Harry Potter and the Gays of Azkaban
 

I'm not putting this into other Prisoner of Azkaban threads because I want to focus only on this one thing and specifically if anyone else noticed it. There will be certain degrees of spoilers below, so if you haven't seen it, cover your virgin eyes:



I watched Prisoner of Azkaban again tonight (having only once seen it in theathers) and I noticed something I did not pick up on at all the first time around.

So Harry has a teacher named Reimus who at the end of the movie you find out is a werewolf. Reimus ends up being the partner in crime, so to speak, who has helped bring Syrius Black into Hogwarts. Harry, and everyone else for that matter, thinks Syrius and Reimus (since they're working together) want to kill him etc. Then the whole reasoning behind it is explained etc, but here is what I noticed this time. At first I thought maybe it was me just making something out of nothing, but now I'm convinced of it.

Reimus and Syrius are gay lovers. It's as simple as that. When Reimus is turning into the werewolf Gary Oldman (who plays Syrius) rushes to him, puts his heart on his chest, hugs him, is pleading for him not to change etc etc. I could see how someone could turn that into homosexual love, but since they had gone on and on about how they were such good friends back in the day I thought it was nothing.

Then Reimus gives his speech at the end to Harry and talks about how he has to leave Hogwarts because people there don't take kindly to someone "like him", about how people aren't used to his "condition" and that parents wouldn't be "comfortable with someone like me teaching their children". That whole freeking thing is a glaringly obvious metaphor for homosexuality and how it is treated in the world these days. Hell, while Reimus is giving that speech he had just gone back into human form after getting into a fight and so he was wounded etc, only thing was the wounds bare a huge resemblance to the types of topical sores AIDS victims get.

I felt stupid for missing it the first time around because it is so ********* obvious, but I can't help but applaud J.K Rowling (or Alfonso Cuaron, if it was his touch) for working that into a children's story. Whether kids see what they're really talking about or not, I think it's inclusion alone is worth a ton of respect and was probably a very ballsy move on the part of the writer/filmmakers.

It could be a metafor for lots of other discrimination cases as well? couldn't it?

Frankly it's not that obvious because I haven't talked to anyone ever or heard anyone talk about a possible homosexual metaphor for being a werewolf in this movie. The wound resembling an Aids victim only reflects the increased numbers of homosexuals in places like America that have contracted aids, whereas in Africa and other 3rd world countries it is equally likely to catch aids from both men and women, plus this is where primarily it is raging out of control and rampant death occurs. Isn't it a bit far fetched to claim this, or is it just me? You've got balls for making a thread about it though. I have a feeling most Harry Potter fans may not share your view. Just my thoughts :)

How sweet :D

Yah, you could say it is a metaphor for alot of different types of discrimination, but given the interaction between the two in the movie, homosexuality is the most probable one.

I haven't read any of the books, so I don't know if this relationship exists in novel form, but (to me at least) it is undeniable in the film.

Sorry but you are making something out of nothing. Anyone who's read the books will know that there is no such relationship between the two, even if it appears so in the movie. The werewolf rejection thing I think is a dig at discrimination in general, not homosexuality. Later on in the books the 'non-muggle' masses are dipicted as having discriminations about several things and I think Rowling is just reflecting on how real people can be rejective without consideration.

Just because it is implicit and subtle it can still be interpetted as a metaphor, like zombies being metaphor for communism, every zombie films director may not necessarily had that in mind but the parrallels are there

Whoa, it's just a film and book, don't get all worked up over nothing.

I didnt even like the film, though it is an interesting point

It's bull**** to dismiss something simply because it's "just a film and a book". Those things don't create themselves, ya know.

Books and movies exist entirely independent of each other. So just because a relationship doesn't exist in the book, doesn't mean it can't exist in the movie. They aren't literal transfers of each other.

When it comes out November 23rd, give it a look again and I think the majority of naysers will deffinetely be given a run for their money.

What? The film wouldn't exist at all if it weren't for the book and J.K. Rowling was strict about the films sticking to the books concepts. A literal transfer is exactly what it is, regardless of other case scenarios such as I, Robot or Lord of the rings (which were both severely edited for the screen). You have just created this from thin air man can't men hug? Harry Potter is essentially a childrens movie and even though Alfonso Cuaron is an extreme director for the film, I don't think he would try and preach to the (few) children who could work out the relevance to homosexuality. Their only experience of gay men will be their school caretaker and they wouldn't even understand this thread if they were shown.

I think if you look hard enough you can find whatever you want anywhere you like. I do see your point though OG, there are some things in the movie that can be easily interpreted as homosexuality and discrimination. I would however be hugely suprised if it was done on purpose but who knows.

The whole thing is that the two mediums are diametric opposites. With film, the viewer has the environment presented to them, with no room for imagination or subjectivity, what you see is what the creators intended. As far as characters, you never know exactly what is running through their mind (unless there is a voice-over), and these things are left for you to sort of figure out from the charatcers actions. The exact opposite is true for books. Two people reading the same 3 pages from a book will draw entirely different pictures in their heads about the material that is being presented, environmentally, while they will for the most part know what ithe characters are thinking. I find it difficult to accurately compare these two mediums.

I wouldn't discount OGs observations so quickly. He made the connections, so others will too. True, the kids might not, but these films have never been just for kids, like many other childrens films. Aladdin is another film that is absolutley filled with adult metaphor and concepts that most kids wouldn't pick up on. There are there, nonetheless.

The reason I like film so much, is that most of the time, the creatyors are showing us one thing, while implying something else. Directors like Lynch, Scorsese, Kubrick, Hitchcock, Truffaut, and Renoir use this style amost exclusively, which you are probably already aware of.

Of course, I am arguing without a referent, as I haven't seen the third Potter flick, so I am speaking general theory here.

This is a good point. No viewer will ever know, for sure, exactly what a director intends with his material, and the greats will never tell. This is what draws me back to watch films like Mulholland Drive and A Clockwork Orange..

On an earlier note, I didn't mean for the thread or anything to be dismissed, all i was trying to say was that the films and books were made for the purpose of enjoyment, not people arguing about characters that could be gay or not. Just accept the fact that you are reading the books or watching the films and enjoy them for what they are and don't try and cause stress over a pointless matter.

I would if I could, but I have watched to many Lynch films :D For instance, trying to sit back and just watch Lost Highway is...not possible...well unless you want some therapy afterwards ;)

Again I need to ask about your username, You a Cordelia fan?

I haven't read the books, but it is simply impossible for a movie to be a literal transfer of a book. It can carry over the exact same plot and narrative structure, but the two can never be identical. I'm perfectly aware that the movie wouldn't exist without the book, but the two stand on their own merits. They are complete individuals, regardless that they have the same plot and characters. What happens in the book does not have to happen in the movie and vice versa.

It isn't overtly commenting on homosexuality, yes, that's why I didn't notice it the first time. Sure it can be a metaphor for anything. It has the same fundamentals you'd see in a metaphor for something like racial discrimination, but such discrimination isn't as glaring an issue these days as it was 20 years ago. However, homosexuality is still a huge issue, possibly more so than it ever was before. People still are denied opportunities in life because of their sexual preference. That isn't to say people aren't denied life opportunities because of something like race, but I think if you look at not only what is contained in the film, but the state of the world in which it was created.

I'm reminded of the Malteese Falcon and how, because of the current aversion to homosexuality in films, it was hinted that the three men (Cairo, Gutman and Wilmer) were all gay. The situation is a little different for that film as they were overtly portrayed as homosexuals in the book, but the movie had to handle it differently. The opposite applies to Prisoner of Azkaban. It may not be blatant (or even if it exists at all) in the book, but the movie leaves little doubt to it's existence.

Given your current avatar, OG, newbies are going think you're somewhat...obsessive.
:laugh:

Yeah, I posted a reply on another topic, can't remember which one mind you.

To sum up, I like charisma carpenter.

Hehe, yah, I actually thought about that. I knew this was going to be a touchy subject for a little of people, but I really think that if someone watches the film again and pays attention to the last half hour or so, they'll think otherwise...

We shall see, but don't lose any sleep over the matter, eh, lol

Funny, I couldn't remember which thread I asked you in either..

I tend to like Anya as a character more, but CC is mad hot. A friend of mine is quite obsessed with her...

I see your point about characters, Anya is more sarcastic and fun, whereas Cordy can be just there to get captured and rescued.

Mind you they are both lookers.

Oh I won't and I'm not trying to convince people of it, afterall films (like all art) are never absolute in their interpretation, but to discredit the observations as something out of nothing is something I do have to defend.

You could be considered as being sad for creating such a big statement about a fact that may or may not be true.

I think it's pretty obvious at this point that I could care less whether or not people think I'm sad for having an opinon.

We all have opinions, but it's just that you have taken yours so seriously on this matter.

True, I have taken my opinion seriously, but just because it's about Harry Potter doesn't mean that it doesn't have any solidarity to it. I too can simply enjoy the hell out of movies without thinking about them with any depth. Hell, my favorite movies of all time are Cabin Fever and Starship Troopers! Harry Potter movies may be fun filled adventures coated in the richest of imaginations, but that isn't to say they're devoid of any substance.

Actually thats exactly what it means, in the harry potter series the directors can't make up a relationship if it's not in the book otherwise it would be a harry potter film. i think you went digging for homosexual references when there were none

It's like, if someone made a Harry Potter movie and changed harry's name or something, they can't do that, so you making up possible gay relations in a kids movie

Yah. Yesterday I was thinking to myself, "Ya know what, I have absolutely nothing to do for the next two hours so I'm gonna go watch Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban and scour it for homosexuality!"

Despite the construction of that sentence, I'm pretty sure I know what you're getting at. I don't understand why there is this thinking that directors are bound by law to create some word for word cinematic vision of a book. Yes J.K. Rowling has the clout to say "No, Ron and Herminoe can't make out in this scene", but she works with the directors on their visions. If they were intended to be exact duplicates of the book, don't ya think J.K Rowling would of directed them herself?

Here is how the creatve process works: A director says "this is what I'm thinking." The producers say either, "I like it" or "not gonna happen." If J.K. Rowling doesn't want it in the film, it doesn't go in. Likewise, if it's in the film, she approved of it's being in there.

agreed

I think HP and TPOA was written in 1999 when gay rights and discrimination wasn't as big an issue as it was in this election and is today. Yes, I know the author lives in England and I have no idea what England's stance on gay rights is but I have never really heard that much from about it from accross the pond. So that leads me to believe the author or director (who I think was spanish?) making a comment about gay rights is rather unlikely. Gay rights to me seems to be a big issue in the US and not as big everywhere else.

But yes, as far as Lupin goes the movie follows the book close enough so I think it all follows make to Rowling. And from what I said above I think the gay Lupin metaphor is maybe stretching it a tad.

I see where your getting at, as Peter Jackson didn't stick to everything in the book, such as in the book, Faramir doesn't go after the ring. It was just added. However it's unlikely that homosexuality has been added to a kids movie in one form or another.

That is, which I pointed out in my first post, what I find most admirable about it.

The movie was made in 2003 though. For the last time, though they share the same subject matter, the books and the films need to be seperated. But enough about that.

Take a look at the film Alfonso Cuaron had made prior to Prisoner of Azkaban, Y tu Mamá También may have had heavy heterosexual relationships in it, but it was also a commentary on repressed homosexuality, homophobia and the insecurities that heterosexual men face. Not only that, but Prisoner of Azkaban is the darkest Harry Potter film yet. It deals heavily with death, being outcasted, murders, rage and even execution. Given all that, I wouldn't put the inclusion of such issues in TPOA past Cuaron.

I'm not trying to say the latest Harry Potter film preaches homosexuality. I don't think that at all. If you look at the speech given at the end of the film, it really is simply about discrimination and having to cope with hiding your true self out of the fear that people will judge you. And kids can pick up that. They can surely see it and say "Professor Lupin shouldn't have to leave just because he's a werewolf, he's a great guy and he saved Harry!!" They probably wont put two and two together and transfer that same notion to homosexuality (and I may be stretching my position, as I stated in my first post), but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

Trust me I get the whole seperation of movies and books thing. BUT it is a movie based on the book so the comment is relevant especially twoards the idea the Rowling wrote it meaning to be a homosexual discrimination thing. And like I said the movie follows the book pretty closely regarding Lupin so the director it would seem didnt have a lot to do with making the metaphor of Lupin being discriminated since he is gay.

i sincerely doubt that Alfonso was thinking 'hey let's put some homosexual refernces in there even though there are actually none in the book'

I would like to point out the fact that I have a serious problem spelling TOWARDS, when I type quickly I always put the W infront of the O. I know it is off subject but I wanted to point out my inept speeling abilities.

I had to come back and add this little edit because I was afraid people might not get the joke in spelling, speeling wrong. It is not that I don't have faith in you MoFo's I just wanted to take the guess work out of it.

and now OG- has changed his opinion saying that he didn't say there was any gay references in the movie, even though he made a topic about it!

Faramir thinks about it though. He says," And here in the wild I have you: two haflings, and a host of evil men at my call, and the Ring of Rings. A pretty stroke of fortune! A chance for Faramir to show his quality! "
I thought Jackson did a good job showing Faramir's struggle with wanting the ring. The fact that he later takes Sam and Frodo captive, was the addition you speak of. He does "go after" the ring, though.

He did? In which post?

OG- good eye. I haven't seen the movie yet or read the books, but from your description it seems you observed something that was included subtly in this film. Such things are frequently added to children's media. The old Batman and Robin TV series is positively riddled with references to homosexuality. James and the Giant Peach included several nods to the budding sexuality of the main character. Smallville is chock full of homoerotic subtext.

People who aren't comfortable with such material frequently don't see it, and if it's pointed out, they tend to react as above. To think that these things happen accidentally is ludicrous, however. The arts world turns on communication of ideas. People get degrees to understand exactly how to communicate through symbolism, gesture, tonal shadings and the entire creative arsenol.

Those who balk at the discussion of such things are welcome to leave their brains in neutral. But to suggest that everyone should do so is pretty silly.

god, is this still going, this topic should be ended before we all argue at something completely irrelevant.

I think it's presumptious to think that people aren't interested in what OG has to say about this. Don't be so quick to write this topic off just because you don't agree. That's not fair.

Hmm... a good find, OG-, no doubt indeed. A good debate thread, too. But I think where I quote you is where you made your own mistake (I emphasize "I think). Who would want to have their kids be taught by a werewolf? I wouldn't! I mean, yeah, it may seem like he's saying he's a homosexual. But I don't know... I'm not saying I agree with you, and I'm not saying that I don't. I just think we should think along the lines of Harry Potter, that Reimus was indeed talking about his werewolf state, and walk around the whole homosexual thing. That's just what I think. But still, interesting discovery nonetheless.

Oh I'm sure that he is talking about his being an actual werewolf and not saying that he himself is gay. But what actually happens as opposed to what is written in the dialouge is what makes the difference.

I too doubt that. I'm sure that when he was approached as one of the possible directors and he was grilled about how he would do things he wasn't saying, "Welp, we just gotta throw some homosexuality in there!!" I'm sure it wasn't on a checklist of things he wanted to do. But the camera never lies.

She said it for me and I thank her for it.

My opinion may possibly be my solo interpretation of it, I'm not claiming it is some absolute, but I do believe it is so heavy handidly hinted at in the film that it tends to erase doubt. If people want to rant with such conviction about why I'm stupid, instead of trying to deflate my opinion on the basis that it wasn't in the book or that I'm just imagining something that isn't there, they should actually come with a case containing evidence from the movie about why I'm wrong.

The only person who has thus far is Scissorhands and his comment about the director sticking so closely to the material for the rest of the film, which would imply that he wouldn't deviate with other areas of the film. Which is a very valid point, but it's more so a trend than it is a deffintion. Which leads me back to, the camera never lies.

But why? :p
Homos don't bite. Werewolves do.

Well, it doesn't matter if the director set out to make that statement or if it happened by accident, the real point here is that it wasn't very hard to reach that conclusion. I haven't seen the movie but based on OG's opinion, it seems accurate and it could be a possibility that it was intentional. So really it matters not if you think it was in there on purpose or by accident: it's there.

I think it's probably just meant to refer to discrimination in general. As far as I can make out, Pete agrees with this, but thinks the close friendship between Remus and Sirius indicates that perhaps the reference is focusing, in particular, on homosexuality. That could be, though asexual is quite pervasive in the books, so I'd guess not.

So hogwarts doesnt accept warewolfs or gay people? Well i'm not sending my children there then!
I hope Remus travelled to canada to find a groom, a surragate mother for his little puppies and lived happily ever after.

Again, I just don't see many kids films, as being exclusively for kids. Also, if Rowling wrote all the books without any allegory, undertones, or metaphor, no one would read them, and she would be considered a poor writer.

First you need to ask yourself if you are one to look for metaphor in film, or if you are a person that just prefers to sit back and be entertained, and relax the mind for a bit (Both people are correct in their own right). If you are the latter, you must question whether you possess the knowledge to recognize subtle metaphor and social allegory in film. This is something that has to be learned, whether by reading books or injesting ridiculous amounts of auteur film, or both, like Holden and The Bullet. This is something I have ben getting into over the past few years, but still have much to learn, but I AM starting to recognize these concepts more often. I didn't used to watch film like this, and many of these concepts were just going over my head because I didn't know, or see for that matter, the deeper concepts embedded in the films (and the were there, I see them now). I knew what the filmmakers were showing to me, I didn't see what they were actually trying to say to the audience. If you believe these two concepts are the same, you need to study film more deeply, as there is a lot more to it. I find it fascinating, and am still, as always, learning.

One of the things I had to come to realize was that the only thing I really knew about films was that there was a camera involved at some point, and actors, and that I liked them (films). Everything else I needed to uncover through research..

Film is the only art form that goes to such great lengths to show the viewer one thing, while meaning something entirely different.

Harry Potter and the Gays of Azkaban - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

heh... I was nodding my head til that last line. Literature, theater, visual arts, fashion, photography, floral design... all have room for and often employ symbolism and semiotic resonances to communicate subtext and higher meanings.

While I was writing it, I was wondering how fast someone would drop kick me into the toilet, didn't take long. These other art forms, to me anyway, don't take it anywhere near as far as film. Photography is part of film, and plays into the whole thing, but other aspects of the film (writing etc) tend to take it much further. I didn't mean to say no other art forms had metaphor involved, just that film takes it much further than anything else. Yes, I know that isn't what I said ;)

I'm not buying the fashion thing, You just can't communicate complex, intricate social allegory wth a hat or a dress. Same with floral design. Just not anywhere near the same level. :nope:

(IMO)

I think that what your saying, is, what I feel, you're own opinion, and not really much of a discovery. You just said that you're sure that he's talking about being an actual werewolf, and not saying that he's actually gay. Look at it this way: if someone you knew was about to do something that could harm them or they were in major pain, wouldn't you go over to there side and beg that they don't do it, or that they don't die and make it through, regardless of homosexual tension or not? I'm sorry if I sound dumb or anything, cuz I'm not intending too, I just think that that's what he's saying.

ha! I wouldn't drop-kick you anywhere, let alone the toilet! You're way too big for that. ;)

There are very certainly symbolistic meanings in photography, floral design and fashion. I've studied costume and floral design, as it happens, so I can guarantee you they're there, even if you're not aware of them. Not to the extent of film, I agree with you there, but is it there? Yup. :yup:

That is the very reason why you can't make a legit arguement until you have. Book to movie adaptations are different mediums, but they are anything but independent. I hate to be a purist, but I think a key thing to a screen adaptation is the integrity to the canon. Of course they aren't literal transfers of eachother--you can't take text and word by word transfer it into film. This goes for any art form, but it is my firm belief that the reason why we have all these different forms of expression is because by telling a story what we're really doing is transferring themes of human emotions. I think we can all pretty much agree on that, loosely at least. When you take a book and adapt it to a movie your adding visuals and voices, a supplement that should enhance the book by adding concrete matter as a reinforcer. You are in no way adding new themes, and I can assure you that Alfonso Cuaron did not in any way try to show homosexual themes in Prisoner of Azkaban.

They're indivduals, but think of them as a parent and a child. A parent (the book) has the job of instructing and guiding the child (the movie). Every child has some imprint on them left by their parents, many of these imprints are physical, while others are genetic behavior traits and moral fiber. Apply that same concept to book to screen film adapatations. The apple doesn't fall so far from the tree.

This is why some connections that may seem reasonable in the context of the movie are illegitimate when you consider some of the information that was left out of the movies. James Potter, Sirius Black, Remus Lupin and Peter Pettigrew were the best of friends at Hogwarts. Upon hearing that their friend Remus was a werewolf in their second year, they all decided to become animagmus so they could accompany Remus in his monthly affliction. Taking all the things they learned on this monthly excursion they forged the Marauders map which is given to Harry by Fred and George.

Now look at Remus's position at the start of 'The Prisoner of Azkaban', he is very lonely, but he has taken that as his lot and for the past 12 years he has been a researcher. He lost almost all of his friends during the first war, and is like the rest of the wizarding world convinced that Sirius Black was a traitor who aided in the murders of his best friends.

Fast forward to the part that OG- says is the evidence for the gay lover theory:

The first paragraph is describing an obvious plot conflict, and is not revealing any character traits. Think about the scene in which that takes place. First of all time is running out for them and Remus turning into a werewolf at that exact moment would not be good. Remember, Remus DIDN'T take his potion that night, which means that he can't control himself. This puts Sirius, Harry (Sirius's god-son) and Hermione in serious danger. They only have a certain amount of time to work out the whole entire very complicated time turning sequence. And yes they were the best of pals, but mainly it was plot device.

The second paragraph is just another example of the theme of discrimination in the novels. I'd like to remind you also that it is very akin to the pure blood and muggle blood witches and wzards conflict.

Whether it was meant to be implied in the movie or not (which I doubt it was), the fact that there is NO supporting evidence in the books seals this arguement as cased closed.

Fantastic post and you're one of the few so far to have any evidence against my case, so good job to that. However...

I couldn't agree more, but unless that apple lands directly on top of the apple that fell before, then you get what I'm saying. I understand perfectly that they are all within the same realm. Books and their film Adaptations are very closely related. But, and you've acknowledged it yourself, they are not clones of each othere. Though they may not be glaring and really don't alter the impact of the story drastically, differences do exist, which leads me into my next reiteration:

Again, there is no law of the cinematic universe that says a film adaptation's only purpose is to supplement the book. The entire reason they exist is to seperate themselves from their book counterparts, if it were any other case there wouldn't be film adaptations, stories would exist only in book form. It is actually incredibly rare that film adaptations simply supplement a book. Yes, they deal with entirely the same material, but they are constructed by vastly different methods and by all means can have vastly different outcomes. In the case of the Harry Potter films they do stick remarkably close to the books, but just because they do doesn't mean they aren't allowed to deviate.

I agree that Alfonso Cuaron didn't intend to show homosexual themes as there isn't a single homosexual theme in the movie. A theme is consistent throughout, what I'm talking about is at one instance of the film. If it was a theme you'd see Harry and Ron holding hands.

It may have been a stretch for me to say that Remus and Sirius were gay lovers, but the actual conontation of homosexuality still exists in the film despite whether the two are actual life partners.

Again I feel the need to point back to The Malteese Falcon and the hidden sexuality of that film that the director carefuly disguised into the minute details of the three gay men. For another example of how directors can mask homosexuality in their films go rent Alfred Hitchcocks Rope.

By that logic (and your entire understanding of film adaptations) we should believe that Muldoon didn't die in Jurassic Park for despite the obvious implications that he died in the film, there isn't a single word in the book that says so.

Adaptations are not absolute. By your interpretation of what a film adaptation is you might as well pretend that Romeo + Juliet never happened because there was absolutely no supporting evidence in the parent of that film that it took place in 1996.

I could continue to list the hundreds of examples that blow your reasoning and understanding of film adaptations wide apart.

Woah, woah, woah! So movies can actually select what goes into them!?!?!?! Surely you jest! Surely the inclusion or exclusion of an aspect of a book into it's film counterpart cannot be intentional!

Before you bring it up, I'm well aware the Harry Potter films suffer from their time constraints, but it still remains that what gets put into the movie and doesn't is a choice. A choice, that whether you want to face it or not, actually makes a difference not only as to how the movie is interpreted cinematically, but the subject matter of it as well.

For the last time, this thread is about a movie; not about a book.

Since it was released on DVD yesterday I'm giving this thread a bump in the hope that someone else may have noticed what I'm talking about.

Im sorry but OG-, u really need to get a hold of urself, for christ sakes, its a films, its a book, a kids book, there is nothin homosexual about nor does it in anyway put acrosss to the audience in any way shape or form homosexuality, can people not watch a film nowadays without picking at every bloody thing, cant people not just watch films, for the purpose its meant to be there for, to bloody entertain, god, get a grip, some people on this board pck at film like they are ****in some sort of nit on aan apes back.

My thoughts exactly. and before you reply by saying that this site is for everything about movies. You are posting about things that the author didn't intend to be taken in your way. It's a kids book, not a porno.

When the hell did this happen?

Your the kind of guy i like to talk to Anonymous, laid back, and don't take anything seriously.

Alright, if anyone tries to bring up the book when they're talking about this movie again, I'm gonna slit your ****ing throat. How ******* hard is it to understand that the movies are not the books?

Where in the books does it dictate how many footsteps Harry takes when walking to class? Where in the books does it describe the EXACT look that Harry gives Ron when Ron says a joke? Where in the books does it mandate the EXACT length of time Harry gazes at Hermione? Where in the book does it dictate the EXACT position of Sirius' hand when it is placed on Reimus chest? Where in the book does it describe the personality that Gary Oldman and David Thewlis bring to their characters? Where in the book does it explain the EXACT emotions on the faces of those respective actors as they embrace each other?

Until you, or anyone else, can answer those questions, simply shut the **** up because you bring ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to this discussion. Hell, simply shut the **** up until you understand what actors and directors actually do.

The new word for this activity is souped.
What can I say...I'm an artist.


...and for the record, I thought they were gay also. But that's OK!

yeah but my point is, the films are there to entertain not to ****in disect to the extent that u can no longer enjoy the peice

A little harder than the robot and a little easier than C-Walking.
Easier than stuffing a turkey harder than washing your face.
Somewhere inbetween space exploration and pooping.

I'm too lazy to stand up in the morning for that first piss of the day.

A bit tooooo much info :p

That's what I'm here for.

Idunno what you're talking about, I completely enjoyed the movie and any other movie I "disect". I think it is the best Harry Potter flick yet and the little things like this are reasons why I liked it so much.

Oh sorry ;D

Films aren't there for a listed set of reasons - wanna' fight about it?
They can be fo' anythang'. If I wanted to make a movie to elighten the general population in sight of the K-9's ability to solve complex math problems by means of an abstract medium using old toilet paper, I could do that. Films are made by artist - artist are wierd - films are wierd.

I'm sick of this thread now...........In my opinion, if you enjoy a film good for you. However, don't take this thread so seriously, your getting worked up over nothing, movie forums are for people to meet and enjoy themselves, not to have strokes.

Well, in no relation to other comments and bearing in mind i fell asleep in Harry Potter now i've seen Y Tu Mama Tambien, i wouldn't be surprised if it was intentional, .
I mean phallic imagary is everywhere, its obviously not meant to be like that, but is. Apollo 13, launch- phallic.

OG- will love you when he gets back.

Hey if you don't like it you know what you can do

all he's saying is that, people have to get into a movie and look at any small amount of references they can find.

and like i said, if he don't like it he knows what he can do

complain even more? lol

Hey undercover lover, go shut the **** up, now what Im saying is yes, u can pick at films but do u really need to go to the extent that a harmless film is used to make homosexual innuendos, no in my opinion it has nothin to do with Remis lupin and Sirrius black being lovers and in no way does it refer to it in that way, god man give urself a shake

as do all others on this forum, cept people who don't care.

Mr. Last steps in the thread...

*does a little dance and then moonwalks out of thread*

see, i knew someone that doesn't care would come in soner or later.

This coming from the person who flipped out and said "see you all in hell" when someone disagreed with them.

Banned. Again. Please stay away this time. You've more or less ruined an otherwise interesting thread.

HOLY CRAP! I totally forgot about this thread. Hopefully I saved my response on microsoft word. BTW- I watched the DVD yesterday and I can see where you get it, but I am resolved that it is only a watchers interpretation. Not to be taken as the directors vision or the authors vision.

after I posted my last post I realized that I had been dragging my Harry Potter purist self into the matter and was basing my argument off of that--not understanding of course that I needed to make it a bit broader and explain myself a bit. So I am going to try and approach this from a film perspective rather than the canon purist I am.

There will always be some minor/major differences, but I am one to think that those major/minor differences should only exist in the plot, not changing the plot, but prehaps taking a few variables out. Statements can be subtly made to clarify things from the book, or bring out ones personal view point, but only if there is some evidence from the text to base those statements on.

I am not going to retract my argument, but I am going to agree that my purist side came out and made that statement in a manner that was a bit extreme, and didn't altogether explain itself. For a long time I held the opinion that the only reason why there were book-to-film adaptations was because some people have no imaginations. I ended up coming to the conclusion that it was instead a creative interpretation akin to the hundreds of theme essays I've written (or had to write) over the years. The movies can stand on their own, but they should never be taken as the book itself. They still are supplementary in a way, much like the commentary you can find on many books; a film is an interpretation of the novel, but it is just one interpretation out of many, which brings me to my next point.

There are roughly four literary theories of interpreting a book, I know we aren't discussing a book, but bear with me. I am not going to go into extensive deatil into them since only one applies, but they are: writers theory, readers theory, universal theory and canon theory.

Since the readers theory is the one I am using to explain (not prove, explain) my point I'll expand upon it a bit. It is a personal endeavor that’s focus is on how you the reader felt while reading it. It’s the reaction one got from the text. The reaction though isn't based off of the reader’s wide speculation, but should have some reason implanted in the text. It would be very far fetched for Cuaron to glean any homosexual themes in Harry Potter, especially since they’re none in the books.

Then we land back to this question: How far can a director go in adapting a book to a movie?

Sure they have creative rights. And in theory, if Cuaron really did want to make a statement he could of very well intended that to be interpreted that way. But is it his right to make a statement about something that has no actual basis in the books? It is his opinion, but a very far fetched one. In my experience, opinions can usually be backed by reason.

I agree adaptations are not absolute, but I give you this; an original idea should always merit more respect than any additions put upon it, this doesn't mean that the original idea is any better, just that it is the seed which sprang the rest, and like an old senile grandmother it demands respect. All interpretations of that idea can only be taken with a grain of salt. Some differences that you see from book to film are an improvement, but that doesn't mean that the original author intended them. Now if these changes are made with due respect to the original author, then cheers. Romeo + Juliet, I feel shows the due respect the Shakespeare. Other such adaptations or interpretations, such as your own about the homosexual themes in Harry Potter, are not an attempt to divulge or expand upon what Rowling was saying.

Or you'll do what exactly? Coz you got me real worried now, i'm all shook up about what YOU are gonna do, like i could actually give a ****.



Note the sarcasm

I do have to say that this girl gets my respect.

and your respect is greatly appreciated Mr. Last

I missed the dance. Anyway, really just wanted to bump this up so OG- could see that I did eventually reply to his post.

Re: Harry Potter and the Gays of Azkaban
 

Just rewatched the film, and remembered this thread, couldn't be bothered to re-read it all so hopefully this hasn't been mentioned. If the scene where Lupin see his fear in ther Bogot of the moon, which the moon revealing his true self and then he is forced to hide it in the closet, if that isn't a nod to his homosexuality, don't know what is.

Re: Harry Potter and the Gays of Azkaban
 

This thread is so brilliantly absurd.

Re: Harry Potter and the Gays of Azkaban
 

Wow. I just bought Prisoner of Azkaban (the movie) on Saturday and watched it for the first time. I didn't think anything about homosexuality or AIDS while watching it.


Anyway... until now, the only connection the Harry Potter series has had with homosexuality to me would be this picture of Daniel Radcliffe in the latest issue of Details.

What is this all about?! He looks like he's at a leather bar for gay men. Do any of you straight guys like to wear zipped down leather vests to display your hairy chest? I realize this is just for a magazine... but how long do you think it will take to see The Boy Who Played The Boy Who Lived on the cover of The Advocate? Or Out? Or, if he falls off the map, Honcho?

Re: Harry Potter and the Gays of Azkaban
 

I don't think there are any gay metaphors in the film. The theme of discrimination, particularly racial, occurs quite strongly in the early films with all the talk of Muggles and half-breeds, so I think the werewolf thing is just an extension of that.


Even if it was intended to be read as a gay metaphor (which I highly doubt), it doesn't add anything to the film if you read it like that. Interpretations of films should be suggested because that potential reading would add another layer to the way we view the film rather than linking up coincidences.

The main topic of this thread may be dated, because we now know how the story develops further for the characters who are involved, but this is still a very cool observation!

Re: Harry Potter and the Gays of Azkaban
 

Just read through this thread (sure I have better things to do with my time) and my goodness, the board used to be a delightful place full of intelligent discussions. Or not. I can't believe people get so angry at the idea that anything in a film could possibly be metaphorical in any way, or that there's any such thing as subtext. No, films have only one single literal interpretation and their only purpose is to entertain. And god help you if you mention a film without having read the books.

As to the topic, I didn't spot this the first time I saw the film although in my defence I think I was asleep. But having seen it again, yes, I can definitely see why people would read it that way and I think it's a perfectly valid interpretation.

I don't think it's beyond the realms of probability that this was deliberately created either by Rowling (who has of course also stated that Dumbledore was gay, although that's not explicitly spelled out in the book) or Cuaron. But it's equally possible that it's just something that wasn't intentional, and that doesn't mean it's any less there. People do seem to become very bogged down in the idea of directors as auteurs sometimes, thinking that every little thing is there absolutely on purpose from the great brain of the director but films can exist as texts independently of the intention of the people who make them.