![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
butterflyThere were, of course, many things about the movie that I adored that do not go by the initials D.M.
Snape was just as good as always. Emma Thompson was wonderful as Trelawney. Buckbeak was amazing. Sirius and Lupin had wonderful chemistry -- you could feel the sheer weight of their history together.
Harry was terrific. I was very impressed with Daniel this time around.
But, in the end, it does come back to Malfoy. Yearning, bratty Malfoy, who is sadly reminding me of Lindsey from Angel ("...he's still the center of your universe.").
He tries so hard to get Harry's attention, to make Harry care as much about him as he cares about Harry. 'One way or another'. Positive, negative, it doesn't matter as long as it's attention.
Draco wants to matter to Harry. And it's so achingly obvious in this film. He's so incredibly aware of Harry -- I'm reminded of the wineglass scene in OotP, when Harry's mere presence distracts him from a test.
Theirloveissohorriblyone-sided.
It's at times like these that I wonder if I have issues.
Also, anyone who cringes the way that Draco did when Hermione pointed her wand at him and who is always the freaking losing side of a confrontation? Is not a bully. Bullies actually have a position of power, which they exploit. Draco is consistently shown as having not having pretty much any power. And it's more the losing part that makes him not a bully than the fear -- most people who are violent have a lot of fear.
Draco is an obnoxious brat. He's melodramatic and he... 'improves the truth' and he's not the least bit brave.
I don't have much of a tolerance for violence. At least, for one-sided violence. If the other person isn't willing or able to hit back, then it's wrong to hit them. Which is why Hermione's punch bugged me. Yes, that's the way to deal with someone insulting you -- punch them. What a wonderful example for anyone watching the movie. The fact that it's set-up as... a hero move, as a good thing, twists my stomach.
For someone who watches shows with so much violence in them, that may sound odd. But violence with a purpose doesn't bother me. Buffy slays vampires, yes, they kill people. It's only when the violence is unnecessary that it bothers me -- hell, I'm still pissed that all three of Buffy's long-term guys punched Xander. Though at least he got to hit Spike back. But the punch that Angel lays on Xander in Enemies always makes my blood boil. And I despise how easily Riley turns to violence to take Xander out of the equation in Buffy vs Dracula.
The violence in Mountie on the Bounty works for me because Ray makes Fraser hit him back. And then, after that, we get an affirmation of the fact that not only did it never happen again, but that Ray would never ever allow it to happen again -- in Good for the Soul:
Ray: "Ah, look, I don't want to be forced to use force upon you."
Fraser: "No, you won't."
Ray: "You're right."
(brief aside -- I love the way they shoot that scene, distanced from the actors. One day, I will explain why I love it so.)
Draco Malfoy attacks with words. To escalate that to the level of physical force is... crude. It lowers Hermione not to Draco's level but below it. I've known the hurt that words can bring -- words have almost destroyed my life a time or two and that isn't an exaggeration. But physical pain... to violate the physical boundaries that we set, to force marks that can be seen by others...
She already had him cringing before her and that wasn't enough. She had to lay a hand on his body to prove her power over him. And worse, she got a rush from that power. Which I personally found disturbing. It only encourages her to escalate to that level of action again in the future, now that she's discovered that it feels good.
Of course, this makes her character in the movie all the more interesting to me, because she has this huge flaw. She got off the moral superiority thing, and then got off on 'might makes right'.
Yeah, she's a lot like Willow, when I think about it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Is Draco a bully?
Date: 2004-06-07 11:23 am (UTC)I strongly disagree with you that Draco can't be a bully because of his cringing before Hermione. School bullies quite often aren't at the top of the social hierarchy in my experience - they tend to be people who want to be at the top and aren't, so they take it out on anyone weaker than they are. We feel some sympathy for Draco in the movies because he doesn't seem to do much except snark at Harry, Hermione and Ron and usually come off worse. The thing is that Harry, Hermione and Ron are the core characters and we don't see much that doesn't involve them. Given that Draco is in the stereotypical "school bully" role, I think we're meant to infer that he is more of a menace do people who don't have Harry and Hermione's strength, talent and wit. My impression is that he and his mates are going around stealing first-years' pocket money and shoving their heads down toilets, it's just that we don't see it. I'd be interested to know if we do see more of Draco as everyday bully in the books, as it tends to be that sort of fleshing-out material that doesn't involve the core plot or characters that gets dumped in films.
I think this is an issue with a number of characters in different fandoms who are canonically villainous but have charm or redeeming features that make some fan elements see them as the underdog. I'm thinking of Draco in Potter, Lilah Morgan and pre-chip Spike in the Jossverse, to an extent Dukat in Star Trek:Deep Space 9. We don't see them do much harm when they go up against our heroes because, lets face it, our heroes are the heroes and come off best in most encounters. We don't see the workaday evil that these characters go around doing every day from their victims' perspectives, and the characters' defenders often work on the basis that if we don't see it on screen then it doesn't happen.
I do agree with you about Hermione punching him, though. I think it goes back to the rather shallow "girl power" attitude that denounces male violence but sees women hitting men as universally humorous and a blow against patriarchy.
Re: Is Draco a bully?
Date: 2004-06-07 11:53 am (UTC)And once third year starts, he just keeps falling further and further behind. In the book, his wound from the Hippogriff is much more serious (as in, actual blood is mentioned) and given for less reason (he did try to follow the forms at first -- it comes off more as Hagrid putting a deadly creature in with thirteen year old kids, which is what it bloody well is and why he was a poor excuse for a teacher -- of course, Dumbledore shows a tendency to hire based on loyalty or personal usefulness rather than talent or even competence as a teacher).
It only gets worse in the fourth and fifth books, when it's obvious that Harry is much more powerful and connected than he is. Draco's like a domestic cat getting savaged by a pack of coyotes. Lots of attitude, but without a real fighting chance. Basically, in the books? He stalks Harry a lot ("What's the good of (a broom) if I'm not in the house team?" said Malfoy, looking sulky and bad-tempered. "Harry Potter got a Nimbus 2000 last year. Special permission from Dumbledore so he could play for Gryffindor. He's not even that good, it's just because he's famous... famous for having a stupid scar on his forehead ... everyone thinks he's so smart, wonderful Potter with h
Re: Is Draco a bully?
Date: 2004-06-07 11:56 am (UTC)All that it really cut-off was where I mentioned that I was never a big Lilah, Dukat, or Spike pre-soul fan. And agreeing much re: the violence.
Re: Is Draco a bully?
Date: 2004-06-07 12:06 pm (UTC)He's not a role model and he's not a nice person. But most of his malice is directed at Harry, who can more than handle it. Who, in fact, leaves Draco in the dust. Who'll never hate Draco as much as Draco hates him. And Draco is certainly depicted as less bullying in the books than the Weasley twins, who make fun of eleven-year olds for the horrible sin of being placed into Slytherin house.
In comparison to Harry, especially as the books go on, Draco is just so damn young.
what do people see in Harry Potter?
Date: 2004-06-07 01:29 pm (UTC)I did inadvertantly see an advert for a HP film, in which the kids each had an animal on their desk, which they turned, some with only partial success, into an inanimate object - this put me off even more, as it seems clearly to endorse children doing animal experiments in school.
Re: what do people see in Harry Potter?
Date: 2004-06-07 02:48 pm (UTC)On the Harry Potter Attraction:
Okay I am currently living in the South. I'm religious but people down here... they take it to a whole new level. We are talking protests of HP and its "evilness"
I understand you have STRONG feelings about Animal Rights and hey that's cool by me, I don't feel the same but I have Huge Issues with a lot of things. So I feel your pain. But the thing about Harry Potter, the thing that I defend is that it gets children to read.
Maybe I am letting the generation behind me off too easy but they grow up in a world of violent video games, Excessive everything, where knowledge isn't earned but snatched at a click of a mouse. It's sad really. My step sister is a perfect example, never was into reading, but I shoved a copy of HP at her and she enjoyed it. Enjoyed it enough to follow with all the sequels and hey anything that can get a 12 in this day and age to sit and read a 800 page book is a good thing.
There are tons of things in the media that are horrible about animals. The stunts of Fear Factor... terrible. Hagrid (the gamekeeper)has a love of animals and seems to appreciate the circle of life idea, and even finds beauty in creatures that the other characters can't see.
With so much to worry about. I don't think Harry Potter does any harm.
~Becca~
Re: what do people see in Harry Potter?
Date: 2004-06-07 04:05 pm (UTC)Re: what do people see in Harry Potter?
Date: 2004-06-07 04:05 pm (UTC)Also, fyi, moleskin per se is not necessarily made of thousands of tiny moles anymore. It is a variety of brushed cotton.
And again, since you haven't read the books, and probably won't, I'll refrain from further comment.
Re: what do people see in Harry Potter?
Date: 2004-06-07 04:12 pm (UTC)Re: what do people see in Harry Potter?
Date: 2004-06-07 07:33 pm (UTC)Re: what do people see in Harry Potter?
Date: 2004-06-07 09:20 pm (UTC)I loved horses as a kid, so I used to read a lot of horsey books, which told me that foxes died quickly during a foxhunt, and for a while, I even believed it. So, while I definitely approve of kids reading, I worry about what they read - I suppose I need to show more trust in their ability to distinguish between fact and fiction.
Re: what do people see in Harry Potter?
Date: 2004-06-07 09:25 pm (UTC)Re: what do people see in Harry Potter?
Date: 2004-06-07 10:04 pm (UTC)You don't want to meet a real gamekeeper, believe me!
Re: what do people see in Harry Potter?
Date: 2004-06-08 08:21 pm (UTC)Re: what do people see in Harry Potter?
Date: 2004-06-08 10:11 pm (UTC)What I am worried about, is that JK Rowling has called him a gamekeeper, thus implying that the general category "Gamekeepers" consists of OK chaps who just want to make sure all the animals are looked after, a complete misrepresentation of the truth.
What I'm questioning is Rowling's motivation in calling Hagrid a gamekeeper - there are only two explanations that I can think of: either she knows nothing of gamekeepers, or she is a supporter of bloodsports. I don't like to think of someone whose books are so popular, trying to manipulate kids into thinking that gamekeepers love all animals, because they don't, except in her books.
Oh - and sorry to rattle on so much in your LJ, Butterfly!
Re: what do people see in Harry Potter?
Date: 2004-06-09 08:48 am (UTC)In the books, though, Hagrid introduces himself as the Keeper of Keys and Grounds at Hogwarts, so I'm assuming that's JKR's definition of a gamekeeper -- someone who watches the grounds and everything on it. (Though I understand the word by itself implies someone who 'keeps' the animals who are being hunted.)
I think it's probable that Hagrid's position was in the past indeed occupied by someone who keeps animals to be hunted -- the job description has changed over the years, but not the denomination. Is there actually another name, by the way, to describe someone who takes cares of the grounds and animals like that?
Whichever way -- I don't see how making people think that gamekeepers are OK chaps is going to make them like bloodsports. Anyone who'll ever get close enough to a 'real' gamekeeper to form an opinion on the matter will realise soon enough what his/her job is. I doubt anyone who's against that kind of animal hunting is suddenly going to change their mind about it because Hagrid happened to be a gamekeeper, too. I wouldn't. I didn't know the definition of the word, either, and now I'm wondering why JKR called him that -- not thinking of embracing the world's gamekeepers. :-)
Re: what do people see in Harry Potter?
Date: 2004-06-09 01:06 pm (UTC)Well, that opened up a can of worms, didn't it?!
Set the worms free!
Re: what do people see in Harry Potter?
Date: 2004-06-08 11:23 am (UTC)Just for information, and re: moleskin - this is a strong, soft, cotton fustian with a fine pile which is shaved before dyeing, formerly used esp. for protective work clothes, and not the actual skins of moles, lol. Maybe you guys don't call it this in the States.
Changes the emphasis somewhat, doesn't it?
Re: what do people see in Harry Potter?
Date: 2004-06-08 12:39 pm (UTC)Re: what do people see in Harry Potter?
Date: 2004-06-09 09:18 pm (UTC)Nope. Moleskin coat - he wrapped Dennis Creevey in it after his tumble into the lake in 'Goblet of Fire'. Really, I'm not ordinarily geeky enough to know this, I just happened to be rereading...
(no subject)
Date: 2004-06-07 02:49 pm (UTC)Okay. Now? I feel rather shallow for laughing along with the audience at this. He really did react entirely too much, too quickly.
*scuffs dirt with shoe*
You're all smart and stuff, you do know that?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-06-07 04:06 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-06-07 07:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-06-07 07:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-06-07 08:05 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-06-07 07:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-06-07 05:01 pm (UTC)a) Neville had already been taken to Mrs. Pomfrey when Draco picked it up and started making fun of Neville. So in essence he didn't make fun of someone as meek as Neville to his face either. One can argue that he felt free enough to do so because of the absence of the teacher more so than the absence of Neville, but it isn't clear from the context.
b) When Harry catches up to Draco on his broom and they are midair, Harry doesn't just demand the Remembrall back, he demands it back or 'I will knock you off you broom.' The first time I read that I was like WTF? Draco was being a brat and malicious but he wasn't threatening anyone with physical harm and Harry's reaction seemed way out of proportion to me.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-06-07 05:07 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-06-07 07:39 pm (UTC)b) Another good point. Harry is the one who introduced violence into the equation.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-06-08 12:35 am (UTC)I too was disturbed by the decision by the screenwriters to escalate Hermione's reaction to physical violence. It doesn't sit well with me for exactly the reasons you described so clearly.
Again...excellent post.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-06-08 08:16 am (UTC)I too was disturbed by the decision by the screenwriters to escalate Hermione's reaction to physical violence. It doesn't sit well with me for exactly the reasons you described so clearly.
You're welcome. When I saw that scene in the film, I knew that it would be well-received in general -- I went with my dad and his fiancee and they both laughed at the punch. It's set up as a hero action, which is what bothers me the most about it. It's only when you concentrate on Draco that the horror of the scene is apparent -- he's terrified the second that she pulls out the wand. She hits him hard enough to knock him back.
I really do want the ferret scene in GoF, despite how much it can hurt. Because that scene is vicious and cruel, no bones about it. And whatever manipulation Alfonso does, he doesn't cartoon things. He's the one who must have told Tom just how scared to look during that scene, so I'd actually trust him for GoF. Because the undercurrents of Draco as accustomed to being abused are very present in the films.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-06-08 02:42 pm (UTC)Your comments here have provided me with a previously unexplored insight into the character. Again, I thank you.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-06-09 08:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-06-08 08:42 pm (UTC)I felt the same way about the punch. I went to see the movie on several different occaisions, and each time, the crowd eaither roared with applause, cheered, or in the case of my younger brother and sister, laughed hysterically. I can't describe the anger I felt after it happened.. and no one else could seem to understand why I felt that way other than they knew that Draco is my favorite character.
Even if Draco was saying something nasty and revolting about Buckbeak (which by all means he is alowed to do), that DOES NOT MEAN that Hermione had the right to push her wand into his throat and then punch because it made her 'feel good.'
Heh, anyways, I could go on forever but that be pointless because I'd just be restating everything that you already said. Oh, but real quick before I go, I just wanted to tell you that im glad its not just me who notices the way Draco tries to get Harry's attention!!
Take care! ^_^
(no subject)
Date: 2004-06-09 08:38 am (UTC)But yes, the encouraging of violence is a bad thing in my book. Especially when it's set up as a 'good' thing. Bugs me.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-06-08 12:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-06-09 08:43 am (UTC)But I already knew that the Trio aren't heroes. They're just kids and kids can be very cruel.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-06-08 10:26 pm (UTC)Now, to start, I don't agree with much anything you said about Draco. He isn't some poor, misguided loveable person. He's rotten, nasty, and a total brat. He's racist, and uses words to hurt others. Having been in the almost exact same situation as Hermione was (and at the same age as well), I have to say that her reaction mirrors my own. Sometimes, a bully needs to be knocked down a few, and I hope you don't mind me saying that I think that punch (a slap in the books, which is what I myself did) was well put and well deserved by Draco.
~Kaylin
(no subject)
Date: 2004-06-09 08:46 am (UTC)I don't know. I just as though he can be both. There's always more than one side to a person.
I've been bulliedm too. I was bullied out of a school. But if you asked me if I would like to pay back the people who hurt me with physical violence or lasting pain, I would say no. Being hurt does not excuse hurting back. It explains it, but it doesn't excuse it. Just like Draco's pride being hurt explains but doesn't excuse his use of the term 'mudblood'.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-06-11 06:29 am (UTC)actually, I sort of equate it with holding a gun to someone's head, then in the last second flipping it around and hitting the person in the face with the handle rather than shooting them... so you hurt them and make your point, but you haven't killed them...
...if you only look at this particular instance of Draco's saying something hurtful, then Hermione's violence seems like an over-reaction. But I always thought this was supposed to be like, her blowing up in his face after over two years of cumulative offences... if I look at it in that way, it makes sence that she acted so violently.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-06-11 07:50 am (UTC)Wow, that would actually make it worse for me. "Oh, hey, at least I didn't kill you."
And did Hermione know any dangerous hexes third year? Everything they use is pretty standard -- she could have frozen him in place. There are so many things that she could have choosen to done. She chose to be violent. And then she got off on it. "That felt good."
(no subject)
Date: 2004-06-12 02:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-06-12 02:53 pm (UTC)