What Do We Do With Harry Potter?

This is in no way intended to be any sort of definitive position on Harry Potter, either from a Christian perspective or otherwise. It would be absurd and arrogant to presume otherwise. A multitude of considered books and articles have been written regarding the HP franchise and what we might make of it as Christians. I offer my thoughts into the mix for what they are worth in the hope that they will be helpful and taken in the spirit they are intended - sincerely, honestly and with some measure of balance.

I have not read any of the books and have only seen the first five films, so please don't take me to be some hyper-diligent fan or commentator, but I will share what I think. There are plenty of Christians who would say that the HP films and books are dangerous, that they inculcate a hazardous interest in the occult among the young and impressionable and that we should follow the wisdom and guidance of Philippians 4 and dwell on that which is good, wholesome, right, praiseworthy and so forth. Others would say that the films and books are harmless fun, a benign portrayal of spells and potions no more dangerous than portrayals of enchanted crockery dancing in Beauty and the Beast.

Perhaps somewhat inevitably, my own views lie somewhere in between. I whole-heartedly agree that our overall orientation must be in line with Philippians 4, that we must focus on all that is right, fair and commendable. But to go on from there and say that we should therefore wholly shun and distance ourselves from anything remotely outside those parameters is, I believe, unrealistic, naive and unhealthy. What I am of course not saying is that we should wallow in as much occult and unwholesome cultural content as possible, in the interests of being terribly relevant and in touch. That sort of activity will swiftly contaminate our spirits and dilute our intimacy with God, but we are called to the world and we must therefore be in some sort of position to engage with it in a meaningful and informed way.

Like it or not, HP is a cultural phenomenon, a juggernaut at the box office. Each successive film has racked up hundreds of millions at the box office, with the latest entry The Deathly Hallows Part II looking like making over a billion dollars once all is said and done. That is something that we must engage with. Not to be trendy and hip, not to say that because it is successful it is important, but because it is on the lips and minds of those around us and we should want to use it as an opportunity to speak with people and debate the grander themes of the franchise. If your friends and colleagues bring it up in conversation, I would rather we were able to say something about the interesting portrayal of good and evil, about sacrifice, about the corrupting, seductive nature of a thirst for power.

Now, if the films really are not your thing (and to be honest I tend to be pretty indifferent to them at the best of times), then by all means give them a miss. I'm not saying you have to immerse yourself in them, but I do think we should look for chances to understand and relate to key cultural reference points.

The next question is of course, what do we do about our children? In the interests of openness, my children are not remotely interested in HP and so this is more of a theoretical question for me than a practical one. Yours may feel differently. I am not trying to encroach here on the sacred ground of parenting, but I do think some points deserve to be made. Firstly, if your children are old enough to see the films unaccompanied and they are determined to see it, forbidding them may prove counterproductive. We all hope that our children will honour our commands and authority, but it doesn't always work out that way and we know that human nature is such that forbidden fruit is hugely appealing. We might fare better if we discuss the films with our children, find out if they are interested in seeing them and why and if we are determined that they not see them, seek to build consensus rather than dictate with, "because I said so".

Secondly, I think there are worse films for us and our children to see. Although there is a difference in tone and subject matter, the HP films are more akin to fantasy films such as Lord of the Rings and Narnia than more overtly occult-oriented films like The Omen, The Exorcist or even Ghost. I'm not trying to claim that the HP films are wholly harmless, but it should be borne in mind that the films are much more oriented around magic wands, flying broomsticks and magic spells than seances, meditation and Ouija boards, which I would consider to be much more obvious and concerning routes into the occult for the young. Frankly I would have more issues taking my 10-year old son to see Transformers 3 than I would taking him to see HP. Harry Potter is very clearly and starkly about good and evil and its spiritual dimensions are worn visibly. By contrast, Transformers 3 is ostensibly about two sets of robots beating each other up and accordingly you switch off your critical faculties as soon as the lights dim. That becomes a massive problem as the film then relentlessly peddles a lascivious, leering tone in relation to its female protagonist, constantly objectifying her and lingering on her curves. It sneaks up on you, but is an enduring impression you are left with.

Thirdly and finally, I think as with all films like this, they represent a golden opportunity to engage with your children and build a relationship of trust and openness with them. Rather than forbidding them to see it and opening up the regrettable but obvious risk of them sneaking off to see it with their mates (I know I would have at their age), why not make it a parent-child outing, with the promise of a snack or milkshake afterwards so that you can ask them what they thought, share your own insights and help them to think about and evaluate what they watch?

As they move through their teenage years, our children are always in danger of slipping away from us and regardless of how good our relationship with them might be, we should always look for the chance to spend more time with them, to creates contexts where we might have their ear and feed into them.

Don't take my word for any of this stuff to do with HP. After all, I'm just a guy with an opinion. Think about it yourself, maybe read a few of the books or watch some of the films and decide what you want to do. But please take every reasonable opportunity to engage with our culture and to connect with your children. Both are so very important.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)

What's it all about? The moon landings were a cover for the retrieval of samples from a crashed alien spaceship, which turns out to contain advanced Autobot technology. The Autobots want to keep it safe, the Decepticons want to use it to take over Earth. Lots of explosions and fighting ensue.

*****

What's it like? I'm going to have to assume that you've either seen the first two Transformers films or are at least familiar with them. Otherwise we have an awful lot of back-story to fill in and we might be here all day. Really this is more of the same - lots of orange-tinged sunsets, lots of robots changing into cars and then back into robots, lots of destruction, lots of smashing stuff up, lots of explosions, lots of robots kicking and punching each other. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it's really just a question of expectations and personal preference. If you like this sort of thing, you'll really like it. If not, it will not make a convert of you. Some of the problems with the second film (Revenge of the Fallen) have been remedied to a degree, such as some troubling racial stereotyping, some ridiculous sexualising of the robots and some wholly incoherent action sequences, but the difficulty of trying to show what is happening, to who, where and why, when all you have are lots of similar-looking robots carving each other up, persists to an extent.

In terms of its technical accomplishments, this is one of the films of the year. The 3D was well-used and crisply presented, the special effects were stunning and life-like and the action set-pieces were brilliantly rendered. A few top-drawer actors were drafted in for cameos (John Turturro, John Malkovich, Frances McDormand) but Rosie Huntington-Whiteley as Sam Whitwicky's new girlfriend was a ghastly error in casting. Wooden, expressionless and massively out of her depth, one can only assume that her good looks and career to date as an underwear model lay behind the decision.

As ground-breaking as the scenes of transforming robots were in the first film, that work here is even more accomplished. It is astonishing how well done those effects are and for someone like me who lived and breathed Transformers in the mid-eighties, the constant sight of transforming robots helps cover over a multitude of other transgressions. Of which more later.

This is a very long film, which given its genre and subject matter seems strange. 100 minutes would seem enough, but we get nearly 160 minutes, with the majority of the final hour given over to the carnage of an all-out battle in Chicago. As with the other action sequences it is brilliantly rendered, but that is still a really long time to try to sustain an action sequence for.

Critics really don't like this film, but it has made $400m in less than a week, so that appears to be irrelevant. I quite enjoyed it, although I will share some significant reservations below and certainly if you go in with your eyes wide open and your expectations in check, you shouldn't be disappointed.

*****

Should I see it? In all seriousness, there are some real issues with this film. Although I enjoyed it on a superficial enjoyment/entertainment level, there are many problematic elements. Rosie Huntington-Whiteley is an underwear model and the director films her like he's making a commercial, not a film. The first shot of her involves a camera panning up her naked legs as she walks up the stairs and climbs onto Sam in bed and her treatment throughout the film continues in this vein. She is objectified to an almost absurd but nonetheless troubling degree and it is frankly unacceptable for a film to present a female character in this way. At one point Patrick Dempsey's character waxes eloquent about a car, "look at that body, look at those curves, look at those lines", at which point the camera rests on Rosie once again. Frankly, it's pornography without the nudity.

I think the main difficulty here is that the type of film this is causes you to let your guard down. Because it is essentially 2.5 hours of robots hitting each other you're not necessarily alert to how women are being portrayed and so it just washes over you without you engaging your critical faculties. It's all too easy to think, "oh yeah, she's pretty", rather than, "hang on, amidst all this carnage, this woman is being held up as a lust object rather than a person and the camera is leering at her in a way that's pretty tasteless". I know it probably seems like I'm being a killjoy, picking at disposable popcorn entertainment, but we have to engage with these issues, or run the risk of absorbing them, unfiltered.

A further example would be the now de rigeur "you can have the f-word once" rule for 12A films. I could take my 5 year old son to see this, during which he would hear a robot describe something as a "cluster-f***", which can mean either a military debacle or, to be blunt, an orgy. it might pass him by, or it might not, but what do we say to our kids about that sort of content?

I think the main point I would press here is that this film is an absolute juggernaut, commercially speaking, and so if your kids can get to the cinema under their own steam they are going to want to see this. I think that makes it all the more important that we try to see this film with our children, so that we can then take them to McDonalds for a drink afterwards and talk with them about what they thought of the film and how it portrayed women. I think our daughters need to hear from us that they have dignity and worth and are not objects and our sons need to hear from us that women are precious and beautiful and are never to be used or objectified. This sort of portrayal of women can have a really pernicious effect on how we view them.

By all means see this film, enjoy the mayhem , the noise, the excitement. But do not check your brains at the door. Keep them switched on and think seriously about everything you see. It is all important.

X-Men: First Class (2011)

What's it all about? It is towards the end of WWII and children are emerging with mutations, many of which manifest themselves as special abilities. Raven can change her physical appearance and is taken in by Charles Xavier, a telepath. Eric Lensherr meanwhile has found that he can manipulate metal, but is in the hands of a ruthless and vicious Nazi scientist, Sebastian Shaw, who is preoccupied with mutant abilities. As we fast-forward to the 1960's, the Cold War is escalating, Shaw is gathering a mutant army and Xavier and Lensherr begin to round up those who will go onto become Xavier's X-Men.

*****

What's it like? Having lost its way with X-Men: The Last Stand and the terrible spin-off Wolverine, The X-Men franchise needed a fresh start very badly. In came director Matthew Vaughn and screenwriter Jane Goldman, who had refreshed the genre as a whole with their profane and violent but nonetheless successful and popular Kick-Ass. What they have given us is a reboot of considerable quality and enjoyment, if perhaps not quite as accomplished as its next closest reboot comparison, 2009's Star Trek. The early scenes with Lensherr in a concentration camp are suitably violent and bleak, Vaughn wisely refusing to gloss over the terrifying realities of the Holocaust. It's not trying to be Schindlers List or The Pianist, but it is at least tonally appropriate. We quickly move on to the early 1960's and find Eric Lensherr travelling the globe like 007, fully utilising his considerable powers and tracking Nazi war criminals as he goes. In some ways this sequence is over too soon, so much do we enjoy it, but there are more mutants to meet, teams to be formed and battle-lines to be drawn.

Slotting the Cuban Missile Crisis into the story of the birth of the X-Men is audacious, but it just about works. Xavier starts gathering together his young pupils and we see them develop and control their powers, with a couple of fun but foul-mouthed cameos on the way. Eventually we see how Xavier and Lensherr come to be at odds with each other but it is all very intelligently developed and although a lot of ground is covered fast, the various character arcs are convincingly delivered. Chief credit for that goes to the principals. As Xavier and Lensherr respectively we have James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender who bring real strength and heft to their roles. Both of them are clearly having a lot of fun with their roles, especially McAvoy who gives us a much breezier Xavier than we've known from the previous films. Jennifer Lawrence builds on her Oscar-nominated work in Winter's Bone with an affecting performance as Raven/Mystique, though the rest of the youngsters have insufficient room to breath. Kevin Bacon is no surprise as an excellent villain, being far from one-dimensional, though his cohorts are virtually silent and therefore mostly anonymous, making their motives and intentions hard to divine.

Some have hailed this as the best comic book film since The Dark Knight, which I think is a little generous. Heck, it's not even the best comic book film of the year (take a bow, Thor), but it is excellent, exciting, very funny and a massive improvement on the last couple of films in the franchise. It left me hungry for Second Class, which must be a good sign.

*****

Should I see it? As a general answer, yes. It has a lot to say about identity, self-image, self-acceptance, conformity, forgiveness and self-control and these are themes that we should consider and chew over with each other. Having said that, there is a fair amount of overt sexuality on show and virtually every female character displays an unhelpful and unnecessary amount of cleavage. Scantily clad women abound and so therefore the film's 12A certificate should generally be treated as a recommendation that under 12's not see the film at all. There is some pretty wince-making violence and the now customary "it's a 12A so we can use the f-word once" thing. I'm not sure where this has come from, but it seems to now be the norm, so be warned. Some may find the portrayal of mind-reading and telekinesis unpalatable from a Christian perspective, though this is never presented as occult activity, rather the result of genetic mutation. As in all things, let your conscience guide you. If your 12+ children (i.e. your children over the age of twelve, I assume/hope you don't have more than 12 children) want o see this, try to see it with them. They may not be keen on the idea, so you may have to bribe them by offering to pay, but it will be worth it to be able to open up a conversation about the film's themes and to see what your children think about the film's presentation of its female characters. Worth checking out, though caution is advised.

Green Lantern (2011)

What's it about? The Green Lantern Corps is sort of a universal police force, consisting of a load of super-powered aliens who safeguard the various inhabited worlds of the universe, wielding the power of magical green rings which can give form to whatever they imagine. One of these peace-keepers is mortally wounded by Parallax, a malevolent force of evil and makes his way to Earth to find someone on whom to confer his ring. He and his ring find their way to US Air Force pilot Hal Jordan, who is inducted into the Corps, but he's about to have a fight on his hands - Parallax is headed for Earth.

*****

What's it like? Much like Thor, on whose tail this swiftly followed at cinemas, Green Lantern tends towards the silly. There's lots of daft jargon - the emerald energy of willpower, the yellow energy of fear - but the film lacks the playfulness to make these elements work. Instead it all comes across as very dour and serious, when it should be much lighter-hearted. Given that Hal Jordan is played by Ryan Reynolds, a very funny and charismatic actor, it's hard to see where it went wrong. But go wrong it did. There are some vague, ill-defined daddy issues in there somewhere and a scientist with a desire to be taken more seriously than he is, but it all becomes such heavy going. The plot synopsis set out above is essentially delivered in voice-over while an abundance of fairly mediocre computer-generated effects play out on the screen. The director, Martin Campbell has brought us The Mask of Zorro and Casino Royale in recent(ish) years, so he can clearly direct very well and balance action with lighter beats when he needs to, but here he seems out of his depth and uncomfortable with the material.

Tonally, the film is unsure when to go for playful and when to up the threat-level, opting instead for a more sombre pitch throughout. The effect is a little distancing and disengaging, which is a shame as I really wanted to be drawn in and there were clearly some talented people involved with some good ideas. Somewhere along the line, it just lost its way.

*****

Should I see it? From an aesthetic point of view? I wouldn't bother. As a Christian, I don't think there's much here that should trouble your conscience. We see Hal Jordan wake up after a one night stand with a woman in his bed and although it is clear what happened the night before, there are no explicit references to it and no nudity or sexual content. I don't recall any bad language of note, though it may have passed me by. The film's 12A certificate is mostly accounted for by some fairly violent fight scenes and the metamorphosis of a character who is infected by Parallax, which will be a bit strong for younger children. Anyone from, say, the last couple of years of primary school upwards should be fine, though you know your children and whether they are more or less fragile when it comes to unsettling images of mis-shapen heads and demonstrations of telekinesis. Approach with caution, in every sense.

Thor (2011)

What's it all about? Thor is a Norse God, son of Odin, brother of Loki. In the realm of Asgard there is peace, but Thor is restless, wishing to make war with the Frost Giants, believing them to be a threat. Odin accuses Thor of bringing unnecessary war to Asgard through his vanity and arrogance and so strips him of his power and exiles him to Earth. On Earth, Thor must prove his worth, while his manipulative and conniving brother Loki seeks to take control of Asgard.

*****

What's it like? Thor is inherently quite silly. He has a flowing cape, a magic hammer and comes from a mystical realm where what we would call magic is a reality. Making a film that acknowledges that silliness, while still addressing serious issues in a suitable tone is a difficult tight-rope to walk. It is to director Kenneth Branagh's considerable credit therefore that he pulls it off. At times making fun of Thor's pomposity, at others throwing him into perilous situations where something is genuinely at risk, Branagh straddles the two worlds on show here with aplomb. The action sequences, fights and special effects are all very well done and although the 3D is mostly irrelevant and unnecessary, it is at least competently staged. As an accomplished Shakespearean director, Branagh is very much at home amongst the more dramatic and operatic sequences, especially those relating to the through-thread of family discord, jealousy and mistrust. Despite some of it taking place in a magical realm, it remains anchored and believable, always feeling relevant. These sorts of films can sometimes feel like you're watching a computer game or one long computer-generated special effect, but it's all blended with a lot more assurance than that. The film has the good sense to not outstay is welcome, coming it at a nice lean running time of 115 minutes and it keeps moving at a really good pace through it all. The acting performances are all excellent, with no annoying comic relief, or bland plot-expositors. Chris Hemsworth as Thor is a lot of fun, oozing charisma and light-heartedness. Natalie Portman as his love interest and Anthony Hopkins as Odin are predictably excellent and no-one really lets themselves down. One of the strongest comic-book adaptations of recent years.

*****

Should I see it? Although the film caries a 12A certificate, I'm confident that few will find much here to be upset by. There is no nudity or overt sexuality, although Chris Hemsworth does get to show off his impressive physique in a couple of shirt-off moments. There is a little bit of bad language, but nothing strong (no use of the f-word for example) and although there are plenty of bone-crunching fight sequences, there is very little blood spilled. Very small children will either not understand it or be a little upset by some of the special effects, but tonally this should be okay for children towards the upper end of primary school. If your older children want to see it with their friends, try to convince them to see it with you instead, as there is much to be discussed and considered regarding the tempestuousness and boldness of youth and the handling of sibling rivalry, parental authority and discipline. In short this is very entertaining stuff and it gives plenty of food fr thought as well. Recommended.

Fast & Furious 5 (2011)

What's it about? Dominic Toretto and Brian O'Connor find themselves in Brazil with the rest of their ace driving crew, on the run from federal agents (headed up by the relentless Luke Hobbs) but determined to get their hands on the millions of dollars stashed at the local police station by drug kingpin Hernan Reyes.

*****

What's it like? This is going to be very much a matter of taste. There's a lot of macho posturing, some pretty exhilarating stunts, fight scenes and car chases and certainly nothing here is going to be troubling the voters for the Oscars come next Spring. But that very much misses the point. This is silly stuff, but has no pretensions to be otherwise; it's not trying to be terribly innovative or thought-provoking and instead settles into an admirably entertaining groove. The pacing is restless and energetic and the script while hardly classic, iconic stuff, moves the plot along and gives the main players plenty to get their teeth into. The characters don't need to be too well fleshed out as we already know most of them well from the previous instalments and for what it is worth I've not seen parts 3 or 4 and had no trouble getting quickly back up to speed. At one point Vin Diesel (as Toretto) and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson (as Hobbs) have a minutes-long brawl and given the strength and physicality of the two actors it should be no surprise to hear that as a set-piece it has you grinning broadly. This is easily consumable, relatively easy-going, light-hearted entertainment and although I would never recommend checking your brain in at the door, you certainly won't need to concentrate too much to have a good time.

*****

Should I go see it? For many, this is the key question. Should I see it, as a Christian? What, if any, are the more problematic elements? What about my children? Should I be wary of them seeing it? Good questions all. There is a certain amount of coarse language, though the film is rated 12A, so there is only one use of the f-word and nothing else as string as that occurs elsewhere. The violence is restricted to lots of punch-ups and a few shootings, which though clearly fatal to those shot, are not as bloody or visceral as you might find in something like Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down or Braveheart. Tonally, it is not particularly gratuitous, it does not contain any real sexual content or nudity and is to be particularly welcomed for not objectifying the female characters involved. As with most films, I would encourage parents to see it with their children if possible and plan to make time to discuss it with them afterwards over a milkshake. Although you can take children of any age to a 12A, I would tend to keep children of primary school age away from it, because of the various elements described above.