Harry Potter and the Gays of Azkaban

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.

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

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.

__________________
Ya got me feelin' hella good so let's just keep on dancin'

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.

__________________
Everything I do, I do to make my second stepdad proud.

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.

__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.

But why?
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.

(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.

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.

__________________
I am moved by fancies that are curled
Around these images, and cling:
The notion of some infinitely gentle
Infinitely suffering thing.
T.S Eliot, "Preludes"

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.

__________________
In the year of our Lord 1314
patriots of Scotland
starving and outnumbered
charged the fields at Bannockburn
They fought like warrior poets
They fought like Scotsmen
And won their freedom.

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.