Harry Potter and the Gays of Azkaban

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.

__________________
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"

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

__________________

Undercoverlovers 100 REDUX

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.

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.

__________________

This thread is so brilliantly absurd.

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?

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.

__________________
You cannot have it both ways. A dancer who relies upon the doubtful comforts of human love can never be a great dancer. Never. (The Red Shoes, 1948)

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!

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

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.