What will Christians say about a naked Harry Potter?
Oh dear. When word of this gets out the Christianists are going to have fits - again. Daniel Radcliffe is the young star of the Harry Potter films. And Christians hate Harry Potter. Various fundamentalist types have been mounting campaigns to have the book banned from public libraries, school libraries, etc.
Their problem is that the Potter books are make-believe. But Christians can’t tell the difference between the fictional and factual. They think there really are witches, demons, devils and the like. So to them the Harry Potter books are pure evil.
And Mr. Radcliffe, 17, is not on their list of favorite people since he is the young man who brings Harry Potter to life in the films.
Well now it gets worse -- at least for the Christians. Radcliffe is about to take a live role on stage in London. And this is going to get fundamentalist tongues wagging -- provided they know what the play is about.
The play is a psychology drama by Peter Shaffer about a disturbed young man, played now by Radcliffe, Alan Strang. Strang commits a horrible crime were he blinds some horses and a psychologist is working with the lad to try find out why this happened. By the way the psychologist is being played by Richard Griffiths, who played Harry Potter’s nasty Uncle Vernon in the film.
Eventually the therapist unweaves the intricacies of Strang’s mind. He finds that the boy’s mother was hyper-religious and she had placed a graphic painting of the dying Jesus above the boy’s bed. As Strang went through puberty and his hormones ran rampant he would bring himself to orgasm. But this image of torture was there for to see. And this leads to his incident with the horses. (I’m reluctant to say much as this will run the plot.)
So all this imagery of the crucifixion and it’s connection to a warped teen is going to be enough. But then it gets worse -- at least worse for Christians. As the Brits would say there are scenes in the production where Alan Strang gets “his kit off”. In other words he’ll be standing, facing the audience, delivering a monologue with “his willy” for all the world to see.
In fact for 60 audience members there will be seats up on the stage, very up front and personal. A writer for London’s Daily Mail said: “I predict that those 60 seats on stage are going to be the most sought-after seats in London.”
Now the legions of teen age girls who moon after Radcliffe will be saving their pennies -- along with quite a few teenage boys with the same sentiments. And they will be able to get in. The producer of the show, David Pugh, said: “I am not going to start playing the game where I say you can’t come because you are 11 or you can’t come because you are 14. Who the hell am I to start saying that? I saw the play at 14 and it changed my life. If I hadn’t seen it I wouldn’t be producing it now.”
And Harry Potter discussion web sites already have had messages from teen age fans saying they are trying to get in to see the show. One 13-year-old girl posted a message saying she wondered what Radcliffe looked like naked only to have the message removed. Another girl said she was already “buttering up” her mother to get permission to see the play.
The nude scene is not a fleeting one. I’ve see the stage production and the film version. And for a nude shot it is relative long -- the scene that is. Pugh says “Daniel is fully committed to the role and he has not asked for any special favours.” That is theatre talk for Harry Potter will be naked on stage. But Pugh points out: “The nudity and those scenes are an essential part of the story. We are not doing it as an excuse to show Harry Potter’s willy.”
The matter was discussed openly with Radcliffe and his parents and his agent. “There were no issues Daniel was worried about. He said he would play whatever’s in the script.”
Radcliffe apparently really wanted to do the show. Author Peter Shaffer has been turning down requests to allow a revival of the play. But he changed his mind when Radcliffe did a private performance of the part for him. Pugh said he’s been wanting to do the play for some years but couldn’t find the right boy for the part. “When Daniel performed for us at the workshop we couldn’t take our eyes off him.” I suspect it will be like that in the theatre -- particularly during certain scenes. I wonder how long it will be before hidden cell phone photos of the willy in question appear on the internet.
Since Radcliffe is worth something like $40 million he isn’t taking the part because he needs the money. The fan web site danradcliffe.com announced that through the site fans could book tickets directly before they go on sale to the public.
Somehow I can't see this happening in Texas.
posted by GodlessZone at Monday, November 20, 2006
8 Comments:
First off, you should probably correct the statement that "Christians hate Harry Potter." I and many of my friends and family all enjoy the Harry Potter books and films very much.
The pastor at our church actually delivered a message one Sunday morning about the fact those who take issue with such things and make a big stink about it would probably be what Paul labels "the weaker brother." Of course Paul was talking about those who were making a stink over certain Christians eating things that were formerly known as "unclean," but it is the same principle. Those who point the finger at others for what they accept or don't accept are the weak ones... not the ones who are behaving the way we think they ought to.
And frankly, I don't care one bit what Radcliffe does in his other roles. I may or may not end up seeing this new play, but the actor who's playing the role likely won't impact my decision to see it.
The meaning of the play sounds interesting enough... Taken out of context and shoved down anyone's throat, religion can be very damaging - especially to a developing youth. It's actually a very good message to promote.
I myself, as a father or two very young girls, have often wondered how much of Christ's suffering is appropriate for their ages. Generally, we don't tell them anything other than Jesus came to earth to die for them, when the subject comes up. As we all get older, and in the correct context, the suffering of Christ can be a powerful thing to meditate on however. It can generate a great amount of gratitude.
November 21, 2006
I have no doubt that some born again types enjoy Harry Potter and separate it. But the public statements from that sector of the community is far more negative than positive. If one described Christianity by unanimous views there would be no description possible.
By the way this is not a new play. It is almost 34 years old and is one of the most well known plays in modern theater. And while I would not necessarily see it only because of the players a lot of Harry Potter fans will no doubt do so.
If you find some benefit out of meditating over torture then do so. I find it grotesque.
November 21, 2006
"I have no doubt that some born again types enjoy Harry Potter and separate it. But the public statements from that sector of the community is far more negative than positive. If one described Christianity by unanimous views there would be no description possible."
Quite right, but when there is negative to be publicized by the media, the positive is almost always overshadowed.
"If you find some benefit out of meditating over torture then do so. I find it grotesque."
Outside of the correct context, I agree, it IS quite grotesque. It brings up a good question though. Why would Christ subject himself to such grotesque torture? What is your opinion on why a man would willingly go through that?
November 21, 2006
Publius: "Quite right, but when there is negative to be publicized by the media, the positive is almost always overshadowed."
I am not speaking merely about the secular media. I am also talking about Christian publications and websites going out of there way to attack the films and the books and the author, including spreading lies about her. I am speaking about what comes directly out of the mouths of the born again. And when I did read a media story on the topic I also checked multiple sources to make sure the person in question had done what was attributed to them.
Publius: "Outside of the correct context, I agree, it IS quite grotesque. It brings up a good question though. Why would Christ subject himself to such grotesque torture? What is your opinion on why a man would willingly go through that?"
There are lots of reasons people might "willingly" do this. Hell, we saw one man offer himself up to another to be eaten alive in Germany a couple of years ago. There are a lot of sick people around. But we have no evidence he "willingly" did anything. Even if we take the gospel accounts seriously (and I don't) they describe a man who was arrested and tried and sentenced and killed. He didn't nail himself up there. (Actually I think the evidence for a crucifixion is rather scant -- something some Christians agree with by the way.) The only documentation we have regarding this are manuscripts written well after the fact by individuals whose actual identity are unknown. If you can provide anything outside the gospels that indicates he went willingly to be tortured provide that. (That is not an invitation to preach but an invitation to cite one source outslde the gospels that indicates that man named Jesus was crucified.) By the way you will find a small number of documents that report that Christians believed this but that is not evidence it happened. I can show evidence people believe they were abducted by aliens but that doesn't mean they were.
November 21, 2006
"I am not speaking merely about the secular media. I am also talking about Christian publications and websites going out of there way to attack the films and the books and the author, including spreading lies about her. I am speaking about what comes directly out of the mouths of the born again. And when I did read a media story on the topic I also checked multiple sources to make sure the person in question had done what was attributed to them."
Oh there's not a doubt in my mind that you hear such comments directly from the Christians that criticize them. But think about where you heard of these things being said. I'm fairly sure you're not a regular reader of many Christian publications. And so the publications and statements that you are most familiar with are likely what you've been fed by the secular media. Correct me if I'm wrong.
At any rate, here is a more balanced article which sites several Christian publications that give more favorable views concerning Harry Potter, and also points out that some of the negative responses to Harry Potter have come from Non-Christian sources. Additionally the article also rightly points out that the "rejections of Harry have been largely from a few conservative Christian groups...." (emphasis added) The article can be found here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4063/is_200301/ai_n9183056
"If you can provide anything outside the gospels that indicates he went willingly to be tortured provide that. (That is not an invitation to preach but an invitation to cite one source outslde the gospels that indicates that man named Jesus was crucified.)"
There are a few that can be named, but the most commonly referred to was a Jewish man named Flavius Josephus. In his Antiquities, Book 18, chapter 3. Josephus writes: "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
This paragraph is so phenomenal that its authenticity is questioned by some scholars. However, throughout his writings he makes mention of Jesus in various passing places. I'm also aware that this does not fully fit your request, but I believe that it does give credence to the 4 Gospel accounts in the New Testament.
November 21, 2006
Yes, you are wrong. I do read Christian publications fairly regularly. And I read Christian web sites as well. And when I write on an issue I search for information on the topic in general and that usually brings up Christian publications as well. Do I read them with the regularity that I read the New York Times? No. Why? For the same reason I don’t have junk food for every meal. But I do read them.
Now let us deal with the Josephus claim you make. You are damn right it’s authenticity is questioned by most scholars except the very religious ones who have a motive to keep it true. But let us start with the assumption Josephus wrote it. He was born after Christ died so he can not possibly be offering any objective evidence for what he says. He is not relying on other objective documents that prove anything. He would only be repeating what he heard others claim. That is the most he could do.
Now how does his account give credence to the New Testament? The standard historical assumption is that a dishonest Christian later inserted the comments into a copy of the manuscript by Josephus. What would he assert after the facts other than what the New Testament was claiming?
Next we have the bizarre claim that a believing Jew like Josephus would supposedly claim that Jesus was not a man, a doer of wonderful works, and rose from the dead! Yet he never became a Christian! Oh, please. If Josephus believed that why wouldn’t he be a Christian? Yet all his writings indicates he most certainly was not.
But there is no evidence Josephus actually wrote it. The problem with the Josephus manuscript is that no copy exists which is older than the 11th century. That gives plenty of room for scribes to insert, edit, etc. If you think the New Testament is a nightmare because the earliest “piece” of it is about 100 years after Christ then imagine what a problem you have with a manuscript that has a 1,000 year gap between the earliest edition on hand and the original.
Also the phrase “if it be lawful to call him a man” is odd. This is a controversy that arose in Christianity only around the 2nd century. It’s inclusion is odd unless one accepts that it was added after the controversy was “settled” in Christendom.
I also find odd the phrase “exist until this day”. Josephus published his work in 93. If he wrote this why would he say such a thing? After all would it be so odd for the Christian cult to existed for a mere 60 years? Normally that phrase indicates a rather long period of time. It seems to indicate the true author of the phrase was writing many more than just 60 years later.
And we do know that the passage was changed. We know because there are various versions of it. In one version it says that the followers of Jesus “reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion” where as the version you seem to prefer says that he did appear. There is a difference between claiming “X says this happened” and saying “this happened.” So someone clearly changed the text at least once in a very significant way.
Another problem is that Christians themselves seemed unaware of this passage. Early Christian references to the history don’t mention this rather important passage -- at least important to them. Origen, we know, read all of Josephus and he didn’t seem to find this passage or think that Josephus thought these things. The passage in question is inserted in-between paragraphs that would normally follow one another indicating an insertion. It was only about a century after Origen that Eusebius first quotes the disputed passage. Surely Origen would have noticed something this important yet when he speaks of Josephus he never mentions it.
And finally what does this have to do with the Radcliffe play? As I said if you want to comment on blog postings relevent to the topic that is one thing. But the comments section is not there so you can change topics and discuss what you feel like. If you have that power that would make this your blog.
November 21, 2006
"And finally what does this have to do with the Radcliffe play? As I said if you want to comment on blog postings relevent to the topic that is one thing. But the comments section is not there so you can change topics and discuss what you feel like. If you have that power that would make this your blog."
You asked me to present to you a source outside the bible that sites the crucifixion of Christ. I'll take this comment from you to mean that yet again, my side of a discussion is not welcome. You make some good points, but I would have liked to point out some disagreement with your analysis.
November 21, 2006
Publius,
As I point out in my blog commentary on Christianity, Jesus' dying for the sins of those who believe in him as the Messiah did not originate with Christianity. In India for instance, the belief in "taking refuge in the Guru" to resove karmic debt existed for many centuries long before Christianity came about.
The conclusion of my commentary includes some good links about the Origins of Christianity, including another commentary on the subject from godlesszone:
http://indioheathen.blogspot.com/2006/04/christianity.html
November 22, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home