Superhero Appreciation 2: Superman, Spider-Man, and Batman

Superman
    Superman is, of course, the archetypal, classic superhero. He has awesome powers-- super-speed, flight, X-ray vision, not to mention invulnerability. Speaking of, does anybody else think that Kryptonite shows up waaay more than it has any right to? I mean, writers have to bring it in since it's basically the only thing that can defeat him and add any interest to the story. Without Kryptonite, Superman is just an unkillable dude who goes around saving people. It's nice, but it's not very heroic-- he's not risking anything by fighting for truth, justice, and the American  International Smorgasboard Melting-Diversity Pot Awareness Way. In fact, he'd kind of be a tool if he didn't fight crime. I mean, what was he gonna be like? "Duuuude I can totally  punch this kid in the face and no one will even be able to do anything about it cuz I'm the MAN OF STEEL!"
    But anyway, back to wherever the Kryptonite comes from. I'm certain there are plenty of comic-book explanations, and maybe they even address it in the movies and I just don't remember but...Krypton was destroyed, and yet somehow anyone who's even casually interested in fighting Superman can get a hold of some kryptonite.
     Also, apparently he has an asthmatic son and something about whatever whatever, did anyone even watch Superman Returns?
Spider-Man
     Oh, Spider-Man. That superhero of superheroes. That paragon of virtue, patriotism, and strength. Also, he's my favorite.
     Now, I know there's a whole slew of you comic-book lovers out there who look down on my generation for our Sam Raimi-derived impression of Spider-Man and our zealously willing suspension of disbelief that accepts Tobey Maguire as a high-school-aged Peter Parker. But I mean...come on, those movies are awesome! The first one was a classic, the second was considered by some to be the greatest superhero movie of all time (at least until The Dark Knight came out). And the third one...well...it was at least...amusing? I guess? Oh, and it had Bryce Dallas Howard in it.
     But anyway... I know everyone's affection for the webslinger might not be as fervent as mine, so let me get a little more personal for a second and try to explain why Spider-Man resonates so much with me. First reason: Peter Parker. Hard as it may be to believe, especially considering this post's topic, I am a nerd. So of course I love Peter Parker and identify with him (and did so even more when I was twelve).  Even after Peter becomes Spider-Man, he's not perfect. He still messes up, he shrinks from heroism-- but then he tries to do what's right. And while most other superheroes have hallow alter-egos that just kind of fill the space in between crime scenes, you always know that Spider-Man is Peter, and he's going to react like Peter and share the same priorities.
    One other reason the Spider-Man movies are so awesome: the supporting characters aren't cardboard (even if Franco's acting is). Yeah, Mary Jane is super annoying at times (and she totally doesn't deserve Peter at all, but I've gotten over that and I'm not even a little bit bitter even slightly), but she comes across as a real person. Real people can be annoying at times. And yes, Willem Dafoe  is super creepy and all (seriously, freeze frame his face at any given point in the first Spider-Man, especially during those internal monologue scenes? Terrifying.), and I seriously wonder sometimes if Franco's acting is satyric performance art, poking ironic deadpan fun at bad acting-- you know, like he would shoot a scene and then post on some secret password-protected website about it, like, "haha guys, just did a scene under the influence of 3 different drugs-- im still better than tobey lol l8r" and then he'd shoot another scene the same day and be like "Just shot a scene that is, without a doubt, my magnum opus. Never has such perfection, such nuance of emotion, been captured on film by the human hand, soon to reach the human heart." and then later been like, "Lol, just kidding, I was on four drugs when I did that scene". And he only showed that password-protected blog to his three best friends, two homeless guys and a deformed trumpet player, so he could monitor their reactions for the documentary he was planning to do about them. Because that's totally something he would do, and what else could be going on? He just can't act? No no, I saw this man host the Oscars, and he is cinematic and charismatic gold, I am telling you--
    Whoa. I think that paragraph just bit its own paranthetical-statement-laden head off. But anyway, the point is, even if Norman and Harry are unconvincing at times, the tension in their relationship is anything but and really adds a dimension of personal feeling, both to the villain story and Peter and Harry's friendship.
   
     Or if you want the short answer....I'm just in love with Spider-Man.
Batman
Alright, I'm afraid it's hard for me to be objective about superheroes. If I have an abnormal amount of love for Spider-Man, I likewise have an abnormal amount of dislike for Batman. The dislike isn't without basis though, I mean, look-- when any other superhero comes to a crime scene, there's an immediate sense of comfort, relief, and imminent deliverance from danger. When Batman arrives at a crime scene, he makes it at leas 10X creepier. Another pet peeve: his only super power is "having lots of money". He's a superhero only on the absis of equipment, which I understand is kind of a thing now, what with Iron-Man, and even Andrew Garfield is supposed to swing into the May 2012 Spider-Man reboot with mechanical webshooters. But it still just feels like cheating to me.
    Also, Bruce Wayne just isn't that relatable or compelling. His only motivation seemes to be, "parents dead, scared of bats" and his whole alter-ego life consists of social galas and special invitations. Additionally, back to my first point...Batman's just creepy. Tim Burton's stylized, comic-book Batman and the recent, brooding Dark Knight are both wonderful movies with very distinct feels, but they're both dark and they're both creepy in different ways. The only time Batman's not scary is in the movies that came out in the late 90s, like Batman Forever and Batman and Robin. In those, he's just goofy and possibly homosexual.
     A caveat in the anti-Batman screed: The Dark Knight is an amazing movie and deserved every bit of hype and praide it got. It knew the tone it wanted and just went for it-- no attempts to lighten things up, just a plunge into the depths of human nature, sin, and despair. It succeeded because it was so original-- it's not what most superhero movies are like.
     I'm sure Batman Begins was going for a similar dark feel, but I don't think it succeeded. Watching Batman Begins feels kind of like watching the opera that Bruce's parents go to, if you mixed in Kung-Fu Panda, Qui-Gonn Jinn, and set the whole thing on a mountain with Katie HolmesMaggieGyllenhaal noonewillnotice. I did not care for Batman Begins.


So there it is-- as objective a critique as it is humanly possibly for me to write concerning the Big Three of the Superhero Universe.

Superhero Appreciation 1: Captain America

     I started this post originally as a commentary on superheroes and superhero movies in general, but then I realized it was getting way too long for one post and I'd need to devote several posts to these masked crusaders. And yes, I also realized that I'm a geek. So, up first and most recently, Captain America. Captain America is the only superhero movie I went to this summer--Green Hornet slipped by me (and was not sorely missed), I still do want to see Thor (if only because the titular character will be in Joss Whedon's 2012 The Avengers), and I joined millions of theatergoers in joyfully not seeing The Green Lantern.
    Anyway, even without having seen any others, I think I can venture to guess that Captain America was the best superhero movie out this summer, judging by what the critics have said and how enjoyable it was. I don't know if it "redeemed the superhero genre" as some critics went so far as to say, but it certainly had a fresh, original feel, engaging characters, and a basic element that a lot of superhero movies lately have skipped over-- the protagonist is a decent human being (more on that later).
     One thing I loved about it was the period feel-- and while it was shockingly not the only World War II Superhero movie out this summer (X-Men: First Class shared the setting, if  not quite the box office returns), it's still unusual to see superheroes in an old-timey setting, and it's a lot of fun.
    The best thing about this movie, in many ways, is the protagonist himself-- Steve Rogers/Captain America. He's not angst-ridden and tormented like The Dark Knight's Batman, and he's not snarky and lackadaisical like Iron Man's Tony Stark. He's just a good guy who wants to fight Nazis, and that's kind of refreshing after seeing egotistic heroes in most recent superhero movies-- think Peter Parker's selfish emo transformation in Spider-Man 3 and Wolverine's personal quests and gruffness in Origins and even the first X-Men. But the winner who absolutely takes the cake for least likable protagonist has to be Ryan Reynold's Hal Jordan-- like I said, I skipped The Green Lantern but the trailer alone was enough to reveal that his character was a cringe-inducingly arrogant jerk (which probably contributed to the movie's flop-- most protagonists like Spider-Man and Wolverine, even with their flaws, are deep down likable, while Hal Jordan is...not).
    Some of Captain America's secondary characters are pretty strong too, especially Dr. Abraham, Tony Stark's dad, and Steve's best friend Bucky. However, the few things that fall flat about the movie also come as a result of secondary characters; the love story involving Peggy, the stern British soldier is unconvincing (we're not really too sad to hear that he ended up missing their date by *SPOILER ALERT* 60 years, and he doesn't seem to be either), and the villain (Hugo Weaving, who should probably have taken the blue pill and stayed in the Matrix) is well...silly. At least he is after he pulls his face off-- before, when he's just a regular ol' Nazi, he is genuinely kind of creepifying, but the second that Elrond mask comes off to reveal a crimson Voldemort, he loses all dignity.
   Okay, sidenote: speaking of the villains, and this is probably just me but...the aquatic symbolism in this movie is whack. Okay, so Red Skull's organization is Hydra, but their symbol is an octopus...why?? Octupi have multiple legs, Hydra had multiple heads. Not the same thing. And then towards the end of the movie, Red Skull's ship is shaped like a manta ray, which is super cool but still left me wondering...is every aquatic animal fair game for the Nazis to exploit to represent themselves?
    The storyline is pretty strong, although as some of the reviews point out, the second half lapses mostly into  a lot of indeterminable battle scenes, which is a bit of a disappointment after the unique situations of the first act. Other elements of the plot are not given sufficient explanation, for example, the exact powers and properties of the tesseract are unclear, which is kind of frustrating when it's something so central to the plot. Until further knowledge is revealed I'm just going to have to go the L'Engle route and assume that Red Skull is now chillin with Mrs. Who, Mrs. Whatsit, and Mrs. Which. I also have to say, the last scene is genuinely surprising, although I knew something had to happen to get Captain America into (SPOILER ALERT) present day if he was gonna join Iron Man, Thor, and the rest of the crew in The Avengers ( please allow me a *Joss Whedon squee!!!!*).
   Anyway, all in all Captain America is a pretty strong superhero movie and a fairly strong movie in general. It has some language, but other than that ends up being fairly appropriate (since, after all, "fondue is just bread and cheese, buddy"). It actually exemplifies some pretty strong morals, and while it's only "Christian" in the sense that most superheroes are Christ figures, a lot of its core principals are worth holding onto. Self-sacrifice is portrayed clearly, especially one instance when Steve is training at the army camp and a grenade is thrown into his group (the grenade is a dummy, but the soldiers don't know that). The general shouts "Grenade!" and everyone ducks for cover, except for Steve, who jumps on top of the grenade and tells everyone else to run away. Additionally, the night before Steve is to undergo the experiment, Dr. Abraham tells him, Whatever happens tomorrow, you must promise me one thing. That you will stay who you are. Not a perfect soldier, but a good man." We too have to stay true to who we are in spite of changes and circumstances-- not in a cheesy, follow-your-heart-and-be-whoever-you-want-to-be sort of way, but in an identity-found-in-Christ kind of way.

The Tides Aren't Really All That Stranger This Time Around

Warning: Here there be spoilers!  
     I think most people will go to see Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides some time this summer. It's the big summer movie that's out right now and the previous three movies were huge box office (if not critical) successes. However, while the first Pirates movie was original, interesting, and entertaining, after being dragged through the indiscernible muddle that was the sequels, I (and I know that I must not be alone in this) have had considerable trouble drumming up excitement for a new installment. However, a group of my friends decided to go and I had a little extra babysitting money so, I went. And it was okay.
     Which is really all you could expect of it. As the fourth addition to a series that I would argue ran out of clever/original material with the second movie, I don't think anyone is expecting it to be Citizen Cane. It at least has a cohesive, self-contained plot (which cannot be said of 2 and 3) which, while not enormously original, is entertaining enough. Aside from a few clever scenes (the mermaids are genius, even if they were mainly inserted in the film as an excuse to have lots of half-naked bodies slithering across the screen, and one scene where Jack escapes capture in a very innovative way involving a palm tree and rope), there's nothing here that we haven't seen--and that hasn't been done better-- in the previous three films.
     The one way that On Stranger Tides did stand out was in its spiritual content, something on which none of the previous Pirates movies had focused so extensively. The new character that they added (I suppose mainly as a Will Turner replacement) of a young missionary on board Blackbeard's ship was fascinating. I was dissapointed in his storyline though; I thought it was going to be a pretty sharp, beautiful allegory. When the pirates capture a mermaid (because they need her tears to unlock the fountain of life...I told you the plot was easier to follow than that of 2 or 3. That doesn't mean it's a piece of cake), they're all cruel to her except for the missionary. When her tank breaks, the captain tells her to walk or die, but she is unable to walk. The missionary picks her up, and she says to him, "I didn't ask for your help," and he responds, "No, but you need it." Which is, really, an amazing picture of God and us-- we would never on our own come to Him for help, but he helps us anyway. However, after showing compassion to her (and I hoped so very much that her character would be redeemed), their storyline ends when she drags him to the bottom of the sea and drowns him. Bummer.
     Another striking example of the heightened spiritual awareness of this film occurs when Jack and the rest finally do reach the Fountain of Youth. Before any can drink it, the Spanish king comes and destroys it, saying, "Why do you seek here what only God can give?" (eternal life).
     So it had its few good parts and its very few thought provoking parts. But all-in-all, it's just a summer popcorn movie-- and it doesn't really pretend to be anything else. Which I respect. In originality it is totally lacking, not ripping off its precursors alone (I think they may have actually used footage from the Will/Jack Blacksmith Shop Duel scene in the original instead of going to all the trouble of shooting new footage for the Penelope Cruz/Jack Sparrow duel {inter-parenthetical-comment-parenthetical-comment: Yes, I've already forgotten what Penelope Cruz's character was named. No, I don't care to look it up.}) but also ripping off other movies (notably, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. The last scene of Pirates is the exact same as the last scene of Crusade, if you replace the Holy Grail with the Fountain of Youth. And Henry Jones Sr. with Blackbeard. And Harrison Ford with Johnny Depp, which you should never, ever do.)
      And finally, (and I think we were leading up to this with 2 and 3), Jack Sparrow just does not work as the sole, main character. A protagonist is supposed to be someone we can identify with, and in the original Pirates we had that with Will Turner (and, to a lesser extent, Elizabeth). He was young, impressionable, amazed by all the piratey/supernatural goings-on, yet still courageous and willing to face it. In other words, he was a normal person. Jack Sparrow is a great character, but he is most definitely not normal. And when he is the protagonist that we're supposed to relate to, there's a problem there. Of course, he's become normal to us because 2 and 3 went so over the top crazy with supernatural beings, krakens, giant goddessess--he was the most normal thing around for a while, and that's a problem. The Pirates movies topped themselves out a long time ago, and in the process cheapened a great character-- made someone delighfully abnormal normal.
     And Jack's not the only one they've done it to, they've done it with the whole tone of their movies. In the original Pirates, we weren't sure what genre exactly to expect: it started out as a period romance, turned into a period drama, launched into an action film, dipped briefly into thriller territory...it was its own genre, but by the 2nd and 3rd movies, it knew it was its own genre and so did we, and we knew what to expect in that genre. So what made the first one so interesting, that element of surprise and shock that we feel when Elizabeth stabs Barbossa and he pulls the knife out, unharmed, is completely missing when in every battle fifteen soldiers are killed and come immediately back to life with no explanation (seriously. In the fourth one, at one point they stab a guy and he just pulls the blade out and keeps fighting. No explanation).
    So, while it's a fun movie, On Stranger Tides is predictable and not any sort of cinematic milestone. It kind of knows that, though, and doesn't try to hard to make you think otherwise. So it's a fun movie to see once, just like 2 and 3. However, it's not gonna go down as a classic, which I genuinely think the first one might ("classic" in the Indiana Jones/Jurassic Park sense, not the Gone with the Wind sense. So we're clear).

Les Miserables

(A note of apology in advance: This is not very well written or well thought out. My computer is pretty much busted and makes it impossible to spend too long copy editing…)

I know, I know I don't post very often. But if you had any idea how many drafts I've started and abandoned!! I have trouble thinking up blog posts that would actually be interesting. Anyway...

    Les Miserables came down here for about two weeks...and they happened to be the two weeks surrounding my birthday. So my wonderful brother got tickets for us, because he knows that that's my favorite musical/story ever and I had been dropping not-so-subtle hints that I wanted to go for well...several months. (I’m not going to be summarizing the plot in any sort of cohesive way…so you’ll kind of have to be familiar with the story).

    Honestly...I think this is my favorite musical. It's hard to pick because there are so many good ones, but after seeing this one in its entirety (and not just the 10th anniversary DVD where they use microphones and Marius sweats (inter-parenthetical-parenthetical-comment: the 10th anniversary is not the one with whichever Jonas in it. Because ughhh. I mean, he actually did a pretty good job, and was probably less sweaty than Michael Ball was, but...still, it's a Jonas, and I don't want Jonases in my Les Mis. I don't really want Jonases at all, actually) ), I think it's the most satisfying, well-done, beautiful musical out there. (If you followed that last sentence...I love you).

    The first thing I saw when we walked into the theater (other than the awesome French soldiers and not-so-awesome French...ladies that were in the lobby  handing out carnations) was the set-- a gorgeous gray-toned background on which you could just barely make out a cross. Then it started, the prologue with Jean Valjean in the chain gang, and by the end of that I was already almost in tears. Valjean was perfect, even though I couldn't really see his face, his voice and acting were spot-on. The prologue concluded with Jean Valjean's redemption and the spotlight straight up lit the cross...it was beautiful.

I am reaching, but I fall / And the night is closing in / And I stare into the void / To the whirlpool of my sin / I'll escape now from the world / From the world of Jean Valjean / Jean Valjean is nothing now / Another story must begin! 

And all that's just the prologue. I have to admit, I was a little disappointed in the first half or so...  and I’m by no means a Les Mis prude. I understand that the story needs to have prostitutes in it (I’ve actually written several papers on the subject), but there was just way more innuendo and just plain…endo than was necessary, and than is even usually in the play. The plebes loved it, however, which is why they put it in I suppose. But even with all that, Fantine was perfect. She actually seemed innocent and vulnerable and made her whole situation believable (gorgeous voice too).  The scene where Jean Valjean takes Fantine in was amazingly touching— after Javert captures her, she sees him and spits in his face, blaming him for what’s happened to her. Instead of leaving her to Javert and prison, Valjean immediately apologizes, commands Javert to free her, and takes her into his own home. 

     Of course, Javert was also introduced briefly in the prologue but we didn’t see much of him until he showed up here, tracking Valjean down and mistreating Fantine. Javert’s voice and character were amazing, but he lacked the trademark sideburns that are really my favorite part of the character L. 

      Alright, about halfway through the first half we get to meet the Thernardiers!! Mr. Thenardier was…absolutely perfect. He was hysterical (I actually looked up the actor and it turns out he’s been on pretty much every TV show ever made), if kind of inappropriate. Young Cossette was great (I’m also sort of worried that she’s gonna mess up) and the very first scene where she meets Valjean—actually, all the scenes where she and Valjean are together—was absolutely adorable. She’s bringing the bucket of water inside and he comes to help her carry it and hums along with her to Castle on a Cloud. Awwwwwwwww. And then, once he had paid the Thernadiers, he carried her out and twirled her around. Too much adorable.

     Alright so…almost immediately, Cossette grows up. Grown-up Cossette is not nearly as adorable as Young Cossette. I mean, I’m sure she’s a wonderful person and all (she is in the book), but in the musical the only real reason we’re given to like her is that Valjean likes her. Oh, and also Marius likes her.

    Marius…sigh. Marius is perfect. I mean, he’s kind of a jerk… but not on purpose. I enjoyed hearing all the little bits of music that aren’t on my CD, like the introduction to Marius and Eponine, which comes while they’re walking through a busy street, arguing with each other.

Eponine: “ 'Ere, wotcher do with all them books? / I could have been a student too! / Don't judge a girl on how she looks. / I know a lot of things, I do!
Marius: Poor Eponine, the things you know /You wouldn't find in books like these.
Eponine: I like the way you grow your hair
Marius: I like the way you always tease
Eponine: Little he knows! / Little he sees!

Which is a great introduction, because you get an immediate idea of the characters and their relationship from just that one piece of music.  I guess now is as good a time as any to… confess? Reveal? Disclose? That, besides Jean Valjean, Eponine is my favorite character. I mean…she’s amazing. Just trust me on that…you’ll understand why soon. And she was great, playing both the humorous and the tragic sides well. And speaking of humorous/ tragic, Gavroche!!! I have to admit, usually that kid annoys me…but here, he was so tiny, so adorable, so perfect at his part…I loved him. He was amazing.

    Anyways, back to Grown-up Cossette… of course, Marius sees her and falls in love with her, and Eponine shows him the way to her house (cause Eponine’s awesome). A Heart Full of Love is one of those songs that’s way more fun to see than to hear, and that/I Saw Him Once/In My Life were beautiful and one of the very best parts.

      Enjolras was great, a trifle gangly, but great voice, and he always seems so earnest it’s impossible not to like him. Red and Black is, I think, one of the funniest and simultaneously most stirring songs in the musical…

It is time for us all / To decide who we are / Do we fight for the right / To a night at the opera now? / Have you asked of yourselves / What's the price you might pay? / Is it simply a game / For rich young boys to play? / The color of the world / Is changing day by day...

etc. A sidebar if you will: one of the most amazing parts of Les Mis is that we don’t really care about the student revolution at all. We aren’t invested in it, and if you really think about it, you’ll realize pretty quickly that it’s kind of silly. We stay interested because we’re invested in the characters—Marius, Enjolras, Gavroche, and the others—who are fighting, and we understand that it’s important enough to them to die for, and understand its connection to the French Revolution. Just thought that was interesting…. But that’s probably because it’s pretty late and my brain isn’t quite functioning.

     Anywhoozle, so we now have Thernardier discovering the house at Rue Plumet, ‘Ponine saving the day, and Cossette and Valjean leaving. So Marius decides to fight with the students (and I mean “with” as in, “ally himself with”, not “get into a fight with”).

    Alright, I’ll admit…this was the first part to actually make me cry. I mean…I love Marius. I love him. But it’s really, really hard to watch this part and like him. Eponine comes to the barricade to be with him, and he sends her with a letter for Cossette and while she’s delivering it, she gets shot. I MEAN SERIOUSLY WHO DOES THAT. And how is Eponine so awesome?? How does she not throw the letter in his face and say, “I’m not delivering anything to your ditzy blond girlfriend!! Can’t you see everything I’ve done for you???” But, as it turns out, Eponine is awesome. And then she dies in his arms.

Don’t you fret, M’siuer Marius / I don’t feel any pain / A little fall of rain / Can hardly hurt me now / You’re here, that’s all I need to know / And you will keep me safe / and You will keep me close / and rain will make the flowers grow.

The revolutionaries honor her as the first fallen, and treat her as a sort of inspiration to them all… which again shows how very little anyone cares about the student revolution. Eponine wasn’t fighting for liberty, she was at the barricade because even though “I know this is no place for me, / still I would rather be with you”. Anyway, Eponine’s death is one of the saddest scenes I’ve ever seen.

   Valjean comes when he sees the letter and realizes that Cossette loves Marius. He stands by the boys and helps them fight and refuses to kill Javert when he has the chance, setting him free. Most of the boys (including Gavroche L ) are killed, and Marius is injured. The iconic walk through the sewer was amazing. They used a…film? I guess? On a kind of projector… I know nothing about theater sets, does it show? Anyway, the picture in the background was moving and it looked awesome and there was fog and everything and Valjean’s pretty darn heroic.

     The one other breathtaking special effect was Javert’s suicide, which I assumed from the CD would just be him leaping offstage or behind a prop bridge. But what they did was, when he sings, “There is no way to go ooooooooon” the screen behind him moves so it looks like he’s falling, and we see him drown.

      Another of those sweet scenes that isn’t on the CD (I have the Original Broadway Cast Recording, but I actually downloaded this song from the London Cast after I saw it because it’s so sweet) is right after Marius is back from the barricades…it’s a reprise of A Heart Full of Love, but with Valjean taking Eponine’s place.

Cosette: I saw you waiting and I knew.

Marius: Waiting for you / At your feet
Cosette: At your call
Both: And it wasn't a dream / Not a dream after all
Valjean (interjecting, to himself): She was never mine to keep. / She is youthful, she is free. / Love is the garden of the young / Let it be... let it be... / A heart full of love / This I give you on this day.

     And then of course, there’s the wedding, the lovely wedding where Marius learns all that Valjean has done for them, and they arrive at his house just before his death (by the way, Valjean’s death was the other part that made me cry). And when he dies, all the characters we’ve seen die throughout the play come out, starting with Fantine, who is joined by Eponine…

Take my hand / and lead me to salvation / Take my love / For love is everlasting / And remember the truth that once was spoken / To love another person is to see the face of God….

     And then they all come in, all the boys from the barricade and all the other characters, with a hopeful reprise of Do You Hear the People Sing.

    So…all in all, it was amazing, and this doesn’t even begin to do it justice. It was entirely sung, with only two lines of dialogue spoken (“General LeMarc is dead” and “Long live the Republic!” if you were wondering). It retains all of the redemptive qualities of the book and even strengthens some of them. I have to say…amazing, amazing play. Probably you should just go see it instead of reading my dumb thoughts on it!!

Harry Potter!!

I really vacillated on the Harry Potter issue for a long time. I was kept away from it as a little child (a good decision I think, which I will elaborate on...), and then when I was maybe 11 or 12 I read Richard Abanes' "Harry Potter, Narnia, and The Lord of the Rings" (no seriously. That's the name of the book.) and after finishing that, I was convinced pretty firmly that Harry Potter was of the devil.

I hadn't really examined the other side of the argument; and it seemed like Christians were pretty evenly divided on the issue: either it was to be shunned, or it was to be accepted unthinkingly with open arms. And it's true, a lot of people don't put very much thought into their critiques of HP, other than equating "wizard" with "bad" and slapping down the smug gauntlet of unchallengeable success. Which I understand. I've been there. But even that open statement ought to be supported by evidence, even if it is evidence for why HP is bad and should be avoided by Christians (which does exist).

A few things changed my mind on the whole HP issue. I was getting a little annoyed with the modern Christian culture in general (my, I'm being awfully open with you! I probably shouldn't have taken those blue pills!) and its tendency to reject excellent things because it doesn't have the strength to read or view them discerningly. It's willing to accept christian-ized carbon copies of secular works (in the meantime, destroying all literary or artistic merit). Of course, I'm generalizing here, but page through almost any Christian bookstore catalog and you'll see what I mean-- even 'Christian-ized' equivalents of trashy romance novels appear in droves.

So I read Harry Potter for myself after finding the first two books at a thrift store for a quarter. And while reading I thought, "Hmmmm. I definitely see problems with this, but not the ones that everyone is always talking about." I was curious to read something on the other side of the argument, so I got John Granger's "Looking for God in Harry Potter". Let me give a Granger disclaimer here: I don't think he is always right. I think he over-analyzes certain things and sometimes draws out Christian themes that are not there. However, he nails the heart of the issue in this book (that's not a very good expression, is it? nails the heart), pointing out that the "witchcraft" in HP is more similar to the magic found in Lewis' and Tolkien's epics. There is still a problem here, in the choice of wording itself-- "witches" and "witchcraft" have specific occultic connotations, and many of the illusions that Rowling playfully makes have real world occultic counterparts (many of the classes that Harry takes at Hogwarts, for instance, have real world equivalents).

So, armed with my new research, I did what anyone should with research: wrote a research paper. For my English class (that's right, I got to read Harry Potter for school. It was awesome). And doing that lead me to further research...for example, this archived PDF of Credenda Agenda (Doug Wilson & Co's magazine) devoted to fantasy literature and Harry in particular: http://www.credenda.org/images/stories/pdf/14-2.pdf (If you get a chance, read it. Seriously. Trust me.)

There are very legitimate concerns in Harry Potter. As I mentioned earlier, the witchcraft does at times resemble occult activity. The children in HP (the protagonists, the "good guys") misbehave on a regular basis, and are seldom punished for this behavior-- in fact, they are more often than not rewarded and praised!

It is important to note that at no time does the magic in HP call upon a higher supernatural power, which is really what makes the occult occultic. HP is an alternate universe, and in that universe, magic can happen. It is a part of the natural order, and by using it properly, the wizards are actually being stewards of the creation they are surrounded by. In Finding God in Harry Potter, John Granger goes so far as to say that, “Incantational magic in literature—a harmonizing with God’s Word—is the story-time version of what a life in prayer makes possible” (6). Granger also points out that while it is possible that a child could misconstrue elements of the Potter series and turn to the occult, that in itself is not enough to warrant their shunning. He explains that if we abandoned anything that could be misconstrued, we would be forced to abandon the Bible, as it is twistings of the Bible that have led to evil cults like Jonestown.

The truth is, Harry Potter contains many Christ figures (which is no surprise, all good stories do) and the basic Biblical principle of good vs. evil. Harry himself displays sacrificial love on many occasions; for example, in the fourth book of the series, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire,Harry risks drowning and losing a competition to save a little girl whom he does not even know (Rowling, 501-502). This is an example of agape, Christ-like love-- he is not only willing to risk death for his friends, but for someone he does not even know. As Douglas Jones said in the HP edition of Credenda Agenda,

“…the Potter stories are decidedly Christ figure stories—an elect son, threatened at birth, who sacrifices His life for his friends and triumphs over evil in an underworld, even coming back from death for a feast” (par. 8)

And of course, the final book shows this Biblical redemption story most clearly, but I won't go into that since the first movie comes out in a little over a month!

Certainly Harry Potter has value for Christians, but whether or not a Christian reads (or allows their children to read) the series is a matter of private judgment that should be carefully considered. Christians have been given tremendous freedom through Christ. This freedom extends to all areas of life, including reading habits. Transcendent works of fantasy allow people to look at a “disguised world” (O’Brien 29) and see deeply Christian stories represented in a manner both creative and beautiful, as in Harry Potter. C.S. Lewis spoke of it as creeping past watchful dragons, allowing people to examine and understand concepts that they would normally avoid. Also, a book which depicts sinful behavior does not necessarily commend that sin, nor is it necessarily sinful for the Christian to read such a work, but often Christians use the presence of such plot elements as excuses for dismissing books without considering their value (Veith 72).

Although Christians have been given this freedom, God has also given them boundaries in what they should and should not enjoy. Paul says, “ ‘All things are lawful,’ but not all things are helpful. ‘All things are lawful,’ but not all things build up” (English Standard Version, 1 Cor. 10:23). In this passage, Paul goes on to discuss whether or not Christians should eat meat sacrificed to idols. He explains that while eating the meat is not a sin, if it might cause a brother to stumble or be bothered in conscience, Christians should not eat it. In the area of fantasy literature, then, Christians must exercise discretion (as in every area). If a book or series like Harry Pottercauses another Christian to stumble or be bothered in conscience, that book should be avoided or at least not flaunted by the Christians surrounding this weaker brother.

At the same time, Christians should not judge each other’s choices in matters like these of private discernment, for “Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand” (Rom. 14:4). If a Christian has a serious conscience problem with the Harry Potter series, whether it feeds in him a yearning for the occult and dark supernatural powers or causes authority problems, then he, as a matter of conscience, should avoid the series. But these weaker brothers should not judge a Christian who has studied and considered the issue carefully and has decided in favor of Harry Potter. It is a matter of discernment, and that is why it is advisable that parents not expose very young children insecure in their worldview to Potter until they are older (this would be advisable in any case if only because of some violence and dark themes in the books and the objectionable behavior of the children). As Woelke Leithart says in his essay, ‘Some Books’, a critique of Richard Abanes’ Harry Potter and the Bible, “I also agree that young children shouldn’t read the Harry Potter books unless they’re old and mature enough to handle it. But I failed to find one reason why a mature Christian shouldn’t read them, and enjoy them” (par. 9). Ultimately, a Christian’s choices must be focused in glorifying God. This is the ultimate standard for a Christian’s reading habits and life, and is best summed up by Paul: “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31). And in matters of private judgment, “The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves” (Romans 14: 22).

So, in a nutshell, that's why I'm going to be dressing up like a dork on November 18th and heading to the theater at midnight, and rooting for the Boy Who Lived to defeat evil. It's gonna be epppic.