading into the scene?
Posted by: Lis Riba at June 19, 2004 02:55 PM