Nina Munteanu » harry potter

Christ-Figure in Movies/Books: Grace or Redemption?

Nina Munteanu — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 07:03:00 +0000

In one of my previous posts (Fertility–Infertility & the Environment) I got into a rather lively discussion with a fellow blogger, Erik Hare, about the tendency in Western Culture mythos (in literature and in movies, particularly) to portray the main character in fiction as Christ figure and the ramifications of this choice. Erik lamented the separation that has occurred between Jesus the Teacher and Christ the Redeemer. I hadn’t really given this much thought until he brought it up. But his examples (e.g., Matrix and Harry Potter) and his discourse were so compelling, I’ve had to give it considerable thought. And here are my thoughts…

Today’s Christ-like hero suffers for the sins of the world and prepares himself (often struggling with this considerably) to deliver salvation, usually through fighting or violent confrontation and often with an incredible arsenal of weapons. I was swiftly brought to mind of the many action shoot-em up films whose tortured hero redeems him(her)self through some selfless, though violent action (e.g., Soylent Green, Matrix, V for Vendetta, Ultra Violet, Aeon Flux–all sci-fi movies, by the way, and ones I very much enjoyed watching. And what about all those superhero movies, like Spiderman or Superman 2?). These films represent a version of Joseph Campbell’s “Hero’s Journey”, where the original hero leaves his ‘ordinary world’ wherein he/she has some major flaw to overcome (like apathy, greed, distrust, anger, fear of strawberries…etc.) to answer ‘the call’ to be the hero he/she was destined to become. It is a very familiar trope and I’ll get to this in more detail in a later post. Erik Hare’s enthralling post on his blog at Author’s Den further expounded our discussion. Erik suggested that Western culture’s “concept of Redemption has invariably separated from the Grace that created it.” Jesus the Teacher had somehow fallen to the wayside to make room for Christ the Redeemer.

Here’s the difference according to Erik: “Jesus the Teacher said to ‘turn the other cheek’, but today’s Redeemers kick ass. Jesus the Teacher told us that what is done in love is blessed, but today’s Redeemers have more personal and interior motivations.” The two have simply become two different people, says Erik and “the latter is a superstar” compared to the former.” He ends his post with these compelling thoughts:

“The Beatitudes have become rather old fashioned, it seems, as has the idea of Grace…That is what seems to be the problem with today’s Redeemers – theirs is a personal battle with evil, and not a social one. ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself’ is an alien concept in a world that is perfectly self centered. All that’s left to do is kick ass on those who disagr – er, behave in an evil way, yeah, that’s it! If popular fiction really is a mirror being held up against us, the image we see is not a pretty one. The heritage of Western Culture has turned into a strange kind of cartoon – exaggerated, repetitious, vain, slapstick, and ultimately too silly watch. For some reason, very few people seem to understand this. They are too busy fixing their own hair in the mirror.”

If you still don’t get what Erik and I are talking about, go watch the poignant film “Pay It Forward” and then contrast its main character with the one in “Ultra Violet” or “The Matrix”.
The definition for Grace occupies almost half a page in the dictionary. When I think of Grace I think of selfless compassion, humility, gentleness, kindness, mercy and forgiveness and both inner and outer beauty. So, why does Grace languish in the shadows of redemption? Why do we watch—and more importantly, totally enjoy—these latter movies at the expense of the former? Why do we long for a strong but flawed hero with personal issues as our icon? One who is often tough, independent, and ‘kicks ass’ at the expense of gentleness, humility, cooperation and selflessness? If, as Erik suggests, we are seeking heroes who reflect our own self-image or at least the traits we strive to have, then what does popular fiction say about our choices in life? Is Erik right about this dichotomy? Well, I’d say definitely yes…but also no…

While I agree with Erik on the apparent separation of Christ figure in today’s popular fiction, perhaps there is another way to look at these tales that resolves this apparent dichotomy; if one were to view them more as allegories with traits and values represented in several characters woven together in a complete and whole tapestry. And that way is to include the secondary character as being equally important. Let’s take Matrix, for instance. In fact, Neo isn’t the only Jesus-figure. His two female opposites (Trinity/Oracle) demonstrate Christ-like traits that embody grace, mercy and love (the holy spirit). Okay, so Trinity kicks major ass too; but her character also provides the chief motivation for our main ‘kick-ass’ hero through her selfless love and humility.

I assert that these two aspects of Christ (merciful teacher and redeemer) are indeed both represented (albeit in separate individuals) in films today: two individuals, one Christ the redeemer and the other Jesus the savior/teacher, often joined through a bond of selfless love; two halves of a whole. The Gnostics have a word for this divine male/female pair: they call them syzygies, aeons (beings of light and emanations of God) that exist as complimentary pairs or twins. The aeon pair of Caen (which represents power, the redeemer) and Akhana (truth, love and grace) are complimentary and inseparable. The yin/yang of a whole. The paradoxical oxymoron of chaos in order (or order in chaos). In Gnostic belief, aeons are emanations of God. According to one version, an aeon named Sophia (wisdom) emanated without her partner aeon, creating a Demiurge (responsible for the creation of the physical universe; Ialdaboth in Gnostic texts) which was not part of the Pleroma (fullness and the region of light) and apart from the divine totality [a metaphor possibly for humanity]). God then emanated two savior aeons, Christ and the Holy Spirit to save man from the Demiurge. Christ then took the form of the man, Jesus, in order to teach man how to achieve Gnosis (and know God). So, for every Neo there is a Trinity/Oracle; for Violet there is Six; for Aeon Flux there is Trevor Goodchild; for Harry there is Dumbledore, Hermione and Ron; and so on. In this way, the two complimentary aspects of Christ are reconciled. And in cases where such complimentary pairing is achieved (e.g., Neo would not have succeeded without both Trinity or the Oracle) we are taught that selfless cooperation is the highest form of heroism.

Erik Hare’s book, Downriver, is available at www.amazon.com. Erik says his own use of Jesus in Downriver used the foundation of Grace within a strongly cultural context.

Share and Enjoy:

A Wizard of Earthsea

Nina Munteanu — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:42:00 +0000

When my boys were gone on holiday and I had to stay home to work, my good friends down the street took pity on me in my solitude and invited me to supper and a movie at their house. I gladly accepted, always ready for company and to mooch… … The movie turned out to be a wonderful fantasy they rented from the video store that had been made in 2004 by the U.S. based Sci-Fi Channel: A Wizard of Earthsea.

When they announced the title of the movie, I recognized Ursula le Guin’s masterpiece of some time ago. What struck me with surprise was that my friends not only didn’t know the writer, but they had introduced this 2004 movie as a Harry Potter clone! “It’s got dragons and wizards and even a wizard school, like Hogwarts in it!” they claimed. And so it did. But what they didn’t realize was that A Wizard from Earthsea came long before J.K. Rowling even began to think of Harry Potter. Ursula Le Guin wrote this remarkable book in 1968 and it was part of a book series, with the first followed by The Tombs of Atuan, The Farthest Shore, Tehanu, Tales from Earthsea, and The Other Wind.

It is, in fact remarkable that Ursula Le Guin conceived of a fantasy world that had many aspects similar to those envisioned by J.K. Rowling, only thirty years before. What I find more remarkable is how this classic seemed to have been overlooked when all the hype about the wizard world of J.K. Rowling’s making swept the world like a summer storm.

Those of you who may have seen the movie on TV or rented it yourselves, can attest that indeed there are many elements similar with Harry Potter in A Wizard of Earthsea, though there are enough differences to make it a delicious alternative (especially now that the HP series is finished.).

There is, for instance, the School of Wizardry on Roke Island, the magical heart of Earthsea and protected by potent spells and a magical wind and fog that ward off evil. Teaching in the school was carried out by Masters (each with a specialty) such as: Master Windkey, who teaches weather control; Master Hand, who teaches illusions; Master Herbal, who teaches healing; and so on, including transformation, calling, True Speech, seeking and returning.

There’s the world of the dead, “The Dry Land” a dark, cold place that was, in fact, a failed attempt by mages to achieve immortality for their peoples. This land and its lost souls plays an important role in both the book and the movie.

There are also dragons and dragonlords. Dragons of Earthsea consider men to be uninteresting, short-lived mayflies and view all but a select few in that manner. A dragon will do one of two things with men–eat them or talk to them; the former is far more common. When dragons choose to speak, they are worth listening to, given their long lifespan and great wisdom.

Le Guin painstakingly created a world rich with lore, tradition, cultures and magic. And one with intrigue, tension and a compelling story of growth, friendship, betrayal and victory. I highly recommend these books for fantasy lovers, particularly those who have not yet encountered some of our classic writers like Ursula Le Guin. She has written many others (also science fiction), if you find you like these.

The Sci-Fi Channel movie, while I found it pleasantly entertaining, had changed many elements of Le Guin’s story, much to the anger of Earthsea purists. For instance, the main characters in the book resembled Native Americans, being dark in coloring with straight black hair; not Caucasian as in the movie. Names were altered and the religious practices of Atuan were misportrayed. The celibacy of Earthsea wizards was overlooked as Ged and Tenar became sexually involved in the film version. Le Guin, who had not been consulted in any way in the production, said: “I can only admire Mr. [Executive Producer Robert] Halmi’s imagination, but I wish he’d left mine alone.”

I liked both the movie and the books. But watch the movie first (given it’s limitations), then prepare for a rich tapestry of imagination in Ursula Le Guin’s classic book series. Who needs Harry Potter?…

Share and Enjoy:

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Nina Munteanu — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 07:07:00 +0000

I just saw the latest movie of J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series (Order of the Phoenix) and with the 7th and final book pending days from now, I couldn’t help revisiting my review of the 5th book, “The Order of the Phoenix”. Here is my review (which first appeared in Aoife’s Kiss):

For those of you unfamiliar with this very popular YA series, J.K. Rowling’s first Harry Potter book, “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone” (Bloomsbury Publishing), hit the bookshelves in 1997. The book captured the hearts and imaginations of so many young (and older) readers, that it and subsequent three books in the series have enjoyed an unprecended success. Her “Harry” books have sold over 325 million copies, translated into over 55 languages in over 200 countries.

The series explores the life of a young boy who discovers that he is a wizard – and a famous one at that, because he survived the death-touch of the most evil wizard of all, Lord Voldemort. J.K. Rowling’s colourful imagination has provided a rich world from Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, to a host of wizards and witches and strange creatures, a game that rivals basketball, cricket and rugby put together and is played on flying broomsticks (Quidditch), and much more. Since her first book, Rowling’s subsequent books have continued to both entertain adults and grip younger readers in an ever-escalating adventure with ever-increasing tension and pace and dark elements, until in the fourth book readers are shaken by the death of one of Harry’s own classmates and Harry must suffer torture by Voldemort’s Death Eaters and battle the evil wizard himself.

Which brings us to the fifth book. By my thinking, it should have started with a bang and thrust Harry and the reader into the thick of what was, in the fourth book, already a maelstrom. Instead, Rowling chooses to drop the momentum and introduces us to a brooding, sullen and slightly obnoxious hero, languishing in his own self-pity as he – and the reader – waits for something to happen. This is an angry (and spoilt) Harry. Now, granted, he is a teenager and prone to fits of irrational anger and impatience. But Harry is also our superhero. Does he have to be such a brat? And do we have to suffer his languishing thoughts – all of them? Aside from Harry’s unlikeable qualities (not great for a hero, even if he is a teenager!), I found that the first quarter of the book was less than captivating, unexciting and overly-full of details that seemed to neither further plot nor illuminate character. Her prose was also prone to repetition (I don’t know how many times Rowling repeated Harry’s same anxious and impatient thoughts on the same subject – once was certainly enough for me!). I found myself impatiently skipping lines and putting the book down. Something I had not done in the previous books.

For me, the story didn’t come to life until well over a 150 pages into the book, once our beloved main characters are in the train and on their way to Hogwarts. And as far as I’m concerned this is where the book could have started. If not for two important plot events, the whole beginning could have been—and should have been—scrapped. It seems as though, like her own protagonist, the writer only rouses herself once we reach Hogwarts. This is where she shines as an author, where her characters interact and come to life and move. It is at Hogwarts that the pace and tension and character involvement flow as she builds the srory and reader interest. As a writer, I recognize that some settings we create evoke our creative muse better than others. Hogwarts is definitely Rowling’s preferred setting and the preferred metaphoric vehicle for her exceptional voice in fiction.

Once Rowling is in her element, she tantalizes us with all the things we have come to love and expect from her. There is Harry, of course, who grows in character as well as in experience (his first kiss is a wonderful mixture of awkward and sweet). His two best friends, Hermione and Ron, add both comical relief with their continued bickering and a stong sense of loyalty and friendship in times of struggle. Other familiar characters such as Professor McGonigal, Hagrid, and the Weasley twins add a rich repertoire to the setting in which Harry must navigate to fulfill his destiny (of which we get some strong hints in this book). We also witness the evolution of timid characters, Ginny Weasley and Neville Longbottom, as they find their inner strengths. There is even Rowling’s own greek oracle, the Sorting Hat.

In new and dark characters, our emotions are roused by the despicable and totally reprehensible Professor Umbridge, who even fair and sweet Hermione calls an “evil hag . . . a fowl, lying, twisted old gargoyle.” Malfoy is, predictably, the obnoxious little thing he always was, and growing feeble and tiring as Harry’s foil. As for another foil, I found Snape’s character disappointingly flat, hitting the same strident and “sinister” note time and time again. It is hard to accept that this intelligent man could not grow a little as do most of the other characters. What was actually harder to take was Harry’s own “one-note” hatred of Snape, particularly after his discovery of something in the past to do with his father. I found myself, as with Harry’s final scene with Dumbledore, wanting to box Harry on the ears for being so “heartless”, despite Dumbledore himself mentioning Harry’s heart. Perhaps we must wait until Book Six or Seven before Harry and Snape resolve things or at least evolve their relationship.

The story itself unfolds wonderfully (once Rowling gets going, that is) with some extremely interesting twists and disclosures, particularly for Harry. In a spine-chilling scene during one of Harry’s “visions” I am reminded of Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness” in which, forced to face the snake inside of him, our hero must confront and rise above the darkness, the doubts and fears that dwell inside of him. More than anything this fifth book reveals the “inward journey” of our minds and hearts: to face and accept our own demons, to gain the wisdom to accept differences, to tolerate with kindness and humility minor transgressions against us as expressions of weakness, and to recognize true evil from the shallow bickering that so often fills our world. I’m not saying that Harry gets to this point by the end of Book Five, but he is well on his way. Ironically, it is the Sorting Hat that provides a forshadowing of the accomplishments both Harry and his divided group must achieve: they must sort out (pardon the awful pun!) their differences, and “unite . . . or we’ll crumble from within.”

Despite these wonderful qualities, “Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix” remains too long and contains far too much unecessary detail – mostly the kind that tells you where someone went and how. This seriously undermines the pace and its removal would have served the purpose of shortening the book by at least a third and heightening tension and keeping the reader less inclined to skim portions. This 5th in a 7-book series should have been a page-turner toward the series climax. The book appears to have been hurried along and Rowling could well be excused on this alone (deadlines and all). When Rowling turned her huge manuscript in to her publisher, she could well have quoted her own version of Mark Twain’s longstanding statement: “I would have made it shorter but I ran out of time.”

Biography of J.K. Rowling

“I am an extraordinarily lucky person, doing what I love best in the world.”—J.K. Rowling
J.K. (Joanne Kathleen) Rowling was born in Chipping Sodbury, near Bristol, England. After graduating from Exeter University, she worked as a secretary and taught English in Portugal before moving to Edinburgh, Scotland, with her daughter. She currently lives in Scotland with her husband and two children.
The idea for Harry Potter occurred to Rowling on the train from Manchester to London, where she says Harry “just strolled into my head fully formed.” By the time she arrived at King’s Cross, many of the other characters had also taken shape. During the next five years she outlined plots for each book and began writing the first in the seven-book series, “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone”. Several publishers turned down the finished manuscript before Bloomsbury took interest and published it in 1997.
J.K. Rowling won the Hugo Award, the Bram Stoker Award, the Whitbread Award for Best Children’s Book among many others. Her books have consistently appeared on the New York Times, USA Today and Wall Street Journal bestseller lists. The fifth book (this review) has already broken records with its first print run of 6.8 million copies and a second run of 1.7 million, an unprecedented figure for any book.
Rowling always wanted to be a writer. “I had written two novels before I had the idea for Harry,” says Rowling, “though I’d never tried to get them published. And good job too. I don’t think they were very good.” That the overarching theme of her “Harry” series is based upon acceptance, is a natural extension of what is essentially most important to Rowling. When asked if there was one thing that she could change in the world, she responded with, “I would make each and every one of us much more tolerant.”

Share and Enjoy: