Real Life with Ryuei

Is Harry Potter getting too dark? And some ruminations on Lawfulness and Goodness

So last night, having nothing better to do since my wife and daughter are in Japan visiting Yumi's family, I went out to see the new Harry Potter movie. The biggest impression I had was - what a dark movie. Not only were the themes darker (as per the book) but the movie was just dark! It might as well have been in black and white. Everything was all either washed out empty lots, or gray castles, or dark rooms, or snow, or murky forests. The only bright spot was the "villain" Mrs. Umbrage's horrible pink outfits, which was meant to be an ironic contrast to her dark poisonous nature. Even most of the magical displays are bleached CGI effects devoid of color except for one sequence with fireworks and a fiery dragon (which was a chromatic relief) and a part towards the end wherein a fiery apocalyptic battle between two very powerful wizards heats (and brightens) things up a bit. In fact, things were so dark or bleached of color that I was kind of getting annoyed midway through the film. I certainly hope things lighten up a bit for the next two films, though having read the sixth book I can only imagine that they'll have to film everything in pitch black darkness. We'll just see some shadows moving around on the screen and we'll have to pick out the voices to figure out who's saying or doing something.

But aside from my annoyance with the lighting, or perhaps I should say shading, of the movie I did think it did justice to the fifth book of the series. Some movie reviewers are complaining about how dark, dreary, intense, and horrific the movies are getting when they are supposed to be children's books. HELLO! Have these reviewers actually read the books? Or better yet, weren't any of them 15 years old? Reading the books one can see that the early ones are suitable for children the age that Harry is in the books - 11, 12, 13 and so on. But as Harry grows up, the books grow up too and become less whimisical and more about the challenges and intensity of adolescence. And yes, they do get dark, because the adolescents (esp. these days) find out very quickly how dark the world is, and how hard and frightening it is to have to take responsibility for one's life. When I was in high school (about the age Harry is by the fifth book) I knew two classmates who had committed suicide, I knew neighbors whose parents were getting divorced, I knew or knew of kids who were addicted to drugs (even heroin in the case of one neighbor), or had run away, or who were being emotionally or physically abused or sexually molested. Rape, assault, attempts to actually torture people, and other forms of mayhem were all part of the high school life. And of course there are also venereal diseases, unwanted pregancies, abortion, and so on and so forth. The list goes on. Adolescence is when kids start becoming young adults and are confronted with the real evils of the world, whether they are ready for it or not. If anything, the Harry Potter books softpedal adolescence. They have it easy - things are relatively black and white in Harry Potter's world (and the movies increadingly so in an overly literal way), so far no rapes, drug addiction, suicide, exploited runaway teens or other real world evils that are all the more awful for not being supernaturaly caused - just the products of absusive environments and people with wires crossed in their brains.

As it is, the newer and darker themed Harry Potter movies are PG-13. But in fact, if a movie were made that really showed what high school students have to go through and make decisions about and cope with, then the movie would have to be R or even NC-17. In other words, teens have to deal with things in real life that adults have decided are too intense or disturbing or provacative to see a movie about. So in other words, we can't bear the thought that teens might find out about this stuff, let alone experience it, so we pretend that they are oblivious and do nothing to really prepare them for how the world really is, and sometimes even try to withhold the knowledge they might need (like sex-ed classes - though I think we did have those in my school at least).

This is actually addressed in a metaphorical way in the new movie. The new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher refuses to actually teach them anything but theory, and punishes anyone who speaks out (like Harry) claiming that they might actually need to learn things that will help them cope with the dangers that are out there. Refused the teachings or forums they need to actually learn how to deal with life's dangers, the students of Hogwarts (some of them anyway) turn to Harry to teach them secretly. And isn't this how it actually works in real life. Teens are more often than not on their own dealing with life's evils. This is not just the fault of adults - who are either embarrased, or at fault, or oblivious, or living in some fundamentalist fantasy world where everything is G and PG and bad things only happen to or by someone's else's kids. It is also the fault (well, I don't know if I want to say "fault" but anyway) of the teens - who are themselves too embarrased or confused or victimized or alienated to seek out adult help. In the movie, Harry refuses to seek out adult help at least once because he doesn't think anyone can or will help. In another instance, a respected adult figure keeps aloof for fear of making things worse. In another instance an adult trains Harry to resist his enemies, but the training itself is abusive and comes across as malign.

I think many people who are adults want to romanticize kids and want to believe that life really is gentle except for rare outbreaks of misfortune or malevolence. But this is to confuse our fantasy with reality. It is dangerous. Life is dukkha - suffering. Sometimes it is the dukkha of awkwardness and alienation and other times it is the dukkha of outright tragedy. But life is characterized by suffering (though it is not only or just suffering). So for those who want movies about teenagers to remain G or PG and childish I can only say: Get a life! Movies about teens should deal forthrightly with issues that teenagers will have to face.

Oh, and connected with that, there are those who think fantasy is also something inhrently G or PG, and should be childish and charming. I say that is big time bull. It shows how sadly undereducated and unsophisticed people in our culture are. Does anyone learn about the ancient Greek or Norse myths anymore? Does anyone even read the Bible for that matter? It is from these books and even the later fairy tale collections that many of the very grim and ominous themes of modern fantasy come from. The source materials are not being perverted for dark post-modern sensibilities. Rather, the original intent and sensibilities of the source material is being restored. The old myths, legends, and even fairy tales of old were the way our ancestors processed the intensity of life and the way they used metaphor to express important insights and issues. The real perversion was how (maybe it was in the 19th and early 20th centuries) these old stories were turned into childish sentimental pap. It was Tolkien and C.S. Lewis and others like them who started turning this around. Joseph Campbell also deserves a lot of credit, as well as George Lucas somewhat for taking the ball and running with it (though frankly I think he stumble a lot). Now it is people like Joss Whedon and J.K. Rowling who have the insight, the courage, and the imagination to use myth and metaphor to tell the story of how daunting, horrendous, terrifying, and yet also rewarding and glorious life, and love, and friendship, and taking up responsibility and doing the right thing can be.

I also want to say something about the ethics of Harry Potter. Many people have pointed out that Harry is not such a great model for kids because he and his friends are constantly breaking rules, and many times with the complicity of their elders who should know better but who instead use the kids to do their dirty work (namely Dumbledore). These people act as though breaking rules were in and of itself immoral. I think this is their confusion, and not the confusion or amorality of J.K. Rowling. If one lived in Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia, or Imperialist Japan, or Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, should one just follow the law of the land? Even if that meant fighting in a war of aggression, or helping to round up neighbors for deathcamps, or participating in genocide and so on? Don't we today laud the resistance movements in occupied France and other European countries when they were under the Nazis?

One thing I learned from Dungeons & Dragons (no seriously!) is that law and good do not always coincide. Certainly the moral alignments of the D&D game are just gaming convention, but as far back as jr. high they caused me to think about how law and the good are or are not related. In the game the highest paragon of heroism is the Paladin who represents the ideal of the Lawful Good alignment. This would be a person who values an organized society that is fair and just with consistent laws that enable everyone to work for the good of the community without sacrificing uneccessarily the rights or dignity of the individual. But then there are Lawful Neutral types who only care about the Law or organization of society itself. A place for every person and every person in their place. If this means the interests, rights, or even dignity of some people needs to be sacrificed then so be it - Law is paramount. Then there are those who embrace the Lawful Evil alignment, who use the Law to help enforce a status quo that will gaurantee that a certain group maintains its power and can exploit others for their own ends - whether a master race or a religious hierarchy or a Big Brother of some sort. In this spectrum, obeying the law is not always identical to being or upholding the good.

One could also embrace Chaos or individuality or Neutrality in respect to Law or Chaos. Chaos or Neutrality could then either be Good or Evil or Neutral in relation to Good or Evil. In my mind, a person is good to the extent that they are willing to sacrifice even their own self-interests if need be for others. A person is evil to the extent that they readily sacrifice others for their own self-interest. I think a lot of people are Neutral. They won't go out of their way to screw over their neighbor, but they might not go out of their way to help them either. For that matter, in relation to Law and Chaos, I think a lot of people are Neutral. They'll obey the law to stay out of trouble, but will break it for their own convenience if it won't get them into any trouble (like crossing the street against the light, or smoking a joint, or keeping animals in an apartment building when one is not supposed to have them).

It seems to me that using this spectrum Harry and his friends and even mentors are Neutral Good. They will bend or even break the law if they must. They don't seem all that committed to following the rules or trusting in the system (and granted the system - at least in the fifth book - comes across as a draconian LN with even a tendency towards Evil in its methods). But they definately seem to be committed to the greater good. So for instance, in the very beginning of the movie, Harry used magic knowing that his magical society has made it illegal for him to do so. But he does it to save the life of his cousin and himself. Dumbledore defends him on the grounds that an exception had to be made to the law for the greater good. So that is Neutral Good behavior. Now if Dumbledore or Harry or anyone had then made an issue about changing the law and working through the proper channels do so (so that the law would reflect LG values rather than LN ones) then I would say that they had shown a commitment to Lawfulness as well as Goodness. But that never came up. They only seemed concerned that Harry "get away with it." Fine with me frankly. I admire LG ideals and commitments, but I myself sympathize with the feeling that the law should be sacrificed for the greater good and not the other way around. On the other hand, I also think that the greatest good is something that will be consistent for everyone and not just a bunch of people just doing what they like and then justifying it afterwards. I think the most mature view is in fact the Lawful Good view. But failing that I will settle for Neutral Good or even Chaotic Good over a Lawful Neutrality. Lawfulness, to me, is amoral in and of itself. In other words, it is not by itself a value unless it is supporting the good as it can be used to dehumanize people or even justify immorality on a social scale.

I go into all that because I wish the people who criticize Harry Potter for breaking rules would consider more deeply the relationship between rules and values and what is or is not good. I think even the founding fathers of the USA understood this difference because the Declaration of Independence itself is a document that justifies revolution (which is to break the law of the land really) for the sake of a greater good.

I guess another question is - when did we become such a nation of goosesteppers that we no longer see the difference between the Law and the Good? On the other hand, according to H.L. Mencken we have been this way for quite awhile.

"The American people, taking one with another, constitute the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and goosesteppers ever gathered under one flag in Christendom since the end of the Middle Ages."
H. L. Mencken

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei

Posted by Ryuei at July 12, 2007 11:50 AM