Harriet Movie – Chekhov’s Gun versus “White Savior” Trope

Harriet Movie – Chekhov’s Gun versus “White Savior” Trope

I saw the movie Harriet recently and I was impressed by its scope and the power of its storytelling. I wanted to share some positive word-of-mouth to assist in it being a success, but discovered quite a bit of criticism against the movie on social media. This essay is not a review of the film, but rather a discussion regarding a few aspects of criticism I feel is unfair and a misreading of the film’s dramatic intent.

Before I begin, here is a fair warning to anyone who hasn’t seen the movie. There will be spoilers.

Also to give some background information about myself, I took two screenwriting classes at Wayne State University years ago. That trained me to understand the structures and functions of screenplays. I have a Master’s Degree from Sonoma State University as an Historian of Science, which gave me training regarding historical methods. I am also the author of two novels that are epic historic fantasies set in the time of Charlemagne and are adaptations from epic poems written over 500 years ago. Taken together, it means that I recognize the challenges faced with adapting source material with the concept of balancing historical accuracy with dramatic needs. This movie is not a documentary, but instead is a dramatization of the life of a real person and is closer to the genre of historical fiction which includes inventing dialogue, creating characters, and plot points to tell a compelling narrative.

There are many people who objected to the inclusion of Black bounty hunters in the movie, specifically the character of Bigger Long. He is not an historical figure, but instead a character added to this story by the filmmakers. Their criticism is based on his violence and suggesting this characterization adds to negative stereotypes of Black men.

I haven’t seen much discussion about Walter, another Black male bounty hunter in the movie.

I saw the inclusion these characters as adding complexity to the narrative. This time period is not my area of expertise, so I will defer to historians who say there were Black bounty hunters. They may not have been common, but they existed. Including them in the story demonstrates that both Blacks and whites profited from the cruel institution of slavery while at the same time there were Blacks and whites who aided in the liberation of those in bondage. It would not have been easy to recognize who was trustworthy and making a wrong choice could be deadly.  Introducing the uncertainty about whether or not someone will betray you, adds tension.

At one point, Walter approached Harriet Tubman and offered his help. He had helped track her down when she ran away, but had a change of heart and wanted to work to redeem himself by assisting her.

I felt unsettled when he offered to help, because it felt like a trap. Except it wasn’t. Tension helps the audience feel engaged in stories and wondering what is going to happen next.

The Bigger Long character never had any such change of heart. He was a cruel and violent man who earned his living by the high stakes/high reward field of being a bounty hunter for runaway slaves rather than being paid low wages for menial jobs relegated for free Blacks.

Another fictional character introduced to forward the story is Marie Buchanon. She was a free born Black woman who ran the boarding house where Harriet Tubman lived in Philadelphia. Marie may not have been an historical character, but she demonstrates the differences between Blacks who were and weren’t enslaved. She gave instructions to Harriet as to how to hold herself with confidence when she went back south on missions to lead slaves to freedom. Marie also handed Harriet a gun.

That introduces the dramatic concept of Chekhov’s gun. Anton Chekhov was a famous playwright who famously held “One must not put a loaded gun on stage if no one is going to fire it.” He felt that this type of prop created a dramatic imperative. (For anyone wanting to know more about this literary convention, there is an excellent short film on Youtube.)

It is known that the historical figure of Harriet Tubman carried a gun. She reportedly used it to threaten any fugitives if they decided to turn back, telling them, "You'll be free or die."

In the movie, we see Harriet holding the pistol many times, but she resists firing it. There’s a scene after the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act where her former master, Gideon Brodess, and Bigger Long are in the boarding house in Philadelphia where she lived. Harriet is hiding, but she sees the two men beating Marie Buchanon in an effort to get information out of her. Harriet is holding her gun and almost fires at them, but doesn’t. Marie winds up being beaten to death by Bigger Long.

Had Harriet used the gun in that scene, it would have ended badly. The pistol only had one shot and there were two assailants. Had she killed one, the other would have likely overpowered her. She would then have been hauled back to Maryland facing an uncertain, but bad fate.

Besides, the filmmakers did not want to change history by making Harriet Tubman into a killer. Instead, we see the internal conflict she has with wanting to intervene to protect her friend, but knowing she cannot safely do so.

In the climax of the movie, Harriet Tubman went back to Maryland to rescue her remaining family members and lead them to safety/freedom in the North. During the time she was gathering her family to leave, there were scenes interspliced with the local slave owners who were rallying together after learning she was nearby. They carried guns and torches. Gideon’s mother, Eliza Brodess, urged them to, “Find this thief and burn her at the stake!” That signifies for the audience what awaited Harriet if she was captured.

Harriet Tubman was a high-profile member of the Underground Railroad and in the slave masters’ eyes had “stolen property” from them. She likely would have had a bounty on her head and if caught, would be subjected to torture to extract details of the Underground Railroad. They would want to dismantle the Underground Railroad by learning names of people involved, places they lived and worked, as well as the identities and locations of former slaves who now lived free in the North. And then, she would be subjected to a public execution that be both would be cruel and unusual in nature. All to send a message to those still in bondage that their hero “Moses” was gone and that they should lose all hope of ever being freed. Being burned at the stake like Joan of Arc would have been one possible outcome, and she would have just as likely been lynched like so many other Blacks were in this nation’s history. Tubman’s violent death would have been inevitable if she was caught, and most likely would have been without the benefit of trial.

Those were thoughts that likely were running through Gideon Brodess’ mind. He needed to bring Harriet Tubman back alive. He would claim the bounty before her torture and death. He would also gain fame for being the man to bring her down.

At one point, Harriet realizes that Bigger Long and Gideon are gaining on her threatening her family’s escape. She entrusts Walter to get on the small boat and take her family to safety while she distracted Gideon.

Harriet ran in the forest and scrambled up a large rock to avoid being caught by Bigger Long. They exchanged gunfire with her shot causing his hat to fly from his head.

He became enraged and said, “You goin’ die, bitch!”

Gideon was on horseback and behind Bigger. He heard the threat and rather than try to calm his hired Bounty hunter, he shot Bigger in the head, killing him. “Alive, I said.”

That action is what is being described as a “white savior” trope by critics. Matthew Hughey, Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Connecticut, and author of The White Savior Film: Content,Critics, and Consumption, (Temple University Press, 2014), defined the term as “a white messianic character saves a lower- or working-class, usually urban or isolated, nonwhite character from a sad fate.” One example is The Blind Side starring Sandra Bullock as Leigh Ann Tuohy who brought the homeless Black teenager Michael Oher into her family, then helped him on a path to become an NFL player. Another example is The Help where the movie about discrimination against Black domestic servants in the 1960s south is seen through the eyes of a white author played by Emma Stone.

Given this definition, do I think this scene fits the white savior trope? No, I don’t. Gideon is not a messianic character, nor did he want to save Harriet’s life. He wanted her captured alive because bringing her corpse back would be far less valuable. A corpse could not be tortured to reveal secrets and there would be far less spectacle to serve as a lesson for remaining slaves.

This white man wasn’t trying to be her savior. In fact, by killing Bigger, he wouldn’t have to share the bounty.

And no one would really care about the reason Gideon killed a Black man. White men could kill Black men with impunity. There would be no punishment for his act of murder.

However, had Harriet died at Bigger’s hands, she would have had a more merciful death than what would have been in store for her had she been captured by Gideon.

The death of the fictional character Bigger Long, also allowed a climactic scene between the movie’s protagonist, Harriet Tubman, and antagonist, Gideon Brodess.

This was the third and final scene where these two characters interacted. In dramatic structure parlance there was a beginning, middle and end to the drama between these two characters. The beginning was when Harriet was still a slave and was then known as Araminta “Minty” Ross. Minty’s husband, John Tubman a Black free man, handed papers from a lawyer to Edward Brodess that according to a will from Edward’s grandfather, Rit Ross (Minty’s mother) should have been freed years before as well as all of her children. John and Minty wanted to start a family and wanted their children to be born free. Edward tore up the papers, ordered John to stay away, and swore that Rit Ross, her children, and any descendants would forever be enslaved. Later Edward told his son, Gideon, that he should sell Minty since she was troublesome.

Later, Gideon overheard Minty praying for the death of his father. “Oh, Lord. If you ain’t going to change that man’s heart, kill him, Lord, and take him out of the way.”

Gideon confronted Minty. He brought up her fierce faith and remembered her praying by his bedside when he was a child and struck with a fever. She refused to back down from her wishes for the death of his father.

Edward died soon afterward.

Gideon became unnerved by this sudden death of his father and decided to sell Minty. That was the reason Minty decided to run away from the Brodess farm. She had sisters who had been sold “down south” and never to be heard from again. She did not want to be separated from her family in a similar manner.

The second scene between Harriet and Gideon, (and still technically in the beginning portion of the three part dramatic sequence), was during her escape attempt when slave catchers trapped her from both sides of a bridge. She started making moves to jump into the river. Gideon tried using soothing tones to coax her into surrendering. He said he had changed his mind about selling her and wouldn’t punish her too much for running away.

She responded by saying, “I’m gonna be free or die.” This was right before she jumped in the river.

The middle sequence is when she saw Gideon and Bigger attack Marie Buchanon. Harriet saw them, but was quiet so they didn’t know she was there. It marks the dramatic middle of this antagonistic relationship.

The third scene, and the dramatic ending, is where these two characters interacted after the murder of Bigger Long. Harriet Tubman is hiding behind a tree and frantically reloading her gun while Gideon Brodess rode on horseback and slowly made his way up the hillside to her. He was relaxed and confident, while she was summoning all of her strength and faith to survive the upcoming encounter.

Gideon was surprised by Harriet who emerged from behind a tree and aimed her gun at him.

His rifle wasn’t in the position to defend himself. She commanded that he throw it on the ground. After repeating herself, he relented and threw the rifle on the ground. She shot, but didn’t kill Gideon. She wounded his hand. The concept of Chekhov’s gun worked. The prop in the story was used, but history wasn’t changed to make her a killer.

Harriet also ordered Gideon to dismount his horse. She then took his horse and rode off,

abandoning him in the woods to find his way back to safety.

She confronted a man who had controlled every aspect of her life and of her family’s life. She demonstrated how strong a person she had become and that her faith in God was sacrosanct.

Her final farewell to Gideon was saying, “God don’t mean for people to own people.”

This sequence may never have happened in real life, but it allowed for the closure of a toxic relationship and is an emotionally satisfying scene for the audience. She was the victor by not only escaping again, but by showing that God was on her side.

And then, almost as an epilogue, there’s a scene where Harriet Tubman is shown later in life as a  commander of Union Troops in the Combahee River Raid in Beaufort, South Carolina. After delivering a stirring speech to the troops, she sings a song that is the signal to the slaves that the time has come to be rescued, hundreds begin running toward the ships. Then their white masters follow in hot pursuit. It is then we see Harriet shoulder a rifle and say the word, “Ready” as the soldiers get set to shoot their guns at the rebels.

At that point, Harriet’s gun likely killed someone. So the literary concept of Chekhov’s gun was fully used, even if we never saw someone die on screen from the lead character’s actions. And, it is hard to criticize soldiers for killing their enemies in a time of war.

Overall, I simply disagree with the accusation that the film makers for the movie Harriet used the “white savior” movie trope. Instead, I find their narrative to flesh out the life of an historic character to be utilizing the literary concept of “Chekhov’s gun.”

Here is the official trailer for the movie to demonstrate a few of the lines I quoted above.

 

  Please let me know if you have any feedback. I would like to start a productive discussion regarding this topic.

Writing, adaptations and public speaking

This essay was inspired by a private correspondence I have been having with another writer. I realized my experience might be helpful to others and so I decided to make this into a blog post.

Every writer has specific strengths and weaknesses. The differences are as different as the writers themselves and their own life experiences. Back when I was in high school I was a member of our forensics team. In this context, forensics means public speaking and has nothing to do with autopsies.

Being involved in competitive public speaking not only helped me develop self confidence, but it enhanced my own inherent flair for drama, working within time limits and knowing how to engage an audience. I was involved with three different categories during my four years of competition. In my freshman year I was a member of our "multiple." Multiple Interpretation is a category for a group of speakers (between three to eight) and our selection was to be between ten and fifteen minutes in length. We were not allowed to have physical or eye contact with one another. The only props allowed were stools and scripts.

The selection we used during my freshman year was a script from an episode of the old television series "The Twilight Zone." The story was "Monsters are due on Maple Street" and it dealt with space aliens causing the residents in a small American town to turn on each other.

Being part of a multiple meant that I was part of a team effort to succeed. It was similar to a mini-play competing onstage against other mini-plays. Everyone involved in that year's multiple was a first year member of the team and we practiced everyday after school for months working on our performances and our timing. We made the final round in tournaments a few times and even placed second in one invitational, but we did not do as well as we had hoped.

One aspect of being on the forensics team is that our coach had a large filing cabinet with hundreds of scripts. Some had been used in previous years and were considered "winning scripts" that were to be inherited by a new generation of team members. Those proven scripts were outnumbered by ones purchased from a catalog and had never been read before being put in a file.

My sophomore year I was able to change categories and tried my hand at Humorous Interpretation. That was a solo competitive event where the speakers would rotate two different comedic scripts that were five to eight and a half minutes in length. I spent the summer looking for my own selections and settled on editing an essay from one of Erma Bombeck's books and a short story from Shirley Jackson. I was okay, but my talents were not really suited for that category.

In my junior year, I switched to Serious Interpretation and found my groove. The major difference between Serious and Humorous, (other than trying to make the audience cry rather than laugh), is that your selections alternated between poetry and prose. In the beginning of the tournament a drawing would be held and it was announced which of the two formats would be read in the first round of competition.

Because many poems are short, there were some competitors who read collections of poems to fulfill the time requirements. I found that approach to be lame. I also found myself getting bored when I heard the same poem being read by numerous people. "Patterns" by Amy Lowell was one of those overused poems. One tournament I heard that poem read three times and by two different girls in a single round of competition. It was popular because it was a single poem that when read fit the time requirements, was written by a woman poet and most of the competitors in Serious Interpretation were female. I found the poem boring and mentally tuned out when I heard it announced in the introduction. I wondered how many of the judges had similar reactions due to its overuse.

That was another reason why I thought it was better to find my own selections rather than depend on my coach to recommend something.

In my junior year I remember one of my competitors had written his own selection based on a novelization from the movie Apocalypse Now. I had not seen the movie, but was astounded at his performance, and felt that its difference from the majority of the scripts helped him stand out as a competitor. Later, when I saw the movie, it felt as if he were sitting next to me, whispering in my ear. That is how good his adaptation of the movie was to encapsulate its essence into eight and a half minutes.

That inspired me to do something similar for my senior year's selection. I read the memoir Playing for Time by Fania Fénelon. She was a Holocaust survivor who had been a member of the all woman orchestra in Auschwitz. Her life was spared, but she was still in a death camp and was forced to play music up to eighteen hours a day. The reason the musicians were allowed to live is because they played impromptu concerts for SS officers who found it relaxing to listen to orchestral music after a long, hard day of killing people.

I remember reading the book with a highlighter in one hand and marking up several particularly emotional passages. I wrote my script using portions of scenes along with transitions making it fit my time frame and knew that no one else would be reading the same work.

That strategy worked for me.

After the regular invitational season was over in my senior year, my coach told me something that spurred me on to doing another adaptation. This time it would be for the Multiple Interpretation category.

Our team was so large and successful that we had more members on it than could be entered into  the District Tournament. So there were many teammates whose season was going to be over unless he did something creative. He told me that he was thinking of dusting off the "Monsters are due on Maple Street" script and create a second multiple to enter at Districts. I cringed at the thought. It was an okay script, but I did not want to see it used again. Especially since judges had seen it only a few years before. I knew my teammates who would be asked to be a part of it might feel as if they were leftovers thrown together in a hastily prepared soup.

I went home and grabbed a book of short stories by Stephen King and banged out a script for what I titled: "A Taste of Horror." I made sure that it fit the time constraints, typed it up and made a few copies. On the next school day, I told my coach that I had a different idea for a multiple and handed him the script. I also offered to direct.

It was far more than he expected from that little chat we shared on the bus. He also accepted my offer. We only had a few weeks of rehearsals, but I was proud of the performances by my teammates and I am certain they felt more confident with that script when they competed against other teams' multiples who had been together for months.

Then I entered college and didn't have any time for creative writing. Or drama. Or much else besides watching an occasional movie.

After I finished college and began working full time, I felt there was something missing in my life. I realized that I longed for an outlet for drama like I had back in high school and that one of my greatest strengths was recognizing dramatic scenes and adapting it for presentations to audiences.

I decided that I would try that on a larger scale, and so I took one of my favorite novels Whispers by Dean R. Koontz and try to adapt it into a screenplay. I owed college loans and was making entry level wages, so I certainly did not have any ability to buy the movie rights. I did however, decide to adapt the novel as a writing exercise to see if I had the talent and stamina to do such a project. I went back to using a highlighter and marking up scenes, then transferring them into my computer in a screenplay format. It took several months, but I finished the task and it was in the 110-120 page range for a two hour movie. (The working rule is one page of a movie script equals a minute on the screen.)

I was proud of my work, but I also knew that as an unknown writer with no credits I would never get hired to do film adaptations. So in order to have any chance in pursuing that career path, I first needed to write my own screenplays.

I took two screenwriting classes at Wayne State University and learned a lot. I had to write an original screenplay for the course and I realize now that it was spectacularly depressing and would never have been made into a movie had I pursued trying to get an agent. (It seemed like a good idea to me at the time, but hindsight can have better visual acuity than foresight.)

During this time I purchased several scripts of movies that I enjoyed. I re-watched those movies with the scripts in hand and analyzed any deviations. I also began watching movies before and after I read the books and compared the adaptations. I took copious notes including writing down each and every scene in a movie and realized for the first time how many different scenes there are. Sometimes over a hundred in a two hour movie.

I have been devastated when a beloved story's lifeblood was leeched out when it was translated to the silver screen by oversimplification of plotlines and elimination of characters, etc. and I have marveled at how the essence of a story was enhanced by condensing timelines, characters, etc.

I learned by this extended critical analyses that novels and movies are two different mediums and what works in one does not necessarily work in the other. In novels, you can spend an entire chapter in a character's head learning their inner thoughts, but on a movie screen that could be accomplished by a close up of a raised eyebrow or summarized into a single line of voice-over narration. Another thing I learned was the importance of having scenes with conflict and action. A stage or movie script has bare bones descriptions, whereas novels need to describe the setting, the actions/reactions of characters so that the readers "can see" these important details as well as the characters are wearing if it is important to the plot.

I have been told by many of my readers that they can see my story as a movie. I take that as a compliment that my years of analyzing what works in cinema and translating it into a different format has paid off.

My adapting the epic poems of Orlando innamorato and Orlando furioso is a result of my years of experience of larger narratives and culling portions then changing its format so that it will work for a different audience.

I still love watching movies based on books and analyzing the differences between the two forms and formats. One movie adaptation that I am looking forward to watching is the forthcoming, Percy Jackson and the Sea of Monsters due out August 7th.

Please let me know what some of your favorite or cannot stand adaptations from novel to screen are in the comments.  By the way, I did watch the movie adaptation of the novel Whispers by Dean R. Koontz.  It was awful!  My script was far better.

http://lcmccabe.blogspot.com/2013/07/writing-adaptations-and-public-speaking.html

Review of the movie Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part I

First some overall comments that do not include spoilers.

I thought this was one of the best adaptations of the series to the screen. I am glad they chose to split the story into two movies because the plot in the seventh book is so intricate that to try and condense it into a standard movie length story would oversimplify things to the point of eliminating the magic of the story.

If you have not read the series, the movie will probably confuse you. My husband has seen all the movies, but never read the books and he was confused by the movie. I had to explain some details about Horcruxes that I know were explained in the previous movie, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, (HPB), but that he probably forgot or maybe never really understood.

So if you are a casual fan of the series and have not read the books, I recommend seeing it with someone who has read all the books. They will then be able to explain things afterward to help you understand those things you missed.

Overall the special effects are wonderful and appear seamless. The tone of the movie is brooding and dark, but there are touches of humor to lighten the mood at times. There are odes to the darkness of World War II and attempts at race purification.

The acting is great and some of the stellar British actors involved in the series shine even when they have few lines and only a few moments onscreen. The child actors have grown into their parts and no longer appear uncomfortable in their roles.

After this point, I will be discussing aspects of the movie and for those who do not want to read spoilers, please stop reading this post now.

SPOILER Section

Movies by their nature as a visual medium are different than books as a vehicle for storytelling. Things that might need pages of description in a book can be conveyed with a few frames in a movie. There were many condensing of events to speed things along. For example, the death of Hedwig was done differently than in the book, but it worked and streamlined the narrative. Other examples of introducing information quickly was a line by Bill Weasley of being attacked by Fenrir Greyback, (since that event was not included in the movie version of HBP), and the radio news mentioning that Severus Snape was the newly appointed headmaster of Hogwarts.

I especially liked one of the beginning scenes where Hermione gave her parents a memory charm and erased her own image from family photographs. It was a sacrifice that moved me to tears.

The Seven Harry Potters scene included some great bits of physical humor. The twins, Fred and George, were only on screen for a short while, but they stole every scene they were in. I particularly liked Saint George quietly sipping his tea while watching his little sister kissing Harry Potter in the kitchen.

The scenes in Grimmauld Place were creepy as I expected. I do wish however, that we had been able to see the transformation of Kreacher after being given Regulus' locket. I thought that was one of the most touching aspects of the whole series.

Imelda Staunton gave another cloyingly evil performance as Dolores Umbridge. I also liked the casting of Nick Moran as Scabior. He looked dangerous and had a Bad Boy look about him which made him ever so watchable.

The one thing that bugged me about the sequence at the Ministry of Magic was the delay of the Trio leaving the building once their Polyjuice Potion disguises wore off. Yes, it was funny that Ron Weasley had a woman who thought he was her husband and she wouldn't let him leave. However, Harry was standing there without anything covering his face and didn't try to disguise himself. Really? Come on. He's Undesirable #1, he's in the belly of the beast and is just waiting for his friend to extricate himself from a woman's arms? Really?

I had to re-read that passage and realized that the effects of the Polyjuice Potion held until after they left the Ministry. :shakes head: So that's one scene I don't really understand the different choices made by the screenwriter and director.

I mean, the Trio should be practicing CONSTANT VIGILANCE. Harry should have covered his face and pretended to cough. He should cough enough to get people to want to avoid him, but not enough to bring unwanted attention to himself.

The splinching worked, but my husband was wondering what "splinching" meant. I had to whisper the explanation to him.

I liked Xenophilius Lovegood, his strange house and the animation sequence telling the story of the Three Brothers. I thought that worked well. The animation reminded me of the Tim Burton style.

I loved the scenes in Malfoy Manor where Lucius Malfoy looked like a broken man. His choice years ago to become a follower of Voldemort had taken its toll. He was now a prisoner in his own home with unwanted guests that he could not evict.

Tom Felton as Draco also looked as if he regretted becoming a Death Eater. He had followed his father's footsteps, but there were signs that he did not like what was happening. The Evil was just a bit too much for him. Or so it seemed.

I was glad to see Dobby once again. He had been a part of other books, but this was his first reappearance in a movie since Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Dobby was one of my favorite characters. He was odd, but fiercely loyal to Harry Potter. The one thing I did not understand was the clothing he wore. Dobby was a free elf. He should have been wearing something other than a nasty pillowcase. He could worn a flower print shirt, a strange necktie, and paisley printed shorts. Instead they just gave him clunky shoes to wear to designate his free elf status. Bah! Dobby was free, he deserved clothes.

Beyond that minor wardrobe related criticism, I loved the scenes with Dobby. He was a great character who helped rescue Harry and his friends. The death of Dobby was something that made me cry both in the reading of the book and in the movie. His sacrifice on behalf of Harry Potter was touching.

I am glad that the movie ended there as well as Voldemort grave robbing from Dumbledore's tomb. It shows where both sides in the war are at this point in time. It will also allow for the action/adventure sequences of Gringotts, Aberforth's confessions about Dumbledore, Snape's death and deathbed memories, the sacrifice in the Forbidden Forest as well as the ending duel to be shown in detail for great cinematic glory. Part II should be a wonderful ending to a marvelous series.

For those who are just fans of the series, I would love to hear your thoughts on the movie in the comment section.

SHIPPING Thoughts from a recovering Harry Potter addict

Now onto the matter of Harry and Hermione's relationship in this film. For those who were not a part of the online Harry Potter fandom, you will not understand how a movie scene that was not in the book could be potentially controversial.

It is only because I was a part of the fandom and participated in the online debates that I realize the dance scene could be like chum to sharks. It is likely to set off a feeding frenzy. The most vituperative subject of debates in the online fandom dealt with romantic relationships, also known as "shipping."

I looked at it as a communal attempt at in-depth literary analysis. It was not the passive writing a paper for a professor and hoping to get a good grade. No, it was putting forth your thoughts in public and having others challenge your assumptions and then offer up their own theories. Sometimes it was just getting kudos or cyber stinkbombs sent your way.

I argued on behalf of the Harry/Hermione ship. I also argued that I welcomed a Love Triangle between the Trio. That was something many Ron/Hermione shippers simply did not want to contemplate. They thought it would be too painful and that Harry wouldn't want to risk hurting his friend Ron.

I feel that love triangles can be powerful dramatic constructs. It has inherent conflict in its structure. There had been so many other love triangles used in the series that having a love triangle between Harry/Hermione/Ron seemed inevitable.

As it turns out, I was right. Jo Rowling used a Love Triangle within the Trio and it worked well, both in the book and in the movie. Ron was certainly jealous at the thought of Harry and Hermione becoming a couple. It showed on his face with black circles under his eyes when he wore the cursed locket around his neck and saw them talking together. Later, when he was challenged by Harry to destroy the Horcrux his fears were demonstrated by the torturous images shown by a piece of Voldemort's soul depicting his friends in a compromising position. Something that would drive him mad and perhaps make him use the sword against Harry and not the locket.

All of that was in the canon. However, there was a scene in the movie that was not in the book and it surprised me.

The Dance Scene.

Ron stormed off and left Harry Potter for his search for Horcruxes, Hermione chose to remain behind and not leave with Ron. Harry and Hermione are alone in a tent and are listening to music on a radio. Harry coaxes Hermione to join him in a dance. At first it is a light and breezy dance, a little awkward in the steps, but it ends with them in an embrace.

They could have easily kissed at that point. Hermione looked as if she considered kissing Harry then deliberately avoided succumbing to that temptation.

As I was sitting in the theater, I could not help but think how upset the Ron/Hermione shippers I had debated all those years ago would be with that scene. All it would have taken was one kiss and then the pairings Would Have Changed Forever. Harry would have realized that the woman for him was not his best friend's little sister, but his other best friend who had been by his side through countless adventures. A woman who had saved his life several times and had shown unwavering loyalty and sacrifice on his behalf.

There are countless number of Harry/Hermione fanfics that are nothing more than finding some kind of excuse to get them alone together so they can discover that they are attracted to one another. One kiss and then fade to black or possibly NC-17 territory. It all depends on the fic writer and what their intent is on writing the story of them becoming a couple.

In this case, if they had kissed it would probably have led to them being in bed together. These were two teens with raging hormones were alone together where no one could hear them, see them, or find them. They were also under the ever present threat of being found, captured and killed. That kind of wartime stress has led to many quick romances. In this case it would have been for two best friends discovering their attraction to one another. It would have changed the romantic pairings forever. It would also have been Ron's greatest fear when he destroyed the locket: Hermione had chosen Harry over him.

Another thing that surprised me about the movie was seeing Jo Rowling's name in the credits as a producer. She could easily have had that scene removed from the movie if she wanted. She had given a note to the screenwriter in HBP when there was a bit of dialogue of Dumbledore reminiscing of a long-lost girlfriend that said, "Dumbledore is gay." That nixed those proposed lines.

Rowling allowed the dance scene showing the possibility of Harry and Hermione becoming a romantic couple to remain in the movie. Why?

Was it a bone for Harry/Hermione shippers?

Or was it included because it was good drama?

I believe it was the latter, because I believe in the power of drama.

I am also certain that some stalwart Ron/Hermione shippers will find that scene offensive because of their years of arguing against H/Hr. That would make them not want to see even subtle hints of that romantic pairing.

Jo Rowling admitted in an interview published in Melissa Anelli's book Harry: A History that it could have gone Harry/Hermione.

"Now, the fact is that Hermione shares moments with Harry that Ron will never be able to participate in. He walked out. She shared something very intense with Harry. So, I think it could have gone that way." Page 266

Precisely. We were not delusional at all. We saw the romantic potential that could have been.

And now, there is even a poll (totally non-scientific) by MTV to see whether or not people wished it had gone H/Hr over R/Hr.

As I am writing this, H/Hr is winning.

Last night my twelve year old son asked me why Jo Rowling went with Ron and Hermione as a couple when he thinks that Harry and Hermione would have made a better couple. I sighed and then had to try and explain to him that Jo Rowling was using literary alchemy as the underlying framework for her story. Therefore Harry's girlfriends had hair color that went in the following sequence: black, white, red. (Cho, Luna - they did have one little date in HBP, Ginny) This was supposed to reflect the three stages of alchemy in order: nigredo, albedo, rubedo.

Hermione had brown hair, so she didn't fit in that schema.

Instead, Hermione was supposed to represent the element mercury and Ron was sulphur, both are needed in the alchemical formula to create gold.

For those shaking their heads, I point you to my friend John Granger's capable hands in understanding the usage of alchemy throughout the series. It was something I didn't want to acknowledge as constraining Rowling's dramatic choices, but as it turns out: John's original assumptions and predictions of Harry/Ginny and Ron/Hermione were spot on because those pairings work alchemically.

In case you were wondering, my son shook his head at my explanation. It wasn't what he wanted to hear.

What are your thoughts of the movie? Did that dance scene delight or bother you?

http://lcmccabe.blogspot.com/2010/11/review-of-movie-harry-potter-and.html

My take on the Beowulf movie

I wanted to put forth my thoughts on the movie while others in the blogosphere are still interested. For those who haven't seen it yet and would like to remain unspoiled, please just go to my last post and avoid reading any further. Otherwise, if you are interested in someone's reaction to the movie to decide whether or not it is worth your time and money...stick around. I will offer a different type of analysis of the movie than other reviews I have read.

I do not disagree with any of their assessments, but I wish to analyze through a lens focusing on drama.

First off, I will admit that I have not read the classic epic poem of Beowulf. I bought the Seamus Heaney translation and it is on my bookshelf in the "to be read" pile, but as of yet its spine is still pristine.

So I went into the movie without the expectations that fans of the epic poem had. I simply wanted to be entertained. I shall read it in the near future and see how they deviated from the classic tale.

I love engaging in that kind of analysis. I have read and dissected screenplays as well as take copious notes of movies scene by scene. There are choices to be made by screenwriters in translating source material to a different medium that deal with timing and narrative flow. Sometimes I agree with their choices and other times I disagree.

I have been delighted when certain aspects of books that I thought were particularly boring were cut or streamlined. I have also been disappointed when vital plot points or complexities in a story are cut in order to maximize action/adventure sequences. I feel that kind of treatment diminishes the overall dramatic potential of the material and confuses the audience.

I prefer deeply moving emotional scenes between characters over ones where I'm gripping the seat watching someone hang by their fingernails from a ledge or dodging the teeth from a monster for the umpteenth time. After a short while, I find myself annoyed with action/adventure sequences that seem to go on ad infinitum.

I feel the same way with car chases, fight scenes, etc. Very few do I think warrant the amount of screen time that they now receive.

Beowulf's action sequences fit that description. They went on too long for my liking, but that is not what bothers me the most about the movie. It is the lack of a sympathetic main character.

Beowulf was a jerk.

Not a hero. He was an ass.

He was brave and strong, but also vain and arrogant. He craved glory, but lacked honor.

He showed no attempt at trying to live up to the ideals of the Chivalric Code. He was a powerful warrior and king, but not a hero.

It is fine for secondary characters to have those qualities, but it should not be the main character in a story.

That I think is the fatal flaw in the movie. The audience is never allowed to care what happens to the lead character.

There is one scene in particular that illustrates to the audience how vainglorious our "hero" is. It could have been done much differently and achieved a different effect.

Beowulf decided that he needed to match Grendel in regards to arms and armor. That meant he chose to put them all aside. That is an honorable act. Similar to setting aside your pistol if you find your dueling opponent is wielding a knife.

However, Beowulf announced his plan to the queen as he began undressing while standing directly in front of her.

I found that scene to be an attempt to intimidate the queen. A woman he had been making eyes at all evening long.

Beowulf could have said gracious remarks about her singing and suggest that she turn in for the night as the fight would start shortly and he needed to ready himself. At that point he could have mentioned his need to divest himself of arms, armor, and clothes. She would then have had the chance to blush, leave and possibly sneak a peak at him after she left the room if she was so bold.

Instead he stripped in front of her as if daring her to not look down and assess his manly prowess.

Arrogance. Not a particularly attractive attribute in heroes.

Could that movie have saved with a different script? Maybe.

I tend to think it might have been a better movie if a better actor had been cast for the role.

The only way would have been in they had not cast merely a good actor, but a brilliant actor to play the title role. So that even if the main character was vain and arrogant, the audience would still like him.

It would be tough, but still possible.

I recall what I learned from the late great Michael Shurtleff. In his book Audition: Everything an actor needs to know to get the part he gave examples from his time as a casting director on Broadway. One was during the casting of Jesus Christ Superstar and the field was narrowed down to two actors to play the role of Judas Iscariot.

There were two camps of supporters for the different actors. The votes were evenly split with the musical director as the one to cast the deciding vote. Michael was asked by him why he supported Ben Vereen for the part.

Michael said that his reasoning was that even though both actors were very talented, Candidate A was "remote and disdainful" and Vereen was "lovable."

Here is his explanation about that subject of likability in performers:

"You're always ahead if you cast a performer who is likable. Unlikable performers can sometimes have long, even important, careers, if they have talent, fascination, sexuality, and uniqueness, but some odd chemistry always happens in their relationship to an audience. Frequently the audience does not know they don't like a performer, but they are disturbed by him (or her), and the elements work in a strange, frequently unpredictable way. I have seen too many productions in which the actor comes off with great notices and the project fails -- because the actor is arrogant." page 170 in the trade paperback edition.

I have reflected on his pearls of wisdom for years now and I recognize that as being the difference between good actors and brilliant actors.

Think of the television series M*A*S*H. I prefer the episodes with Charles Emerson Winchester III as the third man in The Swamp over the ones with Frank Burns because while Winchester was a pompous bore, you realized that he really did not want to be there either. His character was sympathetic. Burns was just an ass. There is nothing sympathetic about him. I cheered as Ferret Face bore the brunt of practical jokes and did not miss him when he left the series.

I feel that David Ogden Stiers is a far better actor than Larry Linville.

Getting back to Beowulf, I feel that Ray Winstone did not deliver on what was needed for the role.

The success of the movie hinged on the main character being someone audiences liked.

Another example I would like to mention is a movie where the pivotal role was cast appropriately: Thank You for Smoking.

Aaron Eckhart played Nick Naylor, a lobbyist for big tobacco, whose character said outrageous things, and yet, I laughed as he said them. Why?

Because he was charming.

The movie would not have worked with someone less talented.

It was imperative that Nick Naylor be played by someone who could smile with a wicked glint in his eyes while delivering logic that defied rational thought. It was wicked satire and it walked a fine tightrope, but it worked.

Robert Zemekis's Beowulf did not work.

And it was not because of the artistic choice of using motion-captured animation rather than live action, it was because the main character was unsympathetic.

It is imperative that audiences feel comfortable with the main character. If they do not care what happens to them or feel that the character deserves a tragic Karmic Fate - it does not bode well for overall audience satisfaction.

I cannot say that I would recommend the movie. Nor would I say that I am all that interested in watching it a second time. I would probably rent it on Netflix simply to see the extras, to see deleted scenes, audio commentary, etc. because I am adore that kind of information.

I would much rather watch Pan's Labyrinth again than Beowulf.

Linda