Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

pia†desideria
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301

Posted 1/15/2002 5:40 AM (GMT -6)

The other day I rented what sounded like a campy vampire movie. Here’s how The Addiction was described: “Kathleen’s student lifestyle takes a terrifying turn when she’s bitten by a vampire. Now her hunger for books has become a hunger for blood…” Ha!

This was just the kind of campy catharsis I was looking for after being stressed out from my own “student lifestyle.”

But the film turned out to be a fairly rich exploration of sin and free will (or the lack thereof). The vampires quote Kierkegaard, Camus, Sartre, Heidegger, Dante, and—believe it or not—R. C. Sproul

(I highly doubt he would approve). Other bonuses include:

great cast (Lili Taylor, Christopher Walken, Annabella Sciorra, and I recognized some supporting cast members of Soprano family fame)

film noir
hip hop soundtrack

If anyone else has seen this movie, I’d like to know what you thought of it. Also, feel free to include your own movie finds in this thread.

pia

~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
“…through the open windows and doors came so much stimulation for thought and discussion that there was hardly time or love or zeal left for the task to be accomplished within the house itself.” § Karl Barth, The Humanity of God

Edited by - pia†desideria on 01/15/2002 11:43:54 AM

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 6/7/2002 9:09 AM (GMT -6)

Just saw A.I. last night. Too long and somewhat dull storyline, but I thought it made an interesting point about the idea that "love must be chosen." First, William Hurt's character, the creator of David, explains that in trying to create a being that can truly love him, he is doing exactly what God did when creating Adam. But as David's adoptive father, Henry, explains later: "if David has the capacity for love, then he must also have the capacity to hate."

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 6/28/2002 6:56 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

I haven’t read the book, but I recommend the movie Dead Zone, starring Christopher Walken. It portrays the future as partly open and partly settled. The “dead zone” is the part that is open and can still be changed… pia

Hey, have you seen this?

http://www.usanetwork.com/series/thedeadzone/

It's gonna be a series!

Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 6/28/2002 7:14 PM (GMT -6)

MINORITY REPORT

I don't usually care much for sci-fi movies, and I consistently detest movies that involve time travel or anything of that genra. They always involve ridiculous contradictions which we are supposed to just overlook. They're insulting. (Terminator, Kate and Leopold, Twelve Monkeys, Back to the Future -- very irritating).

BUT THIS ONE IS GOOD! It at least TRIES to provide an explanation for how certain people foreknowledge the future... and its just conceivable. It tries to wrestle with paradox of predestnation and freewill -- with suprising sophistication for a Hollywood deal -- and comes out on the right side!

PLUS, its just some good Hollywood ACTION and SPECIAL EFFECTS.

ON my theological rating system, I give it 3 (out of 4) stars.

Doc at the movies

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 6/29/2002 2:43 AM (GMT -6)

My wife brought me to see My big Fat Greek Wedding. And true to what she warned me, I laghted so hart that it hurt. And that was just the first part of the movie; it continued throughout!

I recommend it!

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 6/30/2002 7:39 PM (GMT -6)

As a white woman, I have been socialized to fear black men. In spite of the fact that it has never been confirmed in my own experience or in the experience of anyone I know, for most of my life I believed this fear was warranted. Now I believe it is based on a lie. When I started questioning my ingrained fear of black men, I started noticing how often movies play on this fear, and perpetuate the lie.

A good example is the movie Don’t Say a Word. There are three bad guys in this movie—two Europeans (they sound British or something) and one African America (who talks very loudly and constantly). The black man is assigned the job of monitoring a white woman on closed-circuit TV so she doesn’t try to escape. The woman has a broken leg in traction and is confined to her bed. (Meanwhile, the two Europeans have their hands full dealing with her husband.) There comes a point in the plot where the black man is sent in to kill the woman. Of course he relishes this thought because he has been drooling over her this whole time. In spite of the fact she probably weighs about 100 pounds, she is unarmed and probably doesn’t know anything about hand to hand combat, and she has a broken leg in traction—she somehow manages to kick this seasoned criminal’s butt.

This is how white people entertain themselves. We cheer for the father with the successful career who manages to triumph over not one, but two, European jewel thieves whose ruthlessness is revealed in their willingness to torment little girls to the point of madness or kill them if necessary. And we cheer for the mother with the gorgeous body and a career of her own who manages to triumph over the black man who can’t wait to get his hands on her and do who knows what. Fantasies like this film presuppose and play into the white American family’s insecure sense of supremacy and fear of miscegenation.

But now that I know my fear of black men is based on a lie, fantasies like Don’t Say a Word are not as entertaining as they used to be…

Electra

~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
…in him, lost in him and his love…

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 7/1/2002 3:43 AM (GMT -6)

Good point Electra. I seems things are improving a little bit, but I think there is still a lot of negative stereotyping in movies, especially cartoons. Ever notice that the voice of a bad guy or stupid person is usually non-white?

Because of the racial socializing process, most whites hear this stuff and cry out "P.C." "Oh get over it" "gimme a frigg'n break" " race card again!" etc... Just like we tend to dismiss racial profiling, unequal opportunity for all, etc... Its the luxury of being white -- we get to not notice stuff, and thereby propogate. Not only do we get to, <i>its to our benefit</i> not to get it.

I met a white student from South Africa in the late 70's when it was under explicit apartheid who said the exact same things. Our power not to notice, when we benefit from not noticing, is amazing. This isn't conscious: its socialized. Which makes it all the more sinister.

Anyone else see negative racial sterotyping in the movies? Which ones?

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 7/7/2002 7:35 PM (GMT -6)

[
But I did wonder, Doc, how the "pump was primed." How was he lured into it in the first place? How was the pump primed? We got to see how the murder was "primed" by faking a murder that was then "seen" twice. But how did they really prime the one that ended up happening to the hero? How did they get him there -- by predestining it -- in the first place? A hero-mask?

Doc: Dang, now I've got to go back and see the movie again. I don't recall what you talking about.

also, p.s. its probably a good idea not to give away the ending of a movie when its still hot in the theaters

love
Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

shell
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280

Posted 7/8/2002 12:15 PM (GMT -6)

Electra,

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I grew up believing the same lie. I read something recently... don't remember where about Denzel Washington only being cast in certain parts and rarely if ever in movies with romantic story lines etc. despite the fact that he is gorgeous and sexy...because of the sterotyping in movies.

My husband's closest male friend (A friendship that has grown over the last two years) is African American. He is one of the most honest, Godly men that I have ever met, and he has shared with us some of the racial discrimination he has encountered. Not that I wasn't aware of it before knowing him(we have many aqaintances from many different ethnic backgrounds) but it suddenly took on a VERY personal perspective. It just breaks my heart to know that there are women who fear him just because he is African American, or that he gets pulled over in certain neighborhoods because of the color of his skin, or how uncomfortable he has been when we have brought him and his wife to OUR favorite restaurant and there are only white people there. Because of knowing him in such a close friendship I have had to face every last bit of stereotyping inside of my heart and now I know that it WAS all based on lies.

Thanks for sharing that insight. I think that even when we think we are accepting and loving of all people there are often installed beliefs very deep in our hearts that we will continue to face and need to lead to truth.

Shell

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 7/8/2002 1:31 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Electra,

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I grew up believing the same lie. I read something recently... don't remember where about Denzel Washington only being cast in certain parts and rarely if ever in movies with romantic story lines etc. despite the fact that he is gorgeous and sexy...because of the sterotyping in movies.

My husband's closest male friend (A friendship that has grown over the last two years) is African American. He is one of the most honest, Godly men that I have ever met, and he has shared with us some of the racial discrimination he has encountered. Not that I wasn't aware of it before knowing him(we have many aqaintances from many different ethnic backgrounds) but it suddenly took on a VERY personal perspective. It just breaks my heart to know that there are women who fear him just because he is African American, or that he gets pulled over in certain neighborhoods because of the color of his skin, or how uncomfortable he has been when we have brought him and his wife to OUR favorite restaurant and there are only white people there. Because of knowing him in such a close friendship I have had to face every last bit of stereotyping inside of my heart and now I know that it WAS all based on lies.

Thanks for sharing that insight. I think that even when we think we are accepting and loving of all people there are often installed beliefs very deep in our hearts that we will continue to face and need to lead to truth.

Shell

Thanks Shell! The sad thing about this lie is that even though I have had many personal experiences that directly contradict it, the lie is perpetuated by many powerful social forces, perhaps most obviously in the media. I’m glad Denzel got an Academy Award (or Oscar? I get those messed up), but why didn’t he get it for his superior performance as Malcolm X, instead of his performance as a dirty cop in Training Day? Training Day was a great movie in terms of acting and directing, but in many ways it is just another version of the Tarzan myth (which has a very racist history in media)—a white rookie proves that he understands the ghetto better than the natives themselves, when he gains their respect and conquers the dirty black cop that takes advantage of them—all in one day. Now that’s entertainment...for who?

I think it’s supposed to be entertaining for me. I’m supposed to empathize with the white lady at home, nursing the baby daughter at her breast, anxiously waiting for her husband to come home from his big training day. I’m supposed to cheer for the white husband/father, who not only loves his own wife and kid, but even loves the bastard kid of the dirty black cop and his Honduran “dime.” In fact, in the space of about fifteen minutes (most of which are unconscious), the white rooky manages to establish a bond with this kid that rivals the kid’s bond with his own father. The white rooky also manages to narrowly escape being executed by some seriously tough Esses when they find out he rescued their niece from a rapist. Not only does the white rooky prove that he is tougher than all these crooks, he also proves that he loves their children more than they do.

Before I go off on a full-blown rant, let me just say, the lie about black men is a lie about me—or at least it should be: I refuse to be the white lady clutching babies close to her breast, never leaving her home, hoping that white husbands and fathers will protect her from the black gansters in the ghetto.

Electra

~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 7/8/2002 1:45 PM (GMT -6)

One more rant. This one was pointed out to me by a friend. I didn’t even notice it.

The movie Traffic is a grim critique of the war on drugs. The director chose to symbolize the low point of drug addiction by portraying a young, wealthy, white girl sleeping with a black drug dealer. Although the girl was also shown sleeping with white men, the director reserved this image for symbolizing the depths to which she sank, and he chose to portray it more graphically than when she slept with white men. Why?

Electra

~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~

Edited by - Electra on 07/08/2002 6:46:09 PM

shell
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280

Posted 7/8/2002 5:09 PM (GMT -6)

Those examples are so true Electra. I know what you are saying about even though I have the personal experiences to contradict it..it is still so much a part of the social fabric of our society. It's amazing that when watching some of the movies you've mentioned that even though those stereotypes don't pertain to anyone I have met in real life it's like for me there is an understanding(getting drawn in) of the emotions that the movie is attempting to evoke, like the fear of the black gangster etc. and often I don't even realize it at the time that the media is just playing on those societal belief systems that have surrounded me my whole life. Your awareness challenges me to be more conscious of that.

Thanks,
Shell

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 8/3/2002 6:22 PM (GMT -6)

SIGNS

Wow. Doc, have you seen this yet???? Kaia and I saw it tonight and loved it. Not only is it a very intriguing and suspenseful story, it involves a rather interesting discussion of the problem of evil. In my opinion, it comes out on the spiritual warfare side at the end. Very good stuff. I won't give away any more of the story, but let me know what you guys think of it.

Kaia says the many close-ups of Mel Gibson aren't bad either.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 8/3/2002 7:48 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
...it involves a rather interesting discussion of the problem of evil...Kaia says the many close-ups of Mel Gibson aren't bad either.

Sounds like "What Women Want" with Gibson!

Seriously, I wanna see this one.

I also recently saw Christoper Walken in "The Dead Zone." I understand they're making it into a weekly program in the US. I'm still looking for "The Addict."

Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 8/4/2002 10:20 AM (GMT -6)

Any of you see the powerful, "Mississippi Burning" with Gene Hackman? Awesome! Anyhoo...that was for you people who are talking aboot stereotypes in the movies.

Seen "Signs".

Remember this.

Signs is not about aliens!!!

I don't want to say anymore until I see more of you peoples

reviews out there. I will say this though.

Mel Gibson. What can I say? I love the "fatigued look" he has portrayed in some of his movies of late. The crying with his brother and children at the dinner table. So realistic and moving. Something I can relate to. Something, I'm sure many of us could relate to--despair. I think Dan Buck of Relevant Magazine said it best (a quote from CT Mag):

"It is in the second act of the film, where the influence of other filmmakers takes a back seat to Shyamalan 's (pronounced Sha-ma-lon) truly original style and story," says Dan Buck (critic for Relevant Magazine.) "This film somehow manages to be the most frightening film I've ever seen and yet have moments of joy, humor, and sorrow alongside the terror. It's as though the director is standing at the front of the theater with a conductor's baton.…Yet it is not emotional manipulation. It is just the realistic intermingling of the sacred with the profane, the tragic with the euphoric, and despair with hope."

Minority Report.

Greg. Good thing you gave your disclaimer that you judge this movie based upon your theological paradigm.

But I am left wondering.

Is there anything else about this movie that you found that could reveal or say something about reality? In particular, the human condition?

Also, I believe Greg has it wrong when he says:

quote:
Good point Electra. I seems things are improving a little bit, but I think there is still a lot of negative stereotyping in movies, especially cartoons. Ever notice that the voice of a bad guy or stupid person is usually non-white?

Because of the racial socializing process, most whites hear this stuff and cry out "P.C." "Oh get over it" "gimme a frigg'n break" " race card again!" etc... Just like we tend to dismiss racial profiling, unequal opportunity for all, etc... Its the luxury of being white -- we get to not notice stuff, and thereby propogate. Not only do we get to, <i>its to our benefit</i> not to get it.

People like myself and writerdad, don't complain necessarily about the racial stereotyping by saying the things you say "most whites" say above. I know I don't. Sometimes I do. When I think it's necessary. But couldn't there be something else to consider? Something more? Something deeper?

If one doesn't get past this point that Greg is making in the quote above, (which in my opinion, is really a reflection on Greg and his abiltiy to critique the cultural arts-"everything through theology," mostly, I may have to qualify this later on) one really misses the beauty of the work of art for what it is or isn't.

I'm not saying that I am an expert at critquing the movies etc. What I am saying is that I am learning to look past some of this stuff to delve a little deeper and think of everything from the most mundane such as camera angles (why did the director shoot that angle instead of this one?) to the more indepth stuff (what is this movie about. What it's msg), to how does this my reflect on me as a Christian living in the 21st century. I begin to reflect much upon myself and my relation to Christ and the world in which he has made.

For i.e., Electra mentioned the movie "Traffic." Isn't there anything more that could be said about this movie? Electra portends to know the thoughts of the director:

quote:
The director chose to symbolize the low point of drug addiction by portraying a young, wealthy, white girl sleeping with a black drug dealer. Although the girl was also shown sleeping with white men, the director reserved this image for symbolizing the depths to which she sank, and he chose to portray it more graphically than when she slept with white men. Why?

While I applaud her for pointing this out, again, to "get the most" out of the movie, one would have to consult the makers as to the reason why they did what they did. If one can't do that, the next best thing is to read up on as many reviews as possible. For i.e., could not "Traffic" speak about more than just "issues." Could it not tell us something about life in America in general and about the "instant" solutions to our problems? How does this reflect on the church? For i.e. one reviewer said:

"Traffic" encourages us to use the right means in the right situation. That's tough, because it means life is messier, you have to pay sharper attention, you can't live by routine. But we were never called to an easy life."

When it comes to giving our critiques of arts we can all see what we want to see. I am no exception. I see white CEO's portrayed as greedy, selfish, whore-mongers.

Brandon thinking to himself: I guess there is no such thing as a rich white guy who gives generously from his pure heart, at least in Hollywood. There are probably no such things as faithful loyal priests either. Hollywood is so anti-christian don't cha know?

But for me, I am trying to move beyond this to get to deeper meat. Am I making any sense out there?

Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War

Edited by - BBBCanada on 08/04/2002 3:24:07 PM

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 8/4/2002 11:32 AM (GMT -6)

On Harry Potter

To get the gist of what I mean when I talk about not viewing art through theology, that is, your own theological ideology, this article will be of help. Why? Because it crosses all theological boundaries. It don't matter no how, what theological brand you hold to, i.e., Open Theist, Calvinism, etc. Christians of all stripes will be able to agree with what is said here. While I think viewing art through theology (ideology) is not necessarily all that bad, what I find bad or negative is that it is way too restricting of a lens to veiw through. It's rather like a key hole than a window.

Having said that, this is the BEST review on Harry Potter I have read yet. The article, letters to the article, and follow up responses by Alan Jacobs to the letters. While this article is within the context of the books, the movies could very well apply because they are based on the books. From "First Things."

Harry Potter’s Magic

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alan Jacobs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright (c) 2000 First Things 99 (January 2000): 35-38.

By now most readers in this country are aware of what has come to be called the Harry Potter phenomenon. It’s hard to be unaware. Any bookstore you might care to enter is strewn with giant stacks of the Harry Potter books—three of them now that Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban has finally been released in the United States. This blessed event comes after some months during which the on–line bookstore Amazon.co.uk—Britain’s branch of the ever–expanding Amazon.com empire—devoted much of its energy to shipping copies across the Atlantic, creating in the process a miniature trade war, as lawyers on both sides of the pond tried to figure out which country a book is purchased in when it’s ordered from a British company but on a computer in America. Whatever the legal status of cyberspatial commerce, anyone visiting either Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk last summer could not but note that the best–selling books on both sites were the Harry Potter novels, which ranked a consistent one, two, and three.

Many people are also familiar with the story behind the most talked–about children’s books in decades, perhaps ever: how Joanne Rowling, an out–of–work teacher and single mother living on the dole in Edinburgh, started scribbling a story in a local café as her small daughter dozed in a stroller; how an English publisher, Bloomsbury Books, took a chance on this unknown author; and how, almost wholly by word–of–mouth reports, the first novel, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, became a best–seller not just among children but also among adults, for whom Bloomsbury designed a more mature–looking cover so commuters on bus and tube would not have to be embarrassed as they eagerly followed Harry’s quest to discover what the enormous three–headed dog, Fluffy, was guarding in that off–limits corridor of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. International success, as indicated by those great piles of books at 40 percent discount and the dominance of Amazon’s best–seller lists, quickly followed.

In the twenty–some–odd years that I have been pretty closely following trends in American publishing, no development in the industry has been nearly so inexplicable to me, nor has any development made me so happy. For I adore the Harry Potter books. I read the first one—under its silly American title, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (the American publisher evidently judged that no book with the word "philosopher" in the title could sell)—thinking that it might be something I could read to my son. Though I decided that he wasn’t quite old enough, at six, to follow the rather complicated plot, I myself was hooked, and in my impatience ordered each of the next two novels in the series from Amazon.co.uk, thus making my own personal contribution to the perplexity of international trade law. (The remaining books in the series—Rowling plans a total of seven—will be published simultaneously in the U.S. and the U.K., thus cutting the legal Gordian knot.)

J. K. Rowling, as the books’ covers have it—the name rhymes with "bowling"—simply has that mysterious gift, so prized among storytellers and lovers of stories but so resistant to critical explication, of world–making. It is a gift that many Christian readers tend to associate with that familiar but rather amorphous group of English Christian writers, the Inklings—though the association is not quite proper, since only one of the Inklings, J. R. R. Tolkien, had this rare faculty, and few of the others even aspired to it. Tolkien, however, possessed the power in spades, and gave useful names to it as well: he spoke of the "secondary worlds" created by the writer, and of "mythopoeia" as the activity of such "sub–creation." The sine qua non of such mythopoeia, for Tolkien, is the making of a world that resembles ours but is not ours, a world that possesses internal logic and self–consistency to the same degree that ours does—but not the same logic: it must have its own rules, rules that are peculiar to it and that generate consequences also peculiar to it.

It is important to understand that C. S. Lewis’ Narnia books, great though they may be, are not in this strict sense mythopoeic: Lewis does not want to create a self–consistent secondary world, but rather a world in which all the varieties of mythology meet and find their home. In Narnia there is no internal consistency whatever: thus Father Christmas can show up in the middle of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, and Bacchus and Silenus in the middle of Prince Caspian. It may well be that this mythographic promiscuity, so to speak, is key to the success of the Chronicles of Narnia, but it makes them very different books from Tolkien’s, and it is the reason why Tolkien hated the Narnia stories. They lacked the clearly demarcated wholeness which he considered the essential virtue of his own Middle Earth.

Joanne Rowling has expressed her love for the Narnia books—one of the reasons there will be, God willing, seven Harry Potter books is that there are seven volumes of Narnia stories—but as a literary artist she bears a far greater resemblance to Tolkien. One of the great pleasures for the reader of her books is the wealth of details, from large to small, that mark the Magic world as different from ours (which in the books is called the Muggle world): the tall pointed hats the students wear in their classes, in which they study such topics as Potions, Transfiguration, Defense Against the Dark Arts, and even Care and Feeding of Magical Creatures; the spells that are always in Latin ("Expelliarmus!"); or the universal addiction to Quidditch, a game that shares some characteristics with basketball, cricket, and soccer but is played in the air, on broomsticks, and with four balls. Rowling’s attention to such matters is remarkable and charming, especially when the details are small: once, when he is visiting the home of a friend from a Magical family, Harry steps over a pack of Self–Shuffling Playing Cards. It’s an item that could have been left out without any loss to the narrative, but it offers an elegant little surprise—and another piece of furniture for this thoroughly imagined universe.

I have made my enthusiasm for these books quite evident to many friends, but some of them are dubious—indeed, deeply suspicious. These are Christian people, and they feel that books which make magic so funny and charming don’t exactly support the Christian view of things. Such novels could at best encourage children to take a smilingly tolerant New Age view of witchcraft, at worst encourage the practice of witchcraft itself. Moreover, some of them note, Harry Potter is not exactly a model student: he has, as the Headmaster of Hogwarts puts it, "a certain disregard for rules," and spends a good deal of time fervently hoping not to get caught in mid–disregard.

This second matter, I think, poses no real problem. It is true that Harry is often at odds with some of his teachers, but these particular teachers are not exactly admirable figures: they themselves are often at odds with the wise, benevolent, and powerful Headmaster, Albus Dumbledore, whom they sometimes attempt to undermine or outflank. But to Dumbledore, significantly, Harry is unswervingly faithful and obedient; indeed, the climax of the second novel, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, turns on Harry’s fidelity to Dumbledore.

Moreover, Harry’s tendency to bypass or simply flout the rules is a matter of moral concern for him: he wonders and worries about the self–justifications he offers, and often doubts not just his abilities but his virtue. He is constantly aware that his great unchosen antagonist, Voldemort—the Dark Lord, the most evil of wizards and, after Dumbledore, the most powerful—offers temptations to which he cannot simply assume that he is immune. And when Dumbledore mentions Harry’s "certain disregard for rules" he does so in a way that links such disregard with the forces of evil, thus warning Harry (though his larger purpose in that scene is to encourage the troubled young wizard).

In short, Rowling’s moral compass throughout the three novels is sound—indeed, I would say, acute. But the matter of witchcraft remains, and it is not a matter to be trifled with. People today, and this includes many Christians, tend to hold two views about witches: first, that real witches don’t exist, and second, that they aren’t as bad as the evil masterminds of the Salem witch trials made them out to be. These are obviously incompatible beliefs. As C. S. Lewis has pointed out, there is no virtue in being tolerant of witches if you think that witchcraft is impossible, that is, that witches don’t really exist. But if there are such things as witches, and they do indeed invoke supernatural or unnatural forces to bring harm to good people, then it would be neither wise nor good to tolerate them. So the issue is an important one, and worthy of serious reflection.

It is tempting to say, in response to these concerns, that Harry Potter is not that kind of wizard, that he doesn’t do harm to anyone, except those who are manifestly evil and trying to do harm to him. And these are significant points. But an answer to our question must begin elsewhere.

The place to begin is to invoke one of the great achievements of twentieth–century historical scholarship: the eight volumes Lynn Thorndike published between 1929 and 1941 under the collective title A History of Magic and Experimental Science. And it is primarily the title that I wish to reflect upon here. In the thinking of most modern people, there should be two histories here: after all, are not magic and experimental science opposites? Is not magic governed by superstition, ignorance, and wishful thinking, while experimental science is rigorous, self–critical, and methodological? While it may be true that the two paths have diverged to the point that they no longer have any point of contact, for much of their existence—and this is Lynn Thorndike’s chief point—they constituted a single path with a single history. For both magic and experimental science are means of controlling and directing our natural environment (and people insofar as they are part of that environment). C. S. Lewis has made the same assertion:

[Francis Bacon’s] endeavor is no doubt contrasted in our minds with that of the magicians: but contrasted only in the light of the event, only because we know that science succeeded and magic failed. That event was then still uncertain. Stripping off our knowledge of it, we see at once that Bacon and the magicians have the closest possible affinity. . . . Nor would Bacon himself deny the affinity: he thought the aim of the magicians was "noble."

It was not obvious in advance that science would succeed and magic fail: in fact, several centuries of dedicated scientific experiment would have to pass before it was clear to anyone that the "scientific" physician could do more to cure illness than the old woman of the village with her herbs and potions and muttered charms. In the Renaissance, alchemists were divided between those who sought to solve problems—the achievement of the philosopher’s stone, for example (or should I say the sorcerer’s stone?)—primarily through the use of what we would call mixtures of chemicals and those who relied more heavily on incantations, the drawing of mystical patterns, and the invocation of spirits.

At least, it seems to us that the alchemists can be so divided. But that’s because we know that one approach developed into chemistry, while the other became pure magic. The division may not have been nearly so evident at the time, when (to adapt Weber’s famous phrase) the world had not yet become disenchanted. As Keith Thomas has shown, it was "the triumph of the mechanical philosophy" of nature that "meant the end of the animistic conception of the universe which had constituted the basic rationale for magical thinking." Even after powerful work of the mechanistic scientists like Gassendi the change was not easily completed: Isaac Newton, whose name is associated more than any other with physical mechanics, dabbled frequently in alchemy.

This history provides a key to understanding the role of magic in Joanne Rowling’s books, for she begins by positing a counterfactual history, a history in which magic was not a false and incompetent discipline, but rather a means of controlling the physical world at least as potent as experimental science. In Harry Potter’s world, scientists think of magic in precisely the same way they do in our world, but they are wrong. The counterfactual "secondary world" that Rowling creates is one in which magic simply works, and works as reliably, in the hands of a trained wizard, as the technology that makes airplanes fly and refrigerators chill the air—those products of applied science being, by the way, sufficiently inscrutable to the people who use them that they might as well be the products of wizardry. As Arthur C. Clarke once wrote, "Any smoothly functioning technology gives the appearance of magic."

The fundamental moral framework of the Harry Potter books, then, is a familiar one to all of us: it is the problem of technology. (As Jacques Ellul wrote, "Magic may even be the origin of techniques.") Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry is in the business of teaching people how to harness and employ certain powers—that they are powers unrecognized by science is really beside the point—but cannot insure that people will use those powers wisely, responsibly, and for the common good. It is a choice, as the thinkers of the Renaissance would have put it, between magia and goetia: "high magic" (like the wisdom possessed by the magi in Christian legend) and "dark magic."

Hogwarts was founded by four wizards, one of whom, Salazar Slytherin, at least dabbled and perhaps reveled in the Dark Arts, that is, the use of his powers for questionable if not downright evil purposes, and for centuries many of the young wizards who reside in Slytherin House have exhibited the same tendency. The educational quandary for Albus Dumbledore, then—though it is never described so overtly—is how to train students not just in the "technology" of magic but also in the moral discernment necessary to avoid the continual reproduction of the few great Dark Lords like Voldemort and their multitudinous followers. The problem is exacerbated by the presence of faculty members who are not wholly unsympathetic with Voldemort’s aims.

The clarity with which Rowling sees the need to choose between good and evil is admirable, but still more admirable, to my mind, is her refusal to allow a simple division of parties into the Good and the Evil. Harry Potter is unquestionably a good boy, but, as I have suggested, a key component of his virtue arises from his recognition that he is not inevitably good. When first–year students arrive at Hogwarts, they come to an assembly of the entire school, students and faculty. Each of them sits on a stool in the midst of the assembly and puts on a large, battered, old hat—the Sorting Hat, which decides which of the four houses the student will enter. After unusually long reflection, the Sorting Hat, to Harry’s great relief, puts him in Gryffindor, but not before telling him that he could achieve real greatness in Slytherin. This comment haunts Harry: he often wonders if Slytherin is where he truly belongs, among the pragmatists, the careerists, the manipulators and deceivers, the power–hungry, and the just plain nasty. Near the end of the second book, after a terrifying encounter with Voldemort—his third, since Voldemort had tried to kill Harry, and succeeded in killing his parents, when Harry was a baby, and had confronted Harry again in the first book—he confesses his doubts to Dumbledore.

"So I should be in Slytherin," Harry said, looking desperately into Dumbledore’s face. "The Sorting Hat could see Slytherin’s power in me, and it—"
"Put you in Gryffindor," said Dumbledore calmly. "Listen to me, Harry. You happen to have many qualities Salazar Slytherin prized in his hand–picked students. Resourcefulness . . . determination . . . a certain disregard for rules," he added, his moustache quivering again. "Yet the Sorting Hat placed you in Gryffindor. You know why that was. Think."
"It only put me in Gryffindor," said Harry in a defeated voice, "Because I asked not to go in Slytherin. . . ."
"Exactly," said Dumbledore, beaming once more. "Which makes you very different from [Voldemort]. It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." Harry sat motionless in his chair, stunned.
Harry is stunned because he realizes for the first time that his confusion has been wrongheaded from the start: he has been asking the question "Who am I at heart?" when he needed to be asking the question "What must I do in order to become what I should be?" His character is not a fixed preexistent thing, but something that he has the responsibility for making: that’s why the Greeks called it character, "that which is engraved." It’s also what the Germans mean when they speak of Bildung, and the Harry Potter books are of course a multivolume Bildungsroman—a story of "education," that is to say, of character formation.

In this sense the strong tendency of magic to become a dream of power—on the importance of this point Lynn Thorndike, Keith Thomas, and C. S. Lewis all agree—makes it a wonderful means by which to focus the theme of Bildung, of the choices that gradually but inexorably shape us into certain distinct kinds of persons. Christians are perhaps right to be wary of an overly positive portrayal of magic, but the Harry Potter books don’t do that: in them magic is often fun, often surprising and exciting, but also always potentially dangerous.

And so, it should be said, is the technology that has resulted from the victory of experimental science. Perhaps the most important question I could ask my Christian friends who mistrust the Harry Potter books is this: is your concern about the portrayal of this imaginary magical technology matched by a concern for the effects of the technology that in our world displaced magic? The technocrats of this world hold in their hands powers almost infinitely greater than those of Albus Dumbledore and Voldemort: how worried are we about them, and their influence over our children? Not worried enough, I would say. As Ellul suggests, the task for us is "the measuring of technique by other criteria than those of technique itself," which measuring he also calls "the search for justice before God." Joanne Rowling’s books are more helpful than most in prompting such measurement. They are also—and let’s not forget the importance of this point—a great deal of fun.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alan Jacobs is Professor of English at Wheaton College.

Letters and reply to letters.

The World of Harry Potter
Kudos to Alan Jacobs on his fine analysis of the Harry Potter books and phenomenon ("Harry Potter’s Magic," January). His discussion of magic versus science, and the observation that they were originally much closer in concept and were both attempts to control our environment is, to my mind, spot on. I would question only his observation that Rowling resembles J. R. R. Tolkien as a literary artist.

A resemblance, perhaps. But the chasm between their skill is vast. Tolkien’s achievement almost beggars description, and I’ve long thought that as much loved as he is today, it will be a long time before the enormity of his accomplishment is fully appreciated. Rowling tells an excellent story—a prime requisite for a successful author—and has that indefinable and unpredictable ability to captivate readers both young and old. But her inventions in her secondary world cannot compare to Tolkien’s, who begins with a creation story (the beautiful "Ainulindale" of The Silmarillion), and then proceeds to people his creation with beings of different kinds, entire languages, an entire geography, detailed histories, and on and on.

The invention in Rowling cannot compare with this. Here is, for me at any rate, the acid test. I would and do reread Tolkien again and again. I have not, and almost certainly will not, reread Rowling.

Philip B. Rose
Department of Mathematics
Carroll College
Helena, Montana

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everything positive that Alan Jacobs said in his review of the Harry Potter series was true, but I’m surprised he missed the main problem.

He posits that, historically, magic and science were parallel efforts to control the physical realm, the correct answer becoming apparent only in retrospect. An interesting point, but one that relies heavily on a discussion of medieval alchemy, not what most modern young readers are likely to think of when they read "magic"—precisely because alchemy (in the benign sense of a nonscientific process that did not involve the summoning of supernatural forces) did not work.

In dismissing the Christian objections to the series, Professor Jacobs fails to engage the view of magic repeatedly expressed in the Bible, that there are two, and only two, sources of supernatural (i.e., nonscientific) power: God and demons. "Magic" is the word used to describe supernatural power that does not come from God—if it is of God we call it a "miracle." Ancient texts indicate that magic was performed by invoking the secret personal name of the god: even in the Bible, no miracle (except creation) occurs before God reveals His personal name ("I Am Who I Am") to Moses. Thus Rowling’s unpronounceable incantations would be, in ancient terms, (partly) the secret name of a god (or demon).

There is also the purpose for which supernatural forces are used: it is interesting to contrast Jesus’ temptations in the desert to use the supernatural for personal purposes with the world of magic that Rowling creates. Jesus rejected Satan’s suggestion to create food; Rowling (apparently) has all food created through magic—and dishes are washed by magic too! Jesus declined the opportunity to fly (by jumping off the Temple and being borne up by angels); Rowling’s witches and wizards fly on brooms for sport. Jesus would not have created self–shuffling cards. In Rowling’s world, the supernatural is used for both good and evil to be sure, but mostly it is used for personal convenience and pleasure.

When I read the first two books to my children, I realized that they created in me a strong desire to go to Hogwarts School of Magic—not to glorify God and further His ends, but rather to make supernatural power my own for my own gratification. The original sin was committed for the motive of wanting to become like a god.

Brock Fowler
Rockville, Maryland

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alan Jacobs’ review of the Harry Potter stories attempts to reassure wary Christian readers that, despite the potentially serious concerns about the central role of witchcraft in the stories, the adventures of Harry Potter are really just good fun. While Professor Jacobs makes a number of valid points, I must say that I am not entirely reassured by his argument. I agree that Joanne Rowling has crafted an entertaining story that addresses real (if somewhat fantastically presented) moral choices. I further agree that the presentation of witchcraft in the story is far from sinister. In contrast to Prof. Jacobs, however, I believe that the books still raise significant issues of concern for Christian parents—not because of a glorification of witchcraft but because of a glorification of elitism that is fundamentally in opposition to the Christian worldview.

In the Harry Potter stories, Rowling has not, as Prof. Jacobs suggests, created a fantasy world with its own rules and history, but rather embedded a fantasy world in our own world. The real world, the world in which we all actually live and make choices, is the world of the "Muggles" that coexists with the world of the wizards. Rowling presents Muggles in the most negative possible light. Harry’s Muggle relatives (the Dursleys) are oafish, cruel, stupid, and so completely devoid of human compassion that they are easily dismissed as pathetic and irrelevant. In contrast, Rowling’s wizard characters exhibit the full range of human personalities from good to evil, simple to complex, humble to proud, wise to foolish. Readers naturally identify with Harry and with the wizard–world, not because wizards represent anything particularly virtuous, but because they are depicted as the "real people" against which the Dursleys of the Muggle–world can only be seen as two–dimensional and unpleasant caricatures. Rowling also presents the wizard–world as a far more interesting place than that of ordinary Muggles. Wizards have magic. They can do things that the Muggles cannot understand or accept. Muggles fear magic, even good magic, because they are too stupid and small–minded to understand wizard ways.

The idea of a secret world of magic appeals to our sense of status and distinction. We all long, in some way, to be part of an elite group. This longing is particularly strong for children, who often revel in the notion that they are so special they cannot possibly be understood by anyone—least of all by their Muggle parents. While separating people into Muggles and wizards is a well–trodden path in the human psyche, it is a path that is fraught with the risk of elitism. One can almost hear the condescending wizardly sniff that "Muggles are simply not our kind of people."

M. L. Condic
Salt Lake City, Utah

Alan Jacobs replies:
My thanks to Philip B. Rose for his compliments, but I would have him note that I did not compare Rowling to Tolkien in terms of aesthetic (or moral) excellence; I merely noted a likeness in imaginative purpose.

I cannot think of an appropriate reply to Brock Fowler’s letter. I suppose I could point out that what he calls "Rowling’s unpronounceable incantations" are in fact readily pronounceable Latin, or Latin–derived, words ("Expelliarmus," "Lumos") and are mere grammatical imperatives, rather than the secret names of demons; but perhaps that would not address his main point. Let me confine myself to saying that Mr. Fowler’s censures are driven by an underlying principle—i.e., what Jesus did not do must not be represented positively in books—that would cause us to repudiate not only Joanne Rowling’s books, but the entire literature of fantasy (including of course Tolkien), and perhaps literary fiction tout court. Indeed, I’m not sure whether any of the arts would easily survive so fierce a stricture. However, the proposition that "Jesus would not have created self–shuffling [playing] cards" surely calls for serious theological debate.

M. L. Condic writes that "One can almost hear the condescending wizardly sniff that ‘Muggles are simply not our kind of people.’" I would amend that sentence by striking the "almost," since one hears that idea quite clearly expressed in the Harry Potter books—but not by Harry or by Joanne Rowling. Instead, those are the very sentiments expressed by the loathsome Draco Malfoy (translation: "Dragon Bad–Faith"), Harry’s nemesis, and by Malfoy’s father. Both of them regularly proclaim their contempt for Muggles and for wizards descended from Muggles, including Harry’s friend Hermione Granger (whose parents are thoroughly unmagical dentists) and Harry himself (whose mother’s parents were Muggles). Far from encouraging elitism, Rowling strongly condemns it by associating it with some of the nastiest characters in her books.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 8/4/2002 3:12 PM (GMT -6)

Brandon, Electra wasn't saying that the only point she noticed in the movie was what seemed to be a racial profiling. I bet she liked the movie over all. She is just wondering about a pattern she (and many of us) observes in movie making of sterotyping people of color in largely negative terms. I think you're critique that she is presuming to know what was in the directors head is missing the point. The point she is making is significant whether or not (probably not) the director or screen writer was aware of what she was doing. Racism is most pernicious when it is sub-conscious.

I'd say something similar about my comments on the theological significance of movies. I'm not saying this is the only or primary or even all-that-important thing to notice about a movie. But it is ONE thing to notice, and the thing that might be worth mentioning on a board where people are mainly interested in theology. Of course one could say a lot of other things -- maybe even "more meaty" things -- about Minority Report, or Traffic, or whatever.

Having said all this, here's a film I saw last night that I would STRONGLY recommend: Cry Freedom, starring Denzel Washington and Kevin Kline. POWERFUL true story centered in South Africa during the hieght of apartheid. Wow.

Blessings
Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 8/6/2002 6:16 AM (GMT -6)

For now, (cause I gotta scoot) let me say this.

I hope that you see though that it is not all about people crying, "Get over it," or "P.C." or what have you of which you were mainly talking about "most whites." It simply or merely isn't about that Greg. It would seem to me that the point you are trying to make here was that racist attitudes go deep to the subconscious. And then to top it off, "it's the luxury of being white." If "most whites" are saying these things, the end is not "Get over it." Is there a reason why some of these might be said? Isn't there more than to it than just, the same 'ol, "America is racist." "No it isn't." Yada, yada, yada...

We could get wrapped up going back and forth about stereotypes in movies and the media. Back and forth, back and forth, back and forth.

Anyhoo, I really did want to know what others thought about the Harry Potter Article. Still waiting for others thoughts on "Signs."

Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 8/6/2002 7:51 AM (GMT -6)

For those of you who will be attending the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion this year, mark 8:30–11:00 p.m. Saturday evening on your itinerary. Who cares if Derrida is speaking during the same time slot—the Religion, Film, and Visual Culture Group will be showing the movie, “Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter”!

Here’s a discription of the film from the brochure:

quote:
Perhaps the best description of this film is by the director himself: "The first testament says 'an eye for an eye.' The second testament says 'love thy neighbor.' The third testament KICKS ASS!" The filmmaking team that won the Spirit of Slamdance prize with Harry Knuckles and the Treasure of the Aztec Mummy raises the stakes with this tale of the ultimate action hero: Jesus Christ. The second coming is upon us, and Jesus has returned to earth. But before he can get down to the serious business of judging the living and the dead, he has to contend with an army of vampires that can walk in the daylight. Combining kung-fu action with Biblical prophecy, the film teams the Savior with Mexican wrestling hero El Santos against mythological horrors and science gone mad. By the way, did we mention that it's a musical? Directed by Lee Demarbre, 2001, 85 minutes (Color, Canada).

Electra

~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 8/6/2002 8:07 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Brandon, Electra wasn't saying that the only point she noticed in the movie was what seemed to be a racial profiling. I bet she liked the movie over all. She is just wondering about a pattern she (and many of us) observes in movie making of sterotyping people of color in largely negative terms. I think you're critique that she is presuming to know what was in the directors head is missing the point. The point she is making is significant whether or not (probably not) the director or screen writer was aware of what she was doing. Racism is most pernicious when it is sub-conscious.

Right on, Doc. Directors must make choices about how to most effectively portray the meaning behind each scene in ways the audience can identify with. This involves tapping into social archetypes, and unless a particular social archetype is the focus of the plot, directors can’t afford to tap into them critically all, or even most, of the time. My criticism of the portrayal of race in some movies comes out of my struggle to be more conscious of my own racist assumptions and socialization than with speculation about the directors’ intentions. I would not criticize so harshly without owning the criticisms myself.

Thanks,
Electra

~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~

Edited by - Electra on 08/06/2002 1:11:07 PM

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 8/6/2002 11:06 AM (GMT -6)

Electra...

My last post still stands. Not to mention my last couple of posts.

Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 8/6/2002 11:09 AM (GMT -6)

Electra...

Come to think of it...I haven't heard any of you seriously look at "reverse racism/sexism." If there is even such a thing. But that's for another thread altogether.

Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 8/10/2002 8:23 PM (GMT -6)

Emma Thompson in "Wit". I liked it. Anybody see it?

Tom

Edited by - TGB on 09/13/2002 4:30:13 PM

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 8/22/2002 12:48 PM (GMT -6)

This is for you situationsists out there.

Went and seen Spy Kids 2 with my chill'ns. Of course they loved the movie, but I found it very interesting when the two spy girls get picked up by a flying pig and dropped into a nest. In the course of their situation, one spy girl says to the other about some near future event that will take place, "What is the right thing to do?" The other girl responds, "I don't know, but we will know the right thing to do when it happens."

Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 9/13/2002 11:32 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Emma Thompson in "Wit". I liked it. Anybody see it?

Tom

I screwed up by accidentally erasing my former post thinking I was responding. So what!

Wit.

Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:08 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual