Tag: Federica Bocco EIC

Categories
Celebrities Movies Pop Culture

What boycotting JK Rowling means on the 20th anniversary of Harry Potter

Harry Potter 20th Anniversary: Return to Hogwarts | Key Art | HBO Max
Harry Potter 20th Anniversary: Return to Hogwarts | Key Art | HBO Max

It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter that you believe in equal rights and you support the trans community in spirit. That you call yourself an LGBTQIA+ ally and wear rainbows in June and march at Pride with your queer friends. If you support J.K. Rowling instead of boycotting her, all of that is performative. Because it’s easy to advocate for human rights in the face of overt injustice, against people who want to openly deny people rights. But when it’s time to really take a stand, to renounce something you like because it’s problematic, will you do it? Will you stand with your queer friends then?

J.K. Rowling has said a lot of things that were transphobic. There is no way around it at this point. The author has reiterated her points time and time again with conviction. And a few other things that made me lose faith in her long before that. Now, people coming to her defense will say she is entitled to her own personal opinion. That she is not hurting anyone with her thoughts. That she changed her perspective recently and spun her argument around women’s safety rather than trans rights. But the issue is much more complex than that. Her thoughts, per se, aren’t hurting anyone. But her words? J.K. Rowling has a terrifyingly immense fanbase. Her words are endangering trans lives.

When she tweets about her own prejudice against trans individuals, she is preaching to an echo chamber of millions of people who listen to her as if the world hangs from her keyboard. People who feel validated in their own ignorance and hatred. People who go out there and spread that message and turn it into discriminatory and violent acts.

This needs to be established. Words have consequences. Celebrities especially, who hold so much mediatic power, need to be held accountable for their actions.

I am sick of hearing people my age, people who should know better, that they have stopped supporting J.K. Rowling when they still buy her new books and go see her new movies. That is the definition of supporting an author. Unfollowing on social media is not enough to boycott somebody.

The reason why Rowling is so rich isn’t that she sold billions of books – although that certainly contributed. It’s that she gets royalties. As of 2020, her biggest source of income are the Wizarding World theme parks. She also gets a cut from every time television airs a film based on her books. A cut from every cinema or theatre ticket sold (don’t go see Cursed Child, it’ll be an actual waste of your savings). A cut from every item of Harry Potter merchandising you buy your friends for Christmas. If you truly want to show you don’t support her, then stop supporting her.

I know, I know Harry Potter was your childhood. It was my childhood too. And my teenage years. I named my dog after a Harry Potter character. I still have posters up in my childhood bedroom. Like many in my generation, I am the person I am thanks to Harry Potter. I still love the characters. I still stay up at night reading and writing fanfiction inspired by the world of Harry Potter. But I go out of my way to make sure nothing I do supports a person with transphobic views. I go out of my way to make sure more and more people know what supporting her means for certain people.

Not everyone wants to be an activist, and that’s fair. What I find truly unacceptable is people claiming ignorance. “I’m a feminist and I don’t agree with what she said about trans people, but let me enjoy Potter in peace.” It doesn’t work like that. If you’re an ally as you claim to be, you shouldn’t enjoy Harry Potter in peace. You should fight against the powerful person telling millions of people that we aren’t all equal, a powerful person claiming that some people deserve fewer rights than others. Isn’t that what Hermione and Harry would do? Isn’t that what they did do?

I’m not saying we need to collectively disown and renounce Harry Potter, throw away our memorabilia and burn the books. I’m not saying we should pretend to hate it or that we never loved it in the first place. I’m saying we should take what it taught us and use it to make the world a kinder place. And yes, paradoxical as it sounds, that includes boycotting its creator.

It’s not a moral dilemma. We can enjoy a story and disagree with the author’s political views 20+ years after she wrote the books, it’s as straightforward as that. Philosopher Roland Barthes, a pillar in literary theory, comes to our aid in this: he coined a concept called la morte de l’auteur, quite literally “the death of the author.” Barthes encourages readers to split an author from their works and to view them as two separate entities. The author has full agency over the work, but relinquishes their authority over it the moment a work of art becomes public; it stops belonging to the author and it becomes property of its users, who are free to do with it what they will. This theory is also the most strenuous defender of fanfiction and fanart in the eternal debate around transformative works. Like John Green once exemplified and paraphrased, “books belong to their readers.”

J.K. Rowling owns the rights to Harry Potter (as she should, given she’s written it), but she doesn’t own our relationship to it. And we don’t owe her anything in return. There was no blood oath sealed when we first purchased The Philosopher Stone in the 90s or 00s binding us to the book’s author. We did not vow our unquestioned allegiance. Perhaps some of us did when we were younger, overcome with romanticism. Today, we cannot forsake our critical sense in the name of that loyalty.

Keep heart, Potterheads. Harry and his friends and their adventures belong to us. We get to still love them. I do. I have supported J.K. Rowling for over a decade of my life before she started spewing nonsense, but I don’t owe her my integrity now. I don’t owe her anything else but the truth. And the truth is I am, in part, what she made me: a woman who won’t stand for injustice and will speak out against it. It’s almost ironic that it was her own characters that taught me to fight back against her.

Many people are convinced, in theory, by this argument. But in practice, they don’t see what they can contribute. J.K. Rowling is too popular to ever truly boycott, and that may be true. But we should all do our part. If views drop, if ticket sales and book sales drop, eventually, in the long run, the industry will notice. If official merchandise isn’t being sold at the same rate it used to be, there will be a decrease in production. So take those steps. Unfollow her on social media, report her problematic statements. Buy second-hand books, DVDs, merchandise. You will also do some good to the environment and maybe to someone in need. You can also consider supporting small entrepreneurs and fan creators and buying non-official merch. Better to support them than a billionaire and a huge conglomerate like Warner Bros, who certainly doesn’t need your money.

It’s a miracle Warner Bros was able to bring back the entire core cast for the 20th anniversary of the first Harry Potter film. Many of the actors have chosen to distance themselves and even condemned J.K. Rowling for her TERF-sounding statements. In fact, it’s safe to assume many only agreed to come back for the reunion at all because the author would be absent. This choice may look like a damnatio memoriae, like WB itself decided to exclude her from the show, but it’s actually a premeditated marketing move. By excluding her from all promotion of the reunion, they are ensuring the masses are not reminded of Rowling’s recent statements, and that they will purchase an HBO Max subscription and tune in happily with no sour feelings.

On her end, Rowling is also able to, if she chooses, play the victim, the part of the female creator who was excluded from a celebration of her own work of art. Ostracized and written out of the narrative she herself has created. Please do not be fooled by this pity-inducing move. J.K. Rowling is still very much earning royalties from the reunion. She may not be present in person, but she’s still making money out of it. Our nostalgia is once upon played upon and manipulated to enrich her.

Watching Return To Hogwarts on HBO Max still equals supporting J.K. Rowling. Watching the new Fantastic Beasts film does too. It means handing even more power to a person who spoke against trans rights.

Do you want to be on the right side of history?

Categories
TV Shows Pop Culture

Prepare to be bewitched by Diana and Matthew in “A Discovery of Witches” season 2

[Image description: promotional picture of Matthew and Diana from A Discovery of Witches season 2] Via AMC
[Image description: promotional picture of Matthew and Diana from A Discovery of Witches season 2] Via AMC

The first season of A Discovery of Witches has a score of 94% on Rotten Tomatoes and 8.1 on IMDB. I’m leading with this to convince each and every one of you who might have passed on this gem if you thought it was “just another show about witches and vampires.” Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but let me tell you that this story is a true masterpiece and deserves to be watched even by the most convinced fantasy skeptics.

Based on the best-selling All Souls novels by Dr Deborah Harkness, A Discovery of Witches is a tale about supernatural creatures that live among us, but also a tale of community, belonging, history, legacy, and evolution. It is also, undeniably, a love story; perhaps the best I’ve discovered in 2020. 

If you haven’t watched season 1 or read the books, go do that now and then come back to this review, because it will be quite spoilery for season/book 1. If, on the other hand, you are awaiting details about the upcoming season 2, buckle up. 

Something that positively struck me about the adaptation of book 2, Shadow of Night (my favorite!), is how marvelously it portrayed that, as Diana Bishop and Matthew Clairmont timewalk to 1590 to find the lost Book of Life, their quest inexplicably turns inwards, towards themselves and each other, as they simultaneously face harsh and hostile surroundings. The balance between their world-changing quest and their internal one hits the perfect spot between introspection and action. Which is incredible, considering how much plot there is to establish and unpack, and how many faces to introduce. 

As a historian, Diana hasn’t had a lot of success in meeting her heroes: they all turned out to be different than expected.

The first new character we meet is English playwright Christopher Marlowe, played spectacularly by Tom Hughes, who brilliantly captured Kit’s duplicitous nature and daemonic essence. Kit is Matthew’s best friend, and he is also the first to openly doubt and reject Diana, setting a hard-to-break pattern of hostility that she will face in 1590.

Diana is little more than a refugee in this time and place, with no possessions or connections save for Matthew. It’s clear from the first that her success depends on her partner and on her ability to quickly adapt to and accept societal standards. It certainly isn’t easy for a proud outspoken 21st-century feminist to be thrust in that world, and the outward sexism wearies Diana faster than you can say France. 

“Women own nothing… save what lies between their ears.”

I was infinitely glad that the slights and limitations that a foreign woman such as Diana would suffer in 1590 were, for the most part, established implicitly, rather than with pitiful speeches on misogyny, because how could Diana, a professor of history, expect anything different from the 16th century? What’s better, we are reminded that Diana actually has it easier than most, as a beautiful woman married to a rich, influential, and fearsome man. 

She is warned time and time again that Matthew wouldn’t be the same once in a different context. He does regress to his 16th-century self in front of Diana’s eyes and together with her we discover more of his (seemingly endless) secrets and an even darker side of him. Soon enough, he starts displaying more territorial and vampire-animalistic behavior that Diana doesn’t tolerate for one second, giving the audience no chance to misinterpret possessiveness for romanticism. No, she meets him headfirst beat for beat until he relents. 

“Diana’s getting to know him again in this era,” says Teresa Palmer.

The two share a lot of incredibly sweet and tender moments too, but the season isn’t without their fights, which I appreciated in equal measure. Despite what 1590 might want of her, Diana will never be a passive housewife. She confronts and provokes Matthew when necessary and she always does what she needs to get her way. 

The undeniable chemistry between Teresa Palmer and Matthew Goode – together with the spectacular writing – is the reason why the show works so well, easily translating into the best on-screen supernatural couple I’ve ever seen. Their scenes feel even more spontaneous and genuine than in their freshman season. 

Palmer has clearly grown in her role in tandem with Diana herself. The only funny note I have is that as an Australian actress playing an American pretending to be English, Teresa’s Aussie accent came through a couple of times, but it only served to make me smile, like in the instance where somebody asks her where she hails from and she hesitantly replies “Cambridge, my lord… well, perhaps somewhere to the west of Cambridge.” However, she delivers every demanding scene spectacularly. 

“Perhaps somewhere to the west of Cambridge…”

Matthew Goode’s already flawless performance is required to step into divine levels as his character gains even more layers, and Goode will shock you with mind-blowing results. I do not say this lightly, but he will be robbed of an Emmy if he doesn’t win one. 

Diana Bishop might have a hard time adjusting to being Mistress Roydon, but the 16th century presents Matthew de Clermont with a more daunting challenge: to face and battle with his past, his old self and the decisions he has taken, with his conscience much heavier. He is nearly eaten by remorse because he cannot stop or undo everything wrong that happened the first time around. The stakes are much higher now, and his actions have more dangerous repercussions both on the past that now surrounds him, and on the future. 

Old wounds reopen in Matthew, almost to the point of choking him. He’s caught between loyalties (to his father, to his master, to his God) but he never lets that interfere with his love for Diana. No, because every moment of every day he chooses her against the conflicting interests of his past and present self. 

 “He shifts into this darker version,” says Palmer. 

It was marvelous to witness a more vulnerable side of Matthew, with Diana being his guiding light, his anchor, his strength, in a poetic role reversal from last season. The heartbreaking scene where we see him unravel might be my favorite of the series. 

But Matthew isn’t reduced to a broken man. We see different sides of him, in contrast to his stoic presence of season 1. In 1590, Matthew can be playful with his friends, tender with his lover, aloof with his family, assertive and persuasive with great potentates, caring with children… after all that, it’s uncanny but hilarious to see him be chastised by his father like a schoolboy.

On this note, if Diana underwent a sort of generational conflict in season 1, coming to terms with her late parents and their questionable secrets, now we witness multiple characters struggle with accepting their fathers’ legacies and stepping out of their shadows. Matthew and Baldwin have to come to terms, in different ways, with the future/past loss of their larger-than-life father Philippe de Clermont; similarly, Matthew’s revolutionary son Marcus is forced to grapple with the responsibilities brought about by his new role as Grand Master of the Knights of Lazarus that he gained in his father’s absence, and what that means for him and for the world. 

As Diana and Matthew prepare for a journey within their journey that sets in motion unexpected events in the future, chaos and uncertainty ensue in present-day Venice, Oxford, and Sept-Tours. While a good 75% of the action is focused on the main couple, we do check in on the other characters, even if not as much as fans might hope (missing my fave Miriam!). Matthew and Diana’s storyline is so full of complications, with unexpected obstacles at every turn, that it needs to take center stage; the events in the present are allowed to move at a much slower rate. 

The source material to cover is massive and mostly told from Diana’s point of view, except for a couple of sporadic chapters to keep us updated on the present. In the show, we simply have to follow more characters. I know more casual watchers will lament the convoluted storyline that might be perceived as compressed, but as a fan of the book, I guarantee the producers did nearly everything in their power to save time without making too important changes. Almost no character in the huge cast is erased (just the one, sigh) but they cleverly altered the timeline and inverted the order of certain events to condense. The only way they could’ve adapted Shadow of Night better is if they’d been granted a longer season. 

Before we conclude, a word on certain characters I have not yet mentioned. Gallowglass is everything I wanted him to be. Painfully loyal to Matthew and quickly fond of Diana, he brings in a comedic and vibrant energy from the first moment the camera sets on him. Steven Cree portrayed him perfectly, just as every book fan might hope. 

Matthew’s mother Ysabeau never fails to deliver elegant sass mixed with intensity. She had me in tears in episode 6. Newcomer Phoebe Taylor might shock some, but I was enraptured by her character and Adelle Leonce’s performance. 

Having seen the first 7 episodes of season 2, I can certainly say the show succeeded in capturing the essence of Shadow of Night. The writing has only become more powerful, the world-building and atmosphere always inviting me to get lost in ADOW’s world. Books fans will enjoy many Easter eggs — pay especially close attention to the murder cases and other crimes happening in modern-day Oxford and the early mentions of blood rage. 

Every single detail in the show is perfect and full of meaning. The crew who worked on the sets and costume departments deserves multiple awards for recreating Elizabethan London buildings and costumes from scratch, a feat that sounds easier than it is. Just an example of the exquisite cinematography: I couldn’t help but notice that as the School of Night is talking about the changes in Matthew, a golden “MUTATIO” is engraved on the wall behind Kit. It’s a minuscule detail, but isn’t there where the devil lies?

Behind the familiar feuds between witches, vampires and daemons, this story truly strives to find the answer to one proto-Hamletic question, “why are we here?”, investigating humanity even within the supernatural.

A Discovery of Witches is the best fantasy show on air. Season 2 will leave you on the edge of your seats and begging for more when it premieres on January 8. Find out where you can watch it based on your location here!

Get The Tempest in your inbox. Read more exclusives like this in our weekly newsletter!

Categories
Editor's Picks TV Shows Pop Culture

‘House of the Dragon’ is off to a rocky start: a daring cast, supported by misused words

[Image Description: House of the Dragon collage via HBO]

The much-awaited Game of Thrones prequel House of the Dragon finally has a cast most of us had not really anticipated for. On December 12, the show’s official social media account on Twitter broke the news: the cast will be led by Emma D’Arcy as Princess Rhaenyra Targaryen, Matt Smith as Prince Daemon Targaryen, Olivia Cooke as Alicent Hightower, joining the previously announced as Paddy Considine as King Viserys I Targaryen.

After HBO made the official announcement, the internet showed no chill as fans started being anxious about the cast that seems severely mismatched, the excessive misuse of terms like ‘mad’, and the overall misunderstanding of the plot as depicted in the book Fire and Blood by George R. R. Martin.

Most fans hoped House of the Dragon would revolve around the Targaryens who came to Dragonstone roughly 300 years before the events of GoT, showing Visenya, Aegon, and Rhaenys’s Conquest and then moving forward in time from there. However, HBO decided to focus on a period in Targaryen history called the Dance of Dragons, a couple of years of bloody civil war and the events that led to it.

Let’s take a look at the characters and what about their casting has fans so riled up, shall we?

Princess Rhaenyra Targaryen is King Viserys I Targaryen’s first child and chosen heir. She is, of course, a dragonrider. Anyone who has read Fire and Blood will tell you that Rhaenyra requires an actor with a solid persona and screen presence that gives the viewers the same cinematic experience that they might have felt while reading the book. Emma D’Arcy, though a great actor, does not seem a promising choice. For some reason, I cannot seem to picture the Truth Seekers star fighting it off with younger half-brother Aegon II over the Iron Throne. I hope they prove me wrong. 



Not to forget that Rhaenyra – there isn’t and shouldn’t be a way around it – is a plump lady, and Emma isn’t. In the book, Rhaenyra gains weight as a result of her many pregnancies, which fans love her all the more for. Something that is not fine is this not being reflected through the casting choice. However, there is also the possibility that Emma will only play young Rhaenyra and will be replaced by an older actress as the season progresses. It doesn’t make too much sense because D’Arcy is already an adult, but the casting was indeed for a ‘Young Rhaenyra.’ This is how the fandom imagined Rhaenyra and Daemon:

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Yasmin (@chillyravenart)

Matt Smith, who has been winning hearts through his character in The Crown recently, seems like a misfit for the role of Prince Daemon Targaryen. He is King Viserys I’s younger brother, therefore Rhaenyra’s uncle as well as her loving second husband. Daemon is Rhaenyra’s biggest strength and supporter in the quest for the Iron Throne. He can be best described as a peerless and most skilled warrior of his time. Now, with that kind of description, it would have been a treat for fans to watch Travis Fimmel, the Vikings actor play the role, rather than the lanky Matt Smith. 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by 83 PIXEL STUDIOS (@83pixelstudios)

It is pretty evident that the fans were expecting a powerhouse of a cast by how they have reacted to the reveal. The disagreement of Smith not being the right choice for the role of Daemon unfortunately led to many people body-shaming him and going as far as flat out saying he doesn’t deserve the role for his “ugly” look. While I also don’t believe he is the best choice for Daemon, it’s because of his physical build, rather than facial features. No one could deny Smith’s acting skills or dedication to past roles.

Some talented fans are looking at the bright side and trying to make it make sense with their art:

The casting of Olivia Cooke as Alicent Hightower and not ‘Queen Alicent’ lends even more evidence to the theory that the show will indeed begin when Alicent and Rhaenyra are young, 20-10 years before the actual Dance of Dragons.

The dangerously misused word

One word that has been constantly employed to describe the Targaryens is “mad”. HBO even referenced it in the official press release when describing Daemon by using the popular “the gods toss the coin” phrase. Normally, as a result, every major publication has now headlined articles describing Daemon as a “mad Targaryen”, which sent book fans on edge. Daemon is far from being mad. Yet this adjective is being carelessly thrown around like it’s no biggie, when its repercussions are extremely major.

Now, let us dissect the word and explore what it actually means according to the Mariam Webster dictionary: when used as an adjective “mad” means “mentally ill; insane”. It shouldn’t be misused, or it will lose its real significance.

While the show revolves around the surely controversial topic of incest, it is important to remind HBO to be mindful of using words such as ‘mad’, and unnecessarily associating it with so many characters. Abusing these words garners unwanted attention that can have repercussions in the real world. The point really is that these characters are NOT mad and yet they’re constantly being labeled as such. That is the thing about pop culture. Just because season 8 of Game of Thrones made Daenerys go mad and burn King’s Landing – which was completely out of character by the way – does not mean the next series in line, House of the Dragon in this regard, should have to portray every Targaryen as mad. Not when they weren’t in the source material. No, not at all.

 

Despite all its faults, GoT still has huge a fan base that is eagerly looking forward to House of Dragon. The prequel begins production in 2021 is expected to go on air in 2022 as per HBO’s programming chief, Casey Bloys. We only hope and pray that the show lives up to the standard and the fears we have regarding the characters not being portrayed how they should be or the storyline being out of place are only fears that do not turn into our worst nightmare on screen.

In the meantime, you can read Fire and Blood, the book by George R.R. Martin on the history of the Targaryen reign in Westeros. That, I promise, will not disappoint.

Get The Tempest in your inbox. Read more exclusives like this in our weekly newsletter!