Harry Potter and the Gays of Azkaban

Tools    





In Soviet America, you sue MPAA!
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.
__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.



Randomly visiting for now
Originally Posted by OG-
That whole freeking thing is a glaringly obvious metaphor for homosexuality and how it is treated in the world these days.
It could be a metafor for lots of other discrimination cases as well? couldn't it?

Originally Posted by OG-
I felt stupid for missing it the first time around because it is so ********* obvious,
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



Originally Posted by OG-
Reimus and Syrius are gay lovers.
How sweet
__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha



In Soviet America, you sue MPAA!
It could be a metafor for lots of other discrimination cases as well? couldn't it?
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.



In Soviet America, you sue MPAA!
It's bull**** to dismiss something simply because it's "just a film and a book". Those things don't create themselves, ya know.

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.
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.
__________________
"No what happens is, Papa Smurf films the gang bang, and then beats off to the tape later!"



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.
__________________
nothing can be as bad as uncertainty - when worlds collide



A system of cells interlinked
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.
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



A system of cells interlinked
Originally Posted by scissorhands85
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.
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.



A system of cells interlinked
Originally Posted by Charismasloverno5
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 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?



In Soviet America, you sue MPAA!
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
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.



2wrongs's Avatar
Official Sacrifice to Holden Pike
Given your current avatar, OG, newbies are going think you're somewhat...obsessive.
__________________
Ya got me feelin' hella good so let's just keep on dancin'



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

To sum up, I like charisma carpenter.



In Soviet America, you sue MPAA!
Originally Posted by 2wrongs
Given your current avatar, OG, newbies are going think you're somewhat...obsessive.
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