Harry Potter—Morality Or Decline?
by Spencer Warren

The finest example of a ‘hero’s journey’ since Homer’s Odyssey,” in the words of Jenna Robinson in a column in the Charlotte Observer? Or “slop,” the word applied to J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter books by the distinguished Yale literary critic Harold Bloom, who added that the prose is “heavy on cliché and makes no demands” upon the reader?

The first six of the planned seven books have made publishing history, with sales reaching 325 million worldwide, in 66 languages. It is claimed that two-thirds of all children in our country, and many of their parents, have read the books; U.S. sales numbered 121 million in July, before publication that month of what is supposed to be the final volume, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. And the film versions of the first five – with the July release of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix -- have enthralled enormous numbers of children of all ages: the first four films have grossed more than $3.5 billion and the new release broke box-office records, bringing in $44.8 million on its first day. The Potter phenomenon has been compared to George Lucas’s epic Star Wars films of 1977-2005 and to the masterful fantasies by C.S. Lewis, The Chronicles of Narnia, and J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings; both of these have been turned into acclaimed movies in the past few years.

I have not read any of the Potter books and have seen only the first of the movies, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001), and the new one. I will analyze this latest entry in the screen edition of the Potter epic in light of some of the criticisms of the books.

But first, let me say Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is, on its own terms, very well done. The pseudo Gothic production design creates a very credible visualization of J.K. Rowling’s fairy tale world. The many special effects – wands sparking off wondrous rays of power, portrait paintings that speak, a fantasy giant and other unique creations -- work as part of the story and do not, as in other contemporary films, call undue attention to themselves with their computer-made artifice. The director, David Yates, effectively manages the fantasy elements so that they are fully integrated with the tale’s surface realism. The stylized acting of the adult characters (contrasted with the naturalism of the teenage characters) has the perfect manner and tone – the sadistic instructor and headmistress from hell, Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton), the kind, motherly witch, Minerva McGonagall (Maggie Smith), the ever-present helper Rubeus Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), and the all-knowing, all good chief wizard, Dumbledore (Michael Gambon). Their rich performances add immeasurably to the film’s believability, or what is often termed the audience’s “suspension of disbelief.”

Now to the dramatic substance. Devoted fans say that Harry is the hero for our time; it is wonderful that he has inspired so many millions in our visual age to pick up books and read and, even better, to read an epic about the moral journey of a good kid standing up and fighting against the evil of the world in the person of the dark Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes), the slayer of his parents. Children read the moral teachings given Harry by Dumbledore, who advises his protégé that we all have good and bad inside of us and that the moral challenge we face is to make the right choice. On another occasion, Dumbledore instructs Harry to be content with what he has, not strive all his life for what he does not and cannot possess (the lesson learned by George Bailey through the agency of a Christian fantasy in Frank Capra’s beloved It’s a Wonderful Life (1946)). Harry always tries to do the right thing. Further, the Potter books and films stand apart in their lack of vivid bloodshed and violence; the stylized battles with wizard rods and fire are even less real than the non-graphic violence in old movies and TV shows.

Why then, has this evidently traditional, conservative story inspired a good deal of controversy? First, some Christians object to the books’ emphasis on wizardry and magic. Harry is the wizard of destiny; magic and other supernatural phenomena are the essence of Rowling’s fantasy world. Scripture warns strongly against the occult, or supernatural, including magic, wizardry and witchcraft (e.g. Deuteronomy 18:9-14, Acts 19:18-19 and Revelation 21:8, among many, many citations). Thus, it is argued, the Potter books and films essentially substitute a supernatural, even Satanic, world of magic for our Judeo-Christian God. This is symbolized by the occult symbol tattooed on Harry’s forehead. Rowling’s Harry Potter, religious critics contend, is subversive of tradition, if not anti-Christian, and yet another chapter in the rising assault on our religion and our moral tradition.

Further, some argue the Potter epic lacks a moral anchor. The struggle between good and evil pits Harry and his schoolmates against Voldemort’s dark forces, yet without reference to anything above and outside them as individuals. In a sense, it’s all personal and subjective. Ann McCain, director of children’s education at Trinity Presbyterian Church in Charlottesville, Virginia, wrote in 1999 in World Magazine: “Harry Potter is a perfect modern hero for alienated youth. He is an orphan who hates, and his hated by, his adoptive parents. . . . He makes his own way, directed by his feelings and his friendships, but not by any written moral code.” Perhaps one could argue in defense that the chief wizard and moral teacher, Dumbledore, is the higher power, but, if true, this would be tantamount to making him the god of the story.

In this respect, Potter differs from Lewis’s The Chronicles of Narnia, whose hero returns to the real world wise with what has been learned in the fantasy world. Similarly, Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz finds herself back in her bedroom in Kansas with a new appreciation of the preciousness of the people and the commonplace things she has in her life: “There’s no place like home.” (And of course Dorothy remains a human person throughout.) In Rowling’s universe, the supernatural fantasy dominates and what there is of the real world is stylized and subsidiary to the fantasy. That real world is populated by the muggles, i.e. the common people without magic, like Harry’s awful, persecuting aunt and uncle, the Dursleys. Actually, their world is no more real than Harry’s; it is just common.

This brings me to another issue that may help explain some of the books’ wild popularity among children. Although Harry often relies on the adult presence of Dumbledore, Rubeus Hagrid and Sirius Black (Gary Oldman), he and his schoolmates also are often portrayed not only as self-reliant but self-sufficient. Just as their struggle against Voldemort is entirely personalized, they are in effect their own society; there is little objective world outside of their own selves. And almost if not all of the villains seem to be adults. This brings to mind the self-absorption (which some might term “self-sufficiency”) and that is so characteristic of many younger people today, with their resultant disregard for society’s fundamental age-old rules – a trait that reflects the declining authority of religion, transcendent truth and objective morality above and outside the individual self. Perhaps Rowling is consciously tapping into the youth revolt, even though her books uphold moral standards, albeit on a subjective basis.

Many readers who know Rowling’s work much better than I may be up in arms against these criticisms. I could be off base. Or perhaps I am taking a children’s fantasy too seriously. But after the film ended, having regaining my breath, which had been lost in Order of the Phoenix’ s dizzy, unchanging, frenetic pace of adventurous incident heaped upon incident, I had a hollow feeling. I couldn’t remember much beyond the fact Harry and his friends are in a death struggle. I could not recall being moved, much less seeing any visual images dramatizing the themes of the story (a typical failing of literalistic films since the 1960’s). True, the film did end on a note of moral resolution, but what was it, other than Harry fighting on in the next film?

Let me end with another quotation, by the respected culture critic Carol Iannone, who wrote earlier in the Potter series of “the overcomplicated plots [that] turn on breathless suspense and sudden surprise, one trick out of the hat after another,” producing “sense-saturation.” “The kinetic shape of the action in the books is also reminiscent of movies today,” she continued. “Something or someone always seems to be crashing, splashing, cracking, spraying, spitting, flying, or passing out.”

Is all the occult razzle-dazzle and dizzying action a substitute for moral substance, despite the plot’s good-evil dichotomy and Harry’s heroic struggle? Is Harry really just another demonstration of our culture’s ongoing moral and aesthetic decline? It seems to be an important question to examine.

Spencer Warren is ConservativeBattleline’s movie critic