To those who have already watched these movies, this may seem like a no-brainer. But you must remember that my knowledge of the Harry Potter franchise extended only as far as the existence of pagan references and details I overheard from friends and relatives who were unabashed Potterheads. And because the movie's aren't conveniently labeled Harry Potter #1, #2, and so on, I had to turn to Wikipedia to get the chronological order of the movies. Thus it was that I finally sat down with a bowl of popcorn to watch Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.
To add to my confusion, this book technically has 2 titles: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. One titles was U.K. print while the other was U.S. print, so it makes sense that the movies (which were made in the U.K.) would use the U.K. printed book's title.
CAVEATS:
Just because I decided to watch these movies does not mean that I endorse them in anyway. I do still believe there is danger here. I still believe there are references to real world paganism woven into the stories. I decided to watch them purely as reference material, so that I can carry on intelligent conversations about the movies with actual Potter-fans. My decision to watch them was mine, and mine alone. I strongly caution the rest of you to think and pray really long and really hard before deciding to watch the movies yourselves. In fact, I would strongly advise against watching them at all. Yeah, I know, I'm not taking my own advice.
March 3, 2016: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
 |
One down.
Seven to go.
Oh boy.
Seriously? Why does the Movie #1 poster resemble the Book 4 cover? My theory: The movie was released shortly after the 4th Book was published. Therefore, the image is meant to be reminiscent of the most recently published book cover image even if it is not the same as the cover of the book it is supposed to portray. Does that make sense?
Summary
After the arguably unnecessary opening sequence where Hagrid, Dumbledore, and McGonagall leave baby Harry on the Dursley's doorstep, we meet our little friend Harry shortly before his 11th birthday. Orphaned as a baby, Harry lives with his uncle and aunt, who are the worst surrogate parents ever. While their own son Dudley is pampered and spoiled beyond belief, Harry is neglected and abused and kept in a proverbial state of servitude. Things get interesting when Harry, who never gets mail, receives a strange letter from someplace called Hogwarts. The Dursley's go to extraordinary lengths to keep Harry from getting these letters, but eventually Hagrid just bursts through the door and takes Harry off to the wizard world to prepare for school. From there, Harry sets off on an adventure of sorts as he discovers who he really is (a wizard) and learns to navigate a world of magic, school bullies, unnecessarily violent ball games, strange villains with two faces, and weird glowing stones that supposedly give people unending life...?
Thoughts
For the majority, the movie feels random, a collection of indicates in which Harry learns to navigate school and makes friends (and enemies). At about 1 hour, 18 minutes, and 41 seconds, I realized that the movie was called Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone but no one has mentioned anything to do with the sorcerer's stone yet. We've seen Hagrid collecting a mysterious pouch from a super secret bank account, and he's eluded to a secret he can't share, but nothing, at all, has been said or done about the actual subject of this movie -- this elusive stone.
Overall, I wasn't impressed. The movie was produced in the early 2000's when CGI was both a novelty and grossly overused, thus causing many of special effects to feel forced and cartoonish. And again, some children just cannot act. This is especially noticeable during the last 30-45 minutes of the movie, ironically also the climax of the movie.
Two scenes stood out to me, though.
The first was early on, when the Dursleys take Harry with them to the zoo for Dudley's birthday. Dudley and his parents are off somewhere else, leaving Harry alone with a rather large snake (in a tank, of course...we are at a zoo, after all), and Harry starts talking to the snake. This doesn't seem weird to me since I talk to food in the grocery store, but what is weird is that the snake "answers" him. Kinda. It nods and points subtly at things, and in this manner they carry on a bit of a conversation. Harry asks the snake where it is from and if it misses its home. The snake simply points at a sign that reads, Bred in Captivity. Harry turns back to the snake and simply says, "Me too." I liked this scene because it speaks to Harry's relationship with the Dursleys, and specifically to how he's treated by them. He's grown up as a slave in their household. He's given old, faded hand-me-downs to wears and sleeps in a closet under the stairs. And if you want to get really film nerdy, the shadow cast by the window grate thing on the closet door vaguely resembles the bars of a cage. Whatsmore, this conversation gives Harry and the snake a connection. They've both grown up in captivity. The snake doesn't know what his home (Burma) is like, but I think deep down he longs for it. Likewise, Harry has never had a family that loved him, but he longs for one. Both snake and little boy don't know what they're missing, but they both long for it anyway.
<---See what I mean? It looks like a cage!
The 2nd was when Harry looks into the mirror at Hogwarts (from here on out I shall refer to this as the Mirror of Deepest Desire because I don't know what it's actually called). Harry finds the Mirror of Deepest Desire and sees his parents in its reflection, and in that reflection his mother places her hand on his shoulder. Later when he tries to show Ron Weasley, all Ron sees is himself becoming the Quidditch champion and getting all kinds of recognition and fame. I think this demonstrates something of Harry's character. Ron's [current] deepest desires are to become famous and liked by all. Harry's deepest desire, on the other hand, is simple. He just wants his family. He wants parents who love him and care for him. Ron, I think, takes his family and their love for granted because they have always been there for him, an active part of his life. Harry doesn't have that, and it's what he desires more than anything (at this time).
Concerns
My biggest concern is that Harry gets away with a lot of bad stuff. He flies on a broomstick when he's not supposed to. He and his friends sneak past a 3-headed guard dog and into a somewhat forbidden secret chamber, and sneak around Hogwarts after the designated lights-out time to do so. They do all get detention...once. The other times Harry and gang disobey strict school rules, they're rewarded. I don't think this is a message we should be sending 10 to 14 year olds.
More Concerning Still...
This first installment in the Harry Potter saga is definitely geared for a younger audience, but in the way it's written, the over-the-top humorous elements, and the terrible acting (I'm sorry, but some kids just cannot act). The seemingly charming nature of the film overall, however, acts as a smokescreen for the real world paganism hidden within.
That being said, my knowledge of real world paganism is purposefully small. This, however, is what I do know:
1. The tradition of witches flying on broomsticks, yes that. It's something we're all familiar with in regards to cartoon witches and Halloween. And since Harry Potter is a wizard in a universe packed with young witches and wizards, we shouldn't at all be surprised that Harry and his classmates learn to fly around on broomsticks. But the practice happens has roots in a pagan sexual ritual (think about it for a minute, how do witches usually sit on broomsticks...yeah, I've just ruined your childhood memories).
Paganism is a surprisingly sexual religion (if we can even call it that). There is, for example, a ritual where a virgin is douced in infant's blood and then fornicated by the priest (or whatever he's called). And yes, I said infant's blood. As in baby humans.
All this disturbing stuff is censored out of Harry Potter, though, because if kids and their parents saw Paganism for what it really was, they would be appalled. And run in the opposite direction. The only parts we get to see are the fun parts, casting spells and soaring around on broomsticks. Power. Magic.
Which brings me to another point...
2. Spells. Yeah, those. Hocus pocus. Bibbedy boddedy boo. Etc. While spells and incantations abound in the fiction and fantasy worlds (go watch Lord of the Rings), the difference is that some (at least) of the spells used in the Harry Potter universe are real world spells, chants, etc. While I'm not well-versed in paganism, I can tell you this: Unlike the spells cast in Middle Earth, which are primarily spoken in languages Tolkien created himself, the Harry Potter spells are spoken in Latin, which is a real world language which is still taught to this day. So are the spells and incantations used in real world paganism.
While the spells the children of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry are more innocent and practical than insidious for the most part, one must question the logic of using real world pagan spells in a fantasy world geared for children. Is this really a wise decision?
For more information, please watch: Harry Potter: Witchcraft Repackaged...which I've just recently discovered you can watch on YouTube.
Click Here for Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd6zC9hUB7M
Click Here for Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZpqQq4bkyI
No comments:
Post a Comment