By: James Southworth
On June 26, 1997, the world was taken unexpectedly by storm with a book called Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone by an unknown author who went by J.K. Rowling. Fast forward to 2019, and most people know Harry Potter as a household name. An incredibly successful book series and movie series have made Rowling's series one of the most treasured pieces of art in pop culture. It had vast impact, especially to my generation. People are still talking about this series, and it may be even more popular now than it was when the main series was still being created. There is something to be said for the series's longevity. Readers of this site, as well as people who know me in person, are probably aware that I'm a big fan of Harry Potter. As I've gotten older, my appreciation for the seven HP novels has only increased. But then came something that started ringing what could eventually be a death toll for people's general enjoyment of the Harry Potter series: J.K. Rowling suddenly declaring that Albus Dumbledore was, in fact, gay.
I was, of course, among those who were surprised by this statement. Where in the books was there ever an indication that Dumbledore was gay? I certainly couldn't find an inkling of an implication anywhere. J.K. Rowling argued that this was especially present in The Deathly Hallows, which detailed Dumbledore's "friendship" with eventual mass murdering wizard Grindelwald. And yet, I was still not convinced. Nor were most other people. There began an emerging conversation about why exactly Rowling was putting things into the books that were not originally there. But, the conversation about it did eventually dissipate. This was the case, at least, until the release of Harry Potter and the Cursed Child. I am somewhat ashamed to say that I own this play, which is just an absolute insipid mess. This was the first Harry Potter piece which I was ashamed to own. It reads like a rather poorly written fan-fiction. In fact, you almost could call it a fan-fiction because it was written by authors other than J.K. Rowling. But still, Rowling endorsed the story. A story that had a horrifically written plot about time travel that dominated its second half, and turns Cedric Diggory's death into something of a joke. The play is still showing, and I'd be willing to bet it's still relatively successful, because it has the Harry Potter name attached to it. But the bad reviews of it can't be ignored. This was only the beginning of my brewing frustrations with J.K. Rowling's newfound relationship to her franchise.
Around the same time that "Cursed Child" was going to be on stage, the movie "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" came out. I was very worried about this movie initially. The trailers made it seem like just a hollow cash grab and a half-hearted attempt to expand on the Harry Potter franchise. Thankfully, the movie did not live up to its badly marketed trailer. I actually really liked the movie's change of pace, giving us a protagonist who was more of an every-man rather than the ultimate chosen one. Don't get me wrong, Harry Potter is still a great protagonist, but I really liked Newt in "Fantastic Beasts" as well. I liked that the movie made America a magical world like London. Rowling knows that a significant portion of her fans are from America, so it would make sense to make a magical world that would be more like theirs. It was a smart move that felt sincere and well-executed. Like I've mentioned before, I have my problems with the movie: the tone of it can be a little all over the place, and there's an unnecessary political side plot. Also, the "twist" of Grindelwald being Johnny Depp rather than Colin Farrell was a little disheartening. But nevertheless, I still enjoyed the movie, and the general consensus seemed to be that the movie was good for what it was. I thought it would be a nice one-off movie, as all of its various characters ended in places that I thought were solid ending points. All of the main characters had their arcs. But, this apparently wasn't enough for J.K. Rowling- or for the die-hard fans. We just had to know what else happened to Newt and his friends.
This gave way to what is, in my opinion, the most significant misstep to date in Rowling's career- the movie "Crimes of Grindelwald". I already vented a lot of my frustrations about the movie in my review of it last year. However, I think it's significant to state them again for the context of this analysis. This movie made one thing abundantly clear to me: J.K. Rowling no longer cares about the integrity of her original stories. She was one of the first authors in modern day to notably embrace the fan fiction community. Now this isn't an entirely bad thing: I like the idea of an author actively conversing with people who do different versions of her work. But, this doesn't mean that Rowling needed to become a fan-fiction writer herself. That's exactly what this film felt like: a fan-fiction. And a rather bad one at that. It feels like the movie has no idea what story it wants to tell, and because of that, none of the stories really leave an impact. I still just can't get over the decision to make Nagini, Voldemort's snake, a Korean woman. It seemed that this was done just so Rowling could say that she had representation. What's even more saddening (but still unsurprising) is that Nagini didn't have a role to play in this movie. She was just background noise, a way for fans to say "Ooh look! I know that character from the original series! Yay nostalgia!". I just want to know what fans asked for this. This movie makes magic confusing, seemingly bending some of the rules that were put specifically in place in the HP world. The multiple twists that appear at the end of the movie become more and more mind-bendingly stupid. Credence is at first a Lestrange. Then he isn't. Then it's revealed Grindelwald is a sort of reflection of Hitler who also wants to end WWII and the Holocaust, but is also still a savage murderer, but is also able to convince a lot of wizards to join him. Then Queenie, in a vast change of character motivations, decides to join Grindelwald even though she has seen him murder people right before her very eyes. Then it's revealed at the end of the movie that Credence is the freaking long lost third brother of Albus Dumbledore. Just writing these awful plot developments still makes me incredibly frustrated. WHAT HAPPENED? What happened to the writer that made well-developed characters? What happened to the writer who created a vivid world that felt tangible and powerfully realistic?
I've been asking these questions to myself on and off ever since I saw "Crimes of Grindelwald". I can't emphasize to you all enough how much that movie got under my skin. My love of the Harry Potter series is significant, and the fact that a movie like this is revealing potential to kill the original series feels criminal to me. More recent news has revealed to me what I feel are probably the only motivations of Rowling now. In a recent interview, Rowling let loose a tidbit of information: that Dumbledore and Grindelwald apparently had a very "sexual" and "intimate" relationship. Where. Was. This. In. The. Books? The answer is very simple: nowhere. Absolutely nowhere. People have begun parodying Rowling now, adding their own ideas into the "Harry Potter canon". Because now, apparently, anything is permissable. I could just go and say that Voldemort was actually a representation of a repressed homosexual man, and it wouldn't be that much different from what Rowling has claimed. I mean, she's also claimed Hermione is black (even though the books- and the artwork in the books- CLEARLY point out she's white). On a more comedic note, she unnecessarily pointed out that before toilets existed, wizards just let loose on the ground and used magic to make their excrement disappear. I bet you wanted to know that, didn't you, fellow Harry Potter fan? Now don't get me wrong: I don't necessarily always mind when an author does expansions of their universe, especially when it's one as beloved as Harry Potter. But, I just can't help but feel like a lot of Rowling's decisions come out of the fact that she's forcing representation into her novels. Making Dumbledore gay, Hermione black, or Nagini a Korean woman were all things that were never made clear in the original Harry Potter series- because they were never there. Don't get me wrong: I think representation is important, incredibly important even. But Rowling is going about it all wrong. She's making up the representation out of thin air without doing any of the actual work to put it into her material. Dumbledore being gay might be slightly implied in "Crimes of Grindelwald". But it is such an inconsequential part of the movie's incomprehensible plot. Nagini might as well have been a prop, and is portrayed as subservient and quiet (which feels like a very stereotypical and disingenuous characterization of someone of her race).
Do I still like J.K. Rowling as an author? Honestly, at this point, it's hard to say. I still love the Harry Potter series. I still believe that they're a well-written series and do about as much right as they conceivably could do. Even though there are flaws in the series, it is not significant enough for me to ever dislike them. However, it's not beyond an artist to become disastrous. George Lucas's original Star Wars series are considered classics by everyone, and yet he was also able to make movies like "The Phantom Menace" and "Attack of the Clones". M Night Shamalyan's films "The Sixth Sense" and "Unbreakable" are considered staples in the movie landscape, but he was also able to produce laughably bad flicks like "The Happening" and "The Last Airbender". Suzanne Collins made a potent dystopian novel in "The Hunger Games", but ended the series off with the quite awful "Mockingjay". Some artists are only able to make revelations a couple of times. The thing is, with artists like these, we're willing to give them multiple chances. Shamalyan has debatedly been forgiven too many times as a director. While he has given us movies like "Split", he still has also given us frustrations like "Glass" in recent years. Star Wars fans continue to claim that George Lucas could give us better than what the new SW movies are doing now (that's a debate for another time). So, it's not too surprising that people have been willing to see what Rowling can do with an expanded HP universe. But how long will that last? How long will it be before J.K. Rowling cannibalizes her own series? I still have some hope that we can see a revival of the raw talent Rowling still should have within her. But I'm becoming more cautious about it. That is an unfortunate place to be at.
No comments:
Post a Comment